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 d amage case

- specific modules. Ea ch 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 reme dial measures taken, litigation, and rationale for the site’s current designation as a potential damage case in reference to pre

- existing screening s . Ample footnotes and a list of references provide links to sources of information.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

1 

# IIa. Coal Combustion Residuals Potential Damage Cases

( Reassessed, Formerly Published );
(Cases PTa01 to PTa42)IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

2 TA B L E 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 Ge nerating Station, Navajo County, Arizona 14
PTa04. Florida Power & Light Lansing Smith Plant, Bay County, Florida

................................ .............. 18

PTa05. Amer en (formerly: Central Illinois Light Co.) Duck Creek Station, Canton, Fulton County, Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 21 PTa06. Dynegy Midwest (formerly: Illinois Power Co.) Havana Power Plant, Havana, Mason County, Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 23 PTa07. Dynegy Midwest (formerly: Illinois Power Co.) Hennepin Power Station, Hennepin, Putnam County, Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 29

PTa 08. Ameren (formerly: Central Illinois Public Service Co., CIP) Hutsonville Power Station, Crawford County, Hutsonville, Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 36

PTa09. Commonwealth Edison/Midwest Generation Powerton Pla nt

– Mahoney Landfill, Pekin, Tazewell County, Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 41 PTa10. Dynegy Midwest (formerly: Illinois Power) Vermilion Power Station, Oakwood, Vermilion County, Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 44 PTa11. Ameren Coffeen/White & Brewer Trucking Fly Ash Landfill, Coffeen, Montgomery County, Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 48 PTa12. Dynegy Midwest (formerly: Illinois Po wer Co.) Wood River Power Station, Alton, Madison County, Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 51
PTa13. NiSource (formerly: NIPSCO) Bailly Generating Station, Chesterton, Porter County, Indiana

... 55 PTa14. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. (SIGECO) A.B. Brown Generating Station, Mount Vernon, Posey County, Indiana

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 62
PTa15. Hoosier Energy Merom Generating Station CCR Landfill, Sullivan, Sullivan County, Indiana

.. 66
PTa16. NiSource (formerly: NIPSCO) Michigan City Site, Michigan City, LaPorte County Indiana

..... 68
PTa17. Indianapolis Power & Light (IPL) Petersburg Generating Station, Pike County, Indiana

............ 71 PTa18. NiSource (Formerly: NIPSCO) R.M. Schahfer Generatin g Station, Wheatfield, Jasper County, Indiana

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 74
PTa19. Muscatine County Landfill, Montpelier, Iowa

................................ ................................ .............. 79 PTa20. Duke Energy (Forme rly Cincinnati Gas & Electric, Cinergy) East Bend Scrubber Sludge Landfill, Rabbit Hash, Boone County, Kentucky

................................ ................................ ....................... 81

PTa21. K.R. Rezendes South Main Street Ash Landfill

– PG&E, Freetown, Bristol County, Massachusetts

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 84IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

3 PTa22. Xcel Energy/Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency

– Sherburne County (Sherco) Generating Plant, Becker, Minnesota

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 88 PTa23. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. Danskammer Waste Management Facility, Newburgh, Orange County, New York

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 92
PTa24. AES Creative Resources Weber Ash Disposal Site, Fenton, Broome County, New York

........... 95
PTa25. C.R. Huntley Flyash Landfill, Tonawanda, Erie County, New York

................................ ............ 97

PTa26. Duke P ower Allen Steam Generating Plant, Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina

............. 100 PTa27. Great River Energy (GRE)

- (formerly Cooperative Power Association/United Power) Coal Creek Station, Underw ood, McLean County, North Dakota

................................ ................................ .... 105

PTa28. Montana

- Dakota Utilities (MDU) R.M. Heskett Station, Mandan, Morton County, North Dakota

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 110
PTa29. Basin Electric, W. J. Neal Plant, Velva, McHenry County, North Dakota

................................ . 114
PTa30. Cinergy W.C. Beckjord Station, New Richmond, Clermont County, Ohio

................................ 117
PTa31. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Miamiview Landfill, Hamilton County, Ohio

............................ 119
PTa32. TVA Bull Run Fossil Plant, Clinton (Oak Ridge), Anderson Count y, Tennessee

...................... 120 PTa33. Dominion Virginia Power’s Battlefield Golf Course, Chesapeake, Virginia

.............................. 127 PTa34. Dairyland Power Coope rative Alma Off

- site Fly Ash Landfill, Alma, Belvidere Township, Buffalo County, Wisconsin

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 133
PTa35. Dairyland Power Cooperative Alma On

- site Fly Ash Landfill, Buffalo County, Wisconsin

...... 136 PTa36. Alliant (Wisconsin Power and Light Co.) Edgewater 1

- 4 Ash Disposal Site, Sheboygan, Sheboygan County, Wisconsin

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 138

PTa37. Lemberger Landfill, Whitelaw, Franklin Township, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin

................ 142 PTa38. Alliant Energy (Former Wisconsin Power and Light Company, WPL) Nelson Dewey Ash Landfill, Grant County, Wisconsin

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 145 PTa39. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) Port Washington Facility/ Druecker Quarry Fly Ash Site, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 150 PTa40. Wisconsin Power Service Corporation (WEPSCO) Pulliam Power Station’s Ash Disposal Site, Green Bay, Brown County, Wisconsin

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 155 PTa41. Alliant (Formerly, Wisconsin P ower and Light Company) Rock River Ash Disposal Facility, Beloit, Rock County, Wisconsin

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 158 PTa42. PacifiCorp Energy’s Dave Johnston Power Plant, Glenrock, Converse County, Wyoming

....... 161IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

4 

### PTa01. TVA Colbert Fossil Fuel Plant, Colbert County, Alabama

Type: Surface Impoundments Associated with Collapsed Sinkholes.



### Background and Description: The Colbert Fossil Plant (COF) is located on the south side of the Pic kwick Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 245, about 10 miles west of downtown Tuscumbia and three miles east of Cherokee, and about 50 miles west of Huntsville, Alabama. 1 The plant is located on a 1,354

- acre reservation, north of U.S. Highway 72. Most nearb y land is agricultural, but residential and recreational areas are in close proximity. The closest residences are within 0.5 mile from the plant reservation. 2

COF comprises two surface impoundments ( Bottom Ash Pond 4 3 and Disposal Area 5 Drainage Basin ) ; 4 and two landfills ( Disposal Area 5 Dry Stack

, 5 and Disposal Area 1, 6 closed in 1975). In addition,

a djacent to Bottom Ash Pond 4 t here is also a clay

- lined chemical pond 7 that was used between the 1970s

1 Stantec (2009). According to TVA (2004) and Stantec (2009), COF has five coal

- fired generating units and eight combustion turbines. Units 1 through 4, with nameplate capacity of 200 MW each, came online in 1955. Unit 5, with nameplate capacity of 500 MW, came online in 1965. COF cons umes approximately 8,900 tons of coal per day. Coal consumption for COF Units 1 through 5 is approximately 3.2 million tons per year. According to TVA (2003), prior to 1990, Units 1 through 5 burned Illinois Basin coal, with a sulfur content of 1.5 percent . Between 1990 and 1996, Units 1 through 4 switched to low

- sulfur coal from eastern Kentucky/Tennessee, but Unit 5 remained with Illinois Basin coal. During 1996, Units 1 through 4 switched to an even lower sulfur coal (Colorado/Powder River Basin blend co al with 0.5 percent and 0.3 percent sulfur by weight, respectively) and Unit 5 continued to burn Illinois Basin coal. In 2002, COF 1

- 4 burned a blend of 85/15 percent Colorado/ Powder River Basin coal. In that same year, Unit 5 burned a blend of 70/30 of I llinois Basin and Colorado coals. As of 2004, the coal averages ranges from 5.2 percent to 14.3 percent ash depending on the source, with a corresponding total ash production predicted to range from approximately 300,000 to 340,000 tons of ash per year.

2 TVA (2003).

3 Commissioned in 1972, Bottom Ash Pond 4 occupies 51.7 acres. In 1984, its 20

- feet tall clay dikes were raised another 20

- feet using an upstream method (i.e., founded on the sluiced ash). Since 1999, dried bottom ash is being excavated, dewate red, and stacked within the west side of the pond area. Seepage, recorded as ongoing since 1984, discharges through a thin zone of bottom ash and organic material separating the two dike phases. In spite of recommendations, no seepage collection system has been installed. According to Dewberry & Davis (2013), the pond is unlined.

4 The Disposal Area 5 Drainage Basin receives storm water runoff from the adjacent Area 5 Dry Stack and discharges them intermittently through Outfall Discharge Serial Number (DSN) 010 at Tennessee River Mile 245.8. The Drainage Basin essentially contains no CCRs. Constructed in the early 1980s, it occupies about 12 acres.
5 Disposal Area 5, active since 1984, occupies 75 acres. Disposal Area 5 was initially intended to be an ash po nd, but shortly after its commissioning, a sinkhole failure occurred in its northwestern portion. The sinkhole caused release of sluiced ash. The s inkhole was reportedly treated and capped, and disposal operations then shifted to dredge cell method in sout h and southeast portions (two cells). Entire north and northwest portions of Disposal Area 5 are not in use and are now (early 2009) thickly wooded. From the mid

- 1980s until 1990, ash was dredged in slurry fashion from Bottom Ash Pond 4 to Disposal Area 5 dredge cells 1 and 2. In 1990, dredging was stopped and disposal methods were converted to a dry stacking operation. Ultimate height of stack will range from 100 to 120 feet from top to toe of original perimeter dikes. According to Dewberry & Davis (2013), the Drystack area (Originally, a pond) is unlined.

6 Closed Disposal Area 1 occupies about 40 acres. This disposal area was the first ash pond ( Ash Pond 1 ) constructed at COF. Ash has not been sluiced to this area since 1975. A reclamation/final grading p lan was developed in 1976 for final grading and storm water management. Between 1982 and 1990, COF periodically dry

stacked here ash from Disposal Area 4 . As of early 2009, the area was heavily vegetated and wooded.

7 The two

- acre pond has a clay liner t hat is less than 3 feet

- thick.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

5 and the 1990s for acid cleaning metal waste. 8 EPRI (2010) attributes the groundwater impacts to this particular pond. 9

Formerly, all fly ash was sluiced to ash ponds on the plant site and dredged to dredge cells. Failure of one of the dredge cells due to sinkhole development necessitated the conversion t o dry fly ash handling in 1990. B ecause the fly ash contains high levels of unburned carbon, it is not suitable for most market uses like ready

- mix cement. 10 Small amounts of fly ash are being marketed at COF for use in landscaping mulches, but most of the fly ash ( about 350,000 tons) is conditioned to about 18 percent moisture in pug mills and hauled to a fly ash stacking area for an onsite disposal in a dry stack disposal area ( Disposal Area 5 ). About 30,000 tons per year of bottom ash are wet

- sluiced to B ottom Ash Pond 4 . Dewatered bottom ash is removed from Bottom Ash Pond 4 : from the mid

- 1980s until 1990, ash was dredged as slurry to Disposal Area 5 dredge cells 1 and 2, and since 1990

– it has been stacked within the west side of Disposal Area 5

. 11

, 12 F or additional information on the design and disposition of the COF’s waste disposal units, see Dewberry & Davis (2013).

The COF is underlain by the Mississippian

- age Tuscumbia Limestone Formation. 13 The Tuscumbia Limestone consists of up to 200 feet of me dium

- bedded to massive, fossiliferous limestone with abundant chert. 14 The sedimentary units are essentially flat

- lying with regional dips of less than one degree. These rock formations are intersected by two major, near vertical bedrock joints sets, orient ed approximately N45°W and N45°E. Groundwater circulation through these joints is believed to be the primary mechanism responsible for development of the numerous karstic dissolution cavities observed in the bedrock. Evidence of karst terrain is abundant w ith numerous sinkholes across the site and several caves along the river bluff. Several known sinkhole collapses have occurred in the past at the COF. 15

8 According to EPRI (2010), this pond is still active, from which it is here inferred that its functional use has changed.

9 However, the unequivocal evidence for groundwater mounding underneath CFO’s impoundments and auxilia ry basins challenges any determination of a specific pond as the source term of the contamination.

10 TVA (2003).

11 Rainfall runoff from the dry fly ash stacking area is routed to a small settling pond for treatment. This pond discharges to the river interm ittently through serial discharge DSN 010.

12 According to http://www.tva.com/environment/air/colbert.htm , in support of re cent environmental agreements

, TVA will control, idle or retire Colbert unit 5 by December 31, 2015. Units 1 through 4 will be controlled, idled or retired by June 30, 2016. Any Colbert units that are idled will be controlled or retired within three years . This decision was superseded by TVA Board of Directors’ resolution on November 14, 2013, to retire all five units at the Colbert Plant (TVA, 2013).

13 TVA (2004) and Stantec (2009). For detailed stratigraphic and structural information about the Tuscumbia Formation, see Thomas et al., (1979).

14 The limestone locally contains up to eight percent bitumen, which occurs within the rock matrix and occasionally in small cavities. The Tuscumbia is underlain by up to 200 feet of cherty limestone of the Fort Payne formation (Mississippian), followed by 30 feet of the Chattanooga Shale (Devonian).

15 According to EIP (2013, page 47 and references therein), explicit and inferred sinkhole activity at the COF includes: (i) i n October of 1984, a “sinkhole complex” caused the new Ash Pond 5 to drain at a rate of 1 foot per hour; this was part of a series of sinkholes in this area between 1983 and 1985. (ii) TVA lined the coal yard drainage basin with clay in 1988 after “water level measurements in the [basin] indicated sub surface leakage.” (iii) In December of 1991, a meter

- wide sinkhole caused the chemical treatment pond (adjacent to Bottom Ash Pond 4 ) to lose 2 million liters of water ; and (iv) i n February of 2012, a sinkhole caused process water from the coal unloadi ng area to drain into the river, causing a 150

- foot plume . And see also Dewberry & Davis (2013), Appendix A, Document 19:”The geologic setting of the site, prior sinkhole activity near both Ash Pond 4 and Ash Disposal Area 5, and the irregularities encount ered during the subsurface explorations are indicators of karst terrain and the potential for future sinkhole development.”IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

6 The upper bedrock surface at the site is extremely irregular due to differential weathering of the lime stone. Consequently, thickness of the residual and alluvial soils which mantle bedrock is highly variable, ranging from about 1 to 80 feet. Quaternary age alluvial deposits (clay, silt, sand, and chert gravel averaging about 10 feet in thickness) are limit ed to areas along Cane Creek and adjacent to the Tennessee River beneath the Closed Disposal Area 1

. The first occurrence of groundwater beneath the site is generally near the base of the soil overburden or in the upper portion of bedrock. Exceptions occ ur in the immediate vicinity of COF surface impoundments,
e.g., Bottom Ash Pond 4 , the metal cleaning pond, and the stilling pond associated with inactive ash pond 5 ( Disposal Area 5 Dry Stack ). In these areas, impoundment seepage artificially maintains sa turation or

near

- saturation of the soil profile below the impoundment, resulting is groundwater mounding. 16

The Tuscumbia Limestone represents the principal aquifer in the site locality. Groundwater occurs in bedrock fractures, joints, and bedding planes, many of which have been enlarged by karstic dissolution of the carbonate bedrock matrix. Hydraulically

- active fractures are typically limited to the upper 45 feet of bedrock, with the most transmissive zones occurring between elevations 377 and 413 feet M ean Sea Level (MSL). Groundwater in the Tuscumbia generally flows northward and ultimately discharges into Tennessee River.

With the exception of well P2, a primary private water

- supply well, all other private water

- supply wells in the CFO’s vicinity are used as backup water supplies and for non

- potable uses. Well depths range from 136 to 265 feet suggesting that all are completed in the Tuscumbia aquifer. TVA has monitored the water quality of wells P2 and P8 at least semiannually since September 1989. M onitoring was also performed at well P3 until May 1998 and at P15 until November 1994. Evaluation of water quality data for these wells indicates that none have been affected by plant operations (Lindquist et al., 1994 and Milligan, 2001, in TVA 2004). Thi s may be due to the fact that well P2 is relatively deep (190 feet) and may not encounter shallow groundwater in the upper portion of the Tuscumbia aquifer where migrating leachate would be expected. This would also apply the neighboring wells P16 through P20, which are of similar depth. 17

The COF site is drained by Cane Creek, which is classified for the uses of swimming and fish and wildlife. The Tennessee River is classified for the uses of public water supply, fish and wildlife, swimming, and other whol e body water contact sports. 18 Three municipal drinking water intakes are within 10 miles of COF: the Municipal Water Intakes of the cities of Sheffield Cherokee, and the Colbert County Municipal Water Intake. The Tennessee River in the vicinity of the sit e has experienced historical pollution problems due to poor treatment from municipal and industrial treatment facilities and nonpoint sources. Mercury contamination in Pickwick was a significant concern in the 1970s, but concentrations in fish have decreas ed to levels below Food and Drug Administration limits, and the issue is no longer considered to be significant. The Pickwick Reservoir downstream from COF hosts several State

- and Federal

- Listed mussel Species. 19

16 This is illustrated by the site’s potentiometric maps (TVA 2008, Figure 2, and TVA 2004, Figure 3.1), which present groundwater le vel and movements in Tuscumbia Aquifer, October 2001 and April 2002, respectively. The 2001 map shows that groundwater mounding culminates just west of Bottom ash Pond 4 (440 feet MSL), dropping to below 415 feet MSL close to the banks of the Tennessee Riv er, some 0.6 miles down

- gradient. The 2002 map shows that the node of the groundwater mounding (435 feet MSL) migrated a small distance to the east and was positioned underneath Bottom ash Pond 4

. 17 TVA (2004). See Figure 3.1 for the distribution of ground water monitoring wells and off

- site private wells.

18 Alabama Water Quality Criteria Standards, 1991, in TVA 2003.
19 According to TVA (2003), five mussel species: the State and federal Endangered ring pink mussel (obovaria retusa), the State Protected deert oe ( t runcilla truncata) , and the State Special Concern Black sandshell ( ligumia recta), pink papershell (

potamilus ohiensis), and the purple lilliput ( toxolasma lividus), have all been recently collected near Koger Island, about six miles downstream of the COF site along the north shore of the PickwickIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

7 

### Impact: According to EPA (2007), only limi ted information on this site was available from the commenters to the 1999 Report to Congress. The commenters’ summary of monitoring data shows no exceedances of primary MCLs in ground water at the site. The only primary MCL exceedances (for sulfate, chrom ium, and selenium) reported by the commenters are found in a well installed within the saturated ash of the surface impoundment. A 1998 letter from the facility owner to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), however, does indicate some exceedances of primary MCLs in on

- site wells that the owner proposes to eliminate from its sampling program. 20 The only constituent identified in this letter is cadmium. The commenters report that ADEM believes ground water contamination has resulted from the disposal of CCRs at this facility.

EPRI (2010) presents a table of constituents based on an April 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report prepared for the state, which included results collected from April 2005 through April 2009. Exceedances are recorde d for aluminum, iron, manganese, ammonia, and sulfate; and elevated concentrations (but no exceedances) are recorded for arsenic, chromium, copper, nitrate, lead, antimony, vanadium, and zinc. According to EPRI (2010), aluminum, iron and manganese concentr ations are higher than the same constituents in an off

- site well; however, low CCR indicator (boron) concentrations in this well make it unlikely that this iron concentration is due to migration from a CCR management facility.

EPRI (2010) claims that sin ce EPA’s (2007) evaluation of damage case focuses on CCR management, the list of exceeding/elevated constituents it presents is based on results from groundwater monitoring wells associated with the surface impoundment, rather than the metal cleaning waste basin. Furthermore, EPRI (2010) compared aluminum, iron, manganese, and zinc to SMCLs for consistency with other sites assessed, rather than state

- specific preliminary screening values (PSV). The PSV are higher than the SMCL for aluminum, iron, and mangan ese, and lower than the SMCL for zinc.

According to TVA, site

- wide monitoring at COF has been conducted due to prior issues with a sink hole. 21 TVA began an Alabama Risk

- based Corrective Action process to determine if contamination from the metal cleaning pond at Colbert has affected human health or the environment. The October 2009 monitoring report noted that groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of coal ash disposal areas showed limited evidence of contamination by ash leachate. This report was complet ed as part of the Alabama Risk

- based Corrective Action process. The report identified exceedances of ammonia, iron, and manganese at a well located within former Ash Pond 1 and noted that the iron and manganese exceedances at the well could result from ash leachate or natural sources.

EIP (2011) claims 22 that recent (since 2007) groundwater monitoring identified five pollutants above MCLs: antimony in three wells (up to 14 ppb), arsenic in three wells (up to 70 ppb), chromium in one well (up to 110 ppb), le ad in four wells (up to 160 ppb), and nitrate in two wells (up to 36 ppm). In

Reservoir, and in the main channel of the Tennessee River. In two recent mussel surveys in the vicinity of COF (1992 and 1998), none of these species were encountered: (i) A 1992 dive survey of the reach betw een the mouths of Cane Creek and Mulberry Creek came up with nine native mussel species (none were federal

- or state

- listed as endangered species). (ii) A 1998 dive survey at the barge terminal (TRM 246.9) along the left (descending) bank just upstream of COF identified 12 native mussel species (none were federal

- or state

- listed as endangered species); all are widespread and abundant elsewhere in Pickwick Reservoir.

20 According to Cherry et al., (2000), this site has six constituents that are greater than federal limits in down

gradient ground water. Sulfate and boron at 1,100 and 4.6 mg/L, respectively, were greater than the MCL and US EPA 10

- day health advisory for children by two and five times. TDS and iron concentrations reached 2,000 and 0.5 mg/L, res pectively, while selenium was measured up to 190m g/L, 38 fold greater than the chronic WQC. The pH was exceptionally high at 11.7 units.

21 TVA Inspector General (2011).

22 Page B.3.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

8 addition, boron, manganese, and molybdenum have all exceeded Health Advisories in at least four wells, and sulfate exceeded the DWA standards in one newly installed well. 23

F or the sampling period between April 2010 and April 2013, the following exceedances were recorded in more than two sampling events 24 (unless otherwise noted, maximum values

- in ppbs

- in parenthesis): Arsenic (76), cobalt (19), antimony (59), lithium (200), m olybdenum (180), boron (9,300), and manganese (1,700 ppm).



### Resolution: ADEM believes groundwater contamination has resulted from CCR disposal; two sinkhole collapses have occurred in the past at the facility: ADEM issued a Consent Order due to exceedanc e of groundwater standards. Groundwater monitoring is in effect. Two offsite private wells are also sampled. The 1984 Sinkhole was treated and capped, and disposal operations then shifted to dredge cell method in the south and southeast portions of Disposa l Area 5 (two cells). The entire northern and northwestern portions of Disposal Area 5 are not in use and thickly wooded.

On August 20, 2009, TVA’s Board of Directors decided to convert Colbert’s waste management by switching from wet bottom ash handling to dry storage. 25



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: According to EPA (2007), while some primary MCL exceedances (for sulfate, chromium, and selenium) appear to have occurred in on

- site wells, there is no evidence available of off

- site mi gration of contaminants. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.



### References EPA (2007): 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #33 and reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions r egarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000. TVA Colbert ground water data, undated; and Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combust ion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Pro duct Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http:// www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Stantec (2009): TVA Disposal Facility Assessment Phase 1 Plant Summary, Colbert Fossil Plant (COF). Stantec, January 2009. A ccessed Online July 20 12. http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/al/rpt_004_appndx_b_cof_171468118.pdf

23 According to TVA Inspector General (2011) , the COF is subjected, under R isk

- based Corrective Action, to semi

annual monitoring of 18 parameters. T he ground water quality database for Colbert is better than for most TVA sites, with data going back to 1982, with over twenty actively monitored wells (Fig. 4

- 1 there). Monitoring w as originally required under both solid waste and NPDES permits. While Alabama exempted coal ash from landfill regulations between 1982 and 2011, ADEM continued to require monitoring pursuant to a 1993 Notice of Violation.

24 Not all wells were sampled regu larly. This compilation captures only these exceedances that were recorded at least in three sampling event per constituent. Overall, exceedances (including outliers) were noted in 21 of COF’s 25 monitoring wells.

25 TVA (No date, presumably 2009)

.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

9 EIP (2011): Risky Business: Coal Ash Threatens America’s Groundwater Resources at 19 More Sit es

. EIP Report, December 13, 2011. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0259. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/documents/121311EIPThirdDamageRepo rt.pdf

Thomas et al., (1979): The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) System in the United States

– Alabama and Mississippi. W. A. Thomas, W. E., Smith, and A. R. Bicker, Jr., United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1111

- I, 1979 (I ssued also as Geological Survey of Alabama Reprint Series 49, University of Alabama, 1979). Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.gsa.state.al.us/documents/pubs/onl inepubs/Reprint_series/RS49.PDF

TVA Inspector General (2011): Final Report

– Inspection 2009

- 12991

– TVA's Groundwater Monitoring at Coal Combustion Products Disposal Areas, TVA Office of the Inspector General Inspection Report, June 21, 2011. Accessed O nline November 2012. http://oig.tva.gov/reports/PDF/11rpts/2009

- 12991.pdf

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. A ccessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

TVA (2003): Colbert Fossil Plant Units 1 through 5 Reduction Systems for Control of Nitrogen Oxides, Colbert County, Alabama, Final Environmental Assessment, Project Number 2002

- 30, Tennessee Valley Authority , Feb ruary 2003. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/colbert/index.htm

TVA (2004): Installation of Flue Gas Desulfurization System on Colbert Fossil Plan t Unit 5, Colbert County, Alabama, Draft Environmental Assessment, Project Number 2003

- 37, Tennessee Valley Authority, February 2004. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tva. gov/environment/reports/colbert2/draft_ea.pdf

TVA (2008): Operational Improvements to Optimize Selective Catalytic Reduction Systems at Five Fossil Plants Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky, Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Project Number 2007

- 32, Te nnessee Valley Authority, April 2008. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/scro/2007

- 32_scr_opt_fea.pdf

TVA (No date, presumably 2009): TV A’s Conversion of Wet Ash and Gypsum to Dry Storage. TVA. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.tva.gov/news/Kingston/dry_ash.pdf

TVA (2013): Fact Sheet: Colbert Fossil

- Coal Retirements, Novem ber 14, 2013. Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.tva.com/news/releases/octdec13/board_files/Fact_Sheet_Colbert_Fossil_11_14_13.pdf

Dewberry & Davis (2013): Colbert Fossil Plant, Tennessee Valley Authority, Tuscumbia, Alabama, Round 11

- Dam Assessment Report. Dewberry & Davis, LLC, March 2013. Accessed Online June 2014. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm#TIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

10 

### PTa02. TVA Widows Creek Steam Fossil Fuel Plant, Stevenson, Jackson County, Alabama

Type: Surface Impoundment.



### Background and Description: TVA Widows Creek Steam Fossil Fuel Plant (WCF) is located in northeast Alabama, about nine miles south of the Tennessee line. 26 The Plant’s site is on the right (western) bank of the Guntersville Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 407.5, downstream o f the mouth of Widows Creek. 27 According to EPRI (2010), this site comprises an unlined 310

- acre impoundment constructed in 1950. There are two pond systems: one, containing several dredge cells for fly ash from generating units 1

- 6 ((The Main Ash Pond, 28 lo cated west of Widows Creek), and the other, for FGD gypsum (including a main pond and a settling/stilling pond, pool area of 104 acres 29 ) from

26 Constr uction of WCF commenced in 1950 and the power station was commissioned in 1965. Originally, WCF had eight coal

- fired generating units and "net dependable generating capacity" of approximately 1,629 megawatts. Originally, TVA decided that WCF units 1 throug h 6, idled in 2010 and 2011, would be retired by July 31, 2015, whereas WCF units 7 and 8, with a combined summer net capacity of 974 MW, would remain active. On November 14, 2013, the TVA board of directors approved a resolution to retire Unit 8. This is in addition to previously announced commitments to retire WCF Units 1

- 6 by 2015. WCF Unit 7 will continue to operate (TVA, 2013). In the early 1980s, Units 7 and 8 were equipped with wet limestone scrubbers to remove particulates and sulfur dioxide emissi ons, as well as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. Scrubber gypsum production at WCF ranges from about 700,000 to 750,000 cubic yards per year (including the fly ash contribution), depending on coal burn and sul fur content of the coal burned. According to the TVA ( http://www.tva.com/sites/widowscreek.htm ), prior to idling of units 1 through 6, the plant used to consume about 10,000 tons of coal a day. For p lans to optimize operation of an SCR system and predicted environmental implications, see TVA (2008). According to TVA (2008) and TVA (2009), the WCF fly ash is carried with the flue gas stream exiting the boiler. The Unit 7 ESP captures approximately 75 percent of the fly ash from the flue gas stream and collects it in hoppers. The fly ash from the ESP hoppers is wet sluiced to the ash pond, which discharges through Outfall DSN 001 to the Tennessee River. The partially cleaned flue gas from the Unit 7 ESP then flows through the scrubber system. A significant portion of the remaining fly ash is removed by the scrubber process. Unit 8 does not have an ESP; therefore, the fly ash is removed solely by the scrubber system. The waste slurry from Units 7 and 8 sc rubber systems is wet stacked in the FGD wet stacking area, which drains to the FGD settling pond. The FGD settling pond discharges through Outfall DSN 008 to the Tennessee River in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pe rmit No. AL0003875. Bottom ash is wet sluiced to the ash pond. Another source of flow to the ash pond is the Air Pre

- Heater (APH) wash water through the iron pond (Outfall DSN 001b). On April 14, 2011, TVA and North Carolina settled a five

- year

- old lawsuit

- North Carolina v. TVA

- over TVA’s emissions from its coal

- fired plants. As part of the agreement, TVA agreed to phase out 18 units of its coal plants, including six units at the Widows Creek Fossil Plant , taking all but two offline. In May 2012, TVA began considering a switch to natural gas for the WCF, linked up to a proposed natural gas pipeline from Tennessee through Alabama to Georgia.

27 Consistent with the TVA Act, Guntersville Dam and Reservoir are operated for the purposes of flood protection, navigation, and power production, as well as t o protect aquatic resources and provide water supply and recreation. The State of Alabama has designated most of Guntersville Reservoir for public water supply, swimming and other whole body water

- contact sports, and fish and wildlife use classifications ( TVA, 2009).

28 Ongoing seepage has been observed during EPA’s 2012 dike integrity inspection, and 39 piezometers have been installed to monitor phreatic water levels in the Main Ash Pond Embankment. Newberry & Davis (2012), Section 4 and Appendix B, Documen t 17.
29 Ongoing seepage has been observed during EPA’s 2012 dike integrity inspection, and around 20 piezometers have been installed to monitor phreatic water levels in the Gypsum Stack Pond Embankment. Newberry & Davis (2012), Section 4 and Appendix B, Do cument 18.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

11 generation units 7 and 8 (located east of Widows Creek). 30 The drainage area of Widows Creek is 43.5 square miles. The watershed has many karst features, i.e., sinkholes, caves, and springs. 31

In general, groundwater moves in a radial pattern away from the ponded areas of the site’s active ash and FGD sludge areas. Groundwater movement is generally toward the river fro m the main plant site, the coal yard, and the southern boundary of the inactive ash disposal area. Near the FGD pond, groundwater movement is in the direction of Widows Creek. Groundwater levels are influenced by surface water levels in the vicinities of W idows Creek and the Tennessee River. The water table generally occurs near the overburden/bedrock interface but is considerably above or below this contact in some areas due to human intervention. The water table at the FGD and ash ponds resides well withi n the overburden since these sites are elevated above the surrounding ground surface. 32 There are no receptors between the site and the river.



### Impact: Monitoring data at this site show lead in excess of the primary MCL Action Level. 33 This exceedance, howe ver, occurred in an on

- site well that appears to be opposite the direction of ground water flow. Still, in a 1993 memorandum, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) expressed concern with this exceedance and elevated levels of cadmium an d chromium (which did not exceed their primary MCLs) in this well and recommended that corrective action measures be established. 34

As a result of the January 2009 gypsum pond spill incident, in which approximately 56,810 cubic yards of gypsum material lef

t the gypsum pond, the predominant portion of the gypsum released from the FGD pond traveled no further than the artificially created, “triangle” portion of Widows Creek immediately below the stilling pond. 35

, 36



### Resolution: in 1993, ADEM recommended that c orrective action measures be established. No Administrative Action was taken by the State; no remediation was performed because contamination in an

30 TVA (2009), Figures 1

- 2 and 2

- 1. In addition, there are smaller ponds on the site: copper and iron ponds, now closed, stilling ponds associated with both the Main Ash Pond and the Gypsum Stack, and a red water pond north of the Main Ash Pond ( EIP, 2013, Fig. 12

- 1). For detailed design, operation, and waste unit disposition data, see Newberry & Davis (2012).
31 In its assessment report on the potential groundwater impacts of the gypsum stack expansion in 1990, TVA indicates that “Widows Creek Fos sil Plant is situated on karst terrain,” and that “[a]s in all karst terrains, solution activity along faults, bedding planes, joints and fractures produces enlarged openings and effective routes for groundwater movement.”(TVA, Widows Creek Fossil Plant

– Assessment of Potential Effects on Groundwater of the Phase II FGD Pond (Dec. 1990), in EIP (2013, page 150).

32 TVA (2008).
33 EPRI (2010) claims that the inclusion of this site in the damage case roster is questionable because the noted (lead) contaminat ion was in an up

- gradient monitoring well.

34 According to Cherry et al., (2000), Sulfate, boron and manganese exceed federal limits. Iron, at 71 mg/L, exceeded the MCL by 236 times. Aluminum reached 66,000μg/L in down

- gradient ground water, surpassing the MCL and US EPA chronic WQC by 330 and 758 times, respectively.

35 TVA (2009). According to Dewberry and Davis (2012), “Failure of gypsum stack internal drainage system led to overtopping the east dike and spillage into Widows Creek.”

36 According to Lemly (2 010), the waste contained elevated concentrations of metals, including mercury, selenium, and arsenic. The spill blanketed about 6 hectares of creek bottom, smothering and poisoning benthic macro

invertebrates and dislocating the resident fish community. C oncentrations of mercury were elevated above consumption advisory levels in fish. There was no subsequent biological monitoring of Widows Creek to determine the rate or degree of re

- colonization by aquatic fauna. In 2010, the Alabama Department of Public H ealth issued a consumption restriction advisory for mercury contaminated fish in Widows Creek in and near the “triangle area”. The monetized value of the spill was estimated by Lemly (2010) as about $3.85 million.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

12 up

- gradient well was attributed to an off

- site source. 37 T he number of monitoring wells at the site decreased from over 30 in 1990 to only seven at the present time. TVA began monitoring wells W10, 31, and 10

- 48 through 10

- 52 in March 2011 (there, Fig. 12

- 1). Although data since the recent monitoring has started are spotty, there have been exceedances of health

- b ased guidelines for at least boron, cobalt, manganese, and sulfate.

A January 2009 gypsum pond spill incident was resolved as Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 38 The removal of the gypsum from the triangle area (Approximately 52,000 cubic yards), s ubstantially completed on June 19, 2009, is detailed in the TVA (2009) Phase I Gypsum Removal Plan (Appendix A). However, beyond this triangle area, approximately 5,000 cubic yards of the gypsum slurry that entered Widows Creek was deposited along the cree k channel both adjacent to, and downstream of, the triangle area. The removal of this additional gypsum (Phase II) was being assessed in TVA’s EA. 39 Following completion of the clean

- up activities on the affected land areas by that incident, there still rem ains gypsum deposits in portions of Widows Creek downstream of the point where material entered the stream near the settling pond and close to the mouth of the creek where gypsum both overflowed across a low swale separating a long bend in the creek and wa s emitted from discharge serial number (DSN) 008. Based on results from sampling of sediments, TVA proposed to remove and dispose of the gypsum deposits from Widows Creek to reduce the potential risks of negative impacts to water quality and aquatic habita t of Widows Creek and the Tennessee River. TVA prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to document the emergency response actions that have been taken and to describe the further proposed action in response to the gypsum pond spill at WCF. 40 Specific acti ons addressed in this EA include cleanup of debris, repairs to the settling pond system, collection of cenospheres, sediment sampling, and removal and disposal of gypsum deposits from the creek.

On August 20, 2009, TVA’s Board of Directors decided to conv ert Widow’s Creek waste management by switching from wet fly ash to dry storage; from wet bottom ash to dry storage; and to gypsum dewatering. 41



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: According to EPA (2007), the ADEM has expressed concern wit h on

- site contamination and recommended that corrective action measures be established. Therefore, this is a Potential Damage Case.



### References EPA (2007): 2007 CCW Damage Case Assessments, Case #32 and reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Rud dy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!docu mentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

37 EPRI (2010).

38 This site also experience d a failure (January 9, 2009) of a discharge pipe, resulting in a 6.1 million gallon of FGD material containing water, gypsum and some fly ash released from an FGD pond, leading to $9.2 million in cleanup
costs. TVA issued (July 7, 2009) a FONSI. EPA did n ot classify this as a damage case, because samples at relevant points of potential exposure complied with applicable standards (EPA 2010) . For documentation of the incident and subsequent remediation, see TVA (2009) and http://www.nrt.org/production%5Cnrt%5Crrthome.nsf/resources/RRT4Aug2009Meeting_4/$File/Gypsum_Presenta tion.pdf
39 TVA (2009).
40 Ibid.

41 TVA (No date, presumably 2009)

.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

13 EPA (2010): 40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264 et al., Page 35128

- : Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities ; Proposed Rule. June 21, 2010.

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

TVA issued FONSI (7/7/2009). Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/widows_creek/wcf_gypsum_removal_fonsi.pdf

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Ind iana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

TVA (2008): Operational Improvements to Optimize Selective Catalytic Reduction Systems at Five Fossil Plants Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky, Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Project Number 2007

- 32, Tennessee Valley Authority, April 2008. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/scro/2007

- 32_scr_opt_fea.pdf

TVA (2009): Wido ws Creek Fossil Plant Gypsum Removal Project, Jackson County, Alabama, Final Environmental Assessment

, Project Number 2009

- 38, Tennessee Valley Authority, July 2009. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/widows_creek/widows_creek_fea_.pdf

TVA (No date, presumably 2009): TVA’s Conversion of Wet Ash and Gypsum to Dry Storage. TVA. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.tva.gov/news/Kingston/dry_ash.pdf

Lemly (2010): A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal Combustion Waste: The Cost of Poisoned Fish and Wildlife, A. Dennis Lemly, EPA Docket Comment No. EPA

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 064 0

- 6313, Appendix I, December 15, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/ 03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

- CCW.pdf

TVA (2013): Fact Sheet: Widows Creek

- Coal Retirements, November 14, 2013. Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.tva.com/news/releases/octdec13/board_files/Fact_Sheet_Widows_CreekFossil_11_14_13_Fi nal.pdf

Dewberry & Davis (2012): Widows Creek Fossil Plant, Tennessee Valley Authority, Stevenson, Alabama, Round 11

- Dam Assessment Report. Dewberry & Davis, LLC, December 2012. Accessed Online June 2014. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm#TIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

14 

### PTa03 . Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla Steam Electric Generating Station, 42 

### Navajo County, Arizona

Type: Surface Impoundments, Wastewater Ponds and a Monofill.



### Background and Description: The Cholla facility is a coal

- fired power plant located in northeaste rn Arizona, two miles east of the town of Joseph City in Navajo County, on the Little Colorado River. It comprises two main, off site unlined ash impoundments (one, receiving fly ash 43 and the other

– high density slurry bottom ash), 44 and two small, de

- mini mis, onsite ash ponds: a Sedimentation Pond and the West Area Retention Pond. Finally, Cholla Lake provides cooling water to the Cholla Station. 45

, 46

The Cholla Station is operated as a ‘zero discharge facility’, where high evaporation rates result in high sodium (4,800 mg/L) and chloride (4,600 mg/L) levels in the ash ponds, as well as in salty seeps. The

42 According to APS’ website ( https://www.aps.com/general_info/aboutaps_18.html ), the 995 MW Cholla Power Plant is located in northeastern Arizona near Holbrook. Units’ nameplate capacity a nd in

- Service dates are : 114 MW (1962), 289 MW (1978), 312 MW (1980), and 414 MW (1981). APS operates the plant and owns Units 1, 2 and 3, which are capable of producing 615 MW of electricity. PacifiCorp (PAC) owns the 380 MW Unit 4

- the largest unit
at t he plant. Until 2009, Cholla was fueled by rail

- delivered, low

- sulfur, sub

- bituminous, Upper Cretaceous age coal from the McKinley strip mine in New Mexico, which is located approximately 28 miles northwest of Gallup. In 2009, Cholla purchased 2,210,433 to ns of coal from the Mine ( http://coaldiver.org/mine/MCKINLEY ). After the retirement of the McKinley Mine, Cholla has been fueled by rail

- delivered, low

- sulfur, sub

- bituminous coal from Peabody Energy ’s Lee Ranch and El Segundo strip mines , some 35 miles northwest of Grants, New Mexico ( http://www.peabodyenergy.com/content/278/Publications/Fact

- Sheets/Lee

- Ranch

- Mine ). For additional properties of the San

- Juan Basin coal, see USGS Professional Paper 1625

- B (no Date). The McKinley Mine has been in operation since the 1960s and wa s retired in December 2009 after having reached the end of the life

- of

- mine. According to APS (2009), approximately 70 percent of the fly ash generated at the plant is sold for beneficial reuse. Cholla has been selected as a carbon dioxide sequestration pi lot site, with injection targeting the Devonian

- age Martin Formation, at a depth of 3,600 to 4,500 ft B GS ( http://www.azdeq.gov/download/012709fact.pdf ). A recent controversy between the USEPA an d the National Park Service, and APS and ADEQ about the impact of Cholla’s emissions on air haze and limited visibility at Class I Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) areas across Arizona has the potential of driving APS to a decision to retire the C holla Station rather than install a costly SCR technology to address the Plant’s NOx emissions ( http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/regs/sipLetters/pdf/Arizona_Cholla_ 2010

- 11

- 29.pdf

, http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/pdf/az/arizona

- rh

- tsd

- final.pdf and http://www.azjournal.com/2012/11/26/more

- pollution

- controls

- to

- be

- imposed

- on

- area

- power

- plants/ ).

43 APS (2009): A 420

- acre, 18,000 ac

- ft storage capacity pond.

44 An 80

- acre, 2,300 ac

- ft storage capacity pond. The Fly Ash Pond is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the plant, and the Bottom Ash Pond is located approximately two miles north of the plant.

45 According to GEI (2009) and Shomo and Maughan (1991), Cholla Lake was constructed in 1961 as a cooling pond for Unit 1. Since 1978, it has served as the cooling pond for both Unit 1 and Unit 2. It also stores water for the plant’s other processes, including short term backup cooling water for Unit 3 and Unit 4 if the well system for cooling these units becomes inadequat e. Cholla Lake does not contain any coal combustion waste products. The Lake occupies 340 acres and is divided by a weir into two sections: an 89

- acres hot pond and 251 acres of a cool pond. The water level of the Lake is kept constant by pumping from the Coconino Aquifer

46 In the fly ash pond, the fly ash settles out of the slurry and water evaporates from the pond’s surface. Seepage and groundwater are collected by valley drains and returned to the pond. The Bottom Ash Pond consists of a reservoir directly behind the dam and two CCR storage cells upstream. Bottom ash is pumped into the storage cells as high

density slurry; the bottom ash settles to the bottom of the pond and the water is decanted to the reservoir and ultimately siphoned back to the plant for reuse. At any given time, waste is being pumped to one of the upstream cells, and the bottom ash in the other cell is drained and excavated for stor age in a monofill north of the bottom ash pond.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

15 exceedances are in a well located directly at the foot of the fly ash pond. The affected aquifer has “naturally poor water quality,” but no backgroun d or up

- gradient data are available.

The Cholla Power Plant and its associated impoundments are located within the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province. The bedrock in the Cholla Power Plant vicinity consists of several geologic units of continental p rovenance of Permian to Triassic ages, overlain by the Quaternary

- age Little Colorado and Wash Alluviums. 47 The Little Colorado and Wash Alluviums comprise unconsolidated clay, silt, sand and gravel. The alluvium thickness ranges up to about 50 feet beneath the Fly Ash Pond Dam and up to about 100 feet beneath the Bottom Ash Pond Dam.

The Cholla Power Plant is underlain by the Coconino aquifer, the largest saline aquifer in Arizona. The Coconino aquifer is comprised, in descending order, of the Kaibab Forma tion, Coconino Sandstone, Schnebly Hill Formation and upper Supai Formation. The Kaibab and Schnebly Hill are absent or above the water table in much of the area, and the upper Supai contains up to 600 feet of evaporite deposits (mostly halite and anhydrit e) in southern Navajo and Apache Counties. The Cholla Station is located in the area between St. Johns and Winslow, which coincides with the transition zone from fresh (<500 mg/L TDS) to brackish (>1,000 mg/L TDS) groundwater, a transition zone which rough ly coincides with the Little Colorado River. 48 The hydraulic conductivity of the Coconino Aquifer generally varies between 4 to 5 feet per day and 6 to 7 feet per day, although locally it can be greater, depending upon the degree of secondary permeability d eveloped in areas of faulting and/or fracturing. 49

EPRI (2010) claims that groundwater flow direction is not evident/known, and no dwellings are observed within one mile of ash pond in any direction.



### Impact and Damage Claims: According to EPA (2007), moni toring data at this site show levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, and fluoride in excess of their secondary MCLs. These exceedances are found in a well located directly at the foot of the fly ash pond. The affected aquifer has “naturally p oor water quality,” but no background or up

- gradient data are available. The commenters 50 use a comparison to distant alluvial ground water to implicate pond leachate as a source of contamination. The commenters also allege that construction of the waste ma nagement units has caused naturally poor quality water from upper aquifers to contaminate the pristine lower aquifer, regardless of leachate contamination. 51 EPRI (2010) claims that the onsite exceedances of chloride, fluoride, and sulfate are unrelated to CCR because the narrative in the 2007 USEPA Damage Case Assessment suggests that the results for these contaminants are listed as having an uncertain source due to reports that groundwater has naturally poor quality and considering the lack of site

- specifi c corroborating data.

47 The Coconino Sandstone (very fine to medium

- grained quartz grains cemented with silicious cement, of Permian Age), the Wupatki, Moqui and Holbrook Members of the Moenkopi Formation (Siltstone, sandstone, an d mudstone of Triassic Age), the Shinarump Member of the Chinle Formation (highly permeable, weakly

- to well

- cemented sandstone and conglomerate with rounded pebbles of quartz, quartzite, jasper and chert and subangular pebbles of petrified wood as well as petrified logs, of Triassic Age).

48 McGavock (2012).
49 Bureau of Reclamation (2006) and references therein.

50 Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC); and see the next footnote.

51 According to Cherry et al., (2000), this site has five constituents in ash pond s that exceeded federal limits (sulfate, TDS, boron, sodium, and chloride). However, the concentrations presented are actually those of the leachate, rather than of impacted groundwater. Cherry et al., (2000) report is based on a Hoosier Environmental Coun cil (HEC) comment to EPA’s Docket Number F

- 1999

- FF2P

- FFFFF, as captured in a September 24, 1999 memorandum from HEC to Dennis Ruddy, USEPA. In the September 1999 memorandum, HEC claims that the contamination at the site actually led to the formation of Ari zona’s Aquifer Protection Program.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

16 In a response to the 2007 NODA docket, 52 APS states that the (i) baseline groundwater quality was worse than presented in EPA (2007), 53 and (ii) the 2007 Assessment fails to address the fact that the ponds are permitted under Arizona’s Aquifer Protection Program and that they are subject to clean closure requirements under that program. Specifically, APS claims that the record should reflect that the 1973 water quality data, generated by APS prior to construction of the fly ash pond (fr om approximately the same location), indicate that TDS levels in the shallow alluvium were three times the levels cited by Earthjustice in their comment to the 2007 NODA’s Damage Case Assessment report; and that in addition, the 1973 levels of sulfate, chl oride, and fluoride were all higher than the data cited by Earthjustice in their cited comment.

The Assessment also states that Earthjustice alleges that the fly ash pond has “caused naturally poor water quality water from upper aquifers to contaminate t he pristine lower aquifer ... “ APS claims, however, that lower aquifer groundwater data from 1973 show TDS levels very similar to that found at the site in 2006.

Finally, APS claims that EPA (2007) does not address the fact that the fly ash pond and bottom ash pond are permitted under Arizona’s Aquifer Protection Program, 54 requiring that APS have an aquifer protection permit in order to operate the fly ash pond. The permit, among other things, requires that aquifer water quality standards established by the state not be violated; and if the level of a pollutant in the aquifer already exceeds an aquifer water quality standard, the aquifer must not be further degraded.

In 1989

- 1990, Shomo (1991) studied Cholla Lake’s water, sediments and whole

- body fish for l evels of potentially toxic inorganic constituents. Since 1976, water temperatures and turbidity have increased; catfsh and bluegill have increased their dominance of the fish population; and the frequency of occurrence of benthic invertebrates has decrease d. Selenium and other inorganic constituent levels in fish tissue exceed national averages and are above levels found in a the Clear Creek Reservoir, located some 20

- miles west of Cholla Lake. 55



### Resolution: ADEQ submits 56 that groundwater data collected to date show no violations of Arizona water quality standards as a result of the CCR disposal at this facility. Consequently, there is no administrative resolution of the issues associated with this damage case. 57



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case : “The exceedances found at this site, sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride and fluoride, are of non

- health

- based standards and are in a well directly at the foot of a waste management unit. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 58



### Ref erences EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #67, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007; and a reference therein (Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusio ns Regarding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). Accessed Online October 2012.

52 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0070.
53 This reference is the 2007 NODA’s Damage Case Assessment document.

54 I.e., A.R.S. 49

- 241 et. Seq, administered by the ADEQ.

55 Bluefish (N=12) in Cholla Lake had a dry

- weight selenium tissu e contents of 6.629 ± 0.679 μg/L vs. 3.91 ± 2.77 μg/L in Clear Creek Lake; and Channel Catfish (n=3) in Cholla Lake had a dry

- weight selenium tissue contents of 5.164 ± 0.694 μg/L vs. 1.42 ± 0.070 μg/L in Clear Creek Lake (Shomo, 1991, Tables 10 and 12).

56 Comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9337.
57 As inferred from APS’ response in the NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0070.
58 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

17 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia. Prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and C itizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.citizenscoal council.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

APS (2009): Arizona Public Service Company

- Cholla Generating Station: Response to Request for Information Under l04(e) of the Comprehensive Environm ental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9604(e) ("104(e) Request"), March 26, 2009. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/i ndustrial/special/fossil/surveys/aps1.pdf

GEI (2009): Coal Ash Impoundment Specific Site Assessment Report, Arizona Public Service, Cholla Power Plant Final report, GEI Consultants, December 2009. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/apsc

- cholla

- final.pdf

USGS Professional Paper 1625

- B (no Date): Geology and Coal Resources of the Upper Cretac eous Fruitland Formation, San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Colorado, James E. Fassett, Chapter Q of Geologic Assessment of Coal in the Colorado Plateau: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Edited by M.A. Kirschbaum, L.N.R. Roberts, and L.R.H. Biewick, U .S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625

– B. Accessed Online January 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625b/Reports/Chapters/Chapter_Q.pdf

McGavock (2012): Evolution of Ground water Quality in the Southern Part of the Coconino Aquifer, Arizona, an extended abstract, E.H. McGavock, Montgomery & Associates, Tucson, Arizona. Accessed Online January 2014. http://azhydrosoc.org/2012Symposium/docs/abstracts/2f_McGavock.pdf

Bureau of Reclamation (2006): North Central Arizona Water Supply Study

— Report of Findings. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, October 2006. Acce ssed Online January 2014. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/reports/ncawss/NCAWSSP1NOAPP.pdf

Shomo (1991): Biotic and Physico

- Chemical Conditions in a Cooling Reservoir of a Coal

- Fired Power Plant, Shomo, Laurie Suzanne, Master Thesis, The University of Arizona, 1991. Accessed Online January 2014. http://arizona.openreposito ry.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/277958/1/azu_td_1345438_sip1_m.pdf

Shomo and Maughan (1991): Cooling Reservoir of a Coal

- Fired Power Plant as a Warmwater Fishery, Laurie S. Shomo and O. Eugene Maughan, pp. 229

- 237 in Warmwater Fisheries, Symposium I (June 4

- 8, 1991), edited by James L. Cooper, R. H. Hamre, Scottsdale, Arizona, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, General Technical Report RM

- 207, 1991. Accessed Online January 2014. http://books.goo gle.com/books?id=oAPy_2xYf_YC&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=Arizona+Public+Serv ice+Co.+Cholla+lake&source=bl&ots=Qybb9yqwlO&sig=ePdyL

xIH7Sl5y2wsU9ICi39GD8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IwzYUuSQOrXMsQSFpYHgDg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ #v=onepage&q=Arizona%20Public%20Service%20Co.%20Cholla%2 0lake&f=false

D e cember 14, 2011 e mail from K. Morrison, EPA R8, to A. Livnat, EPA /OSWER

.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

18 

### PTa04. Florida Power & Light Lansing Smith Plant, Bay County, Florida

Type: Surface Impoundment.



### Background and Description: An unlined, 172

- acre surface impoundme nt, 59 constructed in 1965 at the Florida Power and Light Lansing Smith power plant in a coastal area 60 about 15 miles north of Panama City, was first identified in the Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985) study as cited in the 1988 Report to Congress, then in the s upplemental analysis conducted for EPA’s 1993 Regulatory Determination

. 61

, 62



### Impact: According to Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985), the disposal of a mixture of fly ash and bottom ash in the pond, generated leachate that migrated to a shallow, unused tidal a quifer. The water of this aquifer showed exceedances of Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWSs) for cadmium (in 10 of the 14 downgradient wells), chromium vi (in one of the 14 downgradient wells), and fluoride (in five of the 14 downgradient wells); and o f Secondary DWSs for chloride and iron (in all of the 14 downgradient wells), manganese (in 13 of the 14 downgradient wells), and sulfate (in eight of the 14 downgradient wells).

As a result of the supplemental analysis, EPA rejected this site as a damage case because there was no evidence that coal combustion wastes were comanaged with low

- volume wastes at this site. 63 A subsequent evaluation of the information for this site indicates that there were documented exceedances of primary drinking water standar ds, as cited above, in on

- site ground water attributable to CCR.

According to EarthJustice, 64 groundwater monitoring data in the Florida DEP report 65 for this power plant measured groundwater impacted by CCR landfills and ponds at the facility. The primary MCL for radium 226 and 228 was exceeded by over thirteen fold in groundwater wells south of the fly ash pond. In addition, SMCL exceedances measured south of the pond included aluminum at over 21 times the SMCL, chloride at nearly 10 times the SMCL, iron a t over 300 times the SMCL, manganese at over 10 times the SMCL, sodium at nearly 10 times the SMCL, and TDS at nine times the SMCL.

59 According to Gulf Power (2009), the impoundment is divided into three cells: East Cell 79.2

– acres, Midd le Cell

- 35.4 acres, and Southwest Cell

- 57.6 acres. The impoundment’s approximate Total Storage Capacity is 4,212,716 cubic yards. While subjected to the Dam Assessment survey, Southern Company and its subsidiary Gulf Power are claiming that the results of the survey contain “Confidential Business Information”. As of July 2014, while EPA is working to resolve these claims with the company, the reports are not posted ( http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/gulf_pclsp_southernco

- cbi

- comments.pdf ).

60 Today owned by Gulf Power. Gulf Power Company is an investor

- owned electric utility with all of its common stock own ed by Atlanta

- based Southern Company. Four generation units have a total nameplate generating capacity of 890 MW. Bituminous coal is supplied from the Hobet Mine, a mountaintop removal coal mining operation in Boone County, West Virginia. The Lansing Smith Plant is located on Alligator Bayou off of North Bay in Bay County. http://www.gulfpower.com/about/ plants.asp

61 EPRI (2010).

62 Cited in EPA (2007).

63 This decision was in accord with the scope of the 1993 Regulatory Determination, which addressed comanaged CCRs.

64 Comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446.
65 FDEP, Solid Waste Section. Preliminary Evaluation of Analytical Data on Coal Combustion Products, (draft) March 18, 2008.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

19 Florida Power’s rebuttal 66 states that the alleged exceedances of radium 226 and 228 are the result of natural background c onditions; 67 and that the remaining alleged exceedances do not involve federal MCLs and were either the result of natural background conditions or were detected within the Zone of Discharge (ZOD), within which numerical primary and secondary drinking water standards do not apply. 68 Florida’s Power & Light’s groundwater discharge permits were renewed by the FLDEP in 2004 after finding that the power plant was in compliance with all state regulations.

EPRI (2010), 69 in its tabulation of exceedances in groundwa ter that is based on results presented in the 1988 Report to Congress claims that chromium, reported as a constituent of concern in the EPA (2007), had an MCL exceedance only in one out of 14 samples. Each of the other constituents associated with onsite impact: chloride, fluoride, iron, manganese, and sulfate, also had high concentrations in the seawater that was used for ash sluice make

- up water. While representing a release from the ash pond, these constituents do not necessarily represent leaching of coal ash. Based on a few occurrences in up

gradient wells, 70 EPRI claims that cadmium concentrations were due to saltwater

- induced mobilization of the cadmium present in sediments and geologic materials.

Finally, EPRI claims that the impoundment is locate d off Alligator Bayou and there are no observed dwellings between the impoundment and the Bayou. Groundwater is locally saline at depth and is not used for potable supplies.



### Resolution: According to the Utility, 71 groundwater impacts are reported to occur within the approved FDEP ZOD, so they are in compliance with FDEP groundwater regulations. As a result, the state has required no remedial or mitigation activities at the site.

66 Florida Power’s comment to the proposed CCR rule: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0460 and Southern Company’s comment to the October 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0238.

67 According to Schmidt and Clark (1980), the coastal area Pliocene

- to Recent age sands and clays are underlain by the Pliocene

- age Intracoastal formation, which, in turn, is underlain by the Middle Miocene age Bruce Creek Limestone. The Intraco astal Formation and the Bruce Creek Limestone both include phosphate

- enriched units (phosphate is enriched in naturally

- occurring radionuclides). The Lansing Smith Plant area is underlain by the unconfined aquifer (corresponding to the Pliocene to Recent s and units), which attains a thickness of up to 150 feet along the coast. The unconfined aquifer is underlain by the confined Floridan aquifer. The Floridan aquifer attains a thickness of up to 1,100 feet along the coast of Bay County; it corresponds to the Intracoastal Formation, the Bruce Creek Limestone, and to several additional, stratigraphically lower limestone units. The large yield Gainer springs, about 10 miles northeast of the Smith Plant area have a very

- low anionic content: Chlorine ≤ 3ppm, sulfat e ≤ 1.6ppm, and fluoride ≤ 0.2ppm (Rosenau et al., 1977). According to Schmidt and Clark (1980) and Foster (1972), higher concentrations of chloride and fluoride are limited to a narrow belt along the coastal area, where marine salt water intrudes the aqui fers, whereas increasing levels of total dissolved salts (TDS) in the aquifers extend further inland, including the northern shore of the North Bay area. Excluding, however, any site

- specific impacts associated with the power plant, in the northern Bay’s b elt that encompasses the plant’s area, TDS values are expected to range between 200 and 300 mg/L.

68 Florida groundwater regulations (§62

- 520, F.A.C.), provide for specified zones of discharge (“ZOD”) for facilities discharging to groundwater. A ZOD is defi ned as a “volume underlying or surrounding the site and extending to the base of a designated aquifer or aquifers, within which an opportunity of the treatment, mixture or dispersion of wastes into receiving groundwater is afforded.” This regulatory constr uct has been a part of Florida’s groundwater protection program since its inception in the mid

- 1980s. FDEP’s groundwater regulations require that facilities discharging to groundwater implement a groundwater monitoring plan that includes downgradient detec tion wells located within the facility’s ZOD in addition to compliance wells located at or immediately adjacent to the compliance line of the ZOD: §62

- 520.600(6) and 62

- 701.510(3), F.A.C.

69 Information based on (i) power company response to questionnaire; (ii) power company

- supplied summary sheet and report on cadmium mobilization; and USEPA Report to Congress (1988).
70 Citing findings of the Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985) study, a s tabulated in Section 5 of the 1988 Report to Congress.

71 EPRI (2010).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

20 

### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This site has been reclas sified as a potential damage case based on documented exceedances of primary drinking water standards for cadmium, chromium, and fluoride, and secondary drinking water standards for sulfate, chloride, manganese and iron in on

- site ground water attributable to CCW.



### References EPA (2007): 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #36 and reference therein ( Compendium of nineteen alleged CCW damage cases, US EPA, May 3, 2007; Status of Alleged Damage Cases Submitted by the Hoosier Environmental Council, et. al., to Dennis Ruddy, February, 2002; Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, Septem ber 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion %20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large

- Volume Coal Combustion Waste, US EPA, July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1999 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combus tion (Part 1), EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 1993

- 0042

- 1642.

Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985): Full Scale Field Evaluation of Waste Disposal from Coal

- fired Electric Generation Plants, prepared for the Air and Energy Research Laboratory of the U.S.EPA for the Office of Solid Waste, EPA

- 600

- 7

- 85

- 028, June 1985.

Report to Congress (1988): Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, U.S.EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530

- SW

- 88

- 002, February 1988. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coal

- rtc.pdf

Gulf Power (2009): Gulf Power’s Response to Request for Information Regarding Lansing Smith Power Stati on, May 22, 2009. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/gulf

- lansing.pdf

Schmidt and Clark ( 1980): Geology of Bay County, Florida, Walter Schmidt and Muriene Wiggs Clark, Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletin No. 57, Division of Resource Management, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee 1980. Accessed Online January 2013. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000246/00001/3j

Rosenau et al., (1977): Springs of Florida, Jack C. Resenau, Glen L. Faulkner, Charles W. Hendry, Jr., and Robert W. Hull, State of Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletin 31, prepared by US Geological Survey, in cooperation with Florida Bureau of Geology, Division of Resource Management, Department of Natural Resources, and Bureau of Water Resources Management, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Florid a, 1977. Accessed Online January 2013. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000232/00002/3j

Foster (1972): Guide to Users of Groundwater in Bay County, Florida, James B. Foster, Florida Bureau of Geology Map Ser ies 46, 1972. Accessed Online January 2013.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

21 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF90000270/00001/1x?vo=23&vp=4943,3400



### PTa05. Ameren (formerly: Central Illinois Light Co.) Duck Creek Station, 72 

### Ca nton, Fulton County, Illinois

Type: Three Surface Impoundments. 73



### Background and Description: The Duck Creek Power Generating Station is located on the western bank of the Duck Creek Cooling Pond, on the western bank of the Illinois River. The Duck Creek facility is approximately 6 miles southeast of the town of Canton, Illinois. Two unlined coal ash impoundment, receiving fly ash, bottom ash, and flue gas desulfurization (FGD), cover a combined area of approximately 140 acres. 74 There is also a clay

- lined Recycle Pond. 75

The plant is sited northwest of the Illinois River Valley in an area that was historically used for strip mining. As such, the subsurface conditions are expected to include a combination of Quaternary loess deposits, glacial deposits, and mine spoils overlying sedimentary bedrock. 76 It appears that the upper loess, glacial deposits, and mine spoils at the site include combinations of silty clay, clayey silt, and gravelly silty clay with a component of fractured shale at depth. Shale is the u ppermost sedimentary rock formation at this site beneath the soil deposits. 77 Groundwater flows toward Duck Creek Reservoir and the Illinois River. According to EPRI (2010), there are no significant aquifers underlying this facility, although horizontal mig ration is possible through sand seams in the glacial deposits, and there are no

72 The Plant’s nameplate capacity (a single generating unit, in service since 1976) is 441 MW ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Duck_Creek_Station) . According to Ameren’s fact sheet on p reservation ( http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/lakeoftheozarks/Documents/PreservationFactSheet.pdf ), this power plant is built on 9,000 acres of mostly un

- rec laimed strip mine land. The conservation area constitutes a 1,800

- acre cooling lake (used for the Plant’s closed

- cycle cooling system) created by an earthen dam across Duck Creek. In March 2013, Dynegy announced its intent to purchase the Duck Creek Statio n, together with four other Ameren power plants in Illinois ( http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130314005493/en/Dynegy

- Acq uire

- Ameren

- Energy

Resources

- Expanding

- Illinois ). The purchase was completed in December 2013.

73 NPDES #IL0055620.

74 Ash Pond 1: Commissioned 1976, 58 acre. Ash Pond 2: Commissioned 1986, 85 acre [Ameren (2009)]. According to Kleinfelder (2011), both we re no longer active during the site visit: they were undergoing decommissioning, which was expected to be completed in 2013/2014. According to a January 2014 Google Earth image, the Ash Pond 1, the Recycle Pond, and the great majority of Ash Pond 2 have be en completely dewatered.
75 According to Kleinfelder (ibid, Figure 2 and narrative), the Recycling Pond, 45 acre, was commissioned in 1985 and in 2011 was clean closed. Historically, the facility has sluiced bottom ash and fly ash, byproducts of coal fired energy generation, into three impoundments (Fly Ash Pond Number 1, Fly Ash Pond Number 2, and the Recycle Pond). Fly Ash Ponds Number 1 and 2 act as settling basins for the bottom and fly ash process water prior to the clarified water being released into t he Recycle Pond. From the Recycle Pond, the clarified water is pumped back to the facility for use in power generating operations. Fly ash and bottom ash residuals are disposed of by drying and hauling the materials to offsite landfills.

76 According to Hli nka et al., (1999, page 11) and Reinstern (1988), the sand

- and

- gravel deposits were laid

- down by glaciofluvial and eolian processes. Glaciofluvial materials were deposited by meltwater that discharged along the front of the ice sheets during the Kansan, Il linoisan, and Wisconsinan Stages of the Pleistocene Series. These materials were subsequently reworked by prevailing winds to form the small sand dunes. The Kankakee Flood associated with the meltdown of the Valparaiso ice sheet generated much of the glac iofluvial sequence.

77 Kleinfelder (ibid); for the Quaternary geology of Fulton County and glacial deposit maps, see Reinertsen (ibid), maps on virtual pages 66

- 68.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

22 receptors between the site and reservoir or within one mile down

- gradient. The Duck Creek Station is located in an area with high potential for aquifer recharge. 78



### Impact: Acc ording to EPA (2007) monitoring data at this site from April 1999 showed levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, manganese, and iron in excess of their secondary MCLs. According to Cherry et al., (2000), boron was another exceedance constituen t. 79 There is no clear indication of down

gradient wells or whether these wells are on

- site or off

- site.



### Resolution: According to EPRI (2010), the unlined basins were removed from service and new lined wastewater treatment facilities have been constructed. The unlined basins were to be dewatered in 2010 in accordance with modified NPDES and state operating permits. The monitoring well network was reevaluated, and overhauled in 2008 and 2009. There are currently about 45 wells in the network. Accoprding to I EPA, 80 ”Remedial Action (is) Under Development”. 81



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site, sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, manganese and iron, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this

cas e is a potential damage case.” 82



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #47 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Co mbustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Glob al Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Coun cil and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citi zenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

78 Illinois EPA (2011).

79 According to Cherry et al., (2000), overall six constituents in dow n

- gradient monitoring wells exceeded federal limits at this site. Sulfate was measured at 2,100 mg/L and TDS at 6,400 mg/L, which exceeded the MCL by four and ~13 times, respectively. Boron at 160 mg/L exceeded the US EPA 10

- day health advisory for childre n by about 178 fold. Manganese was measured at 8.8 mg/L, or 176 times above the SMCL. The concentration of iron (21 mg/L) exceeded the SMCL by 70 times, while chloride (2,100 mg/L) exceeded by eight times.

80 Illinois EPA (2011).

81 According to Stltoday.com (2013), on February 4, 2013, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a complaint with the Illinois Pollution Control Board alleging that Ameren Energy Resources Generating Co. illegally disposed of 180,000 tons of coal ash at the Duck Creek power pla nt. The complaint claims that Ameren transported the coal ash from its E.D. Edwards power plant in Bartonville, Ill., to the Duck Creek plant for use as fill material for a railroad embankment. According to the filing, Ameren notified the state environment al regulators of the plan in 2004 but never received a permit to do the work. When IEPA inspected the Duck Creek site in 2006 it discovered three acres covered in coal ash to a depth of 15 feet. IEPA issued a notice of violation after analysis of the ash

s howed it contained levels of antimony, boron and silver in excess of state groundwater standards. The agency later rejected a proposal by Ameren to resolve the violation because the ash contained excess pollutants and the utility refused to move the ash to a permitted landfill or transfer station.

82 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

23 EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Acces sed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20 Damage%20Cases

Illinois EPA (2011): IEPA’s Ash Impoundments Strategy Progress Report, October 2011. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.s tate.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/documents/ash

- impoundment

- progress

- 102511.pdf

Ameren (2009): Response to Request for Information under Section 104 (e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9604(e), March 26, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/ameren.pdf

Kleinfelder (2011): Coal Ash Impoundment Sit e Assessment Final Report, Duck Creek Power Station, Ameren Energy Generating Company, Canton, Illinois, Kleinfelder, Golden, Colorado, May 10, 2011. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/ameren_dc_final.pdf

Stltoday.com (2013): Illinois AG says Ameren illegally disposed of coal ash. St. Louis Post

- Dispatch ( Stltoday.com), February 7, 2013. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/illinois

- ag

- says

- ameren

- illegally

- disposed

- of

- coal

ash/article_90018b66

- 360b

- 594d

- 9518

- df98555d9837.html?print=true&cid=print

Reinertsen (1988): A Guide to the Geology of the Canton Area, Fulton County, Geological Science Field Trip, Field Trip 1988B, David L. Reinertsen, May 21, 1988, Department of Energy and Mineral Resources, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, Illinois. Accessed Online January 2014. https://www.ideals.illinoi s.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/42848/guidetogeolo1988rein.pdf?sequence=2

Hlinka et al., (1999): Ground

- Water/Surface Water Interactions at Sand Lake, Mason County, Illinois, Kenneth J. Hlinka, Andrew G. Buck, and Gary R. Clark, Illinois State Water Survey a nd Office of Water Resources, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, March 1999. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.isws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP

- 187.pdf



### PTa06. Dynegy Midwest ( formerly: Illinois Power Co.) Havana Power Plant, 83 

### Havana, Mason County, Illinois

Type : Surface Impoundments.



### Background and Description: The Havana Power Station 84 (HPS) is located in the town of Havana in central Illinois, on the east bank of the Illino is River. There are a total of three CCR management units at

83 Note that the current spelling differs from Havanna , the version employed in EPA (2007).

84 According to http://www.sourcewat ch.org/index.php/Havana_Power_Station , the Station’s generating capacity is 488 MW. There is only one coal

- fueled operating generating unit (Unit 6), which came online in 1978; oil

- fueled Units 1

- 5, commissioned in 1958, are currently mothballed/out of op eration. According to Dynegy’s website, the Station’s generating capacity is 441 MW ( http://www.dynegy.com/about_dynegy/power_generation_facilities.asp ). Early on, coal arri ved by barge from Illinois’ coal basin. As clean air legislation tightened emissions controls, HPS switched to low

- sulfur Kentucky coal and Powder River Basin’s Wyoming coal.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

24 the Havana Power Plant: (i) the active, lined 85 East Ash Pond System, (90 acres), which consists of four cells. The individual cells came on line in 1990, 1997 (two) and 2003; 86 (ii) the unlined, n o longer active,
two

- cell North Ash Pond System (5.6 acres), which was in service between 1947 and 1994; 87 and (iii) the closed, unlined (30

- acres) South Ash Pond System, which during its operation period of 1977 to 1994 was the main CCR management system; it received fly ash, bottom ash, and overflows from the North Ash Pond

. 88

, 89

http://peoriastation.blogpeoria.com/2011/06/07/rail

- users

- series

- illinois

- midland

- part

- i/ . This coal has a typical average sulfur content of 0.7 percent and an average ash content of 8 to 10 percent (EPRI, 1999, HA Case Study). Acc ording to http://www2.ildceo.net/coal/Coal%20Industry%202011.pdf , Table 5, this switch took place prior to 1990. For the March 7, 2005 US District Court for the Southern District of Ill inois Consent Order between the US, State of Illinois and a coalition of citizens groups and Dynegy Midwest Generation, requiring upgrades to all Dynegy’s plants, in addition to stringent reductions in overall pollution rates; see Illinois Power Company an d Dynegy Midwest Generation Settlement: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/illinois

- power

- company

- and

- dynegy

- midwest

- generation

- settlement ; and Co nsent Decree: United States of America, et al. v. Illinois Power Company, et al., Civil Action No. 99

- 833

- MJR http://www2 .epa.gov/enforcement/consent

- decree

- united

- states

- america

- et

- al

- v

- illinois

- power

- company

- et

- al

- civil

action

. 85 According to Dewberry and Davis (2009, Appendix C), the liner consists of clay and a geomembrane.

86 Havana Power Station (2009). However, accord ing to EPRI (2000), the first two ponds (Main and Secondary) of the East Pond System, which occupy about 30

- acres, were put into service late in 1993. Their berms and bottom are lined with four feet of compacted clay. In the mid

- 1990s, they received annual ly about 52,000 cubic yards of fly ash and 13,000 cubic yards of bottom ash. The East Pond System discharged into the Illinois River under an NPDES permit.

87 According to Dewberry and Davis (ibid, Appendix C), this pond system receives only coal pile runof f. EPRI (2000) concurs that this system received no solid fraction, but claims that it also received other types of low

- volume waste (e.g., boiler blowdown and wastewater discharge).
88 Dewberry & Davis (2009) and EPRI (2010). According to EPRI (2000, narr ative and Fig. 2

- 1), this system was located about 0.5 mile south of the HPS, just south of the Plant’s current coal pile, west of Rte. 78 and east of the railroad tracks. The South Ash Pond System consisted of three ponds (Main, Secondary, and Final), and operated between 1978 and December 1993. This co

- management (low

- volume and high

- volume CCRs) waste unit received fly ash, bottom ash, coal mill rejects, cooling tower blowdown, dredged soils, and other low

- volume wastes from the North Basin. Coal mill re jects did not contain visible pyrites and they had no detectable effect on pore

- water concentrations. According to EPRI (2001), cooling tower blowdown was used to sluice fly ash, bottom ash, and low

volume wastes to the Main Pond, where most of the solid b y

- products settled. A secondary pond received decant water from the primary pond, and a final pond received decant water from the secondary pond (EPRI, 2001, Fig. 2

- 1). Water exiting the final pond discharged to the river via an NPDES permitted discharge. The facility was closed in December 1993, gravity

- drained, and capped with 3

- 4 feet of silty sand in 1994. The South Ash Impoundment has been the subject of several investigations conducted by EPRI and
contractors.
89 The current operational procedures at the HPS are as follows:

 Fly ash is transported dry to East Ash Pond System Cell 3, where it is wetted and discharged into Cell 3;

 Boiler ash is wetted at the plant and pumped to East Ash Pond System Cell 3.

 Coal pile runoff is directed to the North Ash Po nd System. Decant water is then pumped to East Ash Pond System Cell 2. The North Ash Pond System is permitted to receive Coal Combustion Waste, but under current operation practices, this would only occur if discharge could not be made into the East Ash Po nd System.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

25 Groundwater flow is toward the Illinois River, which is immediately adjacent to the impoundment. The HPS is located in an area with Quaternary fluvioglacial deposits, 90 with a high potential for aquifer recharge. 91

According to EPRI (2000), 92 the HPS overlies fine

- to coarse

- textured sand and gravel with estimated thickness of 80 to 90 feet, constituting an unconfined aquifer. Small, thin pockets of silty clay were encountered near the land surface or beneath the ash in some borings; however, there is no evidence that these fine

- grained units are continuous or cover a significant area. In general, the upper 15 to 20 feet of the sand and gravel unit consist of well

- sorted fine

- to med ium

- grained dune sand. Below the dune sand is fine to coarse sand and gravel glacial outwash. 93

The South Ash Impoundment is situated 1,000 feet from the river on a terrace that is 20 feet higher than normal river stage. 94 Depth to groundwater at the South Ash Impoundment varies from around 12 feet near the river to more than 44 feet upgradient of the impoundment. 95 Groundwater flow is west toward the river (EPRI, 2000, Fig. 5

- 2). Hydraulic conductivities at the South Ash Impoundment average 2 x 10

- 2 cm/sec in the shallow portion of the aquifer (dune deposits) and 9 x 10

- 2 cm/sec in deeper portions of the aquifer (outwash deposits). Using an average hydraulic gradient of 4.6 x 10

- 3 m/m and an estimated porosity of 0.33, groundwater velocities range from 290 t o 1,300 feet/year. 96

A conceptualization of the groundwater flow system is illustrated in Fig. 5

- 3, EPRI (2000). Leachate from the impoundment migrates downward through the unsaturated sand underlying the ash until reaching the saturated sand. Once in the saturated sand, it migrates westward toward the river. The volume of leachate flowing from the closed impoundment is considerably lower than the volume flowing when the impoundment was active and is also much lower than the volume of groundwater underflowi ng the impoundment.

90 According to Hlinka et al., (1999, page 11) and Reinstern (1988), the sand

- and

- gravel deposits were deposited by glaciofluvial and eolian processes. Glaciofluvial materials were deposited by meltwater that discharged along the front of the ice sheets during the Kansan, Illinoisan, and Wisconsinan Stages of the Pleistocene Series. These materials were subsequently reworked by prevailing winds to form the small sand dunes. The Kankakee Flood associated with the meltdown of the Valparaiso ice she et generated much of the glaciofluvial sequence.
91 IEPA (2011).
92 The hydrogeology data and conclusions in the following are based on boring logs and groundwater samples obtained from twenty monitoring wells at the South Ash Impoundment (EPRI, 2000, Fig. 5

- 1). Water quality and hydrogeologic data were obtained while the impoundment was active during the 1993 closure study, and post

closure water quality data were obtained during EPRI’s (2000) CCR co

- management study.

93 According to EPRI (1999, Case Study HA ), the highly permeable sand and gravel deposits are underlain by relatively impermeable limestone and shale bedrock at a depth of about 64 feet.
94 EPRI (2001).
95 For a cross

- section of the South Ash Pond and its geohydrologic setting, see EPRI, 2001, Fig. 2

- 2.

96 According to EPRI (1999, Case Study HA), the estimated seepage velocity of the sand and gravel formation is about 440 feet/year in the upper portion of the formation and about 2,000 feet/year in the deeper portion of the formation.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

26 EPRI (2010) claims there are no human receptors between the impoundment and the river. Recently, a coalition of citizens groups petitioned the Illinois Pollution Control Board concerning Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s (IEPA ) decision to grant an NPDES permit to the HPS. 97

, 98



### Impact: Pre

- closure groundwater quality for up

- gradient and down

- gradient wells of the Southern Ash Impoundment is summarized in EPRI (2000, Table 5

- 1). 99 At the pre

- closure phase of the Southern Ash Imp oundment, median down

- gradient concentrations of boron, chloride, manganese, potassium, sodium, and sulfate were a factor of two

- or

- more higher than up

- gradient concentrations. Boron and sulfate concentrations (boron: up to 3.8 mg/L and sulfate: up to 290 mg/L) mapped during the closure study indicated a plume extending from the central portion of the main pond toward the north and northwest (August 1993 data, from EPRI, 2000, Figs. 5

- 4 and 5

- 5). 100 Following the dewatering of the impoundment, the sulfate and boron concentrations in the down

- gradient wells decreased, and boron and sulfate concentrations have become similar to background concentrations. 101

97 IEPA (2011a) . A modified NPDES Permit to Discharge into Waters of the State was issued on September 14, 2012, includes monitoring semi

- annually for 21 parameters, including toxic metals: NPDES Permit No. IL0001571, Reissued NPDES Permit, Illinois Environmental Protect ion Agency, Division of Water Pollution Control: http://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/2011/dynegy

- havana/final

- permit.pdf

. 98 On October 18, 2012, petition by several advocacy groups: Before the Illinois Pollution Control Board, Natural Resources Defense Council, Prairie Rivers Network, and Sierra Club, Petitioners, v. I llinois Environmental Protection Agency and Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., PCB 12

- Appeal from IEPA Decision Granting NPDES Permit: http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/10/Havana

- NPDES

- appeal

- 1.pdf . The petitioners claim that Dynegy failed to adequately address in its Permit application, and IEPA failed to adequately consider, the elements of anti

- degradation analysis required in 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 302.105 to demonstrate any necessity of increased loading of pollutants to the Illinois Rive r due to increased discharge of waste from the East Ash Pond in connection with new air pollution control equipment that Dynegy plans to install, namely, a spray dryer absorber (SDA) scrubber system, that would generate an estimated stream of 25,000 tons o f residue annually; and an activated carbon injection (ACI) system, which would generate an estimated stream of up to 2.6 tons of activated carbon per day, including up to 0.6 pounds of mercury per day. Moreover, in July 2010, Dynegy submitted anti

- degrada tion analysis to IEPA for, inter alia , increased discharges associated with the SDA and ACI. With respect to mercury from the ACI waste, the anti

- degradation analysis relied solely on a study by EPRI, an organization representing industry, which had conclu ded that such contaminants were “unlikely” to be discharged at “levels of environmental concern.” Dynegy did not submit, and IEPA did not perform, analysis to determine the best available technology (BAT) for control of either SDA or ACI waste streams. Fin ally, according to USEPA analysis, CCR impoundments (such as the East Ash Pond) are not the most effective alternative for addressing pollution control equipment residue, and are not likely to represent BAT for scrubber wastewater. According to Dynegy’s Ja n. 1

- Sept. 30, 2013, Securities report, Note 13

— Commitments and Contingencies, the permit appeal remains pending: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1379895/000137 989513000023/R20.htm

. 99 Groundwater data were generated at the HPS as part of the 1993 closure study for the South Ash Impoundment. During the closure study, twenty monitoring wells were monitored up

- gradient, intermediate, and down

- gradient of the impoun dment (intermediate wells are located on sand berms within the ash impoundment). Multiple rounds of groundwater samples were collected on a monthly to quarterly basis beginning in June 1993. For the purposes of this comparison, the intermediate wells were grouped with the down

- gradient wells. For list of wells and the measured parameters, see Table 2

- 2 in EPRI, 2001.
100 According to EPRI (2000), in 1993, while the Southern Impoundment was active, the major cation balance in down

- gradient groundwater was simi lar to pond water rather than pore

- water or background groundwater, indicating the influence of seepage from the active impoundment on groundwater quality. That influence dissipated after the impoundment closed. The 2:8 chloride to sulfate ratio for down

- g radient groundwater in 1993 (pre

- closure) and 1997 (post

- closure) is similar to the pore

- water ratio, indicating that anion chemistry in down

- gradient groundwater was influenced by pore

- water while the impoundment was active, and continued to be influenced by pore

- water after the impoundment was closed.

101 EPRI, 1999, Case Study HA, Table 3

- 4.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

27 According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site between 1997 and 1999 showed levels of manganese down

- gradient of the south ash impoundment in excess of the secondary MCL. 102 The data also show levels of sulfate down

- gradient of the east ash impoundment greater than up

- gradient levels, but within the secondary MCL. EPRI (2010) claims that the source of mang anese is largely due to naturally occurring reducing conditions, as documented in EPRI (2002). 103 The state recognized this in its decision to authorize discontinuation of groundwater monitoring at this facility.



### Resolution : According to EPRI (2010), a Cons ent Order was issued in 1989 by IEPA due to groundwater impacts. The leaking South Ash Pond was removed from service in December 1993 and capped with native soils in 1994. 104 In the post

- closure phase (February, 1997), groundwater generally had low concentra tions of dissolved solids. The concentration of the primary ash indicator parameters, boron and sulfate, at the unlined HPS South Ash Pond decreased by 91 percent and 56 percent respectively in the seven years since the impoundment was removed from service , dewatered, and capped with native sandy soils. In 2001, concentrations of both indicators were lower than state water quality standards. 105

Concentrations of most trace elements, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and silver were below detection limits (EPRI, 2000, Table 5

- 1). Nitrate was the only analyte with concentration exceeding a Federal MCL, and its relatively high concentration in both up

- gradient and down

- gradient groundwater indicated that it was due to an up

- gradient so urce. The area up

- gradient of the impoundment is agricultural. Manganese was the only constituent exceeding a Federal SMCL; however, concentrations in the low

- volume waste samples were lower than in groundwater and lower than the SMCL, suggesting that the low

- volume wastes were not the source. Furthermore, considering that manganese exceeded the SMCL at wells within (MW

- 17) and outside (MW

- 03) the area of the post

closure and historic ash leachate plume, it is inferred that natural causes contributed to its release in groundwater.

As concentrations of boron and sulfate decreased after this unit was dewatered and capped, groundwater monitoring for the south pond has been discontinued in 2009, and at the same year the site was officially closed by the State. IEPA states 106 that the site had an approved Groundwater monitoring Zone (GMZ), however groundwater at this site has returned to compliance with the State’s groundwater standards.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site, manganese and sulfate, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 107

102 According to Cherry et al., (2000), manganese, at 0.54 mg/L, was 11 times above the SMCL limit.

103 EPRI (2002) stated: < The Havana site had six intermediate or downgr adient monitoring wells with manganese concentrations attributed to the impoundment. Manganese concentration was decreasing in all of these wells, coincident with decreasing boron and sulfate concentrations, due to impoundment closure in 1993.> Note, howev er, that the congruent behavior of manganese with boron and sulfate following the closure of the Southern Impoundment, two CCR ‘finger

- print’ constituents, may testify to the manganese actually being associated with CCR leachate.

104 According to EPRI (1999, Case Study HA), the pond was dewatered under natural gradient (i.e., no pumping of pond water).

105 EPRI (2001). The highest residual boron and sulfate concentrations at down

- gradient well 17 decreased to 1.2 mg/L and 71 mg/L, respectively. These decreases were similar to decreases predicted by groundwater modeling that was performed prior to closure, which predicted negligible difference between compacted clay and native soil caps and indicated that dewatering would have more significant effects on post

- clo sure groundwater quality improvement than the type of cap.
106 IEPA (2011).

107 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

28 

### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #49 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Denni s Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/# !documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

EPRI (2000): Field Evaluation of the Comanagement of Utility Low

- Volume Wastes with High

- Volume Coal Combustion By

- Products: HA Site. 1000720, Final Report, October 2000. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?k=Comanagement%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20B
y

- Products%20and%20Low

- Volume%20Wastes:%20A%20Midwestern%20Site

EPRI (2002): Manganese Occurrence near Three Coal Ash Impoundments in Illinois, Hensel, B., Lee, L.S , P. Burns, I. Murarka. 1005257, Final Report, September 2002. Cosponsor Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001005257&Mode=do wnload

EPRI (2001): Evaluation and Modeling of Cap Alternatives at Three Unlined Coal Ash Impoundments, EPRI 1005165. Final Report, September 2001. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId= 000000000001005165&Mode=do wnload

EPRI (1999): Guide for Comanagement of Mill Rejects at Coal

- Fired Power Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and USWAG, Washington DC, June 1999. TR

- 108994. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/Produc tAbstract.aspx?ProductId=TR

- 108994 &Mode=download

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

IEPA (2011): IEPA’s Ash Impoundments S trategy Progress Report, October 2011. A ccessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/documents/ash

- impoundment

- pro gress

- 102511.pdf

Havana Power Station (2009): Response to Request for Information under CERCLA Section 104(e), March 27, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/dynegy

- havana.pdf

Dewberry & Davis (2009): Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Dam Assessment Report, Site 18,IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

29 Havana Power Plant, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., Havana, Illinois, Projec t # 0

- 381, Dewberry & Davis LLC, June 2009, Revised Final September 11, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special /fossil/surveys2/havana

- final.pdf and (Appendices): http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/havana

- app.pdf

IEPA (2011a): Dynegy Midwe st Generation, Inc. Havana Power Station, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Responsiveness Summary Regarding November 8, 2011 Public Hearing, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Community Relations, September 1 4, 2012. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/2011/dynegy

- havana/responsiveness

- summary.pdf

Reinertsen (1988): A Gui de to the Geology of the Canton Area, Fulton County, Geological Science Field Trip, Field Trip 1988B, David L. Reinertsen, May 21, 1988, Department of Energy and Mineral Resources, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, Illinois. Accessed Online Janu ary 2014. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/42848/guidetogeolo1988rein.pdf?sequence=2

Hlinka et al., (1999): Ground

- Water/S urface Water Interactions at Sand Lake, Mason County, Illinois, Kenneth J. Hlinka, Andrew G. Buck, and Gary R. Clark, Illinois State Water Survey and Office of Water Resources, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, March 1999. Accessed Online January 2 014. http://www.isws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP

- 187.pdf



### PTa07. Dynegy Midwest (formerly: Illinois Power Co.) Hennepin Power Station, 108 

### Hennepin, Putnam County, Illinois

Type: Surface Impou ndments, Some in a Pre

- Existing Gravel Pit.



### Background and Description: The Hennepin Power Station (HPS) is located about 4 miles north of Hennepin, on the south bank of the Illinois River. 109 The HPS has two unlined, no longer active coal ash impoundment s ystems: a 30

- acre west impoundment (WAPS) operated from 1952, and a 38

- acre east ash

108 According to Hennepin Power Station Ash Pond System : http://www.sourcewatc h.org/index.php/Hennepin_Power_Station_Ash_Pond_System , the Station’s generating capacity is 306 MW. There are two generating units (75 MW and 231 MW) that came online in 1953 and 1959, respectively. According to Dynegy’s website, the generating capacity of this base

- load plant is 293 MW ( Hennepin Power Station: http://www.dynegy.com/about/power

- generation

- facilities ). It used barge

- delivered bituminous and sub

- bituminous coal from th e Illinois Basin coal fields, with an average sulfur content is 2.9 percent (EPRI, 1999, Case Study HN). According to EPRI (1999), the coal source has changed several times; it is currently Power River Basin coal (Dynegy Generation, 2014). For the March 7, 2005 US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Consent Order between the US, State of Illinois and a coalition of citizens groups and Dynegy Midwest Generation, requiring upgrades to all Dynegy’s plants, in addition to stringent reductions i n overall pollution rates; see Illinois Power Company and Dynegy Midwest Generation Settlement: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/illinois

- power

- c ompany

- and

- dynegy

- midwest

- generation

- settlement ; and Consent Decree: United States of America, et al. v. Illinois Power Company, et al., Civil Action No. 99

- 833

- MJR http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/consent

- decree

- united

- states

- america

- et

- al

- v

- illinois

- power

- company

- et

- al

- civil

action

. 109 State Rte. 71 W, Hennepin, IL 61327.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

30 impoundment (EAPS) operated from 1958, both decommissioned in 1997. 110 There is also, a new, two

cell, 20.5

- acres lined ash pond that came into service in 1997. 111

110 According to GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012), there ar e two decommissioned impoundments areas at the HPS: (1) East Ash Pond System Ponds 2 and 4 (EAPS) which are located adjacent to the Active East Ash Pond System (AEAPS) and have been taken out of service in 1995 (but according to EPRI, 1999

– either late in 1996 or in January 1997). Pond 4 was a former, approximately 30 feet deep gravel quarry excavated in the early 1980s (EPRI, 2001), that was used for ash disposal in the mid

- 1980s. (2) West Ash Pond System Ponds 1 and 3 (WAPS), located west of the HPS, and which according to Dynegy Generation (2014), received sluiced coal ash that was a by

- product of high

- sulfur Illinois coal (apparently, so did the EAPS ponds). Between 1988 and 1989, Ponds 1 and 3 were consolidated and divided into primary and secondary ce lls. Pond 1 and 3 have been out of service since 1997. The original WAPS (Ponds 1 and 3) was constructed in the 1950’s. The ponds appear to have been constructed as unlined earthen embankments which consist of sand and gravel materials. The HPS CCR disposa l system and its groundwater impacts is one of the best studied coal

- fired management systems in the U.S. thanks to several EPRI and contractor studies conducted at the site between 1996 and 2014.

111 According to GZA GeoEnvironmental (ibid), the current HPS operations use the Active East Ash Pond (AEAPS) for disposal of CCR. The AEAPS consists of three pond units. The first two units, known as the Primary and Secondary Cells, were designed as two

- chambered wet ash ponds by reshaping an area that was an exist ing gravel pit to form the current surface impoundment. They were placed in service in 1997. After several years of operation, the Primary Cell’s settling efficiency was reduced due to ash deposition and a third pond, Pond 2 East (2E) was added in 2010. Th e original Composite (clay/HDPE) AEPS liner was raised in 2003 in both the Primary and Secondary Cells by extending the existing liner up the upstream slopes from the original 20 foot level an additional 12 feet to the top of the crest. The extended liner consists of 45

- mil HDPE geomembrane over a 12

- inch layer of compacted clay. Pond 2E was constructed within the footprint of the eastern portion of the decommissioned Pond 2 of the EAPS, by excavating and removing a portion of the ash fill. Pond 2E was des igned to increase the efficiency of the existing pond system by adding additional storage and settling capacity; it is also designated to provide sediment control, storm flow storage, and leachate detention to the dry ash landfill that was constructed on t he western portion of the Pond 2 area of the EAPS. A 60

- mil smooth HDPE geomembrane liner was installed on the bottom and upstream slopes of Pond 2E. The liner also caps the underlying ash along the eastern portion of the former ash impoundment. The landfi ll has been constructed with a liner placed on the existing ash fill that was subsequently covered with several feet of ash during construction of Pond 2E.

The AEAPS Primary and Secondary Cells function as sedimentation basins for CCR, including bottom as h, fly ash, miscellaneous station low volume waste, and coal pile runoff streams which are piped from the plant. CCR flows are discharged directly from the Primary Cell into Pond 2E along with surface water runoff from (the now inactive) EAPS Pond 2. Flow is routed from the Primary Cell through Pond 2E and into the Secondary Pond before discharging to the Illinois River through the system outlet works. For the location of all waste units and associated monitoring wells, see GZA GeoEnvironmental (ibid), Figs . 2, 6, and 10, and Dynegy Generation (ibid), Figures on virtual pages 53

- 54. According to Dynegy’s Securities report for the nine months period ending September 30, 2013, in July 2013, in response to the final EPA dam safety assessment report concerning Hennepin, Dynegy notified the EPA of its intent to close the Hennepin west ash pond system. See Note 13

— Commitments and Contingencies: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edga r/data/1379895/000137989513000023/R20.htm

. According to Hennepin Power Station (2009), discharge to the Illinois River is regulated under NPDES Permit No. IL0001554 ( NPDES Permit No. IL0001554, Public Notice issued July 21, 2010: http://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/2010/dynegy

- hennepin/index.pdf ). The proposed permit calls for monitoring of up to six parameters (pH, TSS, oil/grease, residual chlorine, iron, and m ercury), disregarding most toxic metals. The Illinois River was formerly (2006) listed as impaired for fish consumption and primary contact uses on the Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List. The potential causes of impairment

wer e given as mercury and PCBs for the fish consumption use and fecal coliform bacteria. The draft 2008 List is the same except that the primary contact use impairment and fecal coliform cause has been removed. For the general nexus between power plant mercur y emissions and fish mercury levels in Illinois (Muller, 2006).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

31 The HPS is located in an area with fluvioglacial deposits, 112 with a high potential for aquifer recharge. 113 The EAPS ponds are located on a sand and gravel terrace above the river. 114 Near the river, alluvial formations

- up to 130 ft thick on the upper terrace

- occur c onsisting of silts and clays. The formation is highly permeable, with a hydraulic conductivity of about 0.01 cm/sec to 0.1 cm/sec. Because of the steep gradient from the pond, the groundwater seepage velocities are high, between 100 and 1,000 feet/year. 115 T he flow direction at the time of the 1993 monitoring was toward the river, except that a mounded flow system existed beneath the pond (EPRI, 1999, Case Study HN, narrative and Fig. 3

- 3).

The eastern half of the WAPS is on a terrace about 15 feet higher t han normal river stage. The terrace overlies an old river channel, subsequently filled with fine

- grained and organic channel deposits, which overlies the aquifer (EPRI, 2001, Fig. 4

- 2). The western half of the WAPS are on lowlands that are about 5 to 10 fe et higher than normal river stage, and is bordered to the southwest and west by a swampy

area. 116 De pth to groundwater varies from less than 5 feet in the lowlands south and west of the impoundment to 15 to 20 feet in wells on the impoundment berm and in upl and wells.

The Pennsylvanian

- age Carbondale Formation defines the base of the unlithified deposits (and uppermost aquifer) underlying the WAPS and is regarded as the first confining unit beneath the uppermost aquifer. Water well logs at the HPS indicate shale bedrock at an elevation of roughly 350 feet ASL. In the vicinity of the HPS the Pennsylvanian rocks have an estimated thickness of about 300 to 400 feet. The Pennsylvanian rocks of this area contain little or no usable water and are seldom considered for even domestic water supply purposes due to generally low effective porosity and hydraulic conductivity

Based on the Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) Title 35, Section 620.210, groundwater within the Upper Groundwater Unit at the WAPS meets the defi nition of a Class I, Potable Resource Groundwater. EPRI (2010) claims that there are no human receptors between the impoundments and the river. 117

112 According to Hlinka et al., (1999, page 11) and Reinstern (1988), the glaciofluvial materials were deposited by meltwater that discharged along the front of the ice sheets during the Kansan, Illinoisan, and Wisconsinan Stages of the Pleistocene Series. These materials were subsequently reworked by prevailing winds to form the small sand dunes. The Kankakee Flood associated with the meltdown of the Valparaiso ice sheet during the Wisconsin

- St age glaciation generated much of the glaciofluvial sequence. For location of the HPS with respect to the end moraines of the Wisconsin Glacial Episode, see Dynegy Generation (ibid), Fig. 8.
113 Illinois EPA (2011).

114 EPRI (2001), Fig. 3

- 2.
115 Dynegy Generatio n (ibid) presents lower hydraulic conductivity values; in conjunction with the hydraulic gradients observed in 2013, the calculated velocities away from the WAPS impoundment range from 0.1 to 1.1 feet/day (37 to 401 feet/year). For the EAPS, EPRI (2001) st ates that the ‘Geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer is 1.7 x 10

- 1 cm/sec. Gradients near the EAPS impoundment range from 0.003 to 0.0008. Assuming an effective porosity of 0.2, groundwater velocities range from 700 to 2,600 feet/year.’

116 Th e low

- lying Donnelley Wildlife Management Area is administered by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), where ponds are maintained for migratory waterfowl.

117 A comprehensive water well survey was conducted for a 2,500

- foot radius around the entire HPS property boundary, inclusive of the WAPS. Based on State of Illinois records there are only two wells located outside of the HPS property boundary and within 2,500 feet of the WAPS. Neither of the two wells, which according to State of Illinois records were constructed in 1844 and 1922 to depths of 30 and 17 feet BLS, respectively, have been verified and were most likely abandoned decades ago. There are no homes, farms or other potential users present at the two locations. There are also no publi c water supply (PWS), community water supply (CWS) or non

- CWS wells or wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) within 2,500 feet of the WAPS. The closest PWS, CWS, or non

- CWS well is a

non

- CWS well owned by Washington Mills and located approximately 4,350 feet e ast

- southeast of the WAPS. Within the HPS property boundary, and within 2,500 feet of the WAPS, there are four wells owned by Dynegy, all of which are non

- potable and non

- contact industrial wells. One well is used exclusively for irrigation of the coal pil e (Dynegy Generation, ibid).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

32 Groundwater monitoring at AEAPS comprises 15 monitoring wells. The Primary and Secondary AEAPS Cells are monit ored by six groundwater monitoring wells. 118 A groundwater mound existed beneath the impoundment while it was in service; however, that mound has mostly dissipated since the impoundment was removed from service, and groundwater flow is primarily toward the I llinois River at a velocity greater than 100 feet/year. 119

Groundwater monitoring at the WAPS comprises 14 groundwater monitoring wells and two actively sampled leachate monitoring wells (EPRI, 2000, Fig. 2

- 5, and GZA Geoenvironmental, ibid, Figs. 6 and 10 ). 120 Groundwater flow while the WAPS impoundment was active was radial from a mound that existed beneath Pond 3. As of 2000, based on evidence at wells PZ

- 23 and MW

- 35, that mound still persisted although in a reduced level (EPRI 2001, Fig. 4

- 3). There appe ared to be a pronounced gradient toward the southwest, towards the Donnelley Wildlife Management Area, where surface water elevations are managed. Wells PZ

- 32 and PZ

- 33 are in this area and are therefore down

- gradient of the impoundment; however, in 2001 a sh indicator parameter concentrations in these wells were

– and still are

- low, probably because it was discharging to the Donnelley Area wetlands between the impoundment and these wells. 121 Therefore, PZ

- 32 and PZ

- 33 were referred to in that study as ‘back ground wells.’ 122



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data (1997

– 1999) showed levels of sulfate and total dissolved solids in down

- gradient wells in excess of their SMCLs. According to Cherry et al., (2000) and Table 2

- 3 in EPRI (2002), groundwate r beneath and down

- gradient from the west impoundment has relatively high concentrations of ash indicator parameters such as boron and sulfate, and also has high concentrations of manganese in some locations. 123 Until recently, there were no monitoring data for metals at this site.

118 Numbered 12 through 16. For monitoring well locations, see GZA Geoenvironmental (ibid), Figs. 6 and 10.
119 EPRI (2002). According to Dynegy Generation (ibid), the base

- flood (i.e., 100

- year flood) elevation value of 462 feet i s located through the center of the WAPS’s Pond 3. As of 2013, the groundwater table beneath the WAPS was very flat, although slight radial flow may persist (There, Figs. 12 through 15). In addition to flow towards the Illinois River there is a gradient to wards the southwest and west. River stage during high precipitation and/or flood events seasonally rises above adjacent groundwater elevations and in low lying areas of the floodplain. During these events, the river temporarily recharges the aquifer and gr oundwater flow direction close to the river reverses. The groundwater flow reversals are limited in duration and extent, but do affect groundwater quality in some wells at the WAPS and off

- site on the Donnelley Wildlife Management Area.
120 The wells, number ed 21 through 27, 31 through 36, and L1 and L4 (the ‘L’ wells, designated for leachate collection, are finished in silty materials underlying the ash ) are monitored quarterly and as a condition of the 1996 IEPA

- approved Closure Work Plan (CWP) for the WAPS

. 121 EPRI (2001) speculated that the low concentrations of ash indicator parameter in wells PZ

- 32 and PZ

- 33 might reflect yet another possibility

- that the boron and sulfate plume has not yet migrated that far from Pond 3. However, considering the estimate d flow rate away from the WAPS, by now the plume should have migrated at least as far as well 33, which is located about 1,000 feet west of the western berm of the Secondary Pond, formerly Pond No. 3.
122 A similar behavior of these two wells (as well as of well 34) was still observed thirteen years later, in the Dynegy Generation (2014) study. Consequently, the same practice

- of addressing the down

- gradient wells No. 32, 33, and 34 as ‘background wells’ was similarly applied by the authors of the recent st udy.

123 According to Cherry et al., (2000), exceedances involved the same three constituents in wells situated down

gradient from both the east and west impoundments. The exceedances associated with the east impoundment were sulfate (460 mg/L), TDS (950 mg/ L) and boron (14 mg/L); the exceedances associated with the west pond were sulfate (700 mg/L), TDS (1,200 mg/L), and boron (11 mg/L). According to EPRI (1999, HN Case Study), groundwater monitoring was carried out by the utility at the east pond both befo re its closure in 1996 and subsequent to the closure in 1997 and 1998. Groundwater samples from sixteen wells were analyzed for alkalinity, total dissolved solids, boron, calcium, chloride, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, and sulfate beginni ng in November 1994. A comparison of upgradient and downgradient concentrations showed that boron, chloride, sodium, sulfate, and total dissolved solids levels were elevated in the downgradient wells (There, Table 3

- 5) before the closure of the pond. Monit oring data postdating theIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

33 Groundwater down

- gradient of EAPS Ponds 2 and 4 prior to 1997, when Pond 2 was still active and before the new lined ponds were in service had higher average concentrations of boron, chloride, potassium, sodium, specific conductiv ity, sulfate, and TDS than up

- gradient groundwater (EPRI, 2001, Table 3

- 3). Sulfate and boron exceeded state groundwater standards. Sulfate slightly exceeded the standard at least once at eight wells, with concentrations of up to 600 mg/L. Boron consistent ly exceeded the standard. 124 The high boron concentrations at MW

- 08 and MW

- 16 suggested that the mounding beneath Pond 2 reversed groundwater flow as far south as those wells. Boron and sulfate concentrations were highest in monitoring wells toward the easte rn end of Pond 2 (EPRI, 2001, Figs. 3

- 4 and 3

- 5), where water accumulated and leachate flux was highest.

Several years following the abandonment of WAPS Pond No. 3, boron, iron, manganese, sulfate, and TDS in groundwater down

- gradient of the pond exceeded state groundwater standards (EPRI, 2001, Table 4

- 4). 125 Boron consistently exceeded the standard at all four downgradient wells and three of the five intermediate wells. Boron and sulfate concentrations were highest in down

- gradient monitoring wells between the impoundment and the river (EPRI, 2001, Figs. 4

- 4 and 4

- 5). In addition, a plume of elevated boron and sulfate concentrations extended southwest from the impoundment toward monitoring well PZ

27. 126 TDS exceeded the standard once at PZ

- 23. Iron and manga nese exceeded the standard in wells finished beneath the organic river channel fill sediments; however, the exceedances did not correlate with proximity to the impoundment, indicating that these exceedances are naturally occurring.

EPRI (2002) reports thr ee wells with elevated manganese attributed to the impoundment at the HPS site. Similar to the case at Havana, EPRI (2002) claims that high manganese concentrations do not always correlate with high ash indicator parameter concentrations. Manganese concent rations are high in several down

- gradient monitoring wells, but are also high in two ‘background’ monitoring wells (wells 32 and 34). All of the monitoring wells with high manganese concentration are screened beneath silty, organic

rich, channel

- fill depos its (EPRI 2002, Fig. 2

- 6). EPRI (2002) claims that it is likely that manganese concentrations in these three wells are due primarily to reductive dissolution of manganese oxides and oxyhydroxides in the overlying soils. Reducing conditions that trigger rel ease of manganese are associated with the close proximity of the facilities to river and wetland sediments containing organic

- rich

closure (1997 and 1998) show that only boron and sulfate in some wells exceeded the state standards of 2 mg/l and 400 mg/l, respectively (There, Fig. 3

- 4). Both iron and sulfate concentrations were low, indicating that leaching wa s dominated by dissolution of ash and that pyrite oxidation was not occurring.

124 According to Table 3

- 3 in EPRI (2001), the median concentration of boron in down

- gradient wells was 11 mg/L (maximum: 22 mg/L), as compared to an up

- gradient median concentrat ion of 0.16 mg/L.

125 According to Table 4

- 4 in EPRI (2001), the median concentration of boron in down

- gradient wells was 4.6 mg/L (maximum: 10 mg/L), as compared to an up

- gradient median concentration of 0.070 mg/L. Sulfate exceeded the standard at least on ce in four wells. According to Table 4

- 4 in EPRI (2001), the median concentration of sulfate in down

- gradient wells was 215 mg/L (maximum: 600 mg/L), as compared to an up

- gradient median concentration of 50 mg/L.

126 At the southwestern edge of the property.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

34 soil, or to the depth that some wells were finished in the aquifer. 127 The same low

- oxidation potential is invoked also to expl ain instances of elevated iron. 128

WAPS well data from the most recent year of monitoring (Second Quarter of 2013 through First Quarter of 2014) indicate that parameters derived from CCR that exceeded the State standards are boron and sulfate. 129 Arsenic and selenium in down

- gradient wells may be related to CCRs, but arsenic also occurs in a background well 130 and selenium was observed only one time at one well. Other parameters that exceeded State standards are iron, lead, manganese, and nitrate. However, thes e exceedances were all in ‘background’ and/or south monitoring wells, leading Dynegy Generation (ibid) to conclude that they are not related to CCRs. 131



### Resolution: According to EPRI (2010), Dynegy entered into a consent order with the Illinois Environment al Protection Agency in 1989 as a result of groundwater quality exceedances. The consent order was released when a closure work plan was submitted and Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ)

127 EPRI (2002) claims that: (i) Manganese concentrations in Hennepin wells 32, 33, and 34, which are outside of the boron/sulfate plume, are naturally occurring. All three wells are finished in and around wetlands, and beneath an organic

- rich channel

- fill deposit. Microbially

- induced reductive dissolution of naturally occurring manganese is likely under these conditions. (ii) The low manganese concentrations observed at Hennepin well 22 and at the Hennepin east impoundment, where the channel

- fill deposits a re absent, most likely reflect the high pH (values generally greater than 8), which results in manganese precipitation even when reducing conditions are present. (iii) Hennepin wells 21 and 24 have strongly reducing conditions, and manganese concentrations at these two wells are hypothesized to be primarily from natural processes; and (iv) Groundwater at Hennepin wells 23, 27, and 35 is less reducing than at wells 21 and 24, yet manganese concentrations are higher. Therefore, some of the manganese observed in wells 23, 27, and 35 is likely associated with migration of ash leachate from the impoundment. However, it is also likely, based on their placement beneath the organic silt deposit, that these wells would have high manganese concentrations if the impou ndment were not present, similar to wells 32, 33, and 34.

128 EPRI (2010).
129 For 2013

- 2014 data monitoring summary of the WAPS monitoring wells, see Table 8 in Dynegy Generation (ibid). While boron concentrations in down

- gradient monitoring wells have been t rending downward since the WAPS impoundment was removed from service in 1996 (Dynegy Generation, ibid, Figure on page 5

- 3), exceedances of the Class I standard of 2 mg/L for boron were recorded in four monitoring wells (median values of 3.4 to 7.3 mg/L). S imilarly, sulfate concentrations in down

- gradient monitoring wells have been decreasing since the WAPS was removed from service (There, Figure on page 5

- 5), and sulfate concentrations in groundwater at the WAPS exceeded the Class I standard of 400 mg/L onl y in one down

- gradient well (#23), and only in one quarterly measurement. Median sulfate concentrations in down

- gradient wells ranged from 123 to 305 mg/L versus median concentrations that ranged from 15 to 99 mg/L in the ‘background’ monitoring wells.

130 A rsenic concentrations exceeded the Class I standard of 0.01 mg/L at three wells: down

- gradient wells 21 and 24, with maximum concentrations of 0.0104 and 0.030 mg/L, respectively, and background well 33, with one exceedance with a concentration of 0.017 mg /L. These three wells also had relatively high iron concentrations. High iron concentrations are indicative of reduced redox conditions in groundwater, and arsenic concentrations in groundwater can be naturally

- occurring under these conditions.

131 Elevated concentrations of iron and manganese do not correlate with the CCR leachate indicator parameters of boron and sulfate, and therefore are not caused by a release from the WAPS. The observed variability in the concentrations of iron and manganese in groundwa ter sampled from different parts of the area are controlled by variations in the natural redox potential of groundwater. The one

- time lead exceedance noted at well 25 is attributed to geochemical changes in groundwater as a result of flooding along the Ill inois River. Finally, Nitrate concentrations in groundwater that exceeded the Class I standard of 10 mg/L at south monitoring wells 25 and 26 during at least one quarterly sampling event (with maximum concentrations of 12.2 and 15.1 mg/L) reflect the
exten sive use of nitrogen fertilizers upgradient of the site: Nitrate is a widespread and nonpoint source of contamination to shallow groundwater in the region.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

35 established in 1997. 132 Monitoring continues under a closure work plan. T he two older impoundments were removed from service and dewatered in 1996/97. 133



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site, sulfate and total dissolved solids, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 134



### References Dynegy Generation (2014): Hydrogeologic Summary and Groundwater Quality Assessment, West Ash Pond System (WAPS), Hennepin Power Station, Hennepin, Illinois. Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC. Prepared by Natural Resource Technology (NRT), Bloomington, Illinois, July 24, 2014.

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #48 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Ide ntified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2002): Mangan ese Occurrence near Three Coal Ash Impoundments in Illinois, Hensel, B., Lee, L.S , P. Burns, I. Murarka. 1005257, Final Report, September 2002. Cosponsor Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001005257&Mode=do wnload

EPRI (2001): Evaluation and Modeling of Cap Alternatives at Three Unlined Coal Ash Impoundments, EPRI 1005165. Final Report, September 2001. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstr act.aspx?ProductId=000000000001005165&Mode=do wnload

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Illinois EPA (2011): IEPA’s Ash Impoundment s Strategy Progress Report, October 2011. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/documents/ash

- impoundment

- progress

- 102511.pdf

Hennepin Power Station (2009): Response to Request for Information under CERCLA Section 104(e), March 27, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/dynegy

- hennepin.pdf

132 Illinois EPA (ibid). The existing GMZ boundaries were established in December 1997 as part of th e IEPA

approved December 1997 Closure Work Plan for the WAPS.

133 According to EPRI (1999, Case Study HN), the pond dewatering under natural gradient (no pumping) began in December 1996, and dewatering was completed within six months. As of 2001, there was s till no cap placed on the ash because the ash was then being mined (EPRI, 2001). According to Dynegy Generation (ibid), pumps were used to complete the dewatering process. The ash is currently dry over most of the surface through most of the year with the exception of (i) the secondary pond, which always contains water; and, (ii) the western end of Pond 3, where runoff water collects and is ponded most of the year.

134 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

36 Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. C herry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia. Prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

Muller (2006): Risky Fishing: Power Plant Mercury Pollution and Illinois Sport Fish, Max Muller, Environmental Advocate, Illinois Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund, April 2006. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.csu.edu/cerc/researchreports/documents/RiskyFishingPowerPlantMercuryPollutionIllinoisSpo rtFish2006.pdf

GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012): Final Repo rt Round 10 Dam Assessment, Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC

– Hennepin Power Station Active East Ash Pond system, East Ash Pond System, West Ash Pond System, Hennepin, Illinois, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., Norwood, Massachusetts, December 6, 2012. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/dynegy_hennepin_final.pdf

Reinertsen (1988): A Guide to the Ge ology of the Canton Area, Fulton County, Geological Science Field Trip, Field Trip 1988B, David L. Reinertsen, May 21, 1988, Department of Energy and Mineral Resources, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, Illinois. Accessed Online January 2014. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/42848/guidetogeolo1988rein.pdf?sequence=2

Hlinka et al., (1999): Ground

- Water/Surface Water Interactions at Sand Lake, Mason County, Illinois, Kenneth J. Hlinka, Andrew G. Buck, and Gary R. Clark, Illinois State Water Survey and Office of Water Resources, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, March 1999. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.isws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP

- 187.pdf

EPRI (1999): Guide for Comanagement of Mill Rejects at Coal

- Fired Power Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and USWAG, Washington DC, June 1999. TR

- 10899 4. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=TR

- 108994



### PTa08. Ameren (formerly: Central Illinois Public Service Co., CIP) Hutsonville Power Station, 135 

### Crawford County, Hutsonville, Illinois

Type: Su rface Impoundments. 136

135 According to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hutsonville_Power_Station , the Plant’s nameplate generation capacity is 150 MW, achieved by two 75 MW units that came on line in 1953 and 1954. According to http://www.powermag.com/issues/cover_stories/Top

- Plants

- Hutsonville

- Power

- Station

- Crawford

- County

Illinois_2178.html , the two oldest generation units that ca me online in 1940

- 1941, were retired in 1981. The power plant was originally designed to use bituminous, high sulfur Illinois Basin coal, but fully converted to PRB coal in 2006, following a test burn in 2004. According to an October 4, 2011, news release by Ameren, the Hutsonville Station was slated for closure by the end of 2011 ( http://phx.corporate

- ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=91845&p=irol

newsArticle&ID=1 613335&highlight =). Closure took place as planned ( http://articles.chicagotribu ne.com/2012

- 05

- 07/news/sns

- rt

- utilities

- firstenergycoal

- factboxl1e8g38dr

- 20120503_1_coal

- fired

- power

- plants

- gas

- plants

- coal

plants/2

. 136 NPDES #IL0004120.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

37 

### Background and Description: The Hutsonville Power Station is located in Crawford County, Illinois, on the west bank of the Wabash River between the towns of Hutsonville and York. According to Ameren (2009), there are four impoundment s on the Station’s grounds: Ash Pond A, receiving fly ash (14 acres, on line since 1986); Ash Pond B, receiving fly ash and bottom ash (4.4 acres, on line since 2000); Ash Pond C, receiving fly ash and bottom ash (2 acres, on line since 2000); 137 and Bottom Ash Pond (1.2 acres, on line since 1940). The apparent source term for the contamination, however, is a fifth pond, Pond D, a 22 acres, unlined fly ash impoundment located about 100 feet from the river. Pond D was constructed in 1968 and removed from servi ce in 2000 and is presently undergoing closing. 138 Ameren estimates that during its 30 years of active operation, Pond D accumulated approximately 950,000 cubic yards of ash, about 280,000 cubic yards of which lie below the water table. 139

According to EPRI ( 2010), groundwater flow is toward the Wabash River. AECOM (2009) and NRT (2009) claim that there are two water bearing units of interest in the vicinity of Pond D: the upper

migration zone 140 and the deep alluvial aquifer. 141 A confining layer is present that restricts vertical migration of groundwater between these two aquifers. 142 Groundwater flow direction in both aquifers is eastward, toward the Wabash River. 143 There are no dwellings down

- gradient between the site and the

137 Ash Ponds A, B and C, with geomembrane liner, have not been implicated.

138 For location of the Plant and ponds, see NRT (2009), Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
139 According to GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012), a portion of Pond D has been permanently closed and capped as a landfill. The Plant’s CCR operation was as follows: Pond A receives fly ash from the faci lity via a sluice transport pipe. Solids were allowed to settle and water was discharged from Pond A into Pond B. Pond B received fly ash from Pond A and bottom ash from Pond C. Pond C received bottom ash from the active portion of Pond D and
stormwater ru noff from the closed portion of Pond D. The active portion of Pond D received bottom ash from the facility and also received the water from various drains and treatment systems. For location of ponds, see there, Figure 2.

140 The upper migration aquifer is u nconfined, with the depth to water ranging from 3 to 20 feet below ground surface. It occupies the upland portion of the power plant property and the western portion of Pond D. It consists of a thin layer (less than 20 feet thick) of sand

- rich soil, which is underlain by Pennsylvanian

- age sandstone and then shale (see NRT, ibid, Figure 2

- 1, Cross

- Section A

- A’). There are 13 monitoring wells screened in this aquifer (ibid, Table 2

- 5); six of these wells are monitored for Pond D, and four of these are downgra dient of Pond D.

141 The deep alluvial aquifer is confined, with depth to its top ranging from 22 to 24 feet on the plant property. It occupies the lowland portion of the site and the eastern portion of Pond D. The deep alluvial aquifer consists of 90 feet of alluvium in the Wabash River bedrock valley. The upper 20 feet of alluvium is fine

- grained, primarily composed of silt and clay with thin sand lenses, while the lower 70 feet is coarse

- grained, consisting of sand and gravel. Every boring drilled into th e alluvium encountered the fine

- grained deposits, and on

- site borings that extended to the underlying sand and gravel (SB101, SB102, MW7D, MW14, MW115, and MW121) encountered 19 to 25 feet of these deposits (Natural Resource Technology, ibid, Figure 2

- 1, C ross

- Section B

- B’). Pennsylvanian

- age shale underlies the alluvium. This aquifer is not present beneath most of the site, including the power plant, Ponds A, B, and C, and the northern and western portions of Pond D. There are five monitoring wells screene d in the deep alluvial aquifer, all of which are monitored for Pond D (ibid, Table 2

- 5). The deep alluvial aquifer is utilized as a drinking water supply by the city of Hutsonville, approximately 1 mile to the south.

142 The upper migration zone is not used for potable or irrigation water supplies at or down

- gradient of the Station. This zone does not yield sufficient quantities of water to constitute a productive aquifer for power plant operational uses or agricultural irrigation purposes. Only the deep allu vial aquifer in the Wabash River bedrock valley has sufficient thickness and hydraulic conductivity to yield adequate groundwater supplies for power plant and agricultural irrigation purposes. The upper migration zone, however, is capable of supporting res idential water use.

143 See Figures 2

- 2 through 2

- 17 in NRT, ibid. According Supreme Court of Illinois (1987), whereas the water

- table levels in the deep aquifer’s wells demonstrated a general flow in the direction of the Wabash, CIPS’ own study admitted tha t there is "radial" flow around the existing pond, i.e. the presence of the pond below water

- table levels disrupts the normal direction of groundwater flow (due to partial groundwater mounding ) and causes a flow outward from the pond towards the river and in parallel to its banks ( but not up

- gradient ).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

38 river. 144 According to EPRI (2010), the plant well and at least two irrigation wells are screened in an aquifer deeper than the aquifer where impacts were monitored. Monitoring wells of the deeper aquifer show no exceedances attributable to the impoundment, although MW14 contains rather elevat ed levels of boron and sulfate. 145

, 146



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, and manganese in excess of their secondary MCLs. These exceedances were in wells that were presumed by the commenters to be down

- gradient. 147 There is no clear indication of down

- gradient wells or whether these wells are on

- site or off

- site, and no monitoring data for metals, trace elements, or organics were available. 148

AECOM (2009) presents monitoring well data for the period 2002 to 2008 from the deep alluvial aquifer to demonstrate an antipathetic relationship between sulfate and boron, both mobile marker solutes associated with CCR impact, and those of manganese. Due to its susceptibility to redox conditions, manganese is less mobile than the other two marker constituents. In Well M14, where both sulfate and boron show rather high concentration levels, the low level of manganese is attributed to leaching from local soils. 149 In three other wells of the same aqui fer, where manganese levels are significantly higher, these wells do not show elevated levels of boron and/or sulfate, suggesting lack of CCR impact and rather inferring that manganese is mobilized from local sediments.



### Resolution: Central Illinois Public Service (CIPS) petitioned the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) in the mid

- 1980s to establish site

- specific water

- quality standards for groundwater at the site of CIPS' Hutsonville Station. CIPS petitioned for modified standards for four groundwater contaminants: manganese, total dissolved solids, boron, and sulfate. Although CIPS agreed that under the requested, modified levels (in excess of any of the existing standards), use of the contaminated water for drinking or irrigation might have deleterio us effects and estimated that the water would remain contaminated for a period of 45 to 170 years into the future, CIPS nevertheless requested that it be allowed site

- specific

144 While no potable wells exist within the upper migration zone within the area that may be impacted by Pond D, the lando wner adjacent to the southern border of the Station, and down

- gradient of Pond D, has agreed to groundwater use restrictions to ensure that no small

- scale domestic supplies are withdrawn from this aquifer within the impacted area

. 145 AECOM (2009), Appendix D.
146 In contrast to the 18 monitoring wells presented in Table 2

- 2 of NRT, ibid, that were drilled between 1984 and 2004, according to GZA GeoEnvironmental, ibid (narrative and Figure 8), there are only eight groundwater monitoring wells: four wells (M

- 2 t hrough M

- 5) are located along the southern and eastern portions of impoundment A; one well (M

- 3) is located along the southwestern portion of impoundment B; and three wells (M

- 6 through M

- 8) are located south and east of pond D. This apparent discrepancy w ith NRT’s data may suggest that ten of the Hutsonville Plant’s monitoring wells were abandoned towards or shortly after the Plant’s retirement.

147 AECOM, ibid, and NRT, ibid, claim that groundwater monitoring of Pond D indicated that boron and sulfate are present at some locations in the upper migration zone at concentrations above Illinois Class I Groundwater Quality Standards. The locations of these results suggest the potential for off

- site migration in the upper migration zone, south of Pond D. While bo ron and sulfate have been detected at an elevated level in one well (MW14) in the deep alluvial aquifer, compared to other deep alluvial aquifer wells the concentrations are still below the Illinois Class I Groundwater Quality Standard.
148 However, based C herry et al., (2000) it is evident that boron was also one of the monitored parameters. According to this reference, boron was measured at 10.9 mg/L and exceeded the US EPA 10

- day health advisory for children by 12 times. In addition, sulfate levels of 2,4 50 mg/L exceeded the MCL by nearly five times; the TDS levels of 3,082 mg/L were six times above the limit; and the manganese concentration at 1.58 mg/L was 31 times greater than federal limits.
149 The findings regarding the source of manganese are in accor d with the findings in EPRI (2002) whereby naturally elevated concentrations of manganese could develop due to reducing redox conditions. Such naturally reducing conditions were found in groundwater beneath confining layers, similar to the deep alluvial aq uifer at Hutsonville.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

39 standards for these four contaminants. IPCB denied the petition, a position uphe ld by the Illinois Supreme Court. 150

According to EPRI (2010), Ameren entered into a Consent Agreement in 2000 with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to remove Ash Pond D from service and build two synthetically

- lined ponds (Ponds B and C ). Ash Pond D has been dewatered (2001), but ash is present at elevations below the water table. According to AECOM (2009), Ameren requested that the IPCB adopt a site

- specific regulation for the closure of Pond D, and s uch a site

- specific rule has been in deed adopted by the Board for the Ameren

- Hutsonville site. 151 This rule specifies the steps which are required to be taken to close out Ash Pond D. The closure includes capping of Pond D with a geosynthetic membrane, and installing a groundwater collection trench along the southern Station property boundary. 152 In April 2012 IEPA approved Ameren’s Pond D Closure and post

- closure plans, and on January 30, 2013, Ameren notified IEPA that it has concluded the closure of Pond D. 153

Consistent with state and federal guidance for site remediation, Ameren conducted a human health risk assessment (HHRA) and an ecological risk assessment (ERA) in support of the closure of Pond D. These studies have demonstrated that the current environmental conditions associated with Po nd

- D are protective of human health and the environment under current and reasonably foreseeable future conditions and land use. Closure plan/activities for Pond D are expected to result in groundwater meeting Illinois Class I Groundwater Quality Standards at the Station property boundary in the future. Therefore, the closure plan/activities for Pond D are also protective of human health and the environment.

According to EPRI (2010), the actions required under the 2000 Consent Order have been completed and the Consent Order is released. A groundwater monitoring program is in effect, and remediation is pending.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site, sulfate, total dissolved solids and manganese, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 154



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #53 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Re garding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

150 Although agreeing that the proposed contamination levels will render the groundwater involved unsuitable for some purposes, CIPS argued that the groundwater will nonetheless not be polluted when judged by the Illinois Act's* definit ion of "water pollution," arguing that an adjusted standard should be granted because it has allegedly established that (1) the groundwater involved is located in close proximity to a large body of water, in this case the Wabash River; (2) the groundwater flows into the Wabash; (3) CIPS owns all of the property through which the groundwater flows; and (4) the contaminated groundwater will have no impact on the water quality of the Wabash. Finally, CIPS attempted to establish that there will not likely be a need for this particular water in the foreseeable future, and argued that an adjusted standard is thus warranted. * Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1003(nn).

151 Illinois EPA (2011).

152 According to GenerationHub (2014), the Hutsonville power plant’s contamination has migrated off

- site

. Hydraulic containment is part of the corrective action at Hutsonville that is needed to pull back contamination that has gone off

- site and to prevent further migration of off

- site contamination.
153 https://www.ameren.com/Environment/Pages/ManagingWaste.aspx

154 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

40 EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aq uatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, M arch 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

Illinois EPA (2011): IEPA’s Ash Impoundments Strategy Progress Report, October 2011. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/documents/ash

- impoundment

- progress

- 102511.pdf

Ameren (2009): Response to Request for Information under CERCLA Section 104(e), March 26, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/ameren.pdf

AECOM (2009): Hutsonville Power Station Pond D Closure

– Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. AECOM, Inc., Document No.: 10418

- 003, April 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.ameren.com/Environment/Documents/PondDRiskAssessment.pdf

EPRI (2002) : Manganese Occurrence near Three Coal Ash Impoundments in Illinois, Hensel, B., Lee, L.S , P. Burns, I. Murarka, EPRI Report No.1005257.

Supreme Court of Illinois (1987): Central Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS Co.) v. Pollution Control Board, 116 Ill.2d 397 (1987), 507 N.E.2d 819. Central Illinois Public Service Company v. The Pollution Control Board. Nos. 63577, 63583 cons., Supreme Court of Illinois, April 2, 1987. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=4&xmldoc=1987513116Ill2d397_1489.xml&docbase=CSL WAR2

- 1986

- 2006&SizeDisp=7

NRT (2009): Pond D Closure Alternatives Report, Hutsonville Power Station, Crawford County Illinois. Prepared by Natural Resource Technology for Ameren Services, April 27, 2009. Accessed Online July 2014. https://www.ameren.com/.../PondDCl osureAlternativesReport.pdf

GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012 ): Final Report Round 10 Dam Assessment, Ameren Energy Generating Company

– Hutsonville Power Station, Pond A, Pond B, Pond D, Hutsonville, Illinois, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Norwood, Massachusetts, Oct ober 16, 2012. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/ameren_hutson_final.pdf

GenerationHub (2 014): Illinois board readies look at proposed coal waste rule: The Illinois EPA is proposing new rules for waste from coal

- fired power plants . GenerationHub, January 24, 2014. Accessed Online July 2014. http://generationhub.com/pages/article_print.php?aid=2014/01/24/illinois

- board

- readies

- look

- at

proposed

- coal

- wasteIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

41 

### PTa09. Commonwealth Edison/Midwest Generation Powerton Plant

– Mahoney Landfill, Pekin, Tazewell County, Illinois

Type: Two Adjacent Offsite CCR Landfills in a Former Gravel Borrow

- Pit; and a New, Recent Complaint Involving two Surface Impoundments.



### Background and Description: The Powerton Plant is located two mi les south of Pekin, off Illinois Route 29. EPA (2007) and a document cited therein 155 provide a detailed description of this site and its history. 156 The only recent revisions 157 comprise a correction of the landfills’ area from 438 acres (as cited in the 1988 R eport to Congress) to 40 acres (based on scaling of air photos) and a change in the Plant’s ownership. 158

The disposal site consisted of two adjacent landfills located on the bank of Lost Creek that received fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag from the Co mmonwealth Edison Powerton Plant located one mile to the north. The large, older landfill was used for the disposal of CCR from 1972 to 1978. This landfill was designed with an eight

- inch ‘Poz

- o

- Pac’ liner (consisting of a mix of fly ash, slag, and lime). 159 However, the Arthur D. Little, Inc. study (1985) observed an absence of liner material during coring operations at most sampling sites. The newer, smaller landfill has a five

- foot ‘Poz

- o

- Pac’ liner, and was used for disposal from 1978 to 1982. It was orig inally constructed in an abandoned gravel borrow pit. 160 Cooling

155 Comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0022.
156 Cited in EPA (2007). Original study goes back to Envirosphere (1978) and Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985), and is summarized in the 1988 Report to Congress. According to Midwest Generation Powerton Generation Station (2005), the original plant was built in 1928. Units 5 and 6, with a net generation capacity of 769 MW ea ch, began operations in 1972 and 1975. Cooling water is supplied from the 1,426 acres Powerton Lake. Powerton Lake, built on the floodplain of the Illinois River in 1971 by Commonwealth Edison Company, is managed by the Department of Natural Resources and is open to the public for recreational purposes. Coal is received by unit train delivered by the Illinois & Midland Railroad from interchange points with the Union Pacific or Burlington Northern/Santa Fe. Ameren CILCO provides natural gas for ignition.
157 E PRI (2010).
158 According to PeoriaStory (2013), on October 18, 2013, NRG Energy Inc., a New Jersey

- based power producer, announced plans to purchase Edison Mission Energy, which includes Midwest Generation and its five coal

- fired power plants in Illinois (P owerton in Pekin, IL, Joliet 9, Joliet 29, Waukegan, and Will County Romeoville coal

- fired power plants in central and northern Illinois). These coal plants currently lack modern pollution controls. This development came in the wake of Midwest Generation’s and its California parent company, Edison Mission Energy’s filing for bankruptcy late in 2012.

159 Lime Fly Ash (LFA) was originally patented in the 1950s as POZ

- O

- PAC and used as a pozzolan stabilized base (PSB) road material in Illinois; for percentages o f its components, see The Fly Ash Resource Center ’s website: http://www.rmajko.com/roadbase.htm . Remarkably, according to the Federal Highway’s Administration User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materi als in Pavement Construction, Publication Number: FHWA

- RD

- 97

- 148 ( http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/97148/020.cfm ), “C rack control has long been considered by many state transportation agencies as a prime concern associated with the use of PSB mixtures. Although there have been a number of experimental projects related to joint placement for pozzolanic bases, there is sti ll no universally accepted procedure for minimizing, or even possibly eliminating, shrinkage cracking in such mixtures.”

160 Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985). It is possible that Illinois Coal (1979) addressed this landfill (” ComEd is installing a $60 million wet limestone scrubber on one of four boilers at its Powerton plant near Pekin. The plant is built atop porous soils; because of potential ground water contamination, the state has not yet given the company the requisite permits to dump sludge nearby.”)IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

42 water is supplied from the 1,426 acres Powerton Lake. 161 The water table at the site occasionally intercepted the ash along the down

- gradient edge of the older landfill. The Plant is located in a n area of Quaternary fuvioglacial deposits, 162 which has a very high potential for aquifer recharge. 163

EIP (2011) raises claims about a new damage case associated with the Powerton Plant. These claims, still not addressed by the Utility or the State, relate to the plant’s three active ash ponds: an Ash Basin (holding 31 million gallons), a Secondary Basin (holding 7.5 million gallons), and a Bypass (stormwater) Basin (holding 2.2 million gallons). The stormwater basin is unlined. 164



### Impact: Groundwater contam ination was detected in on

- site wells in 1985. 165 This case was originally identified during the review of candidate damage cases for the 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. Although it was rejected as a proven damage case in EPA’s 1993 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large

- Volume Coal Combustion Waste (EPA 1993), this case was re

- examined in light of EPA’s subsequently developed criteria for categori zing cases as “potential” damage cases. There were exceedances of primary MCLs for cadmium, lead, and nitrate and secondary MCLs for iron, manganese, and sulfate in ground water and surface water at the site. 166 The exceedances of secondary MCLs in ground wa ter appear attributable to the management of CCR. According to EPRI (2010), no homes were observed between the site and the Lost Creek.

EIP (2011) cites evidence for recent groundwater impacts, based on ten down

- gradient wells that were first sampled in D ecember, 2010. 167 Arsenic exceeded the MCL in one well (26 ppb). Lead exceeded the MCL in the same well, with a concentration of 39 ppb, 2.6 times the MCL. The LHA for manganese was exceeded in five wells at up to 3.5 ppm, 11.7 times LHA. 168



### Resolution: The large, older landfill has been closed after ceasing operation in 1978 and capped with two feet of soil cover. There is no information on whether the newer, smaller landfill has been also closed

161 Powerton Lake, built on the floodplain of the Illinois River in 1971 by Commonwealth Edison Company downstream of the Plant, is managed by the Department of Natural Resources as a Fish & Wildlife Area and is open to the public for recreational fishing. It also serves as a receptacle for the plant’s closed cycle cooling water system and the power plant’s wastewater ( EIP et al., 2013, Page 17).

162 According to Hlinka et al., (1999, page 11) and Reinstern (1988), the glaciofluvial materials were deposited by

me ltwater that discharged along the front of the ice sheets during the Kansan, Illinoisan, and Wisconsinan Stages of the Pleistocene Series. These materials were subsequently reworked by prevailing winds to form the small sand dunes. The Kankakee Flood asso ciated with the meltdown of the Valparaiso ice sheet during the Wisconsin

- Stage glaciation generated much of the glaciofluvial sequence.

163 Illinois EPA (2011).

164 See Powerton’s spokesman: http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1238774052/Environmental

- groups

- file

- complaint

over

- coal

- ash?zc_p=0

165 Comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0022.

166 For Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWSs), cadm ium exceeded in eight of nine down

- gradient well groundwater samples by up to x3 of the standard; and lead, in one out of nine samples by up to x4 of the standard. For Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWSs), iron exceeded in four of nine groundwater sa mples by up to x42 of the standard; manganese exceeded in all nine groundwater samples by up to x194 of the standard; and sulfate exceeded in six out of nine groundwater samples by up to x2.7 of the standard. For surface water, manganese exceeded in two ou t of three down

- gradient samples by up to x2.2 the SDWS.

167 Illinois EPA’s Ash Impoundment Strategy, developed in response to the TVA Kingston ash spill, identified the ash ponds at Powerton as a Priority 1 site for hydrogeologic assessment (IEPA, 2011). Te n wells (MW1 to MW10) were sampled on 12/15/2010.

168 According to EIP (2011), in addition, total chromium was detected in four wells at pH levels where all or most is likely in the form of hexavalent chromium at concentrations up to 6.0 ppb, 300 times the C A PHG for hexavalent chromium; and SMCL exceedances also include iron and TDS.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

43 since ceasing operation in 1982. According to EPRI (2010), no state or federal administrative actions have been identified that apply to this case.

On June 11, 2012, the Illinois EPA issued Notices of Violation for groundwater contamination after testing of wells showed numerous exceedances of heavy metals including arsenic and selenium. 169 On October 24, 2010, a Compliance Commitment Agreement (CCA) was signed between the Utility and IEPA. Additionally, on October 3, 2012, four citizens groups 170 filed a complaint with the Illinois Pollution Control Board against the Powerton Plant as well as other three Midwest Generation plants. 171 Based o n Powerton’s own monitoring reports since 2010, at which time monitoring was mandated by IEPA, arsenic, boron, chloride, iron, lead, manga nese, mercury, nitrate, selenium, sulfate, thallium and TDS have been measured which exceed Illinois GQS and/or open dumping standards. 172 Two of the three ponds at the site are used for ash disposal 173 and both are lined. The third, a stormwater retention basin, is unlined. The filed complaint asks Midwest Generation to stop disposing ash in the ponds, start hauling the ash to a landfill in a closed system, and remediate the site to remove all contaminants.



### Basis for Conside ration as a Potential Damage Case: There are exceed a nces of primary and secondary MCLs in ground water and surface water at the site. The exceed a nces of secondary MCLs in ground water appear attributable to management of CCW. The exceed a nces are located in on

- site wells and are for constituents with non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is categorized as a potential damage case. 174



### References Sierra Club et al., (2012): S ierra Club, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Prairie Rivers Network, and Citizens against Ruining the Environment, Complainants, v. Midwest Generation, LLC, Respondents, Before the Illinois Pollution Control Board . Filed Oct. 3, 2012. Accessed Online December 2014. www.environmentalintegrity.org/.../10

- 3

- 12%20ELPC

- Complaint%20wi

... EPA (2007): 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #40 and reference therein ( Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases , May 3, 2007: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0022). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http ://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

EPA (1993): Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large

- Volume Coal Combustion Waste, US EPA, Appen dix D: Summary of Sites with Groundwater Monitoring
, July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1999 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 1993

- 0042

- 1642.

169 Sierra Club et al, (2012); EIP et al., (2013) and references therein.

170 Environmental Integrity Project, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Prairie Rivers Network, and Citiz ens against Ruining the Environment.

171 Sierra Club et al, (ibid) and http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1238774052/Environmental

- groups

- file

- complaint

o ver

- coal

- ash?zc_p=0 . The three other plants are Joliet 29, Waukegan, and Will County.

172 Sierra Club et al, (ibid).
173 They are periodically dredged out and the ash is hauled to a landfill.

174 Comment to the 2007 NODA docket, ibid.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

44 Envirosphere (1979): Report to Utility Solid Waste Activi ties Group and Edison Electric Institute on Environmental Effects of Utility Solid Waste Disposal. Envirosphere Company, New York, New York. July 1979. EPA Docket Number PATA S0021.

Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985): Full

- scale Field Evaluation of Waste Disp osal from Coal

- fired Electric Generating Plants. Volume 1. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Little (Arthur D.), Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. June 1985. PB85

- 228054.

EPA (1988): Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, Appendix E: Arthur D. Little Study of Waste Disposal at Coal

- Fired Power Plants, EPA/530

- SW

88

- 002. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coal

- rtc.pdf

Midwest Generation Powerton Generation Station (2005): Midwest Generation Powerton Generation Station Fact Sheet, Hanuary 2005. Accessed Online January 20 13. http://www.edison.com/files/2005_factsheet_powerton.pdf

Illinois EPA (2011): IEPA’s Ash Impoundments Strategy Progress Report, October 2011. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/documents/ash

- impoundment

- progress

- 102511.pdf

EIP (2011): Risky Business: Coal Ash Threatens America’s G roundwater Resources at 19 More Sites, Environmental Integrity Project, December 12, 2011. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0259. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.en vironmentalintegrity.org/documents/121311eipthirddamagereport.pdf

Illinois Coal (1979): J ames Krohe Jr., Illinois Periodicals Online, Illinois Issues, September 1979. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.li b.niu.edu/1979/ii790914.html

PeoriaStory (2013): Pekin power plant purchased, October 21, 2013. Accessed Online January 2014. http://peoriastory.typepad.co m/peoriastory/2013/10/pekin

- power

- plant

- purchased.html

Reinertsen (1988): A Guide to the Geology of the Canton Area, Fulton County, Geological Science Field Trip, Field Trip 1988B, David L. Reinertsen, May 21, 1988, Department of Energy and Mineral Resou rces, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, Illinois. Accessed Online January 2014. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/ 42848/guidetogeolo1988rein.pdf?sequence=2

Hlinka et al., (1999): Ground

- Water/Surface Water Interactions at Sand Lake, Mason County, Illinois, Kenneth J. Hlinka, Andrew G. Buck, and Gary R. Clark, Illinois State Water Survey and Office of Water Resources , Illinois Department of Natural Resources, March 1999. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.isws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP

- 187.pdf



### PTa10. Dynegy Midwest (formerly: Illinois Power) Ver milion Power Station, 175 

### Oakwood, Vermilion County, Illinois

175 Note that this spelling is different from Vermillion , which was used in EPA (2007). Vermillion Station comprised two generation units with gross generation capacity of 182 MW (74 MW and 109 MW) that came on line in 1955 and 1956, respectively ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Vermilion_Power_Station ), utilizing Powder RiverIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

45 

### Type: Surface Impoundments. 176



### Background and Description: The Vermilion Power Station is located near the Middle Fork Vermilion River near Oakwood, Illinois, upstream from the Middle Fork Wildlife Area and Kickapoo State Recreation Area

. 177 The Station is in an area of extensive former coal mining activity. 178 The Vermilion Power Station contains three ash pond systems: The Old, unlined East Ash Pond System (operative between the mid

- 1950s to the mid

- 1 970s) is no longer in use; the unlined, two

- cell North Ash Pond System (constructed in the mid

- 1970s, and ceased receiving CCR in 1989); 179

, 180

, 181 and the two

-

Basin (PRB) low

- sulfur coal since 2005/06 ( http://www.poweronline.com/doc.mvc/Dynegy

- Announces

Comprehensive

- Settlement

- Of

- 0001 ). For the March 7, 2005 US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Consent Order between the US, State of Illinois and a coalition of citizens groups and Dynegy Midwest Generation, requiring upgrades to all Dynegy’s plants, in addition to stringent reductions in overall pollution rates; see Illinois Power Company and Dynegy Midwest Generation Settlement: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/illinois

- power

- company

- and

- dynegy

- midwest

- generation

- settlement ; and Consent Decree: United States of America, et al. v. Illinois Power Company, et al., Civil Action No. 99

- 833

- MJR http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/consent

- decree

- united

- states

- america

- et

- al

- v

- illinois

- power

- co mpany

- et

- al

- civil

action

. According to Bloomberg Businessweek February 14, 2011 expose, in December 2010 Dynegy announced it would mothball the Vermilion plant by the end of the first quarter of 2011, citing coal delivery costs (unlike other coal faciliti es in Dynegy’s Midwest fleet, which receive coal directly by rail, Vermilion’s coal is transported from the PRB by rail to Danville and then trucked to the Vermilion site), the relatively small size of the unit and its older technologies, weak electricity demand, and uncertainty regarding future regulatory requirements. The Vermilion power station has been officially retired from service on December 1, 2011. ( http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=34485342 ).

176 NPDES # IL0004057. According to the August 24, 2011 draft reissued NPDES Permit ( http://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/2011/dynegy

- vermilion/index.pdf ), Plant operation results in an average discharge of 1.36 MGD of North Ash Pond overflow from outfall 001, the intermittent discharge of makeup water reservoir overfl ow from Outfall 002, and an average discharge of 1.36 MGD of East Ash Pond overflow from Outfall 003. Currently the station has shutdown generating operations and will remain in a non

- operational state for an indefinite amount of time. The only discharges occurring during the indefinite shutdown period will be the intermittent discharge of stormwater runoff. Following the Plant’s retirement, the IEPA Bureau of Water has conducted a public hearing (August 2013) on the draft permit. According to Draft NPDES P ermit (2012), discharges will only occur due to precipitation events which may cause overflows from the North Ash Pond (Outfall 001), the Makeup Water Reservoir (Outfall 002), and the East Ash Pond (Outfall 003). The North and East Ash Ponds contain sludge which was previously generated from the treatment of the following waste streams: fly ash with mercury sorbent residues and bottom ash transport water, ash hopper overflow, demineralizer regenerant wastes, water treatment clarifier sludge, water filter ba ckwash waste, coal pile runoff, non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes, boiler room and dust collector area floor drains, pyrites from coal crushing, chemical tank cleaning sludge and rinse waters, reverse osmosis reject, and cooling tower overflow.

177 Accordin g to http://www.prairiestateoutdoors.com/index.php?/pso/article_print/11336/ , a 1,128

- acre parcel connecting Kickapoo State Park and Middle Fork State Fish and Wildlife Area in Vermilion County was transferred to the IDNR in March 2007 by Dynegy Midwest Generation as part of a clean air settlement.

178 EPRI (2010).
179 According to Vermilion (2009), as of March 2009, this 80

- acres area, 2,400 acre

- feet capacity pond had abou t 2,280 acre

- feet filled with CCR (fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and ‘other’, associated waste). According to Dewberry & Davis (2012), s ince the construction of the New East Ash Pond System in 1988, the North Ash Pond System has been used primarily for stormwater storage (receiving runoff from the capped area of the older ponds).

180 According to EPRI (2010), the North Ash Pond was constructed over a shale bedrock unit which has very low hydraulic conductivity; slurry walls inside the berms are keyed into the bedrock.
181 According to IEPA (2011), the North Ash Pond is in use as part of the waste stream under their NPDES permit, although it rarely discharges.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

46 cell, lined and active New (East) Ash Pond System (constructed in 1988 and expanded in 2002). 182 Where as according to IEPA (2011) there is currently no indication of contamination from the New (East) lined impoundment in use, EPRI (2010) states that “the subject of this damage case was the 12

- acre new east ash impoundment, constructed in 1989.” There is al so a large, onsite cooling water lake. 183

Groundwater flow is toward the Middle Fork Vermilion River, which is immediately adjacent to the impoundment. There are no human receptors between the impoundment and the river. 184 IEPA (2011) 185 indicates that the Pla nt is located in an area with a high to very high potential for groundwater recharge.



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate and total dissolved solids in down

- gradient wells in excess of their secondary MCL s. No monitoring data for metals, trace elements, or organics were available. 186

According to IEPA (2011), 187 groundwater monitoring results indicate there are potential contamination issues related to the two older unlined impoundments. CoCs include boron, s ulfate, manganese, iron, TDS, and pH (at least sulfate and TDS in down

- gradient wells are in excess of their SMCLs.) No monitoring data for trace metals, trace elements, or organics were available. The August 2011 draft reissued NPDES Permit does require s emi

- annual monitoring and reporting of a variety of trace metals, in addition to phenol and cyanide. 188

According to EPRI (2010), the reported groundwater exceedances of sulfate, iron, manganese, and chloride are all based on a database provided by the powe r company listing all groundwater monitoring results from 1994 through December 2008. EPRI claims that a hydrogeological evaluation performed for the power company in 2002/2003 concluded that all these exceedances were due to factors other than a release f rom the ash impoundment, in particular, factors related to the presence of coal in the bedrock and former coal mining in the area. EPRI claims that this conclusion is corroborated by the low boron concentrations observed in site monitoring wells.

IEPA and Dynegy surveys conducted in 2009, verified one potable well up

- gradient of the ash impoundments, a well used by the facility itself, and no private wells located down

- gradient of the impoundments.

Finally, surface water monitoring of the Middle Fork of the Vermilion River does not currently indicate impairment for any potential contaminant. 189



### Resolution: According to IEPA (2011), a groundwater monitoring plan has been approved for the site, and the results of the initial one year of monitoring, a GMZ app lication, and a Corrective Action Plan

182 Lining is cited in IEPA (ibid), but Dewberry and Davis (ibid, Appendix C, Document 21) claim that the New East Ash Pond System is unlined. According to Vermilion (2009) , this originally 12 acres area, now 28 acres, 340

acre

- feet capacity pond had about 34 acre

- feet filled with CCR (fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and ‘other’, associated waste). Dewbe rry & Davis (2012) presented different data, whereby this Pond has an area of 20 acres and 556 acre

- feet in storage capacity, of which 331 acre

- feet were available during the survey.
183 IEPA (2011).

184 EPRI (2010).
185 There, Figure 1.

186 Cherry et al., (2000) cite the following exceedances in monitoring wells down

- gradient of the East Ash Pond: sulfate: 610 mg/L, TDS: 1,500 mg/L, and boron: 1.4 mg/L.

187 IEPA (ibid).
188 htt p://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/2011/dynegy

- vermilion/index.pdf
189 IEPA (ibid).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

47 (including a Closure Work Plan) to deal with contamination issues at the site was due April 1, 2012. According to EPRI (2010), the groundwater monitoring program is in effect.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site, sulfate and total dissolved solids, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 190



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #52 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherr y, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

EP RI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

IEPA (2011): Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ( IEPA ) ’s Ash Impoundments Strategy Progress Report, October 2011. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/documents/ash

- impoundment

- progress

- 102511.pdf

Vermilion (2009): Response to Request for I nformation under CERCLA Section 104(e), March 24, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/dyn egy

- vermilion.pdf

Dewberry & Davis (2011): Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Round 6

– Final Dam Assessment Report, Vermilion Power Station (Site 015) Fly Ash Dikes, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., Oakwood, Illinois, Dewberry & Davis, LLC, November 201 2. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/dynegy

- vermilion

- final.pdf

Draft NPDES Permit (2012): National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. IL0004057 for Dynegy Midwest Generation LLC Vermillion Power Station, 10188 East 2150 North, Oakwood, Illinois 61858, Illinois, Public Notice Beginning Date: August 22, 2012 . Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water, Division of Water Pollution Control, Permit Section. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/2012/d ynegy

- vermilion/index.pdf

190 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

48 

### PTa11. Ameren Coffeen/White & Brewer Trucking Fly Ash Landfill, Coffeen, Montgomery County, Illinois

Type: Landfill and a Leachate/Storm Water Pond. 191



### Background and Description: The Ameren Coffeen Power Station 192 is located ab out 70 miles northeast of St. Louis. 193 According to EPRI (2010), this case involved a 40

- acre, unlined, state

- permitted landfill that operated from 1977 or earlier until 1997. The landfill, located just west of the East Fork of Shoal Creek, was owned and op erated by the White and Brewer Trucking Company, who disposed of fly ash in the landfill. There were two separately

- permitted areas: Cells A

- D and Cell E. Cells A

- D were capped from 1980 to 1990, and Cell E was capped in 1997. 194 According to Ameren (2010), currently the site has an unlined Recycle Pond (primarily in receipt of boiler slag) 195 and an HDPE

- lined Gypsum Management Facility Recycle Pond (in receipt of FGD gypsum). 196 It is inferred that fly ash is dry

handled in a landfill. 197

, 198

The plant site is si tuated on the Springfield Plain, a broad, flat, physiographic area. The landscape was shaped largely by Quaternary glaciations. Glaciers left deposits of material on the irregular bedrock surface. The upper soil deposits at the plant site are comprised of glacial till. 199

According to EPRI (2010), the landfill is located in an isolated, rural area. There is groundwater seepage into the landfill

— which was constructed in an area of sloping topography

— via sand seams. Groundwater near the site is not used for dr inking water. Groundwater flowing through sand seams at the site either discharges to the surface as seeps or to East Fork of Shoal Creek, a small creek immediately down

gradient. There are no dwellings between the site and the creek.

191 NPDES IL0000108. A public notice for a renewed/modified NPDES Permit No. IL0064785 was issued on June 8, 2012.
192 According to http://www.ameren.com/sites/aem/AboutAEM/Documents/AEMGenerationPortfolio.pdf , the Plant’s generating capacity is 895 MW. According to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coffeen_Power_Station , the Plant’s n ameplate capacity is 1,005 MW, comprising two generation units (389 MW and 617 MW) that came on line in 1965 and 1972, respectively.
193 According to Am eren’s March 10, 2010 Media Release ( http://ameren.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=793 ), and Kleinfelder (2011), the plant is located on a peninsula between two branches of Coffeen Lake, about two miles south of the Town of Coffeen. The 1,200

- acre,

man

- made cooling lake is managed by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Coffeen Lake provides outdoor recreational activities for boaters, anglers, campers and hunters. A 73

- acre cool ing basin and a series of 24 cooling towers were built and placed in service in July 2000 to keep Coffeen Lake temperatures within allowable limits during times of extreme heat.
194 EPRI (2010).
195 In service since 1979: 23 acres in area, 500 acre

- feet capac ity.
196 In service since 2009: 17 acres in area, 243 acre

- feet capacity. For the location of the disposal and recycling units, see Kleinfelder (ibid), Figures 1 and 2.
197 According to NPDES Permit No. IL0064785 (2012), the facility operates a landfill for t he disposal of coal combustion waste and scrubber sludge. Wastewater is generated from water which percolates through cell D, stormwater which contacts the exposed face of fly ash in Cell E, and storm water which contacts the cover areas of cells A, B, C, D and E. Facility operation results in an intermittent discharge of leachate and storm water from outfall 001. The proposed, reissued NPDES permit adds leachate to the permit as an authorized waste stream, for a total of 26 parameters to be discharged in a controlled manner.
198 According to Kleinfelder (ibid), a Decommissioned Ash Pond is located between the Gypsum Reclaim Pond and the Recycle Ash Pond. The pond was decommissioned and capped in 1981.
199 Kleinfelder (ibid), Section 3.3.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

49 

### Impact: According t o EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site 200 showed levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, and manganese in down

- gradient wells in excess of their secondary MCLs. Two of the three wells for which the commenters provided data appear to be located directl y underneath the landfill area. A May 18, 1995 memorandum from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) documents areas of dead or distressed grass on

- site, apparently due to ground water seepage. Seepage samples causing vegetation damage are as sociated with orange

- red sediment. The sediment and soils are high in metals (maximum values): manganese (602 ppm), iron (12,000 ppm), barium (44 ppm), zinc (29 ppm), nickel (12 ppm), and chromium (9 ppm).

According to Cherry et al., (2000), ten constit uents taken in down

- gradient monitoring wells and leachate seeps exceeded federal standards. At 10,954 mg/L, sulfate concentrations were exceptionally high, exceeding the MCL by nearly 22 fold. The TDS at 7,367 mg/L was one of the higher such values in CC R landfills and exceeded the limit by about 15 times. Boron was measured at 167 mg/L but also was recorded at up to 314 mg/L at a down

- gradient seep, exceeding the US EPA 10

- day health advisory for children by 349 times. Manganese ranged from 1.570 mg/L at a landfill well to 5.580 mg/L at the seep, which exceeded the limit by 31 and 111 times, respectively. Iron (65.7 mg/L) was at least 65 times higher than the US EPA WQC and 219 times higher than the MCL. Sodium was measured up to 910 mg/L, which exceeded the MCL by 18 fold. Aluminum reached 2.020 mg/L, 10

- times above the MCL and 23 times greater than the US EPA chronic WQC. Zinc was measured at 184 mg/L, which exceeded the US EPA chronic WQC by about four times.

According to EPRI (2010), based on groundwa ter monitoring data from 1982 to 1997, pre

- mitigation monitoring showed exceedances of sulfate and manganese. Post

- mitigation monitoring, based on samples obtained in 2008

- 2009, detected onsite exceedances of boron, cadmium, chromium, nickel, thallium, ir on, manganese, and sulfate. 201



### Resolution: IEPA’s May 1995 memo documents areas of dead grass on

- site, due to groundwater seepage; and a July 1996 memo discusses IEPA’s recognition of contamination to groundwater as a result of ash disposal operations at t he site. As of late in 1998, no further administrative action is known to have taken place regarding the implications of the July 1996 memo.

200 Presumably, the findi ngs are based on groundwater monitoring data for the period August 1993 to August 1997, from at least 17 groundwater monitoring wells, although groundwater quality data go as far back as 1982.

201 Regarding the documented pre

- and post

- mitigation exceedances , EPRI (2010) states: • Tabulation of exceedances in groundwater before/after remediation (is) based on a database provided by the power company listing groundwater monitoring results from 1982 through May 2009. Pre

- mitigation exceedances (are) based on sa mples obtained prior to 1997; post

- mitigation results (are) based on samples obtained in 2008

- 2009. • Post

- remediation exceedances that were not listed before remediation (boron, cadmium) were observed in monitoring wells added after 1997. • The highest ir on concentrations were observed in an up

- gradient well near the footprint of the landfill, and the second

- highest concentrations were observed in a down

- gradient well where concentrations of one CCR indicator (boron) were low and another (sulfate) were hig h. • Arsenic and lead were detected in several unfiltered samples collected in 2007 and 2008; however, concentrations were low (arsenic) or non

- detect (lead) in filtered splits of those same samples. Therefore, these concentrations appear to be related to turbidity issues in the samples and these constituents were not tabulated as exceedances. • Beryllium, nickel, and thallium concentrations exceeded the MCL or state water quality standards in wells with high CCR indicator concentrations, but had equal or h igher concentrations in wells with very low CCR indicator concentrations, suggesting a potential alternative cause for the observed concentrations.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

50 According to EPRI (2010), the caps of Cells A

- D and of Cell E consist of 3

- feet of clay with hydraulic conductivit y of 10

- 7 cm/sec. Additional remedial options are being evaluated to eliminate two seeps, where high boron concentrations in the discharge are stressing vegetation. A groundwater monitoring program is in effect.

IEPA indicates that the site is an ”approve d Groundwater Management Zone, however groundwater at this site has returned to compliance with the numerical groundwater standards. ” 202 Recently, IEPA stated that ”Further Assessment (is) Underway.” 203 In the recent draft NPDES permit, IEPA proposed changes
t o some of the outfalls and the addition of metals as constituents to be monitored. 204



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site, sulfate, total dissolved solids and manganese, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 205



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #56 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Ident ified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluati on of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20Produc t%20Damage%20Cases

IEPA (2010): Illinois E nvironmental Agency (IE PA ) ’s Ash Impoundment Strategy Progress Report, October 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/documents/ash

- impoundment

- progress

- 102010.pdf

IEPA (2011): Illinois E nvironmental Agency (IE PA ) ’s Ash Impoundment Strategy Progress Re port, October 2011. A ccessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/documents/ash

- impoundment

- progress

- 102511.pdf

Ameren Environmental Services (2010): Response to Request for Information under CERCLA Section 104(e), January 16, 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://w ww.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/ameren

- addit.pdf

Kleinfelder (2011): Coal Ash Impoundment Site Assessment Report, Coffeen Power Station, Ameren Energy Generating Company, Coffeen, Illinois, Kleinfelder, Golden, Colorado, April 2011. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/ameren_coffeen_final.pdf

NPDES Permit Responsiv eness Summary (2011): Ameren Energy Generating Company, Coffeen Power Station, Montgomery County, Illinois: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Responsiveness Summary, April 14, 2011. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/2009/ameren

- coffeen/responsiveness

- summary.pdf

202 IEPA (2010).

203 In October 2011: IEPA (2011).
204 NPDES Permit Responsiveness Summary (2011) and NPDES Permi t No. IL0064785 (2012).
205 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

51 Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, India napolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploa ds/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

NPDES Permit No. IL0064785 (2012): NPDES Permit No. IL0064785, Notice No. JAR:12032801.ajo, Public Notice/ Fact Sheet, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Per mit Program, Draft Reissued NPDES Permit to Discharge into Waters of the State, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water, Division of Water Pollution Control, Permit Section, Springfield, Illinois 62794

- 9276, June 8, 2012. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/2012/white

- brewer

- trucking/index.pdf



### PTa12. Dynegy Midwest (formerly: Illinois Power Co.) Wood River Power Station, 206 

### Alton, Madison County, Illinois

Type: Surface Impoundments.



### Background and Description : The Wood River Power Station is located in the town of Alton in southwestern Illinois, on the left descending bank of the Mississippi River, at river mile 199.6, approximately 17 miles northeast of St. Louis. The CCR ash ponds evolved from a 60

- acre coal ash impoundment that received fly ash from 1978 to 1998, 207 into the current system of two main pond

206 Plant Nameplate Capacity : 500 MW, comprises two generation units: 113 MW and 388 MW, that came on line in 1954 and 1964, respectively ( http ://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wood_River_Station ). Three older, 50

- MW each units, in operation from 1949, have been deactivated. Wood River was converted from Illinois coal to PRB coal in 2002 ( http://www.industcards.com/st

- coal

- usa

- il.htm and EPRI 2002 ). For the March 7, 2005 US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Consent Order between the US, State of Illinois and a coalition of citizens groups and Dynegy Midwest Gen eration, requiring upgrades to all Dynegy’s plants, in addition to stringent reductions in overall pollution rates; see Illinois Power Company and Dynegy Midwest Generation Settlement: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/illinois

- power

- company

- and

- dynegy

- midwest

- generation

- settlement ; and Consent Decree: United States of America, et al. v. Illinois Power Company, et al., Civil Action No. 99

- 833

- MJR http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/consent

- decree

- united

- states

- america

- et

- al

- v

- illinois

- power

- company

- et

- al

- civil

action

. 207 According to EPRI (2002), t he impoundment was constructed in 1952 and modified several times since. The entire impoundment was originally unlined. In the late 1990s, ash has been removed from some areas of the impoundment and a lined impoundment has been c onstructed in these areas. All ash disposal at 2002 was to the lined ponds, and the unlined ponds have not been used since late in 1998. According to EPRI (2002), previous investigations at the Wood River ash impoundment include: (i) Illinois State Water S urvey, 1984, Groundwater Monitoring at the Wood River Power Station’s Ash Disposal Ponds and Renovated Ash Disposal Area. (ii) Kelron Environmental, 1995, Groundwater Investigation Report: Wood River Ash Pond Expansion. (iii) Natural Resource Technology, 2 000, Investigation of Closure Options for the West Ash Impoundment, Wood River Power StationIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

52 complexes: the 19 acres, 210 ac

- ft

- capacity West Ash Pond (WAP), 208 and the 38 acres, 435 ac

- ft

capacity East Ash Pond (EAP). 209

In 1993, the primary pond wa s subdivided into two ponds (#1 & #2); during the Plant’s shutdown in 1997, Dynegy began reconstruction of the ponds. All ash was removed from ponds #3 and #4, and a new, double

- lined pond (#3, also called New Ash Pond #2) with a leachate collection system was constructed in their place. 210 In 1998, Dynegy started mining ash from Pond #2. After having removed all the ash from the eastern half of the pond, a lined, new polishing pond (Ash Pond #2E, also called New Ash Pond #1) was constructed. 211 Beginning in 19 99, all fly ash has been managed by a dry

- handling system, and the ash is sold to a cement manufacturer. All bottom ash is sluiced to the lined ponds #2E and #3 where it settles and the sluice water is discharged via the NPDES permitted outfall. 212 The curr ent operational procedures are detailed in Dewberry, ibid

. 213

The WAP is underlain by a continuous surficial silty

- clay layer that confines groundwater in the underlying sand and gravel aquifer and retards vertical migration of leachate from the impoundment to the sand and gravel aquifer. 214 Groundwater flow is variable, depending on Mississippi River stage: in an average year, groundwater flows towards the Mississippi River in about two

- thirds of the time. According to EPRI (2010), the site is located in an industrial area serviced by municipal water. Dynegy performed a potable well search and did not locate any potable wells within 2,500 feet of the impoundment on the same side of the Mississippi River and tributary as the impoundment; nor were any apparent dwellings observed between the facility and adjacent rivers. 215



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, manganese, and iron in excess of their secondary MCLs. 216 According to E PRI (2002),

208 According to Dewberry & Davis (2011), c omprising four cells: cells #1 and #2W have been inactive for an extended period of time, whereas cells #2E and #3 have b een active since 1977.
209 According to Dewberry, ibid , c omprising one primary

- and one polishing cell, both active since 2006.
210 All information on changes in pond configuration and design is from the September 2000 Closure Work Plan for the West Ash Pond, in Dewberry, ibid , appendices, pages 531

- 587.

211 From the bottom up, this system was designed to consist of a two feet thick compacted clay layer with permeability smaller than 1 x 10

- 7 cm/sec; an 8” layer of drainage rock and pipe to serve as a leachate

- co llection system; and an overlying layer of one

- foot of clay. A non

- woven geotextile was to be placed both above and below the drainage rock layer, to separate the leachate collection layer from the bounding clay layers. On the side slopes, the rock layer was replaced by a geocomposite drainage layer. The leachate collection layer was designed to collect seepage and transport the fluid to a sump that was to pump it back into the ponds.

212 NPDES # IL0000701: http://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/2010/dynegy

- wood

- river/index.pdf

213 According to Dewberry & Davis (2011): • Fly ash is either sold to the local market or discharged to the EAP’s Primary Cell; bottom ash is d ischarged to EAP’s Primary Cell. Decant is discharged into the Secondary cell, where it is discharged via the outfall structure into Wood River Creek (Outfall 005). • Coal Pile Runoff is pumped to the WAP’s Cell #2E and the decant is discharged into Cell # 3, from where it is discharged via the outfall structure into Wood River Creek (Outfall 002). • CCR previously stored in Cells #1 and #2W is occasionally mined and sold to local buyers.

214 According to a July 2000 groundwater modeling study conducted by Nat ural Resources Technology, Inc. (in Dewberry, ibid , appendices). According to EPRI (2002), the entire site is underlain by silty alluvial deposits, which are underlain by a highly permeable sand and gravel unit. The silty deposits are thickest beneath the impoundment and toward the Mississippi River, and are thinnest toward the northeast portion of the power plant property. The water table lies within the silt unit near the impoundment, where this unit is thickest, and lies within the sand and gravel unit n ortheast of the impoundment, where the silt unit is relatively thin

215 This observation is based on in the aerial imagery reviewed for EPRI’s (2010) study.

216 Cherry et al., (2000) identify four constituents in down

- gradient monitoring wells that exceeded fe deral limits at this site. TDS, at 2,000 mg/L, was four

- fold above the SMCL; manganese (9.5 mg/L) exceeded the SMCL by 190IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

53 t here were 22 groundwater monitoring wells and one leachate monitoring well at the west ash impoundment (Fig. 2

- 3); however, wells 01 and 35, and the wells near the renovated pond system have not been monitored for water quality purposes. Most wells are screened beneath the silty alluvial deposits, although wells 13 and 26 are screened within the silt (Fig. 2

- 4). Median groundwater quality values for the period that the unlined ponds were in service (prior to 1998) and for the past three years ( 1999

- 2001) provided in Table 2

- 2 indicate that boron has exceeded SMCLs for both periods, whereas pH

– only for the period 1999

- 2001. Manganese concentrations are highest (>2 mg/L) in wells near the Mississippi River (including background well 36), and app ear to generally decrease with distance from the river.

According to EPRI (2010), EPA listed the west impoundment at this station as a potential damage case because sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, manganese, and iron concentrations at the site exceeded SMCLs. The highest values of iron and manganese occur in a monitoring well with low CCR indicator (boron and sulfate) concentrations, suggesting a natural source. 217 EPRI (2010) also contends that chloride concentrations emanate from an off

- site in dustrial slag pile that encroaches on a portion of the property.



### Resolution: A Consent Order was issued in 1989 by IEPA due to groundwater impacts. 218 The Consent Order required Dynegy to close the WAP by December 31, 2000. An Order modifying Consent Order (January 3, 1996) allowed the establishment of a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) around the WAP if groundwater monitoring were to indicate non

- compliance. In 1997

- 1998, ash was excavated from two unlined cells and lined cells were constructed in those a reas. 219 These two lined cells comprise about one

- third of the impoundments’ area. In 1999 the plant converted to dry handling of fly ash and most ash is sold for beneficial use.

The Site has an approved GMZ. 220 A groundwater monitoring program is in effect. EPRI (2010, Fig. 2

- 5) presents boron monitoring well data to support its claim that concentrations of CCR indicator constituents have been gradually decreasing since wet sluicing was discontinued.

fold; iron and chlorides were 55 and 710 mg/L, respectively, which exceeded the MCL and SMCL by 183 and by about three times, respect ively. On the other hand, boron, at 2.4 mg/L, did not exceed the ten

- day Child Health Advisory level (3 mg/L), and Sulfate, at 260 mg/L, did not exceed the SMCL.

217 EPRI (2002). (i) According to EPRI (2002), manganese concentrations at Wood River were highe r than the Illinois Class I groundwater standard in the majority of the wells. Wells 03, 04, 34, and 36 had manganese concentrations of 2 to 10 mg/L, which were usually higher than in the leachate well (maximum of 2.5 mg/L). Evidence of reducing conditions coupled with low ash indicator (boron and sulfate) concentrations indicate that the high manganese concentrations observed at these wells are due to reductive dissolution of naturally occurring manganese oxides or oxyhydroxides present in the soil. (ii) W ood River wells 02, 12, 23, 26, and 28 are in areas where redox conditions in the aquifer are reducing, but are also within the leachate plume. The occurrence of naturally derived manganese in background wells at concentrations higher than within the leach ate plume suggests that the contributions of elevated manganese by ash leachate may be small in comparison to naturally occurring manganese concentrations. The manganese in wells 24, 25, and 31 may also be naturally occurring, although the redox status of an upgradient slag pile affecting groundwater quality in these wells is unknown. (iii) Manganese concentrations up to 9 mg/L in Wood River well 33 are hypothesized to be from microbially

enhanced reductive dissolution of manganese minerals, since this well is located within a wetland area where an ample supply of organic matter exists.

218 Consent Decree 89

- CH

- 5, March 2, 1989.
219 According to EPRI (2010), double

- clay liners with a leachate collection system in one, and a composite 45

- mil HDPE/clay liner with no leachate collection in the other.

220 IEPA (2011); see the Closure Plan in Appendix A of Dewberry & Davis ( ibid) for details.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

54 

### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site, sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, manganese and iron, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 221



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Cas e #54 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS .htm

EPRI (2002): Manganese Occurrence near Three Coal Ash Impoundments in Illinois, Hensel, B., Lee, L.S , P. Burns, I. Murarka. 1005257, Final Report, September 2002. Cosponsor Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001005257&Mode=do wnload

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product D amage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www. epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

IEPA (2011): Illinois E nvironmental Agency (IE PA ) ’s Ash Impoundments Strategy Progress Report, October 2011. A ccessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/documents/ash

- impoundment

- progress

- 102511.pdf

Wood River (2009): Wood River Power Station Response to Request for Information under CERCLA Section 104(e), March 27, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/dynegy

- vermilion.pdf

De wberry & Davis (2011): Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Dam Assessment Report Site 19, Wood River Power Station, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., Alton, Illinois, Dewberry & Davis, LLC, June 2009, Revised Final September 11, 2009. A ccessed Online August 2 012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/wood

- final.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/wood

- app.pdf

EPRI (2002): Manganese Occurrence near Three Coal Ash Impoundments in Illinois, Hensel, B., Lee, L.S , P. Burns, I. Murarka, EPRI Report No.1005257

.

221 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

55 

### PTa13. NiSource (formerly: NIPSCO) Bailly Generating Station, Chesterton, Porter County, Indiana 222



### Type: Landfills and Surface Impoundments.



### Background and Description: EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from t he Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants. 223 It is identified as the “Bailly Site, Dune Acres, Indiana,” and described in detail in that document, citing the 1982 Dames & Moore study. The L

- shaped site borders to the north on Lake Mich igan and to the northeast on the 12,000

- acres Indiana National Lakeshore (IDNL) on Lake Michigan, next to a highly industrialized area between Gary and Michigan City, Indiana. 224 There are two inactive landfills 225 and several surface impoundments constructed between 1962 and the 1970s for the purpose of temporarily storing and disposing coal combustion byproducts as well as recycling the wastewater back to the BGS. 226

, 227

222 According to http://216.92.66.74/ind ex.php?title=Bailly_Generating_Station , the Plant’s nameplate capacity is 604 MW, comprising two coal

- fired u nits (“Unit 7”: 190 MW and “Unit 8”: 413 MW), that came online in 1962 and 1968, respectively. According to Hardy (1981), the Bailly Generating St ation (BGS) burned primarily Illinois and Indiana coals, whose sulfur content tends to be medium (1 to 3 percent) to high (greater than 3 percent). See also USDOE (1990). A legal deal brokered by the EPA and DOJ with NIPSCO and other utilities along the so uthern shore of Lake Michigan, compelled NIPSCO to permanently scuttle an idled coal

- fired power plant in Gary and spend $600 million to install and improve pollution controls at three other aging electric generators in Chesterton, Michigan City and Wheatf ield ( http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/decrees/civil/caa/nipsco

- cd.pdf ; for a
summary, see http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews

- deal

- would

- clear

- up

- coalplant

01132011,0,4399852.story ). The settlement also calls for upgrades to existing FGD and selective catalytic r eduction systems at the BGS.

223 Report to Congress (1988).

224 The BGS is confined to the south by the ArcelorMittal Steel Burns Harbor Plant (formerly: Bethlehem Steel Burns Harbor Plant), and partially on the south by U.S. Route 12 and freight and commuter rail lines.

225 According to http://www.epa.gov/Region5/cleanup/rcra/nipsco/pdfs/nipsco_fs_final25feb10.pdf , these landfills were actually dump sites where fly an d bottom ash was disposed of from 1962 through 1981. The multi

- acre areas have long been grown over and now look like vacant fields. NIPSCO is no longer using these landfills and has been properly disposing of ash offsite for many years. According to NIPSC O (September 2009), the fly ash from the BGS and Michigan City Stations is transported for disposal to Schahfer Generating Station in Wheatfield, Indiana, about 20 miles south of Valparaiso http://www.citybythelake.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t2533.html

. 226 All waste units were originally unlined. However, between 1979 and 1981, the surface impoundments were dredged then ‘composite’ lined (according to GZA GeoEnvironmen tal, 2012, Section 1.3, 30 mil Hypalon® over a 6” thick layer of compacted sand over a 12” thick layer of compacted clay with permeability smaller than 1 x 10

- 6 cm/sec. A 6” thick layer of sand was placed on top of the Hypalon® membrane).

227 From Hardy (198 1) it is evident that the pre

- 1981 management system was similar to the subsequent one. Fly ash produced by the coal

- fired units was collected from smokestacks by electrostatic precipitators and was transported as a slurry to a series of settling ponds (‘p onds 10 through 14’). The ponds were set up in a line parallel to the BGS’ Station east

- west property line between the IDNL and Bethlehem’s Steel Corporation’s site. They were separated from the IDNL to their north by a native

- sand dike. The ponds included two ash

- settling systems. Primary ponds 10 and 11 received the ash transported from the generating station, and an overflow pipe decanted the pond water to secondary ponds (ponds 13 and 12, respectively) for further settling. The settling ponds were perio dically drained, and the accumulated ash was removed and used to fill an area on the east side of NIPSCO's property. The ash fill, a wetland area, was used to dispose of fly ash, bottom ash, some limestone fragments, and miscellaneous discarded materials. Bottom ash from the generating station was transported to an area west of ash pond 10 and deposited on the ground. Water flowing off the bottom ash was routed to the forebay for recirculation. According to Cohen and Shedlock (1986), in late 1979 the facili ty discontinued use of the easternmost settling pond, which was dewatered, dredged, and backfilled with sand and in 1980 and 1981, the remaining settling ponds were sealed by lining with a 1

- ft

- thick layer of clay and a 0.12

- inch thick polyvinylchloride (H DPE) liner.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

56 According to EPRI (2010) the two landfills occupy less than 4 and 16 acres, respectively, w hile the ponds occupy approximately 17 acres combined. Fly ash has been slurried to interim setting ponds that are periodically drained. 228 Wastewater discharged from the Site is regulated under one National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) per mit. 229 Approximately 70 to 80 percent of the wastewater within the impoundments is recycled back to the BGS. The remaining 20 to 30 percent of the wastewater is discharged to Lake Michigan under the NPDES permit through Outfall 001. 230

The 330

- acre site comp rises Area A in the western portion of the site, containing rail lines, coal feedstock pile, coal feedstock pile run

- off infiltration basin, debris storage area, fly ash staging areas, and most of the Site’s other Solid Waste Management units and Areas of Concern. Area B comprises the Settling Ponds and the Industrial Wastewater treatment Plant; and Area C consists of the eastern landfill areas and the INDL Study Area. 231

The Bailly Generation Station (BGS) is located within the Calumet Lacustrine Plain, an area characterized by three post

- glacial dune

- beach complexes. These complexes parallel the BGS and the current lakeshore boundary. Local geomorphology from the lakeshore to the south consists of the Holocene and Tolleston dune

- beach complex, the western p ortion of the Great Marsh (an interdunal lowland), and the Calume t and Glenwood dune

- beach complex. The facility is situated within the Holocene and Tolleston dune

- beach complex; however, the landscape has been modified to support Facility activities and consists primarily of fill materials. 232

According to NIPSCO (2010), the two landfills, that used to receive dewatered CCRs, are now subjected to RCRA Corrective Action. The present impoundments, commissioned in 1981, replaced the pre

- existing impoundments while using a similar footpr int. According to GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012, Section 1.2.2 and Figures 2 and 3) t hey are Primary #1 (5.85 acres, 66,111 cubic yards storage capacity), Secondary #1 (1.61 acres, 28,519 cubic yards), Primary #2 (5.85 acres, 75,555 cubic yards), Secondary #2 (2.87 acres, 48,611 cubic yards), Bottom Ash Pond (0.71 acres, 3,889 cubic yards), and forebay (0.14 acres, 2,567 cubic yards). The Secondary impoundments and the forebay receive a very limited amount of solids. Water decanted from both secondary ponds
go es into the forebay of the recirculating pump house for reuse in the sluicing system.
228 For a schematic of the Station’s slurried ash/wastewater system, see USDOE (1990), page 8.

229 Permit No. IN0000132, NIPSCO BGS, Indiana Department of Environmental Man agement, January 10, 2011.

230 GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012).

231 According to Region 5 Waste (2013), the BGS Site shares a border with a portion of the IDNL which lies to the east and north of Areas A and B and is currently still under EPA study as part of Area C ( http://www.epa.gov/Region5/cleanup/rcra/nipsco/pdfs/fig1_sitewide_overview.pdf ). The IDNL is a globally rare dune and swale ecosystem; the land consists of a series of roughly parallel, sandy ridges and low, wet swales formed from irregular cycles of high and low water levels. The IDNL is composed of over 15,000 acres of dunes, oak savannas, swamps, bogs, marshes, prairies, rivers, and forests. Its landscape represents at least four major successive stages of historic Lake Michigan shorelines, making it one of the most extensive geologic records of the world’s largest fresh water bodies. Biological diversity within the IDNL is amongst the highest per unit ar ea of all the national parks, with over 1, 100 flowering plant species and more than 350 species of birds. Areas A and B contain a limited amount of ecological habitat due to the industrialized nature of these areas. The northrnmost portion of Area A inclu des the lake Michigan beach area which was subjected to risk assessment under the current RCRA Facility investigation (RFI). Although the total area of ecological habitat for these areas is small, of particular importance is the evaluation of potential ris k to the piping plover, a federally endangered shore bird. By the time the piping plover was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1985, the Great Lakes population numbered only 17 breeding pairs.
232 For a succinct review of the morphology and the Ple istocene to Holocene geology of the southern shore of Lake Michigan, see KellerLynn (2010) and references therein.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

57 The site sits over the Calumet Aquifer System. 233 Specifically, the site is underlain by two aquiferic horizons (Units 1 and 3), separated by two clay

- rich, aquicludic horizons (Units 2 and 4). 234 The total
average combi ned thickness of these four units is 180ft . The surficial aquifer under the BGS (Unit 1) consists of glacially derived sediments associated with the advance and retreat of the Lake Michigan ice lobe during the Wisconsinian glaciation. In the vicinity of A reas A and B, Unit 1 consists primarily of unconfined lacustrine sands and ranges in thickness from 20 to 40 feet. The interdunal ponds are depressions intersecting the ground

- water table in Unit 1. Groundwater movement in the confined, underlying aquifer of Unit 3 (sand, clay and gravel) is generally west and upward. Groundwater flow occurs downward from Unit 1 to Unit 3 in the immediate vicinity of the settling ponds. Groundwater flow in this aquifer is primarily horizontal and northward toward Lake Mich igan.

The unlined, pre

- 1981 ash settling ponds, exerted a change to the groundwater regime. Seepage from the settling ponds, estimated to be at least 2 million gallons per day, 235 has created a ground

- water mound resulting in saturated groundwater flow in all directions away from the settling ponds in Unit 1 and into interdunal pond 2. 236 This seepage mound acted as a north

- south flow divide in the vicinity of the BGS. 237 The sealing of the ash settling ponds in 1981 changed the shallow groundwater flow. The ar tificial north

south groundwater divide created by pond leakage has been eliminated, allowing lowlands within the dune field north of the settling ponds to dry. The seepage mound created by the unlined settling ponds extended no farther than about 3000 fee t from the ponds. This fact suggests that seepage from the settling ponds before their sealing did not affect water levels in the Great Marsh. 238

Consolidated Paleozoic

- age sedimentary rocks underlie the unconsolidated deposits. The uppermost bedrock format ion is the Antrim shale, which is assumed to prevent any significant movement of water between the unconsolidated and consolidated deposits. 239 There are approximately 20 homes about 2,500

233 According to Indiana Department of Natural Resources (1994), in general, the Calumet Aquifer System consists of fine

- to medium

- grained san d with dispersed lenses of beach gravel. Beds of intermittent silt and clay, and deposits of peat and muck confine the aquifer in small areas across the region. The Calumet Aquifer has not been developed significantly because of its proximity to Lake Michi gan, an abundant surface

- water source. Expected high

- capacity yield ranges from 20 to 100 gallons per minute (gpm), but up to 150 gpm are obtained in some areas. The aquifer is highly susceptible to surface contamination because there is no clay

- rich cap a cross most of the aquifer and there is a lack (or scarcity) of clay separator beds.

234 For a detailed description of the Site’s geohydrology , see Meyer and Tucci (1979), Thompson (1987), Thompson (1994), and Shedlock et al., (1993). For the geohydrology of Porter and LaPorte counties, see Rosenshein and Hunn (1968).
235 Meyer and Tucci (1979, p. 94).

236 According to Meyer and Tucci (1979), seepage from the ponds has raised ground

- water levels above natural levels approximately 15 feet under the ponds and more than 10 feet within the Lakeshore. Due to the small thickness of unit 1, any human interference immediately impacts the water levels and the flow rates at the BGS and its vicinity. Two additional examples to the cited groundwater effects include (i) the 34

- 46 feet

- deep slurry wall constructed in 1977 to dewater the excavation of the (ultimately scrapped) Bailly 1 nuclear plant, just southwest from the BGS’, and (ii) the foundations of the Bethlehem Steel Burns Harbor Plant just south of BGS, averaging a dep th of 20 feet. Both of these man

- made structural elements have either locally constricted, diverted, or totally cut off the groundwater flow in unit 1.

237 Cohen and Shedlock (1986).
238 Ibid. Since the settling ponds were sealed, the concentration of boron ha s decreased while concentrations of cadmium, arsenic, zinc, and molybdenum in shallow ground water down

- gradient of the ponds show no definite trends in time. Arsenic, boron and molybdenum have remained at concentrations above those of shallow ground
water in areas unaffected by settling

- pond seepage.
239 Hardy (1981) studied the chemistry of water with dissolved constituents that seeped from fly ash settling ponds into down

- gradient sampling wells and into an interdunal wetland pond area below the settling p onds. His findings indicate that compared with background concentrations, the settling ponds are enriched with dissolved calcium, fluoride, sulfate, sodium, potassium, boron, aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead,IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

58 feet northeast of the site. However, no exceedances of site

- related c onstituents have been detected in this

area.


### Impact: Both aquifer units 1 and 3 were sampled at five

- week intervals between September 1976 and May 1978. 240 Down

- gradient exceedances were detected for several metals, with the highest for cadmium (x25 PDWS) a nd arsenic (x4.6 PDWS). However, cadmium exceedances (though lower, x22 PDWS) were detected also in the up

- gradient wells. In its 1988 Report to Congress, EPA observed 241 that cadmium was the only constituent whose down

- gradient off

- site concentration exceed ed the primary MCL. EPA concluded that leachate from ash disposal ponds was the most probable contributor to concentrations of arsenic and lead that were found above the primary MCL and primary MCL Action Level, respectively, in on

- site, down

- gradient well s. The elevated cadmium concentrations that were also found in samples taken from the background well, lead EPA to conclude that the elevated down

- gradient concentrations of cadmium may not have been caused by leachate from the coal ash. 242 One downgradient well measurement indicated that lead exceeded the PDWS by 1.26 times. All of the above observed exceedances occurred in Unit 1. None of the samples from Unit 3 contained concentrations that exceeded the PDWS.

A plume of aluminum and boron is extending nor th off the BGS property into the IDNL. Where ground water is shallow it breeches the surface to become surface water and form wetlands. As a result of seepage from the ash ponds, contaminated water from the slurry flowed into the IDNL Cowles Bog

molybdenum, manga nese, nickel, strontium, zinc, and alpha and beta radioactivity. Aluminum and lead concentrations of settling pond 11 (site 21A) were highest (32,000 and 200 μg/L, respectively), where pH was less than 3.5. Trace elements whose concentrations were increase d down

- gradient from the settling ponds by the seepage included aluminum (by 2.3 times), arsenic (by 2), boron (by 11), iron (by 2.5), manganese (by 6.8), molybdenum (by 55), nickel (by 7.5), strontium (by 3.4), and zinc (by 3). Although enriched in the se ttling ponds, concentrations of barium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, and lead were not enriched down

- gradient from the settling ponds. Higher than background dissolved Gross Alpha and Gross Beta radioactivity in interdunal pond 2 indicate that the settling

- pon d seepage has contributed radioactivity to the Lakeshore surface

- water resources. The Gross Alpha radioactivity of samples from the intra

- dunal ponds ranged between about 1.5 and 8 pCi/L and the Gross Beta radioactivity, excluding contributions by potassiu m

- 40, ranged between about 1.5 and 17 pCi/L. According to U.S.EPA (2012), i n 2005, the EPA collected samples at the BGS to test for radioactive elements related to coal and coal ash. No evidence of radioactivity was found. However, considering that those s amples did not cover the entire site and were collected several years earlier, the EPA requested that NIPSCO conduct additional sampling and testing at the facility. Samples from each area of the Site (Corrective Action Areas A, B , and C ) were collected an d analyzed for radiation in October 2011. Based upon the results, the groundwater at Areas A and B is not adversely impacted by radioactivity: Both the Gross Alpha and Gross beta sampling results were below the 15 pCi/L MCL and the 50 pCi/L MCL MCL, respec tively, for a Community Water System (CWS). Area C was also sampled and is not adversely impacted by radioactivity.

240 Ibid.

241 The 1988 Report to Congress cites the Dames and Moore (1978) study.

242 Dames and Moore’s (1982) conclusion on the lack of causation bet ween coal combustion waste and cadmium were based on the detection of cadmium exceedances also in upgradient wells. These observations can be re

interpreted as caused by groundwater mounding (as pointed out by Hardy, 1981), whereby wells designated as ‘upg radient’ were actually located downgradient.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

59 wetland co mplex 243 and into Blag Slough 244 to the north. 245 Monitoring wells show, however, that the plume has not reached Lake Michigan and does not appear to be moving. 246



### Resolution: According to EPRI (2010), the two landfills have been inactive since 1979 and 1986,

res pectively. Both were capped with soils. In March 2005, NIPSCO entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA which obligated NIPSCO to perform Corrective Action for the entire power plant property (includes multiple areas of concern in additi on to the landfills and surface impoundments), to address the release of hazardous wastes and/or hazardous constituents at the BGS that exceed the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) groundwater, surface water and sediment standards. Under the legal order, NIPSCO was required to investigate whether contamination from the BGS site is affecting soil, groundwater, or Lake Michigan.

According to EPRI (2010), mitigation has been performed; seven monitoring wells are located off

- site and extend from the facility fence to the Lake Michigan shore; a few parameters have concentration exceeding standards off site, but no exceedances are recorded in the wells closest to Lake Michigan. The risks of the concentration of metal constituents in plant tissue were evaluated in the Area C Baseline Ecologic Risk Assessment (BERA). 247

In July 2012, EPA issued a Final Decision/Response to comments identifying the final Corrective Action remedies selected by the Agency for a portion (Areas A and B) of the NIPSCO facility, pursuant to Se ction 3008(h) of RCRA. Whereas NIPSCO's ecological risk assessment concluded that there is no unacceptable risk to any receptors in Area C, EPA Region 5 does not concur with that conclusion. 248

243 According to http://www.epa.gov/Region5/cleanup/rcra/nipsco/pdfs/nipsco_fs_final25feb10.pdf , the Cowles Bog wetla nd complex (CBWC), part of the Great Marsh and a particularly sensitive ecosystem of national significance, is just northeast of the BGS property. The CBWC is so unique in its plant and animal life that it was designated as a National Natural Landmark by C ongress in 1965. In fact, it was where Henry Chandler Cowles, considered the “father” of modern ecology, did his exploration and studies. Through the 1970’s and early ‘80s, the CBWC underwent significant decline in some of its plant life due to the adjace nt industrial development and introduction of

non

- native plants. Studies from 2002

- 2004, however, demonstrated exceptional wetland characteristics. For location and groundwater potentiometric maps and additional information, see Cohen and Shedlock (1986).

244 According to Indiana Department of Natural Resources (1994), Blag Slough was drained for development of the Town of Dune Acres. It has returned to open water as a result of groundwater level changes associated with development of BGS’ nearby dike and fly ash ponds. According to Hardy (1981), the Station’s site contains two dikes: one between the settling ponds and the interdunal ponds and the other between the ash fill and the Great Marsh.

245 According to KellerLynn (2010), this information is based on a w ritten communication from Noel Pavlovic, U.S. Geological Survey, October 1, 2010 and on Pavlovic et al., 2009.
246 http://www.epa.gov/Region5/cleanup/rcra/nipsco/pd fs/nipsco_fs_final25feb10.pdf

247 Region 5 Waste (2012).

248 Specifically, see the March 15, 2013 letter from Michelle Kaysen, EPA R5, to Dan Sullivan, NIPSCO’s Bailly Generation Station, addressing the BERA’s conclusion that there are no unacceptable risks t o any receptors in any area of study ( http://www.epa.gov/Region5/cleanup/rcra/nipsco/pdfs/nipsco

- areac

- 201303.pdf ). The EPA believes that through a "multiple lines of evidence" approach there exists an abundance of uncertainty associated with the potential ecological risks in Area C. The EPA has also identified specific areas within the BERA's methodologies where potential risk was likely underestimated. A recent rep ort on a study of the vegetation found in the Cowles Bog complex (Potential Impact of Fly

- ash Groundwater Contamination on Vegetation of Cowles Bog, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Rothrock and Manning, 2011 ) presents findings that suggest boron, specifi cally, is causing adverse effects to the affected area of Cowles Bog. In combination with other lines of evidence, this report suggests that damages have occurred within the National Park and to the National Natural Landmark as a result of on

- site

sources. EPA and the National Park Service believe there is enough evidence and uncertainty to demonstrate that there is unacceptable ecological risk within Area C.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

60 

### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “While leve ls of arsenic and lead found on

site exceed health

- based standards, the only off

- site exceedances of health

- based standards (for cadmium) are not shown to be attributable to coal combustion waste. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 249 EPRI (20 10) concedes that “this facility has potential receptors and off

- site exceedances”.



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #44 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclu sions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000, and Compendium of Nineteen Alleged Coal Combustion Wastes Damage Cases, May 3, 2007). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2 012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Re port to Congress (1988): Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, U.S.EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530

- SW

- 88

- 002, February 1988. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coal

- rtc.pdf

Dames & Moore (1982): Review of existing literature and published data to determine if proven documented cases of danger to human health and t he environment exist as a result of disposal of fossil fuel combustion waste, in USWAG, Report and Technical Studies on the Disposal and Utilization of Fossil Fuel Combustion Byproducts, October 26, 1982, Appendix B.

Region 5 Waste (2013): Northern Ind iana Public Service Company Bailly Generating Station. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/Region5/cleanup/rcra/nipsco/index.html

NIPSCO (2010): Response of Northern I ndiana Public Service Company, Bailly Generating Station, to Request for Information from U.S. EPA under Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, October 4, 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/nipsco

- bailly

- gs.pdf

Hardy (1981): Effects of Coal Fly

- Ash Disposal on Water Quality in and around Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana. Mark A. Hardy, US Geol. Survey, Water Resources Investigations 81

- 16, April 1981, Indianapolis, Indiana. Accessed Online January 2013. http://pubs.usgs .gov/wri/1981/0016/report.pdf

Meyer and Tucci (1979): Effects of seepage from fly

- ash settling ponds and construction dewatering on ground

- water levels in the Cowles unit, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana, 1979, Meyer, William R.; Tucci, Patrick , USGS Water

- Resources Investigations Report: 78

- 138. Accessed Online January 2013.

For the full BERA comments, the recent status on groundwater, surface water and sediment/soil impac ts, and the findings of the RFI at the Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore (IDNL), see: Region 5 Waste (2013), updated August 2013.
249 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

61 http://archive.org/stream/effectsofseepage00meye#page/n9/mode/2up

Thompson (1987): S edimentology, internal architecture and depositional history of the Indiana Dunes Natinal Lakeshore and State Park. Thompson, T.A., Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 129 pp. (Unpubl ished .)

Thompson (1994): History and Architecture of Wetland Devel opment in the Indiana Dunes, Todd A. Thompson, Indiana Geological Survey/Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 1994, Volume 103 (3

- 4) p. 167

- 176. Accessed Online September 2013. http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ias/article/download/7363/7358

KellerLynn (2010): Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana, Katie KellerLynn, Geologic Resources Division, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, November 30, 2010. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/inventory/publications/ reports/INDU_GRI_scoping_summary_2010

- 1130.pdf

Pavlovic et al., (2009): Twenty

- three years of vegetation change in a fly

- ash leachate impacted meadow. Pavlovic, N.B., S. A. Leicht

- Young, D. A. Wilcox, R. Hiebert, D. Mason, and K. J. Frohnapple, Great Lak es Network report GLKN/2009/05. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Great Lakes Network, Ashland, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Rothrock and Manning ( 2011): Potential Impact of Fly

- ash Groundwater Contamination on Vegetation of Cowles Bog, Indiana Dune s National Lakeshore. Paul E. Rothrock and George C. Manning, Randall Environmental Center, Taylor University, Upland, Indiana, August 2011. http://www.epa.go v/Region5/cleanup/rcra/nipsco/pdfs/nipsco

- areac

- report

- 201108.pdf

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (1994): Water Resources Availability in the Lake Michigan Region, Indiana, Beaty, J. E., Gosine, R., and Smith, M.A., edts., Water Resources Assessme nt 94

- 4 (Summary). Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/lakemich_basinsums.pdf

U.S.EPA (2012): U.S.EPA RCRA Corrective Action Final decision/Response to Co mments, NIPSCO Bailly Generating Station, Chesterton, Indiana, Areas “A” and “B”, EPA ID # IND 000 718 114, July 2012. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.epa .gov/Region5/cleanup/rcra/nipsco/pdfs/20120709_NIPSCO_final.pdf

USDOE (1990): Environmental Assessment, Innovative Clean Coal Technology Program, Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project, Northern Indiana Public service Company, Bailly Gen erating Station, Porter County, Indiana, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EA

- 0420, April 1990. Accessed Online January 2013. http://ww w.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/bibliography/demonstration/pdfs/puair/00000 140.pdf

Cohen and Shedlock (1986): Shallow Ground

- Water Flow, Water Levels, and Quality of Water, 1980

- 84, Cowles Unit, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Cohen, D . A, and Shedlock, R. J., USGS Water

Resources Investigations Report 85

- 4340, 1986. Accessed Online January 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1985/4340/report.pdfIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

62 Shedlock et al., (1993): Interact ions between ground water and wet lands, southern shore of Lake Michigan, USA. Shedlock, R.J., Wilcox, D.A., Thompson, T.A., and Cohen, D.A., Journal of Hydrology, vol. 141, 1993, p. 127

- 155. Accessed Online September 2013. http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/env_facpub/94/?utm_source=digitalcommons.brockport.edu%2Fenv _facpub%2F94&utm_medium=PD F&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Rosenshein and Hunn (1968): Geohydrology and Ground

- Water Potential of Porter and LaPorte Counties, Indiana, Rosenshein, J.S. and Hunn, J.D., Division of Water Resources Bulletin 32, Geological Survey, US Department of the In terior, in Cooperation with Indiana Department of Conservation, , 1968. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/529_all.pdf

GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012): Final Round 10 Dam Assessment Report, NIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Coal Ash Impoundments, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., August 17, 2012. Accessed Online April 2013. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/nipsco_bailly_final.pdf



### PTa14. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. (SIGECO) A.B. Brown Generating Station, 250 

### Mount Vernon, Posey County, Indiana

Type: FGD Landfill.



### Background a nd Description: According to EPRI (2010), a FGD solids landfill covering approximately 130 acres is associated with the A. B. Brown generating Station. 251 The unlined landfill began operation in 1979 and was expanded in 1992, when a compacted clay liner was installed in the expanded area. A dual alkali scrubber is used at this plant, which produces a waste largely consisting of

250 A.B. Brown Station is currently owned by Vectren (Vectren was formed by the merger of Indiana Gas Company and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company). Plant Nameplate coal

- fueled Capacity : 530 MW; Units and In

Service Dates : 265 MW (1979), 265 MW (1986): http://www.sourcewatch. org/index.php/A._B._Brown_Generating_Station . There are also two gas turbine units, 88.2 MW of nameplate capacity each. Southwestern Indiana Bituminous coal (with average 2.82% sulfur) is used as a primary fuel type, which can be substituted for natural g as. FGD scrubbers were installed in the coal

- fueled units upon their construction.
251 According to Google Map (accessed: February 2013), the landfill is located north of the Plant: only about ten percent of the permit area is active, and there is an adjacen t, about 0.4 acres large, leachate collection pond.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

63 dry calcium sulfite. There are also two unlined surface impoundments, 252 which apparently are not implicated. 253

The site is located a bout eight miles east of Mount Vernon, five miles southwest of Evansville, Indiana, and less than a mile north of the Ohio River’s bank. According to EPRI (2010), groundwater flow is assumed to be south/southwest, toward the Ohio River and there is one dwe lling located southwest between the plant and the river.

Pleistocene and Recent age Site soil deposits of the Atherton Formation consist of loess and lacustrine facies and are composed of silt, clay and sand sized materials. 254 The site area has not been su bjected to glaciation. Underlying bedrock consists of the Pennsylvanian age lower part of the McLeansboro Group, composed of shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone and thin coal strata, with a total thickness of 200 to 350 feet. Bedrock in the area dips re gionally in a western direction. A normal fault trending northeast

southwest has been mapped about two miles northwest of the site. 255

Geohydrologically, the Brown Station is sited over the non

- glaciated Southern Hills and Lowlands Aquifer System. The thic kness of the aquifer in Posey County ranges between 20 and 60 feet. Due to its

252 According to Vectern (2009), O’Brien & Gere (2009a), and O’Brien & Gere (2009b) there are two impoundments serving the Plant: The Upper Ash Pond (Upper Pond) and the Lower Ash Pond (Lower Pond), the

com bined usable storage capacity of which is 5.4 million cubic yards (3.9 million CY in the Upper Pond and 1.5 million CY in the Lower pond). The Lower Pond dam was constructed in 1978 to form an impoundment by blocking off a natural ravine. The Lower Pond is located downstream of the Upper Pond. The impoundment area of the Lower Pond is approximately 53 acres. The Upper Pond and its corresponding earthen dam were constructed upstream of the Lower Pond to provide for better separation of solids and more flexib ility in waste ash management. The Upper Pond was formed by building the Upper Dam, which was constructed in two phases (2003 and 2007). The impoundment area of the Upper Pond is approximately 103 acres. Since the Upper Pond was constructed, the Lower Pond only receives scrubber blowdown, water treatment blowdown and discharge from the Upper Pond. Liquid wastes that are sluiced into the Upper Pond include: fly ash, bottom ash boiler slag, flue gas deposits, belt filter wash down, water sump wastes, pyrites, material removed from the coal pile runoff pond (once per year), plant floor drain wash down, boiler chemical cleaning wastes (once per 7

- 8 years), reverse osmosis system reject and rainfall/runoff from the area surrounding the pond. Google Map (accessed: February 2013) reveals two rather large, cross

- valley ponds east of the Plant, with a deltaic pattern indicative of slurry inflow into the Upper Pond. The Plant is rated as a Clean Water Act (CWA) NPDES Major discharger of pollutants into waters of the Un ited States. http://www.usa.com/frs/sigeco

- a

- b

- brown

generating

- station

- 110000403705.html (SPDES Permit # 0052191). The important role of the surface impoundments at the site is corroborated by a 1998

- 2002 and 2004

- 2005 reporting of a way

- larger quantity of metals disposed of to surface impoundments than by ‘other land disposal methods’ http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env

- releases/facility

- trend

detail.tcl?tri_id=47620SGCBB8511W&category=total_land and http://data.rtknet.org/tri/tri.php?reptype=f&facility_id=47620SGCBB8511W&reporting_year=2005&dbtype=C&det ail=3&datype=T

. 253 According to O’Brien & Gere (2009b), seepage investigation by Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) in 1982 of the Lower Pond dam resulted in a proposed Grout Curtain Installation by STS Consultants Ltd. (1983); however, questions regarding the effectiveness of this grout curtain arose during the construction process and the program was abandoned. Based on the available records, it does not appear that any of the other seepage mitigation measures recommended by HLA were ever implemented. The 2009 O’Brien & Gere site inspection of the Lower Pond’s dam indicated that seepage was still ongoing.

254 Athe rton Formation was proposed by Wayne (1963) for a group of inter

- tonguing and interrelated unconsolidated sediments that resulted from glacial action but that were deposited extra

- glacially. These sediments, gravel, sand, silt, and clay, all were derived pri marily from glacial outwash and were sorted and deposited by meltwater currents or wind action or in the quieter water environment of glacial lakes.

255 O’Brien & Gere (2009b) and a reference therein.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

64 relatively high content of clay and silt, there is little potential for water production from this aquifer. 256 The outcrop/sub

- crop area of the McLeansboro Group Aquifer System cov ers the entirety of Posey County. This aquifer system consists of mostly shale and sandstone with minor amounts of siltstone, limestone, clay, and coal. The McLeansboro Group Aquifer System is estimated to be over 400 feet. Domestic wells typically produce between 2 and 20 gpm. However, a few dry holes have been reported. This aquifer system is not very susceptible to contamination from the land surface because of low

permeability strata above water

- bearing zones. 257



### Impact: According to EPA (2007)

, t he Agency init ially identified this site in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination. 258 This analysis, along with additional information submitted by commenters, shows down

- gradient levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, an d pH in excess of their secondary MCLs. 259



### Resolution: According to EPRI (2010), a slurry wall was installed in the northeast corner of the original landfill in late 1987. Groundwater pumps have been installed in two wells in the northeast corner for the la st 10 years. Remediation has been performed and the landfill is active. Newer cells are lined. A groundwater monitoring program is in place. Groundwater concentrations have reportedly been stable since at least 1994. 260



### Basis for Consideration as a Potenti al Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site, sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride and pH, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 261

EPRI (2010) concludes that ‘This facility has an on

- site exceedan ce of an MCL, and there is a potential off

- site receptor, but remediation has been performed and there is no evidence that the drinking water supply for that potential receptor has been affected.’



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case A ssessments, Case #57 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

256 Unterreiner (2006a).

257 Unterreiner (2006b) and Unterrei ner (2006c).
258 Supplemental Analysis (1993).
259 According to Cherry et al., (2000), six constituents in down

- gradient monitoring wells exceeded federal limits at this site in Indiana: sulfate concentrations reached 62,000 mg/L; the highest TDS measuremen t was >10,000 mg/L; boron reached a high of 40 mg/L; sodium reached 14,000 mg/L; chloride reached 1,100 mg/L; and the maximum pH measurement was as high as 11.5. According to EPRI (2010), there is also an onsite, post

- remediation exceedance of arsenic.

260 A s of late, all Vectren’s coal fly ash is being recycled by Holcim’s Geocycle US, the largest cement manufacturer in the United States. In 2009, Vectren signed a 10

- year agreement to provide up to 200,000 tons of fly ash annually to the Ste. Genevieve, Mo., facility. A silo that can hold up to 2,500 tons of ash receives pneumatically conveyed ash from the Plant’s emission control system. The ash is then loaded onto a conveyor belt and taken the remaining half

- mile to the river for loading onto barges. The tu bular conveyor belt, commonly used in Europe but rarely in the United States, is designed to keep the ash dry (key to its reuse) and prevent dust. This system will reduce the role of the Plant’s surface impoundments to the disposal of bottom ash only. http://m.courierpress.com/news/2009/oct/24/vectren

- develops

- system

- to

- ship

- out

- its

- coal

- ash/

. 261 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

65 Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia. Prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online Augus t 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACT S

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Supplemental Analysis (1993): Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large

- Volume Coal Combustion Waste. U.S. EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

1993

- 0042

- 1642.

Vectren (2009): Response to Section 104(e) Information Request on Ash Management Units for: Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company

- A. B. Brown Generating Station, March 20, 2009. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/vectren.pdf

O’Brien & Gere (2009a): Upper Ash Pond Dam

– A.B. Brown Station, Final Assessment Report, Lockheed Martin, O’Brien & Gere, September 2009. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/vectrenbrown

- upper

- final.pdf

O’Brien & Gere (2009b): Lower Ash Pond Dam

– A.B. Brown Station, Final Assessment Report, Lockheed Martin, O’Brien & Gere, September 2009. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/vectrenbrown

- lower

- final.pdf

Wayne (1963): Pleistocene Formations in Indiana, William J. Wayne, Indiana Department of Conservation, Geological Survey Bulletin No. 25, 1963. Accessed Onli ne February 2013. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/216/B25.pdf?sequence=1

Unterreiner (2006a): Unconsolidated Aquifer Systems of Posey County, Indiana, Gerald A. Unterreiner, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Resource Assessment Section Map 30A, July 2006. Accessed Online February 2013. ht tp://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/posey_unconsolidated.pdf

Unterreiner (2006b): Bedrock Aquifer Systems of Posey County, Indiana , Additional Text. Gerald A. Unterreiner, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Resource Assessment Sectio n, July 2006. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/posey_bedrock.pdf

Unterreiner (2006c): Bedrock Aquifer Systems of Posey County, Indiana, Gerald A. Unterrein er, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Resource Assessment Section Map 30B, July 2006. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/posey_b edrock_text.pdf Note: Unterreiner 2006a, Unterreiner 2006b, and Unterreiner 2006c can be all accessed at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/4596.htmIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

66 

### PTa15. Hoosier Energy Merom Generating Station 262 

### CCR Landf ill, Sullivan, Sullivan County, Indiana

Type: Landfills and Apparent Ecological Impact in Cooling Lake.



### Background and Description: According to Hoosier Energy (2009), both fly ash and bottom ash are handled dry at Merom and deposited in an on

- site landf ill. In addition, other coal combustion products deposited in the landfill are dewatered prior to sending to the landfill. According to EPRI (2010) there are
two coal ash landfills on the site. Area 1 is a closed, 101

- acre site constructed in 1982. Area 2A is an active, 89

- acre site constructed in 1994. Area 1 has no liner. Area 2A has a 5

- foot clay liner (with hydraulic conductivity of 1x10

- 6 ). 263 The landfills are associated with several auxiliary sedimentation

- , wastewater treatment, and emergency basins, all lined with a synthetic or clay liner. 264 Turtle Creek Reservoir is a nutrient

- rich, 1,550

- acre combination storage, cooling, and sport fishing reservoir that began operating in 1982. Discharge of the wastewater and storm water basins into the Turtle Cre ek Reservoir that provides the plant with cooling water, regulated under NPDES Permit, 265 is apparently impacting the plant’s cooling water reservoir.

According to EPRI (2010), perched groundwater flows beneath the landfills, and during wet periods may

rea ch the bottom of the Area 1 landfill. The perched groundwater is not used for drinking water purposes because it is not an adequate source of water. There is a French drain beneath Area 2 to intercept the perched water during periods of high water level. A ccording to EPRI (2010), groundwater flow in the drinking water aquifer is assumed to be toward Turtle Creek Reservoir that is not used for drinking water. There are no dwellings between the landfills and this water body.



### Impact: 266 According to EPA (2007), the historical exceedances of health

- based standards (primary MCLs for barium, chromium, cadmium, and lead and secondary MCLs for sulfate and chloride) at this site are correlated with up

- gradient exceedances and occur in on

- site wells. 267 EPRI (2010) conce des to onsite exceedances of barium, cadmium, lead, sulfate, chromium, and chloride.

262 In EPA (2007), the site is erroneously referred to as Mermon Generating Station

. The Merom Station, located about five miles west

- southwest of Sullivan, consists of two coal

- fired generating units, each with a nameplate capacity of 490 MW. Unit 1 came online in July 1982, and Unit 2

– in 1983. At full load l evels, the power plant’s two generating

- units use daily more than 10,000 tons of coal. Coal is delivered to the plant by trucks and trains from southwestern Indiana mines : http://www.hepn. com/assets/files/MeromInfoModule.pdf

263 According to SAIC’s April 2003 letter to D. Rudy, OSWER/EPA, IDEM regulators claimed that Hoosier Energy combines its CCR to form “Poz

- O

- Tec” (processed ash and FGD waste). ‘Five year ago’, the wastes were not being combined correctly: it is from this older portion of the landfill that the observed contamination may be originating.

264 Hoosier Energy (2009).

265 Permit No. IN0050296. According to Partnership for Turtle Creek (No Date)

, the reservoir is stocked with blueg ill, redear sunfish, black crappie, largemouth bass and channel catfish and provides in season hunting for both goose and duck. Also, Bald Eagles, Golden Eagles and Great Blue Heron are often seen at the Reservoir.
266 For citizens’ complaints about fugitive dust impacts, see Docket comment EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10019. Citizen concerns expressed in the CCR proposed rule’s Louisville, Kentucky Public Hearing (Louisville Public Hearing, 2010) about fugitive dust, are substantiated by dust wipes from residents’ properties and indoors, with documented findings of arsenic at 2.72 mg/wipe and lead at 1.34mg/wipe.

267 According to Cherry et al., (2000), seven constituents exceeded federal limits at this site; however, from their data it is not always evident whether th e ‘exceedances’ were observed in groundwater or in leachate samples (i.e., pond water). Sulfate reached 900 mg/L; chlorides reached 1,200 mg/L, exceeding federal limits by 4.8, and sodium exceeded federal limits by 5.2 times. Cadmium and selenium reached 21μg/L and 16μg/L, respectively; aluminumIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

67 According to EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (2009 and 2010), selected metal concentrations in largemouth bass collected between 1981

- 2007 in the Turtle Creek Re servoir indicate that with the exception of selenium, the concentration of all metals analyzed in 2007 were within the ranges reported since 1981. The selenium concentration recorded based on 2007 sampling in largemouth bass (4.2 mg/kg) has been increasing since 1997. Based on 10 fish composite sample collected in the spring of 2009, selenium concentrations in largemouth bass (5.7 mg/kg) continue to rise. 268 The results of the 2008 chemical and biological studies indicate that the Turtle Creek Reservoir remai ns productive, but the largemouth fishery has declined considerably. The cited reports mention anecdotal evidence of deformed fish and dead wildlife as an inferred indication of the resulting ecologic damage. 269



### Resolution: IDEM required Corrective Action for sulfate and chloride contamination. According to EPRI (2010), Area 1 installed toe

- drain at base to capture water as it comes up near the base. Area 2 applies modified stormwater control methods to limit the amount of incidental ash in the perimeter d itch. The unlined landfill is inactive and the lined landfill is active. Remediation has been performed.

According to EPRI (2010), a groundwater monitoring program is in place. In response to state requirement, monitoring is performed in the uppermost zon e containing groundwater (the perched zone) rather than in the deeper drinking water aquifer. Post

- remediation exceedances are limited to chloride and sulfate. 270 Monitoring of three wells screened in a deeper groundwater aquifer was recently initiated and

n o exceedances were observed. This is so because the shale bedrock unit on which groundwater is perched is a confining unit that restricts downward migration to the deeper drinking water aquifer.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case : “The exc eedances found at this site, primary MCLs for barium, chromium, cadmium, and lead and secondary MCLs for sulfate and chloride, are all confined to on

- site wells. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 271



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Was te Damage Case Assessments, Case #60 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.)

in a leachate sample reached 2,818μg/L. According to Earthjustice (2011), chromium concentrations exceeded 100μg/L.

268 Selenium concentrations as low as 3.0 to 6.0 mg/kg have been reported to cause reproductive fai lure, among other toxic impacts, in warm water fishes (Lemly 1999 and 2000). In the course of one of the public hearings associated with the proposed CCR rule (Louisville Public Hearing, 2010), speakers mentioned fish deformities and a recent closing by th e Utility of the Turtle Creek Reservoir for sport fishing.
269 Based on EA Engineering (ibid), Partnership for Turtle Creek (No Date) cites a “gradual and consistent decline in the aerial extent of aquatic macrophytes [vascular plants] in Turtle Creek Reserv oir” from 1993 to 1996. EA’s report lists reduced light penetration and herbicide runoff as “plausible causes” for the decline in macrophytes, and the lack of submerged macrophyte cover as a possible cause for the poor catch of Young

- of

- Year largemouth bas s. The lack of macrophytes may be a direct deterrent to spawning, as these bass like to spawn in shallow, sheltered areas associated with aquatic vegetation. For additional information on the decline in Turtle Creek Reservoir’s fish population, see Coal Pl ant Pollution in Turtle Creek Reservoir, October 7, 2011: http://www.inindianawater.org/story/coal

- plant

- pollution

- in

- turtle

- creek

- reservoir/ , and Advocacy Group Says Turtle Creek Reservoir is Polluted but no Testing has been Done , November 10, 2011: http://www.tribstar .com/local/x1937514484/Advocacy

- group

- says

- Turtle

- Creek

- Reservoir

- is

- polluted

- but

- no

testing

- has

- been

- done

. 270 Tabulation of exceedances in perched groundwater after remediation is based on 2008 data table provided to EPRI by the power company.

271 EPA (200 7).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

68 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combu stion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online A ugust 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IM PACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (2010): Biological and Chemica l Monitoring in Turtle Creek Reservoir near Merom Generating Station, 2008. Final Report Prepared for Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Bloomington, Indiana, by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Deerfield, Illinois, March 2010. In Docket co mment EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10019. Asccessed Online October 2012.

Earthjustice (2011): EPA’s Blind Spot: Hexavalent Chromium in Coal Ash. Lisa Evans, Earthjustice; Barb Gottlieb, Physicians for Social Responsibility; Lisa Widawsky, Jeff Stant, Abel Russ , John Dawes, Environmental Integrity Project, February 1, 2011. Accessed Online October 2012. http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/CoalAshChromeReport.pdf

Hoosier Energy (2009): Hoosier Energy REC, Inc., Response to Request for Information under CERCLA Section 104(e), 42 U.S.C. 9604(e), March 28, 2009. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/hoosier

- merom.pdf

Louisville Public Hearing (2010): Public Hearing on EPA's Proposed Rule on Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special W astes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities, DOCKET ID NO. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640, Louisville, Kentucky, Tuesday, September 28, 2010. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/transcripts/transcript

- louisville

- ky.pdf

Partnership for Turtle Creek (No Date, apparently 2005): Watershed Management Plan for T urt le Creek and Little Turtle Creek, P artnership for Turtle Creek, W atershed Committee. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/files/wmp_turtlecreek_4

- 151.pdf



### PTa16 . NiSource (formerly: NIPSCO) Michigan City Site, Michigan City, LaPorte County Indiana 272



### Type: Surface Impoundments.



### Background and Description: EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fu els by Electric Utility Power Plants. It is described in detail in

272 http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Michigan_City_Generating_StationIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

69 that document, citing Dames & Moore’s (1982) original study. According to Dames & Moore, the Michigan City Generation Station (MCGS) 273 has two unlined surface impoundments. 274 Commissioned in 1974, these ponds are located on highly permeable sands on the shore of Lake Michigan, where groundwater flows towards the Lake. 275

The MCGS is underlain by more than 200 feet of unconsolidated glacial and lacustrine sediments. Borings have been drilled o n the site to depths varying between 50 and 256 feet below grade. The MCGS site is located near the eastern end of the physiographic region of Indiana known as the Calumet Lacustrine Plain. A topographically

- low region bordering Lake Michigan, the plain is a remnant of the Lake Chicago stage of the Wisconsinian glaciations. The geology of the plain is characterized by complex clay, sand, and silt deposits, ranging from ground moraines to aeolian sand and silt, as the shoreline of glacial Lake Chicago moved with its rising and falling stage. 276

273 In commercial operation since 1931, the MCGS’ Nameplate Capacity is 540 MW (a single gen eration unit). Originally designed for Bituminous coal, the Station converted to Powder River Basin coal in1994. The Plant uses a mix of 85 percent PRB and 15 percent Bailey (southwestern Pennsylvania, from the Pittsburgh 8 Seam) coal. NIPSCO was about to launch, in early 2013, the construction of a scrubber at its MCGS, following state regulators' approval of the project in September 2012, to bring its electric generating stations into compliance with new U.S. EPA rules on the emission of mercury and other HAPs. http://www.nwitimes.com/business/nipsco

- gets

- ok

- to

- start

million

- michigan

- city

- project/article_46 f3ac34

- 8874

- 583a

- 9c7c

- c4c0418e9878.html . This project is the outcome of the January 2011 legal deal brokered by the EPA and the DOJ with NIPSCO and other utilities in the Midwest, along the southern shore of Lake Michigan. As part of the settlement, NIPSC O committed to permanently scuttle an idled coal

- fired power plant in Gary and spend $600 million to install and improve pollution controls at three other aging electric generators in Chesterton, Michigan City and Wheatfield. ( http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/decrees/civil/caa/nipsco

- cd.pdf ; for a summary, see http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews

- deal

- would

- clear

- up

- coalplant

01132011,0,4399852.story ). The settlement also calls for installation of new flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and an upgrade to existing selecti ve catalytic reduction systems at the MCGS. The FGD installation project is scheduled for completion by the end of 2015 ( http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2013/11/05/nisource

- posts

- third

- quarter

- 2013

- earnings

- %5Bprofessional

- services

- close

-- up%5D

- a

- 415620.html ). According to NIPSCO (September 2009), the fly ash from the Bailly and Michigan City Sta tions is transported for disposal to Schafer Generating Station in Wheatfield, about 20 miles south of Valparaiso. http://www.citybythelake.org/forums/lofiversion/index.ph p?t2533.html

274 According to NIPSCO (2010) and GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012, narrative and Figures 1 and 2), there are presently three primary ponds and three secondary ponds, all unlined: Primary #1: 2.2 acres, capacity 57,250 cubic yards (CY); Primary #2: 2.6 acres, capacity 70,260 CY; and Bottom Ash Pond (Bottom Ash Area, BAA, which does not retain/impound water): 0.7 acres, capacity 2296 CY). The secondary (polishing ponds) are: Secondary #1: 0.2 acres, capacity 4440 CY; Secondary #2: 0.2 acres, capacity 5344 CY; and Final Settling Basin (Final Settling Pond, FSP): 5.7 acres, capacity 137361 CY. In addition, there are also areas of historic fill that used to receive slurried CCRs. The impoundments were constructed in the early 1970’s for the purpose of st oring and disposing CCRs and began operation in 1973. Prior to 1973, fly ash was used as structural fill to fill in the shoreline of Lake Michigan. In 1999, the MCGS switched to a dry fly ash handling system. There are two rows of sheet piling that separat e the impoundments from Lake Michigan. The northernmost row (installed between 1935 and 1950) was primarily installed to protect the MCGS from wave erosion. The second row of sheet piling was installed in 1973 in conjunction with the impoundments to suppor t the structural integrity of the impoundments and for further protection from Lake Michigan. Heavy rip rap was placed in between the two rows of sheet piling.

275 The MCGS is located about one mile northwest of Michigan City, Indiana (101 Wabash Street, Mic higan City, Indiana 46360). The impoundments are located less than a mile southwest of the MCGS. For a succinct review of the morphology and the Pleistocene to Holocene geology of the southern shore of Lake Michigan, see KellerLynn (2010) and references th erein.

276 Golder Associates (2012).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

70 The MCGS’ site borings are consistent with the regional geology. The soil sequence is dominated by massive, very stiff silt and clay, but contains numerous lenses of fine and/or silty sand particularly in the uppermost 50 feet. The presence of thin lenses of ash, and trace amounts of ash mixed with sand in the uppermost 20 to 40 feet suggests some excavation and re

- grading of shallow soils has occurred. The groundwater table is between 5 and 25 feet below grade. 277

In gen eral, wastewater flows through the impoundments by gravity from southwest to northeast to the FSP where it is either pumped (recycled) back to the MCGS or discharged to Lake Michigan by gravity through Outfall 001. 278



### Impact: Among the 21 monitoring wells (two of which are up

- gradient), several of the down

- gradient wells recorded, within one year of monitoring, arsenic (up to x100 the PDWS) and lead (up to x7 the PDWS). While no wells were placed off

- site, Dames & Moore (1982) concluded that a steel slurry wall down

- flow from the disposal site, in addition to natural attenuation, mitigated and limited the contaminant plume. Because lead exceeding the PDWS was detected also in several up

- gradient wells, it is not clear whether it is related to the CCR. 279

In t he Report to Congress (1988), EPA concluded that ash ponds at the site are responsible for arsenic concentrations above the primary Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL). EPA also concluded, however, that effects on ground water appeared to be limited to areas w ithin the facility boundaries, and that there are no apparent receptors down

- gradient of the facility.



### Resolution: EPRI (2010) claims that no new information was identified for this case, and that the impoundment was capped in 2007, included 2 feet of soi l with 6” topsoil cover, and that remediation has been performed.


### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case : “While levels of arsenic found on

- site exceed the primary MCL, there was no evidence available of off

- site migration of contaminants. T herefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 280



### References EPA (2007): 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #43 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Ide ntified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000. Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007). http://www.reg ulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

277 Golder Associates, ibid. This report provides detailed, boring

- based information, on the natural substrate of the MCGS’ impoundments.

278 NPDES No. IN0000116, NIPSCO

– Michigan City Generating Station, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, March 15, 2011. For location, see GZA GeoEnvironmental, ibid, Figure 2.
279 A possible effect of groundwater mounding due to high

- rate infiltration from the unlined ponds, exacerbated by the steel slurry wall down

- flow from the d isposal site, cannot be ruled out as the cause for the appearance of lead in some of the so

- called ‘up

- gradient’ wells. See detailed hydrologic descriptions in the entry on NIPCO’s Bailly Generating Station southwest of the Michigan City’s Generation Stati on. 280 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

71 Report to Congress (1988): Wastes fro m the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, U.S.EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530

- SW

- 88

- 002, February 1988. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coal

- rtc.pdf

Dames & Moore (1982): Review of existing literature and published data to determine if proven documented cases of danger to human health and the environment exist as a result of disposal of fossil fuel combustion waste, in USWAG, Report and Technical Studies on the Disposal and Utilization of Fossil Fuel Combustion Byproducts, October 26, 1982, Appendix B.

NIPSCO (2010): Response of Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Mi chigan City Generating Station, to Request for Information from U.S. EPA under Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, October 4, 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/nipsco

- Mi

- City.pdf

KellerLynn (2010): Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana, Katie KellerLynn, Geologic Resources Division , National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, November 30, 2010. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.nature.nps.gov/geolog y/inventory/publications/reports/INDU_GRI_scoping_summary_2010

- 1130.pdf
GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012): Final Round 10 Dam Assessment Report NIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Coal Ash Impoundments, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., GZA File No. 01.0170142. 30, October 19, 2012. Accessed Online April 2013. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/nipsco_michigan_city _final.pdf

Golder Associates (2012): Geotechnical Investigation and Embankment Stability Analyses, NIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station, Michigan City, Indiana, Golder Associates, Inc. Project No. 123

- 88898, August 27, 2012, in GZA GeoEnvironmental (2 012, Appendix F). Accessed Online April 2013. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/nipsco_michigan_city_fin al.pdf



### PTa17. Indianapolis Power & Light 281 

### (IPL) Petersburg Generating Station, 282 

### Pike County, Indiana

Type: Landfill.



### Background and Description: According to EPRI (2010), a 75

- acre landfill, constructed/expanded from 1976 to 1997. The landfill is act ive and a 45

- acre expansion has been approved but not yet

281 EPA (2007) cites this case as Indiana Power & Light. IPL is a subsidiary of AES Corporation.

282 According to CDM (2010), the Petersburg Generating Station, located about three miles northeast of town, began operation in June 1967. The CC R is generated by Unit ST1 (online since 1967), Unit ST2 (online since 1969), Unit ST3 (online since 1977), and ST4 (online since 1986). Based on the last three years of operation, the plant burns 15,000 tons of bituminous coal from the surrounding region (Illinois Basin), producing approximately 1,500 tons of CCR.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

72 constructed at the time of the 2010 EPRI report. The 75

- acre landfill is unlined. 283 In addition, there are four unlined surface impoundments (two active, two inactive, constructed between 1964 and 19 86) that are not implicated in the groundwater impact. 284

According to EPRI (2010), the site is located in an area where old abandoned surface and underground coal mines are present. Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) groundwater investigations indica ted impacts were from the mines rather than the landfill. According to EPRI (2010), it is assumed that groundwater flow is toward the White River 285 and there are no receptors between the facilities and the river.

According to CDM (2010), the Station’s CCR impoundments are located in the Wabash Lowlands, an area of subdued landforms consisting of broad valleys and smoothly rounded hills with gentle bedrock slopes. The original impoundments were apparently constructed over White River alluvium deposits that are underlain by bedrock. The impoundments are bounded on the east by uplands that consist of aeolian loess material and residual clays. The landfill is apparently constructed at edge of the upland area, bordering on the White River’s alluvial plain. The b edrock in the area consists of shale, siltstone, limestone, sandstone, and coal of the Pennsylvania

- age Carbondale Group of the Sullivan Lowland Unit.



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate and total dissolv ed solids in down

- gradient wells in excess of their secondary MCLs. 286 There is no information available on the location of these wells relative to the waste management units. EPRI (2010) cites an on

site exceedance of sulfate but claims that source is uncer tain; EPRI also claims that ‘Sulfate exceedances are reportedly due to coal mining activities rather than a release from the landfill.’ 287

283 The 45

- acre expansion will have a liner consisting of 1 foot of clay and 2 feet of Poz

- o

- Tec. Poz

- o

- Tec is a coal combustion by

- product made by combining dewatered scrubber sludge, fly ash, and quicklime . When compacted, reactions occur which allow the product to solidify into a low

- permeability product (according to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/public ations/research/infrastructure/pavements/97148/026.cfm , the permeability can range between about 1 x 10

- 6 cm/sec and as low as 5 x 10

- 8 cm/sec; and see also a footnote below dealing with the injection of Poz

- o

- Tec like material into underground coal mine voids).

284 IPL (2009). For an air photo of the impoundments, see IPL (2011, narrative and Figure 5). The original CCR impoundment was constructed between 1964 and 1967. The impoundment was constructed in the vicinity of the footprint of current Pond A and P ond A

– Discharge. In 1986, a second CCR impoundment in the current location of Pond B and Pond C was commissioned to the north of the existing impoundment s, Pond A and Pond A

– Discharge. The impoundment was constructed at the edge of the floodplain to t he east of the White River. In 1999, two embankments were constructed over the second CCR impoundment creating Pond B and Pond C. The four impoundments at the Petersburg Generating Station are currently used as settling ponds for CCR and other plant waste s. CCR sluiced into the ash ponds include: bottom ash, fly ash, boiler slag, and FGD control residuals. The southern impoundments consist of Pond A and Pond A

– Discharge. Pond A and Pond A

– Discharge are approximately 67.3 and 5.4 acres in size, respecti vely. Pond A is used as the primary settling basin for sluiced liquid waste materials. Pond A

– Discharge is used as a secondary settling basin prior to water being discharged at the outlet structure or being diverted into the recycling pump station. The no rthern impoundments consist of Pond B and Pond C. Pond B and Pond C are approximately 35 and 30 acres in size, respectively. The two impoundments are currently inactive. Pond B and Pond C are currently used as storage areas for CCR. CCR and other material dredged from Pond A and Pond A

– Discharge are stored in Pond B or Pond C to allow dewatering. Material is stored in the impoundments until it is dredged and shipped back to nearby coal mines or used for beneficial reuse applications. Stormwater surface ru noff in these impoundments is discharged back into Pond A through the outlet structures.

285 The White River is a tributary of the Wabash River.

286 According to Cherry et al., (2000), sulfate concentrations reached 1,800 mg/L and TDS

- 3,500 mg/L.

287 According to Turka and Gray (1996), motivated by a concern about landfill expansion into abandoned underground coal mines that surround IPL’s/Petersburg Station property due to subsidence, that would put the integrity of a liner or runoff pond containment structure for a CCR landfill at risk, a pilot was carried out that involved the injection of fixated scrubber sludge (FSS) paste into an abandoned Illinois Basin ( No. V coal seam )IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

73 

### Resolution : According to EPRI (2010), The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) concurred with the IP L findings about the mines being the source of the sulfate exceedance and did not require further action.


### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site, sulfate and total dissolved solids, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 288



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #59 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commen ter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.) http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Cherry et al ., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared f or Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20C oal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

mine. FSS is a scrubber by

- product blended with dry fly ash and quicklime. To enhance the pozzolanic properties of the fly ash, quicklime (calcium oxide) with minor quantities of magnesium oxide and silicon dioxide (as quartz) were added as an activation additive. The FSS constituents react over time with each other to self

- cement. Three

s urface water sources (ash pond, abandoned surface mine and cooling tower) along with acidic mine water were tested as the dilution water of the FSS blend. Overall, 16,351 cubic yards of FSS was injected during the eight week field test. The unconfined comp ressive strength of the injected FSS in the mine workings varied from 683 to 3,172 kPa (99 to 460 psi). Permeabilities varied from 1.4 x 10

- 7 cm/sec for a 2,413 kPa (350 psi) sample to 3.4 x 10

- 5 cm/sec for the 241 kPa (35 psi) sample. As with prior work, there appears to be correlation between higher strength and lower permeability.

Ground water monitoring (22 different water quality parameters) was conducted through 14 monitoring points. Sampling was conducted nine times, four before, one during and four after injection, the last sampling bout nine months after injection. The constituents that emerged as primary indicators of water quality changes related to the FSS injection were, in order of decreasing significance, sodium, potassium, calcium, boron, ch loride, and magnesium. Sulfate, TDS, and specific conductance were secondary indicators of FSS injection effects (i.e., changes in these parameters were observable at some monitoring sites but were generally of lesser magnitude and frequency). Arsenic, cad mium, chromium, lead, selenium, aluminum, barium, nitrate, and sulfide were relatively unaffected by the injection. The pH (6.0 to 7.5) and acidity of the mine pool were not significantly affected by the injection of FSS into the mine, suggesting that the mine water's buffering capacity effectively resisted changes in these parameters. The main hydrologic impact was noticed in water in mine voids, where rock/water ratio is inherently higher than in mine pools. These tended to exhibit

– particularly in close r proximity to FSS injection points and to areas in the mine where FSS was documented

- more readily observable chemical changes related to the injection than water in non

- void wells.

288 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

74 IPL (2009): Response to U.S. EPA l04(e) Information Request to Indianapolis Power & Light Company ("IPL")

– Petersburg Generating Station, May 13, 2009. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/ipl

- peter.pdf

CDM (2010): Assessment of Dam Safety of Coal Combustion Surface Impoundments, Indianapolis Power & Light C ompany Petersburg Generating Station, CDM, November 15, 2010. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil /surveys2/ipl

- petersburg

- final.pdf

IPL (2011): Response to January 7, 2011, Final Report of Assessment of Dam Safety of Coal Combustion Surface Impoundments, Indianapolis Power & Light Company, Petersburg Generating Station, February 21, 2011. Accessed O nline October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/ipl

- petersburg

- response.pdf

Turka and Gray (1996): Use of Coal Combustion By

- Products in Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation, Robert J. Turka and Richard E. Gray, GAI Consultants, Inc., R. James Meiers, Indianapolis Power & Light Company, and Dean M. Golden, Electric Power Research Institute, 1996. Accessed Online January 2013. http://wvmdtaskforce.com/proceedings/96/96TUR/96TUR.HTM



### PTa18. NiSource (Formerly: NIPSCO) R.M. Schahfer Generating Station, 289 

### Wheatfield, Jasper County, Indiana

Type : Surface Impoundments; Some Converted into a Landfill.



### Background and Description: The Schahfer Generating Station is located about one mile northeast of Wheatfield, Indiana, in the northeastern part of Jasper County. 290 The Station is located on the floo dplain of the Kankakee River, with some of the impoundments within 0.7 miles away from the river. 291

289 Plant Nameplate Capacity : 1,943 MW; u nits and in

- Service dates : Unit 14

- 540 MW (net: 431 MW) (1976); Unit 15

- 556 MW (net: 472 MW (1979); Unit 17

- 423 MW (net: 361 MW) (1983); Unit 18

- 423 MW (net: 361 MW) (1986). Unit 17 of the Schahfer plant burns pulverized Illinois Basin sub

- bituminous coal, and has an electrostatic precipitator and a wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit. http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/600etv06044.pdf . Unit 17 has served to test the effect of the scrubber’s oxidation reduction p otential on the re

- emission of mercury from FGD scrubbers, as well as its effect on the speciation of selenium in the scrubber liquor (EPRI, 2012). There are also two
gas

- operated units (Units 16A and 16B, with 78 and 77 MW net generation, respectively) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Schahfer_Generating_Station and http:// www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/HADLEY%20LA%20Clean%20Coal.pdf . In 2004, the Station consumed about 5 million tons of coal (Brady and Pfitzer, 2007). For additional information on the generation units,

see IDEM (no date).
290 R.M. Schahfer Station is l ocated approximately 20 miles south of Valparaiso, Indiana.
291 The Kankakee River joins to the west with the Des Plaines River to form the Illinois River. In the immediate area is the Aukiki Wetland Conservation Area, and nearby are the Kankakee River Swamp land State Conservation Area, Kankakee State Fish and Wildlife Area, and Jasper

- Pulaski Fish and Wildlife Area. Consequently, the station's NPDES permit requires compliance with a chlorine residual level that cannot be exceeded when discharging into the Ka nkakee River's final receiving waters. http://www.waterworld.com/art icles/iww/print/volume

- 11/issue

- 3/feature

editorial/mixed

- oxidant

- replaces

- cocktail

- of

- chemicals

- in

- power

- plant

- cooling

- tower

- water

- system.html

.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

75 The Plant has multiple dry

- and wet

- disposal areas and auxiliary basins. Wet

- disposed waste units with ash contents are: (i) Waste Disposal Area; 292 (ii) Mat erial Storage Runoff Basin; 293 (iii) Metal Cleaning Waste Basin; 294 and (iv) Yard Drain Stormwater Retention Pond. 295 The following impoundments may incidentally receive de minimus flows containing suspended solids related to the combustion of coal: (i) Recycle Basin; 296 (ii) FGD Landfill Stormwater Runoff Pond; 297 and (iii) Final Settling Basin. 298

Dry

- disposed waste units include, according to EPRI (2010), an active , 230

- acre CCR landfill constructed in 1984. 299 The landfill has been receiving CCRs for disposal from NIPSCO’s Indian City and Bailly power stations. 300 Currently the landfill receives only fly ash; historically received FGD sludge and bottom ash in addition to fly ash. Phases I and II are unlined. Phases III, IV, and future phases have composite liners and leachate collection systems. 301 There are also two former (now dry and filled) units which came online in 1976, and have been out

- of

- service since 1982: (i) Dry Ash Staging Area 302 and (ii) Retired Waste Disposal Area. 303

In mid

- 2011, NIPSCO was in the proces s of installing two wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units at Schahfer’s coal

- fired utility boiler Units 14 and 15. 304

292 The Waste Disposal Area, in service since 1982, has surface area of 75.5 acres, operating capacity of 1,880, 000 cubic yards (CY), and receives b ottom ash, boiler slag and other waste.
293 The Material Storage Runoff Basin, in service since 1982, has surface area of 12 acres, operating capacity of 77,400 CY, and receives g ypsum from FGD process loss and other waste

. 294 The Metal Cleaning Waste Basin, in service since 1982, has surface area of 12 acres, operating capacity 77,400 CY, and receives b ottom ash, boiler slag and other waste.
295 The Yard Drain Stormwater Retention Pond, in service since 1999, has surface ar ea of 1.3 acres and water capacity of 9000 CY.
296 The Recycle Basin, in service since 1982, has s urface area of 30 acres and water capacity of 600,000 CY.
297 The FGD Landfill Stormwater Runoff Pond, in service since 1983, has s urface area of 4.5 acres and wa ter capacity of 19,000 CY.
298 The Final Settling Basin, in service since 1976, has surface area of 214 acres and water capacity of 3,550,000 CY.
299 However, elsewhere EPRI (2010) indicates that ‘ash handling procedures were changed from sluicing to dry ash h andling and the new cell design was modified.’ As long as the power station’s dam integrity assessment report is withheld from public access (due to a CBI claim), the discrepancy between EPRI’s (2010) landfill data and the NIPSCO (2009) waste units’ data c annot be reconciled.
300 NIPSCO (2009).

301 The liner system consists of (from bottom up) compacted clay, 60

- mil HDPE geomembrane, leachate collection piping embedded in a granular drainage layer, geotextile material, and a protective soil cover layer. The unl ined cells are inactive and have been capped.

302 Surface area 4.7 acres; dry and dredged material is staged on top of this area and periodically removed to a disposal site
303 Surface area 50 acres; the surface of this area is used for the dry staging of gyps um prior to reuse in wallboard manufacture.

304 http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=48478 , June 2011. This is pursuant to a Clean Air Act violation settlement agreeme nt between the EPA and NIPSCO, which stems from a complaint by the EPA in 2004 accusing NIPSCO of installing equipment at the plants in Chesterton, Michigan City and Wheatfield in the 1980s and 1990s without first obtaining the required permits. The EPA sa id that under the New Source Review requirements the equipment was supposed to be state of the art but was not: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/nipsc o.html . In November 2013, NIPSCO completed the installation of a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system on Unit 14, as committed to under a January 2011 clean

- air consent decree worked out with the U.S. EPA. A second scrubber, at Schahfer’s Unit 15, is sla ted for completion in fall 2014 ( http://generationhub.com/2012/01/06/nipsco

- seeks

- air

- permit

- change

- for

- two

- schahfer

- sc ). The new scrubbers will feed the FGD directly to the Georgia

- Pacific wall board gypsum plant next door ( http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/nipsco

- project

- rising

- high/article_d485bd0d

- 9cfb

- 5d6d

- 8548

- 4d98ae381157.html ).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

76 The landscape of the Kankakee River Basin is primarily a product of the latest Wisconsinan glacial events of the Lake Michigan lobe. Ma jor landscape elements include (i) the nearly level to gently rolling surfaces of ground moraine, aeolian plains, outwash

- apron deposits, and the Kankakee River floodbasin; and (ii) the more pronounced topography of end moraines. The thickness of unconsoli dated deposits generally ranges from 50 to 100 feet in the lower Kankakee River Basin. The Kankakee River Basin lies across the crest of the Kankakee Arch, a major structural feature which separates the Michigan and Illinois Basins. The bedrock surface und erneath the unconsolidated Pleistocene deposits in the Plant’s area is composed primarily of the Devonian age and Antrim Shale. 305

Water quality is generally good in the Kankakee River, although iron and manganese concentrations commonly are high and the ri ver frequently is turbid. Available data for the Kankakee River show that concentrations of toxic substances in streambed sediment and fish tissue are negligible. 306

The Schahfer Generating Station is sited over the Kankakee Aquifer System. In general, this aquifer is characterized by extensive deposits of outwash sand and gravel. The common thicknesses of this highly

productive aquifer system generally range from about 30 to 50 feet. Domestic wells produce from less than 10 gallons per minute (gpm) to more than 50 gpm, and yields of up to 600 gpm generally can be expected from high capacity wells. Ground water in the Kankakee River Basin is hard, neutral to slightly alkaline, and dominated by calcium and bicarbonate. Ground water generally meets drinking

- wat er standards, although iron commonly exceeds the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL). Other constituents that commonly exceed SMCLs include manganese and total dissolved solids. Chloride and sulfate concentrations can be variable and are sometimes h igh, but rarely exceed the SMCLs. Nitrate concentrations generally are at or near background levels, but water in a few wells scattered throughout the basin contains nitrate levels exceeding the 10 mg/L MCL. 307



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination. 308 This analysis, along with additional information submitted by commenters, showed down

- gradient levels of sulfate in excess of its secondary MCL. 309 EPA concl uded in the supplemental analysis that other pollutant exceedances at the site appeared to be outliers or were for up

- gradient wells only. According to EPRI (2010), post

- remediation, onsite exceedances include boron, iron, chloride, sodium, manganese, moly bdenum, and sulfate. 310 Several wells experienced selenium and silver spikes in the mid

- 2000s that were not tabulated as exceedances due to their short duration (one to two samples).



### Resolution: According to EPRI (2010), no Consent Order and/or other state/ federal action has been identified for this Site. The unlined cells are inactive and have been capped in 1994, and a geomembrane cap was applied in 1998/99. Ash handling procedures were changed from sluicing to dry ash handling and the new cell design was modified. Phases III, IV, and subsequent phases have composite liners (compacted clay, 60 mil HDPE geo

- membrane) and leachate collection systems. A groundwater

305 DNR (1990) and Indiana Division of Water (1990).

306 DNR (1990).
307 Ibid. The Kankakee Aquifer System is highly susceptible to contamination from surface sources.

308 Supplemental Analysis (1993 ).
309 According to Cherry et al., (2000), four constituents in down

- gradient monitoring wells were greater than federal limits at this Indiana site. Sulfate reached a high of 27,500 mg/L; boron reached a high of 25 mg/L; the highest sodium measurement was 11,000 mg/L; and chloride

- 1,400 mg/L.

310 Tabulation of exceedances in groundwater after remediation based on data provided by the power company covering the period 1998 through March 2009. EPRI (2010) presents no data for any of these constituents prior t o remediation.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

77 monitoring program is in effect and wells closest to the property boundary have concentrations b elow applicable standards.

EPRI (2010) claims that there are on

- site exceedances of constituents that do not have MCLs; and that remediation has been performed, the exceedances are limited to an area close to the facility, and monitoring wells farther dow n

- gradient do not show exceedances, nor is there evidence of groundwater supply wells within one mile down

- gradient of the facility. According to EPA, 311 following RCRA Corrective Action, as of July 2011, human exposure and contaminated groundwater migration are under control.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The sulfate exceedances found at this site are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 312



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damag e Case Assessments, Case #55 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Co mbustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia. Prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Onli ne August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTA L

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?space=CommunityPage&cached=true&parentname=ObjMgr&parenti d=2&control=SetCommunity&CommunityID=405

NIPSCO (2009): Response of Nor thern Indiana Public Service Company, R.M. Schahfer Generating Station, to Request for Information under Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), March 26, 2009. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/nipsco

- schahfer.pdf

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) claims that the EPA assessment report for their R.M. Schahfer Power Plant contains “Confidential Business Information.” Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/wast e/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/rm

- schahfer

- cbi.pdf

DNR (1990): Water Resource Availability in the Kanakakee River Basin, Indiana , Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. Accessed Online January 2013. ( Executive Summary o f : Water resource availability in the Kankakee River Basin, Indiana: Clendenon, C.J. and Beaty, J.E., eds., 1987,

311 Final Remedy Decision occurred on June 4, 2009, and solution for cleanup was implemented by April 6, 2010. https://obipublic.epa.gov/sso/analytics/saw.dll?PortalPages&Action=Navigate&col1=RCRA_PROFILE_FINAL.HA NDLER_ID&val1=IND082859455&PortalPath=/shared/CIMC/_portal/CIMC &Page=RCRA+Profile+Page#contam ination

. ( No longer accessible )

. 312 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

78 Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Water Resources Assessment 90

- 3). Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/kankakee_basinsums.pdf

Indiana Division of Water (1990): Lower Kankakee River Basin, Plate 2B: Unconsolidated and Bedrock Aquifer Systems. Accessed Online October 201 2. http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/kank

- lowa_basinsums.pdf

IDEM (no date): Part 70 Operating Permit Renewal, NIPSCO

- Schahfer Generating Station, 2723 east 1500 north, Wheatfield, Indiana, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, T073

- 29983

- 00008. Accessed Online January 2013. http://permits.air.idem.in.gov/29983p.pdf

Brady and Pfitzer (2007): A Prescriptive Analysis of the Indiana Coal Transportation Infrastructure, Brady, T. F., and C. M. Pfitzer, Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP

- 2007/15. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2007

. Accessed Online January 2013. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1708&context=jtrp&sei

redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dnisource %2520m.%2520schahfer%2520generating%25 20station%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D88%26ved%3D0 CFoQFjAHOFA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdocs.lib.purdue.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent. cgi%253Farticle%253D1708%2526context%253Djtrp%26ei%3DGPQJUeXbOPPW0gH8z4GYBg%26u sg%3DAFQjCNHSbSAirqtMCksN8vif6exNuBw33w#search=%22 nisource%20m.%20schahfer%20gene rating%20station%22

Supplemental Analysis (1993): Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large

- Volume Coal Combustion Waste. U.S. EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

1993

- 0042

- 1642.

EPRI (2012): FGDExpert Demonstration at NIPSCO Schahfer Unit 17: Oxidation Reduction Potential Effects on Scrubber Chemistry (abstract); December 31, 2012. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001023069

NIPSCO’s dam as sessment report : ( a s of D ecember 17 , 2014, NIPSCO’s dam as sessment report is still

un accessible because N IPSCO c laims it is C onfidential B usiness I nformation, CBI )

. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/nipsco_schahfer_cbi.pdfIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

79 

### PTa19. Muscatine County Land fill, Montpelier, Iowa

Type: Offsite Landfill (Monofill).



### Background and Description: The Muscatine County CCR landfill is located about five miles west of Montpelier, roughly halfway between Muscatine and Davenport. The older, unlined landfill, commissi oned in 1964, was closed in 1973. The active landfill, commissioned in 1974, apparently has no liner as well (there is no state requirements for liner).

Based on a 1987 study, 313 a 5

- acre unlined landfill was retained by an embankment dam in an upland ravin e draining into the Mississippi River. The potentiometric surface produces groundwater flow to the south, through and under the landfill, and towards the dam. The discharge included a seep which flowed from the base of the dam below the ash lens within the dam. Groundwater flow extended under and through the dam, discharging to a down

- gradient pond. 314

The ash is underlain by loess, over clay

- rich till, over sandstone. 315 The no

- longer active landfill was an off

- site unit that at one time received CCR ash fro m the Fair Station in adjacent Montpelier, Iowa. 316 Nineteen shallow wells monitored in and around the landfill, between 1983 and 1984, for major ions, alkalinity, Specific Conductivity, sulfate, chloride, arsenic, and selenium.

According to EPA (2007), it is not clear, based on the available data, if the currently active facility was constructed on the same site as the older, closed landfill. However, the issue of whether or not the sites

are co

- located does not affect the analysis here, because the availa ble data for the active site do not cover the constituents of concern (sulfate and selenium) for the older site. 317 Further research is unlikely to find any additional information about the old facility. Therefore, conclusions about this site are based on th e limited historical data. 318 According to EPRI (2010), groundwater flow is to the south, toward the Mississippi River. There are eight dwellings and a campground down

- gradient of this site.



### Impact: There were down

- gradient exceed a nces of the SMCL for sulfa te (over 2,000 mg/L) and possibly an isolated exceed a nce of MCL for selenium. All of the exceed a nces were in wells within or near the boundary of the landfill. Groundwater has saturated the lower half of the ash, and the plume has migrated at least 46 met ers down

- gradient, discharging into a small pond. Another facility, probably constructed on the same site as the older, closed landfill identified by the commenters, began receiving waste in the mid

1970s, and first applied for a permit in 1991. 319 A 2003 re view of the then most recent monitoring data for the active site revealed down

- gradient exceed a nces of the SMCLs for pH and iron in wells close to the disposal area. These exceed a nces, however, are correlated with exceed a nces in up

- gradient wells. At that time, sulfate and constituents with primary MCLs were not monitored at the site.



### Resolution: The older landfill is capped with less than one meter

- thick loess and seeded for pasture, but gulleying has partially exposed the ash. According to Spencer & Dra ke (1987), the low permeability and the high ion exchange capacity of the enclosing loess have limited the mobility of the contaminants: “the pollution potential for this small upland landfill appears limited to a small area, and is unlikely to adversely a ffect any water supplies utilized by humans in the near future.” The Iowa DNR has not taken any regulatory action at the currently active site.

EPRI (2010) concludes that ‘No new information was identified for this case. In the 2007 USEPA Damage Case Asse ssment, the MCL exceedances were described as “on

- site” and “close to the waste management unit” (i.e., exceedances likely occur within the operational limit of the facility).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

80 

### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances of non

- hea lth

- based standards (secondary MCL for sulfate) and possibly a single health

- based standard (primary MCL for selenium) at this site are in wells located on

- site, close to the waste management unit. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 320



### Refere nces EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #64 and references therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 20 00; and Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.) http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Spencer & Drake (1987 ): Hydrogeology of an Alkaline Fly Ash Landfill in Eastern Iowa/Linda Le Seur Spencer & Lon D. Drake, Groundwater, Vo. 25, No. 5, Sept.

– Oct. 1987. Accessed Online October 2012. http://info.ngwa.o rg/gwol/pdf/872543927.PDF

313 Spencer & Drake (1987).

314 Spencer & Drake (1987) provide a detailed hydrogeological and hydrochemical analysis of the evolution of the local groundwater, as it moves from up

- gradi ent monitoring wells through the landfill to down

- gradient monitoring wells.

315 According to Spencer & Drake (1987), the loess is of Wisconsinian age, about 28,000 to 13,000 years BP. The till is the Illinoian Kellerville member of the Glasford Formation, a nd the sandstone is the Pennsylvanian

- age Spoon Formation of the Kewanee Group.

316 According to CIPCO (2012), the facility consists of two units: Unit #1 has a capacity of 24 MW, while Unit #2 is rated at 42 MW. Production began in 1960. Both units were lea sed by Central Iowa Power Cooperative (CIPCO) in 1982. CIPCO purchased them from Eastern Iowa Light & Power in 1996. Fair Station Unit #2 is equipped with an ESP with flue gas conditioner and low

- NOX burners. Unit #1 is equipped with an ESP. It used coal f rom southern Illinois and western Kentucky. The coal was fired in a dry

- bottom pulverized coal furnace, with the fly ash retained in mechanical dust collectors, passed through a water venturi then sluiced into an ash pond. This pond was dewatered each summ er when the ash was excavated and hauled to the landfill. CIPCO is evaluating the possibility of retiring the Station by the end of 2013 due to economic and environmental compliance reasons. However, this decision has not been finalized and repowering opti ons are also being considered.

317 EPRI (2010) concedes to onsite exceedance of sulfate. EPRI (2010) claims that the 1987 article reported selenium concentrations in excess of the current MCL of 0.05 mg/L in a leachate well (screened in fly ash), but not in down

- gradient monitoring wells. However, according to Figure #4 in Spencer & Drake (1987), Well #10, where that selenium excess was recorded in October 1983 (ibid, Table #4), is located topographically below the SSE confining dam and down

- gradient from th e old landfill

. 318 EPRI (2010) also claims the exact site location is uncertain, and was tentatively identified using aerial imagery. However, Google Map resolves these uncertainties by showing that each of the landfills occupies a discrete site. Both landf

ills are located west of Ward Avenue. However, the inactive, reclaimed landfill is located further away from Ward Avenue, and is bordered to its south

- southeast by the pond. Presently, the pond comprises three larger and two smaller discrete basins. The ac tive CCR landfill is confined to its west by the pond and to its east

– by an access road that branches off Ward Avenue.
319 Prior to an Iowa rulemaking in 1989, many coal combustion disposal sites were grandfathered and were not required to apply for a perm it. After the rulemaking, many pre

- existing facilities came under the permit program for the first time.

320 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

81 CIPCO (2012): Central Iowa Power Cooperative 2012 Integrated Resource Plan for Submittal to WAPA, March 2012. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www. cipco.net/tariff_irp/2012%20CIPCO%20WAPA%20IRP.pdf



### PTa20. Duke Energy (Formerly Cincinnati Gas & Electric, Cinergy) 321 

### East Bend Scrubber Sludge Landfill, Rabbit Hash, Boone County, Kentucky

Type: Landfill and Surface Impoundments.



### Background and Des cription: Duke Energy’s East Bend Generating Station 322 is located along the north bank of an eastward bend on the Ohio River in west

- central Boone County, Kentucky, approximately 2.5 miles south of Rabbit Hash, Kentucky. East Bend contains several CCR dispo sal units: (i) a 160

- acre fixated scrubber sludge landfill, located 1,300 feet north of the Ohio River. (ii) A 53

- acre, unlined fly ash (side

- hill) surface impoundment (1,277 acre/feet storage capacity), located about 400 feet north of, and adjacent to, th e Ohio River. (iii) FGD Pond West (Sludge Pond A): 4.2 acre with 45 acre/feet of storage capacity, and (iv) FGD Pond East (Sludge Pond B): 3.6 acres with 51 acre/feet of storage capacity. 323 All three ponds were commissioned in 1980. 324 A sanitary landfill an d a sludge pond also existed at one time. The power plant’s location adjacent to the Ohio River suggests that shallow water table aquifer conditions exist at the site. According to a February 1997 report by Dames & Moore, 325 perched water table and Ohio Rive r valley aquifers occur at the power plant. However, the wells that were installed in 1996 do not monitor the perched water table and therefore do not monitor the uppermost water

- bearing zone. For the Site’s geologic conditions, see Appendix B in Dewberry & Davis (2011).

Potentiometric surface diagrams prepared since at least 1997 for each sampling event show that groundwater flows from the landfill to the southwest and southeast towards the Ohio River and at times, away from the river to the northwest. A December 1998 Dames & Moore report concluded that the reversed groundwater flow direction was due to “infrequent strong rises” in the Ohio River; however, the river stage for that time “was relatively stable at approximately 455.5 feet”. The reversed flo w direction could also be due to pumping from the power plant’s groundwater production wells and/or a result of mounding of groundwater from waste disposal unit(s), including the unlined surface impoundment. 326

321 Cinergy came into existence in 1994 as a result of a merger of three utilities; in turn, Cinergy was purchased in 2006 by Duke Energy

. 322 According to Cinergy (2004), commissioned in 1981, the East Bend No. 2 is a base load plant with nameplate generation capacity is 669 MW. Its net rating (after allowing for power used to operate the plant machinery) is 600 MW. East Bend is designed to burn low

- to high

- sulfur eastern bituminous coal. It is equipped with a scrubber (lime

- based flue gas desulfurization system) along with a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control system, which is designed to reduce NOx emissions by 85 percent.

323 Accord ing to Dewberry & Davis (2011), these two FGD temporary holding ponds have a surface area of about 2.5 and 2.3 acres, respectively. The impoundments are regulated under an NPDES Permit No. KY 040444.
324 Duke Energy (2009). Dewberry & Davis (2011) claim that the large fly ash surface impoundment was designed in the ‘mid

- 1970s’. According to EPRI (2010), (i) the impoundment and most of the landfill have no liner; and (ii) two recent landfill cells have a composite geomembrane/geosynthetic clay liner with leacha te collection; these cells received FGD gypsum from another power plant.

325 As cited by Quarles and Segall (2011).

326 Groundwater mounding is supported, according to Quarles and Segall (2011), by July 1998 groundwater sampling in Well MW

- 4, nearest the ash p ond, which yielded groundwater temperature of 73.5 0 F, as compared to 59 0 F in typical shallow aquifer well on

- site.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

82 In its comment to the docket, 327 the 

### Kentucky De partment of Environmental Protection ( KDEP) states that assessment of monitoring wells data associated with the surface impoundments 328 indicates that exposure risk to residential uses would be confined only to wells put next to or under the surface impoundm ent. However, due to institutional controls, such residential wells are prohibited by the facility. In this case, there is a large receiving stream (Ohio River) bordering on the property, such that no one lives between the surface impoundments and the str eam.
According to Quarles and Segall (2011), requirements for groundwater monitoring changed with time. The early monitoring system, established in 1980/1981, included six wells at the solid waste disposal
area, one up

- gradient well at the sanitary landfi ll, a down

- gradient well at sludge Pond B, two down

gradient wells at an ash storage area, and two production wells at the plant. 329 Early in 1996, 12 wells and two piezometers were decommissioned because as of July 1994, the new KPDES permit no longer requi red groundwater monitoring and that wells were not suitable (by construction or location) to monitor the landfill. A new monitoring system consisting of seven wells was installed in August/September 1996 and first sampled in November 1996. Beginning in 199 9 and through the end of 2006, the required sampling parameters list was drastically reduced. 330 Statistical analyses of groundwater data have been required since 1999.



### Impact: Groundwater monitoring in April 1981 detected down

- gradient exceed a nces of SMCLs for total dissolved solids, iron, and sulfate. 331 Citizens complained that 300 tons sulfate leak into the Ohio River via groundwater. 332 The State also found highly elevated levels of chloride, calcium, and magnesium in down

- gradient wells, that were several factors greater than the corresponding levels in the background well, but below SMCLs. 333

Statistically significant increases (SSIs) of chloride also occurred in 1999 in wells which are down

gradient of the special waste landfill. SSIs of COD have occurred in January 2008 at wells MW

- 4, MW

- 5, MW

- 6, and MW

- 6D, and for Specific Conductance

- in wells MW

- 5 and MW

- 6. Initially, the on

- site fixated scrubber sludge landfill was the suspected contamination source, but the 2006 groundwater investigation indicated co ncentrations were higher (and exceeded the SMCLs) in the vicinity of the ash pond.

327 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6260, pp. 6

- 7; 29

- 31

. 328 Kentucky has five phases to a groundwater monitoring report indicating that one parameter is a bove background or above an MCL: confirmation sampling and analysis by the agency, an assessment permit modification, assessment report, corrective action permit modification, and a correction action report. See 401 KAR 45:150 at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/401/045/160.htm

. 329 Thirty

- six parameters were monitored, including all toxic metals.

330 Monitoring was required of the following indicator parameters, none of which has an EPA MCL standard: temperat ure, specific conductance, COD, organic carbon, chlorides, TDS, pH, and copper. However, this statement does not comport with monitoring data cited by EPRI (2010) further below for the same time period.

331 For sulfate, the State’s secondary standard is 250 mg/L. According to Quarles and Segall (2011) nine wells (of ten) exceeded at least one standard from 1981 to 1997. Maximum MCL exccedances involved: arsenic

– 4 times standard, lead

– 1.6 times, and mercury

– 450 times. Maximum SMCL exceedances included: iron

– 43 times standard, and silver

– 66 times.

332 EPA (2007). Initially, this site was classified as indeterminate because the commenters did not identify the source of the information and no quantitative data or further information about this site was av ailable. Subsequently, additional information was obtained through KDEP that has resulted in its classification as a potential damage case.

333 Between 1999 and the end of 2006, the required sampling parameter list was drastically reduced to only include Tem perature, chloride, Specific conductance, total dissolved solids (TDS), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), pH, and copper, none of which has an EPA MCL standard.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

83 When the results of data from 1999 through the July 2009 sampling event are compared to the 1981 results, the data indicate that:

• Wells down

- gradient of the ash pond and th e sludge pond are no longer sampled. As a result, there are no wells to monitor the MCL exceedances that were reported in 1981for mercury in down

- gradient wells at the ash pond or the sludge pond.

• TDS concentrations have increased since 1981, particularly down

- gradient of the capped portion of the special waste landfill (MW

- 3);

• Statistically significant increases (SSIs) of chloride have also occurred in 1999 in MW

- 4 and MW

- 6D, which are down

- gradient of the special waste landfill; and

• SSIs of Chemical Oxyge n Demand (COD) have occurred in January 2008 at wells MW

- 4, MW

5, MW

- 6, and MW

- 6D, and for specific conductance in wells MW

- 5 and MW

- 6.

A revised groundwater assessment plan that also included a risk assessment was submitted to the KPDES in December 2009. The risk assessment concluded that (i) the only constituents of probable concern (COPCs) were iron, manganese, and sulfate that are classified by the EPA as only SMCLs; (ii) the only possible human exposure pathway was from ingesting water containing the three COPCs from plant production wells that supply drinking water to the plant. The human health risk was acceptable for on

site workers but that any future residential use would not be acceptable; and (iii) there was no risk to ecological receptors. Qua rles and Segall (2011) claim, however, that the assessment was substantially flawed, because it failed to consider heavy metals that have been detected at high concentrations in the groundwater, failed to consider groundwater discharge to a nearby small re ceiving stream, and included very limited ash pond water samples.

EPRI’s (2010) tabulation of exceedances/elevated levels in groundwater 334 is based on database provided by the power company containing analytical results collected from 1996 through January 2009.



### Resolution: In response to the SMCL exceedances, in 1999 the state required the facility to: (1) expand its list of semi

- annual monitoring parameters, (2) prepare a groundwater assessment plan to determine the existence, quality, quantity, areal ex tent, and depth of groundwater degradation, and (3) establish the rate and direction of migration of contaminants in groundwater. EPRI (2010) did not identify any Consent Orders or State /federal List (2010), but claims that ‘mitigation measures’ have been performed.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: Based on the on

- site exceedances of non

health

- based standards for total dissolved solids, iron, and sulfate at this site, and subsequent state regulatory action based on these exceedances, t his case is a potential damage case. 335



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #35 and reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Ca ndidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

334 According to the utility: Onsite exceedance attributed to CCRs: sulf ate; onsite exceedances with source uncertain: iron and manganese; constituent concentrations below WQSs: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chloride, fluoride, chromium, copper, lead, selenium, and zinc. Note that EPRI’s statement about the constituent concentrati ons ‘below WQSs’ contradicts the statement by Quarles and Segall (2011), whereby beginning in 1999 and through the end of 2006, with the exception of copper, no monitoring of toxic metals was required. EPRI (2010) also claims that iron and manganese are l isted as ‘source uncertain’ because their highest concentrations occur at wells with low CCR leachate indicator (boron) concentrations.

335 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

84 EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Produc t Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www .epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Duke Energy (2009): Response to a CERCLA 104(e) Request for Information, East Bend Generating Station, March 30, 2009. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/duke

- eastbend.pdf

Dewberry & Davis (2011): Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Round 6

- Dam Assessment Report, East Bend Station Coal Combustion Surface Impoundment Duke Energy, Boone County, KY, Contract Number: EP

- 09W001727, May 2011. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/duke

- eb

- final.pdf

Quarles and Segall (2010): Slow Motion Spills: Coal Combustion Waste and Water in Kentucky, a Report by the Sierra Club, Kentucky Waterways Allia nce, and Global Environmental, LLC, Researched and written by Mark Quarles, P.G., and Craig Segall, April 21, 2010. Accessed Online January 2013. http://kentucky.sierraclub.org/resources/environmental_research/coal_combustion_waste_and_water_in_ ky_042110.pdf

Cinergy (2004): Cinergy Integrated Resource Plan, 2003, Volume I, April 1, 2004. Accessed Online January 2013. http://psc.ky.gov/PSCSCF/2007%20cases/2007

- 00477/OCI%20Workpapers%20I/OCI_Workpapers%20I_Part%20C.pdf



### PTa21. K.R. Rezendes South Main Street Ash L andfill

– PG&E, Freetown, Bristol County, Massachusetts 336



### Type: Structural Fill in a Sand and Gravel Pit.



### Background and Description: The Rezendes South Main Street Ash Landfill in Freetown 337 is a 35

- acre coal ash, state

- permitted, unlined, off

- site monofi ll in a former sand and gravel quarry adjacent to Assonet Bay. 338 The monofill is located south of the Assonet River, a tributary of the Taunton River:

336 See EPA ( 2007) Case #25 and references therein.

337 Southeast of Exit 9, off Route 24 (the Boston

- Fall Riv er Expressway).
338 According to EPRI (2010), the Rezendes landfill was a 31.5

- acre site. Another nearby CCR site in Freetown, the Copicut Road Structural Fill , was rejected as a damage case after being categorized as a case without documented evidence of pr oven or potential damage to human health or the environment (EPA 2007, Case # 72). This site consists of a 10

- acre structural fill located in a 70

- acre former sand and gravel quarry. In November 1999, K.R. Rezendes submitted a Letter of Intent to the Freet own Board of Health for using coal ash as a structural fill in a former gravel pit on Copicut Road, about 2,000 feet south of the Rezendes landfill and across from the Terry Brook Reservoir. http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepacerts/2010/sc/enf/14560enf.pdf http://findlakes.com/terry_brook_reservoir_massachusetts~ma00802.htm The purpose of re storing the Copicut gravel pit to its original elevation was to construct a building and parking area for a business owned by the site’s owner. http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010205/NEWS/302059986&cid=sitesearch&templat e=printart . In February 2000, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) agreed in a letter that the proposed a ctivity constituted “fill”, and was therefore exempt from permitting requirements. The site began operation in March of 2000 and accepted ash from PG&E’s Salem Harbor and Brayton Point Plants. PG&EIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

85 estimates that a total of 310,000 tons of ash have been di sposed during this site’s short period of operation. On October 11, 2000, the Town of Freetown declared that the stockpiling and storage of fly ash was a noisome trade, subject to site assignment regulations. On October 17, 2000, the Board of Health issued a cease and desist order and the site, in compliance with the order, stopped receiving coal ash. There are five groundwater monitoring wells at the site: one up

- gradient and four down

- gradient. Monitoring was conducted before ash placement and during
oper ation for metals, ammonia, TDS, nitrate, pH, VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs. The monitoring results did not document any exceedances of federal or state standards, except for low (acidic) pH. Because acidic groundwater (below the recommended minimum secondary MCL) was present already prior to ash placement, this exceedance cannot be attributed to ash placement. Freetown’s state representative Mark Howland, cited by The Gulf of Main Times (2004), said that prior to the ban “testing ordered by the town Board of Health found excessive levels of arsenic in the landfill and in gravel trucks used to transport the ash.”IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

86 T aunton River drains south towards Mount Hope Bay, part of Narragansett Bay at Fall River. Since 1976, the landfill accepted some 2.5 million tons of coal ash from PG&E’s Salem Harbor and Brayton Point power (Somerset) power plants as a structural fill to bring the quarry to natural grade. 339 The monofill is sited in glacial till of Pleistocene

- age. 340

, 341 Undistur bed groundwater is acidic, and with the exception of rather high levels of dissolved iron and manganese, it is generally of good quality. 342



### Impact and Damage Claims: Ground water monitoring at the site has detected levels of selenium above the primary MCL . Elevated levels of sulfates, total dissolved solids, manganese, iron, and aluminum have also been detected at the site, although levels are below the relevant secondary MCLs. 343 All of the monitoring wells at the site are located on

- site. There are no down

- gradient drinking water sources, because the landfill is adjacent to a down

- gradient water body (Assonet Bay), which is not used as a drinking water source due to its brackish water. 344



### Resolution: In early 2001, MADEP issued a consent order, requiring mo difications to the site’s groundwater monitoring program and surface water sampling, and evaluation of groundwater discharge to the adjacent Assonet Bay. 345

Operations at the landfill ended in 2001 as the result of a bylaw passed by the Town of Freetown. The bylaw bans the disposal of coal combustion wastes within the town. 346 It was appealed by the landfill operator and PG&E, but upheld by the State Attorney General.

The site has been recently redeveloped as Payne’s Crossing Shopping Center. 347

, 348 As of la te 2008, about 80 percent of the landfill area has been capped. Most of the remaining 20 percent of uncapped landfill will be brought to grade with clean fill as part of the proposed Payne's Crossing project construction. A small of amount of former landfi ll area will be made available for the potential need to relocate fly ash material generated during project construction. The project's new buildings and impervious surface areas are expected to provide additional barriers to further isolate the coal ash. The development project has been expanded to include about 81 acres, incorporating peripheral areas beyond the original landfill’s footprint. 349



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case : This case has been categorized 350 as a potential damage case f

or the following reasons: (1) Scientific

- Selenium exceeded its primary MCL in

on

- site monitoring wells; and (2) Administrative

- The State required modification to the site’s ground water monitoring program.



### References EPA (2007): 2007 CCW Damage Case Assessments #25 and references therein ( Compendium of nineteen alleged CCW damage cases, US EPA, May 3, 2007). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- H Q

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

USGS (2002): Ground

- Water levels in Massachusetts, October 2001 to Sep tember 2002. Accessed Online February 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/WDR_MA

- RI

- 02

- 1/pdfs/excerpt4.pdfIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

87 339 According to EPA (2007) and a reference therein and based on the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report (2008), the project was the subject of Dra ft and Final EIR in 1976 for the land

- filling of approximately 800 tons per day (tpd) of coal fly ash on a 35

- acre portion of a 60.2

- acre former sand and gravel quarrying site located off Route 79A (South Main Street) in Freetown. The Rezendes landfill was originally approved as a 14

- acre monofill by the Freetown Board of Health and by permit from the MADEP. The Board of Health granted approval for the remaining 21 acres in 1990, and approved a request for expansion to within 250 feet of Assonet Bay in 1993

. The final permit for the site was issued by MADEP in 1994, in which year the daily tonnage of coal fly ash received at the site was increased to 1,500 tons. The project site is bordered by Route 24, the Assonet River, Payne's Cove and South Main Street. The Proponent also proposed to develop an industrial park within the project site comprised of the former sand and gravel and completed fly ash landfill containing approximately 3.7 million square feet of light manufacturing and commercial space.
340 USGS (2 002).

341 According to Lanham (1988) and Simcox (1992) and references therein, across the Taunton River Basin, the stratified till ranges in thickness from 0 to about 20 feet and is a poorly sorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. Because till is poorly sorted and contains a relatively large fraction of silt and clay, the hydraulic conductivity of till is low. Wells constructed in the till generally yield only a few gallons per minute. Individual wells in the Taunton River basin can yield, however between more than 100 to 300 gal/min, if located in areas underlain by permeable sand and gravel. About 80 percent of stratified drift in the Taunton River basin consists of these permeable materials. Many of these high

- yielding deposits ar e in depressions in the valleys of a
pre

- glacial drainage system that has little similarity to the present

- day drainage system.

342 According to Lanham (1988), in the great majority of the stratified till aquifers in the northern portion of the Taunton River Basin, the pH of the ground water ranged from 5.4 to 6.5; the water are ‘soft’ (hardness was mostly less than 69 mg/L); no concentrations of sulfate or chloride that exceeded recommended limits for drinking water were found; elevated natural concentration s of iron and manganese in ground water exist locally throughout the basin: natural concentrations of these two metals commonly exceed the limits of 0.3 mg/L for iron and 0.05 rng/L for manganese recommended for drinking water. With a single exception (lea d in one well), none of the 10 constituents sampled that have U.S. EPA recommended drinking water limits exceeded the recommended limit for groundwater.
343 According to EPA (2007) and a reference therein, groundwater samples were collected semi

- annually fro m seven locations near the ash landfill. Samples were analyzed for VOCs, metals, alkalinity, chemical oxygen demand (COD), dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, specific conductance, sulfate, and temperature. Impact was recorded as early as 1998.

344 Assonet Bay is an estuary subject to tidal influence. For tide intensity forecasts, see http://www.weatherforyou.com/reports/index.php?forecast=tides&place=asso net&state=ma&zipcode=02702

345 For specifics, see EPA (2007) and a reference therein.

346 For news reporting on the site’s events between 2001and 2008, see SourceWatch (2013).

347 Dominion’s comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0254. In Novemb er 2008, Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles approved the developer’s final Environmental Impact Report and traffic mitigation plans. http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2008/12/14/freetown_development_gets_state_ok/

. 348 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report (2008)

. 349 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report (ibid) and Certificate on Project Change (2008). In addition, the project site contains close to 10

- acres of bordering vegetated wetlands (BVW) located along the western and northern shoreline boundaries t o Payne's Cove (Assonet River) and Assonet Bay. The prospective impact of site’s development was reduced by the construction of service roadways and a stormwater management detention basin. A habitat assessment of the project site identified suitable nesti ng habitat for the Diamondback Terrapin ( Malaclemys terrapin ), a state protected threatened species, along gravely and sandy portions of the project site's northern shoreline, and a suitable aestivation and foraging habitat for adult Diamondback Terrapin i n salt marsh area located along portions of the project site's southwest shoreline. To avoid the need for a Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) permit, the State’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) required the project’s
propo nent to commit to preventative measures, which NHESP determined to be critically important for the long term protection of the Diamondback Terrapin.

350 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

88 Lapham (1988): Yield and Quality of Ground Water from Stratified

- Drift Aquifer s, River Basin, Massachusetts, Wayne W. Lapham, U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 86

- 4053, prepared in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management Division of Water Resources, Boston, Massachusetts, 1988. Accessed Online February 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1986/4053/report.pdf

Simcox (1992): Water Resources of Massachusetts, Alison C. Simcox, U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources In vestigations Report 90

- 4144, prepared in cooperation with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management, Division of Water Resources, Boston, Massachusetts, 1992. Accessed Online February 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri904144/pdfs/wrir904144.pdf

The Gulf of Main Times (2004): Tighter rules in store for coal ash disposal. The Gulf of Main Times, Winter 2004, Vo. 8, No. 3. Accessed Online July 2014. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/times/winter2004/coal.html

Certificate on Project Change (2008): Certificate of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on the Third Notice of Project Chang e, Payne’s Crossing, Freetown, Massachusetts, Ian A. Bowles, Secretary. Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, January 9, 2008. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/010908/1982npc.pdf

Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report (2008): Certificate of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs of the Second Supplemen tal Final Environmental Impact Report, Payne’s Crossing, Freetown, Ian A. Bowles, Secretary, Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, November 14, 2008. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/111408/01982ssfeir.pdf

SourceWatch (2013): Fly Ash Disposal in Freetown, MA, in Massachusetts and Coal, SourceWatch, last modified on 15 May 2013 . Accessed July 2014. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Massachusetts_and_coal#Fly_Ash_Disposal_in_Freetown.2 C_MA



### PTa22. Xcel Energy/Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency

– Sherburne County (Sherco) Generating Plant, Becker, Minnesota 351

351 http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Sherburne_County_Plant#cite_note

- iss

- 8 ; http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/Powe r_Generation/Sherburne_County_(Sherco)_Generating_ Station . The Sherco base

- load Plant, the single largest in Minnesota, comprises three generation units: Unit 1: 660 MW (online since 1976), Unit 2: 660 MW (1977), and Unit 3: 809 MW (1987). The Sherco Plan t burns daily 30,000 tons of low

- sulfur Western coal from mines in Montana and Wyoming (more than 9 million tons a year). Unit 3’s dry scrubber system uses a mist of lime slurry in spray dryers to trap sulfur dioxide, whereas Units 1 and 2 have wet scrubbe rs, which use an alkaline spray to capture sulfur dioxide and ash (XcelEnergy (2014). The turbine at the Sherburne County Generation Station (Sherco) Unit 3 was subject to a catastrophic failure on Nov. 19, 2011. The repairs were completed at the facility on October 21, 2013 at a cost exceeding $200 million ( http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/10/21/environment/xcel

- energy

- sherco

- plant

- returns

- to

- service

- after

- repairs ).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

89 

### Type: Surface Impoundments.



### Background and Description: The Northern States Power Sherburne County Plant is located approximat ely two miles north of Interstate 94 on the north bank of the Mississippi River, 352 and 45 miles northwest of Minneapolis/St. Paul, overlying shallow groundwater table. Disposal at the site began in 1975/76. The site consisted originally of a 62

- acre clay

- li ned 353 pond (Pond #1) used for the disposal of combined fly ash and FGD sludge, 354 and just to its north, an 18

- acre clay

- lined pond used for the disposal of bottom ash. 355 The overflow from these ponds was directed to a recovery basin. 356 The effluent from this b asin was then recycled as a scrubber medium or waste sluice liquid (EPA 1988). Presently, there is also another active fly ash/FGD pond (split into the interconnected Pond #3N and Pond # 3S), 357 and another, inactive fly ash/FGD pond (Pond #2), positioned in between Pond #1 and Pond #3. 358

, 359 In addition, there is a fly ash landfill and a lined leachate collection basin. 360

This case was originally identified during the review of candidate damage cases for the 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustio n of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants (EPA, 1988). 361 Although it was rejected as a proven damage case in EPA’s 1993 Supplemental Analysis (EPA 1993), this case was re

- examined in light of EPA’s subsequently developed criteria for categorizing cases as “potential” damage cases.

The soil at the Site consists of glacial till and outwash material. The bedrock beneath the site consists of Precambrian granite. The bedrock surface is reportedly irregular in nature. Two distinct valleys have been found within the confines of the facility property. The predominant bedrock valley runs east to west and crosses beneath all of the ponds. 362

Hydrogeologic field investigations undertaken for the proposed Becker refuse

- derived ash landfill expansion, a project located only 1⁄4 mile south of Sherco’s Pond #3, 363 encountered four major geologic formations beneath the proposed expansion area: 364

1. Undifferentiated outwash and terrace deposits (3 to 20 feet thick) are present over the entire site and consist of sandy topsoil and underlying silty sand and gravel. Below the shallow topsoil (1 to 2.5 feet) the outwash sand consists of very loose to medium

- dense sand with silt, and silty sands with a little gravel. 2. Glacial till (3 to 29 feet thick) occurs immediately beneath th e outwash under the entire proposed expansion area. The till consists primarily of medium

- dense to very

- dense silty sand with gravel and contains occasional pockets of fine to coarse grained sand and lean clay, which are not laterally continuous. 3. A low er outwash layer is present over the entire site and occurs immediately beneath the glacial till. This unit includes a 0.3 to 15 feet thick layer of fine alluvium at the top, immediately beneath the till, and a relatively thicker layer of coarse alluvium a t depth. The fine alluvium layer consists mostly of fine grained silty sand and silt, with isolated areas of lean clay. The coarse alluvium consists of fine to coarse grained sand and sand with silt with lenses of fine gravel, and extends from the bottom o f the fine alluvium down to the bedrock surface. 4. Granite bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 73.0 to 125 feet.

Due to the coarse

- grained nature of the outwash deposits, infiltration rates are high in the vicinity of the site. As a result, s pills and leaks can move rapidly downward through the unsaturated zone to the water table. 365 The Mississippi River functions as a regional groundwater discharge for the surficial aquifer and controls the groundwater flow direction. In the vicinity of the si te to the north and east of the river, groundwater flow is generally to the southwest toward the river.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

90 

### Impact: Groundwater contamination detected in on

- site wells in 1985. The original study 366 identified fly ash and FGD sludge in one surface impoundment a nd bottom ash in an adjacent surface impoundment (#1) as the contamination source terms. There were exceedances of primary MCLs for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, lead, and nitrate and secondary MCLs for chloride, copper, iron, manganese, sulfate,

a nd zinc at the site, at least some of which appear attributable to management of CCR. 367 While a scientific study indicated the potential for future increases in contamination, more recent data were not

352 According to CHA (2009), the Mississippi River is located approximately 0.3 miles to the southwest of the ponds.

353 The surface impoundments were lined with clay, with a permeability of 5x10

- 7 cm/sec or less. According to CHA (2009, virtual page 128), the specific permeability of this clay liner was between 1x10

- 7 and 1x10

- 9 cm/sec.
354 Pond #1, with surface area of 62 acres, was active between 1975 and 1995. CHA (2009, virtual pages 10 and 129) claims that Pond #1 was cap ped with a 40

- mil HDPE geomembrane beginning in 1990. The pond remained in service until final closure was completed in 1995. In 2009, it was subject to active dewatering and was approximately 67% dewatered.

355 The Bottom ash Pond was commissioned in 1975.

356 The Recovery Basin, known also as the Recycle Basin, was commissioned in 1975. It serves as a combined process water and stormwater pond. According to CHA (2009), it is clay and HDPE composite

- lined. Roller

compacted concrete was placed over the liner to facilitate dredging of the pond while protecting the integrity of the liner system.

357 Pond #3N was commissioned in 2004, with an area of 50 acres. According to CHA (2009), it has a composite liner (geosynthetic clay liner overlain by 60 mil HDPE geomembra ne, with a permeability of 5x10

- 9 cm/sec), and according to EPRI (2012), also a leachate collection system. Pond #3S was about to be commissioned in 2010, and indeed on a recent Google Earth image (visited on February 19, 2013), it appears fully operative (filled with fluid, with a slurry delta in its northwest edge).

358 Excel Energy (2009) and CHA (2009): Fly ash and scrubber solids from Generating Units 1 and 2 are hydraulically transported to Pond No. 2 and Pond No. 3. The ponds allow for the settlement of solids and will provide permanent disposal after dewatering and capping. Pond #2 (commissioned 1984, 100 acres) was, as of March, 2009, in the final stage of filling and about 40 percent permanently closed and capped with a geomembrane liner. According to CHA (2009), the thickness of the bottom clay liner varies between one and three feet, and its permeability is 6x10

- 8 cm/sec. Dewatering wells have been active in the capped portion of Pond #2 since 2006. Based on a recent Google Earth image (visited on February 19, 2013), Pond #2 appears 100 percent closed.
359 According to CHA (2009), the impoundments are regulated under an NPDES/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit No. MN0002186 authorizing discharge under the NPDES to the Mississippi River in accordance w ith effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in the permit. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

– Division of Water has issued Permit No. 83

- 3152 for the Scrubber Solids Ponds (Ponds No. 2 and 3) and Permit No. 83

- 3022 for the Bottom Ash Pond.

360 The CCR landfill, located south of Pond #3S, has been in operation since 1986. According to CHA (2009), the ash and scrubber solids from Generating Unit 3 at the facility are managed dry and are disposed of in this landfill. The landfill is lined with leachate collection, and the leachate is gravity

- drained to a geomembrane lined basin. The landfill is capped in stages with geomembrane as portions of the landfill are filled to capacity.
361 The 1988 Report to Congress cited dat a from Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985).

362 CHA (2009).

363 For a map portraying the geographic proximity of these two facilities, see Figure 3 in Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2012).

364 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2012).

365 This high permeability o f the substrate

– amenable to groundwater mounding underneath the ponds, combined with periodic reversals of the groundwater gradient during the river’s high stages, can possibly explain the appearance of certain down

- gradient contaminants also in monitori ng wells designated as up

- gradient.

366 Citation of data from Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985) in The 1988 Report to Congress (Exhibits 5

- 10 and 5

- 11).

367 However, according to EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0022, whereas arsenic, fluoride, and lead exceeded their pri mary MCLs and chloride, copper, iron, sulfate, and zinc exceeded their secondary MCLs in samples taken directly beneath the surface impoundments, these constituents did not show exceedances in wells located farther down

- gradient from the impoundments. For a tabulation of both the primary and secondary groundwater WQS exceedances in groundwater monitoring wells, see Exhibits 5

- 10 and 5

- 11 in the EPA (1988).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

91 available. All of the monitoring data are for on

- site l ocations and the presence of the Mississippi River at the boundary of the site in the direction of groundwater flow may limit the potential for off

- site migration of future groundwater contamination. 368

EPRI (2010) observes that according to the 1998 Report to Congress, iron and nitrate concentrations were higher in up

- gradient wells than down

- gradient wells, suggesting an alternative source, and cadmium was detected at equally high concentration in up

- gradient wells, suggesting that the source is uncertain. Furthermore, EPRI (2010) claims that testing performed for the 1988 Report to Congress indicated manganese as the only compound directly related to ash disposal operations with an SMCL exceedance in groundwater down

- gradient of the site. Cadmium, iron, an d nitrate were also found in up

- gradient wells, while all other compounds tested (arsenic, barium, chloride, copper, fluoride, lead, sulfate, and zinc) were only detected in samples collected from wells screened in the ash pond and therefore do not represe nt groundwater quality. The power company database indicated that on

- site exceedances of MCLs, SMCLs, and state water quality standards have historically occurred, although the only recent exceedances are for constituents without MCLs.

According to a rec ent reference, 369 “groundwater monitoring data at the Xcel Energy Sherco Generating Plant shows exceedances for boron and sulfate, which are indicator parameters used to document the extent of coal/ash influence. The scrubber solids ponds, coal yard, and pow er house areas have been attributed as sources for the observed boron and sulfate concentrations.”



### Resolution: See preceding footnotes regarding the status of closure of the two implicated surface impoundments. According to EPRI (2010), (i) the recovery ( recycle) basin was re

- lined to reduce infiltration; (ii) no state or federal administrative actions have been identified that apply to this case; (iii) the current NPDES environmental monitoring system includes 32 monitoring wells; and (iv) post

mitigation data summary indicates that, based on samples obtained in 2008 and 2009, and in comparison to the pre

- mitigation data obtained between 1971 and 1995, the concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and selenium have all dropped to below water quality standa rds.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The reported exceedances of both primary and secondary MCLs were located in on

- site wells and the potential for off

- site migration of contamination may be limited. Therefore, this case was categori zed as a potential damage case. 370



### References EPA (2007): 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #41 and reference therein ( Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0022). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k= Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

EPA (1993): Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large

- Volume Coal Combustion Waste, US EPA, Appendix D: Summary of Sites with Groundwater

368 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0022, citing a U.S. EPA analysis.
369 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2012)

. 370 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0022.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

92 Monitor ing, July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1999 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 1993

- 0042

- 1642.

Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985): Full

- scale Field Evaluation of Waste Disposal from Coal

- fired Electric Gen erating Plants. Volume 1. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Little (Arthur D.), Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. June 1985. PB85

- 228054.

EPA (1988): Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Co al by Electric Utility Power Plants, Appendix E: Arthur D. Little Study of Waste Disposal at Coal

- Fired Power Plants. EPA/530

- SW

88

- 002. A ccessed Online August 2012. htt p://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coal

- rtc.pdf

XcelEnergy (2009): Northern States Power (NSP) Company Response. Request for Information relating to Surface Impoundments under 104 (e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compe nsation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9604(e), March 26, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/n orthern

- states.pdf

CHA (2009): Coal Combustion Surface Impoundments (Task 3) Final Report, Northern States Power Company

– Minnesota, Sherburne County Power Station, Becker, Minnesota, December 9, 2009 CHA Project No. 20085.2010.1510. Accessed Online Aug ust 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/ns

- sherburne

- final.pdf

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2012): Propos ed Becker Ash Landfill Expansion, Sherburne County, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), August 17, 2012. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view

- document.html?gid=18391

XcelEnergy (2014): Sherburne County (Sherco) Generating Station Sheer size sets this plant apart with three units; ScelEnergy’s website, 2014. Accessed Online January 201 4. http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/Power_Generation/Sherburne_County_(Sherco)_ Generating_Station



### PTa23. Central H udson Gas & Electric Corp. 371 

### Danskammer Waste Management Facility, Newburgh, Orange County, New York 372



### Type: Coal Ash Landfill.



### Background and Description: This old, unlined landfill (established: 1959) is located on the west shore of the Hudson River in t he Town of Newburgh, Orange County. 373 The Danskammer power plant

371 Dynegy Northeast Generation Inc. acquired the facility from Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. on January 30, 2001: http://google.brand.edgar

online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=1806754

- 6880

- 25215&SessionID=kbeZFS_o2H3Gll7

372 And see EPA (2007), Case #28 and references therein.
373 According t o the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Materials Management Solid Waste Management Facilities Active Industrial/Commercial Landfills website: ht tp://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/indlist.pdf , the facility is located at 994 River Road, Newburgh, NY 12550. Its current operational permit was issued in April 2013 and would expire in August 2018.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

93 withdrew water from the Hudson River for cooling purposes via an intake canal. 374 Units 3 and 4 of this four

- unit power plant burned either coal or natural gas with a combined generation capacit y of 370 MW, 375

, 376 whereas units 1 and 2 were gas

- fired and oil

- fired generating units with a combined generation capacity of 130 MW. 377



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), there were exceedances of State non

- health

- based standards for sulfate, sulfide, total di ssolved solids, turbidity, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium, boron, and pH attributable to CCRs at the site. It is unclear whether the exceedances of health

- based standards were attributable to CCRs. 378

While there are no useable up

- gradient or pre

- dispo sal data for the site, a ‘recent’ (pre

- March 2003) corrective measures assessment (CMA) for the site attributes the exceedances for boron, sulfate, and TDS to an unlined, buried coal ash disposal area located south of the existing landfill. This disposal area received about 300,000 tons of coal ash from 1959 to 1963. The CMA does not attribute exceedances for other constituents to CCR, because these constituents have not been detected in leachate from the facility. It is unclear whether the health

- based standards exceedances for arsenic and selenium, and the non

health

- based standards exceedances for other constituents also are attributable to CCRs. The phenol exceedances, however, appear to be due to sampling errors.



### Resolution: No Consent Order issued . The CMA establishes that there has not been an impact to the underlying bedrock water quality, and that any potential impact to the Hudson River would be insignificant due to dilution. Apparently, the contamination is not occurring at, and is not likely to migrate, to a location where it could present human health concerns.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The contamination at the site: sulfate, sulfide, total dissolved solids, turbidity, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium, boron, and pH did not appear likely to threaten human health or the environment. Therefore, this case was determined to be a potential damage case. 379



### References EPA (2007): 2007 CCW Damage Case Assessments, Case #28 and reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Denn is Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003). http://www.regulations.gov/#!document Detail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

NYDEC (2004): Ruling on Proposed Issues and Adjudication and Petition for Party Status, Renewal and Modification of an SPDES (NY

- 0006262), Dynegy NE Generation, Inc., on behalf of Dynegy Danskammer, LLC, Permittee, Ma rch 25, 2004. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/legal_protection_pdf/danskammerr2.pdf

Danskammer Ash Landfill Annual Report (2010): Dynegy Danskammer LLC Solid Waste Ash Landfill (994 River Road, Newburgh, Orange County, NY) Permit No. 3

- 3346

- 00011/00018, Annual Report, January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010. Accessed Online January 2013. ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dshm/SWMF/Landfill/Landfill%20Annual%20Reports/Landfill%20Annual%20R eports%20

- %202010/R3/36N01%20Dynergy%20Danskammer.ind% 20R3%202010.pdf

Dean M. Ellis (2013): Notice of Intent to Retire Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C. Units 1

– 6, Letter via Electronic Mail from Dean M. Ellis, Sr. Director, Government Affairs, Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C.

– Debtor In Possession, to Hon. Jeffrey C. Cohen, Acting Secretary, New York Public ServiceIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

94 Commission, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223, January 3, 2013. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets_operations/services/planning/Documents_and_Resources /Planned_Generation_Retirements/Planned_Retirement_Noti ces/Danskammer_Retirement_Notice.pdf

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Departmen t, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012.

374 For State of New York DEC AJD May 24, 20 06 Decision in the Matter of a Renewal and Modification of a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Pursuant to Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York Parts 704 and 750, see http://www.dec.ny.gov/hearings/11167.html . This hearing had been triggered by the plant’s request for retrofitting the Facility with a closed

- cycle cool ing system. The hearing concluded that the installation of seasonal sonic deterrent equipment, and the implementation of a flow reduction and outage program, as conditioned by the revised draft SPDES permit, would be the best technology available at the Da nskammer Generating Facility for minimizing adverse environmental impacts,.

375 NYDEC (2004). The Danskammer power station was rendered inoperable as a result of Hurricane Sandy (October 29

- 30, 2012, http://www.faqs.org/sec

- filings/121217/DYNEGY

- INC_8

- K/a12

- 29402_1ex99d2.htm , page 21), and was subsequently auctioned for demolition on December 14, 2012. Following closing of the sale and retirement notification process, ICS NY Holdings, LLC who won the bid were to demolish any remaining structures and remediate the site ( http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dy negy

- announces

- results

- of

- roseton

- and

- danskammer

auction

- 2012

- 12

- 10 , and Dean M. Ellis, 2013). This was preceded by Dynegy Holdings and four of its subsidiaries having filed, on Nov. 7, 2011, for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Southern District C ourt of New York in Poughkeepsie. The company, which was $4.2 billion in debt, blamed falling electric prices for the filing. In July 2012, Dynegy Inc., the parent company, filed for Chapter 11. On Sept. 30, Dynegy Inc. and Dynegy Holdings merged, with Dyn egy Inc. being the surviving entity. The company emerged from bankruptcy Oct. 1, 2012. However, on April 1, 2014, the facility’s current owners (Helios Power Capital, LLC, Mercuria America, Inc. and Danskammer Energy, LLC) petitioned the New York State Pu blic Service Commission requesting its permission to repair and operate the facility under lightened regulation as an emergency response or peaking facility (to operate less than 900 hours a year). The facility is to be natural gas

- fueled, with oil and coa l as secondary fueling options: Public Service Commission, NY (2014).

376 According to Danskammer Ash Landfill Annual Report (2010), Phase I of the existing landfill (1987

- 1994) is now closed and fully capped; Phase II (1992

- 2005) is now closed and 70 percen t capped, and Phase III has been operating since 2006. Close to 941,000 ton of ash have been deposited in Phases I and II, and over 222,000 ton ash have been deposited in Phase III through 2010, including 425 ton of coal pyrites. At least the Phase II and Phase III of the existing landfill cells have had double liner and leachate collection systems: leachate is collected, together with SWMF contact stormwater in two sedimentation basins. The secondary leachate is treated in a wastewater treatment facility, which discharges under SPDES Permit No. NY00006262. For provisions of the SPDES permit (June 1, 2006 to May 31, 2011), see http://www.gracelinks.org/media/pdf/danskammer_spdes_0 60106.pdf

377 Units 3 and 4 operated in the base load mode while units 1 and 2 were considered to be peaking units: http://google.brand.edgar

- online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=1806754

- 6880

- 25215&SessionID=kbeZFS_o2H3Gll7
378 According to Cherry et al., (2000), this site has eight constituents that exceeded federal limits in down

- gradient monitoring wells. Sulfate (580 mg/L) and TDS (1,100 mg/L) surpassed the SMCL by about twofold. Boron, at 9.32 mg/L, was 10 times greater than the US EPA 10

- day health advisory for children. Manganese (2.5 mg/L) and iron (16.6 mg/L) concentrations exceeded the limit by 50 and 55 times, respectively. Aluminum (1,620μg/L) surpassed the MCL by eight times and the US EPA chronic WQC by 19 times. Arsenic (82 μg/L) barely exceeded the MCL (sic; actually, this concentration exceeds the MCL eight times), w hile selenium (62 μg/L) was 12 times higher than the chronic WQC (sic; actually, this concentration exceeds the MCL 1.24 times).
379 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

95 http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

Public Service Commission, NY (2014): In The Matter of the Ver ified Joint Application of Helios Power Capital, LLC, Danskammer Energy, LLC and Mercuria Energy America, Inc., for Approval for the Lease, Sale and Operation of the Danskammer Generating Facility under Lightened Regulation and for Related Relief. Before t he Public Service Commission State of New York, Case 14

- E Expedited, April 1, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014.



### PTa24. AES Creative Resources Weber Ash Disposal Site, Fenton, 380 

### Broome County, New York 381



### Type: Offsite Coal Ash Landfill with a Leachate Col lection/Sedimentation Basin.



### Background and Description: According to EPRI (2010), this is a 12.1

- acre offsite 382 coal ash landfill constructed between 1978 (cell 1) and 1980 (cell 2), with a PVC liner (20

- mil) and leachate collection system. According to S tearns & Wheler (2010), the Weber ash disposal landfill was a 16

- acre site that was owned and operated by the New York State Electric and Gas Company (NYSEG). 383 The site was used for approximately 12 to 15 years for the landfilling of by

- products generated from the combustion of coal. It is estimated that approximately 1,200 to 1,500 tons per year were landfilled at the site.



### Impact: Monitoring data at this site from between 1991 and 1998 show levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, manganese, iron, alum inum, and pH in down

- gradient wells in excess of their secondary MCLs. 384 There is no information available on the location of these wells relative to the waste management units. According to EPRI (2010), Source investigations attributed the release to leaka ge from the leachate collection/sedimentation basin and operational issues with the landfill leachate collection system.

According to EPRI (2010), assuming groundwater flows toward Page Brook, approximately 15 homes may be down

- gradient of the site. Ther e is no information on whether these residences use private groundwater wells. 385

380 According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Environmental Notice Bulletin ( http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20090624_reg7.html ), the landfill is located at 60 Gould Road, Fenton, NY 13903. The location is just east of Chenango Lake and the Chenango Valley State Park, several hu ndred feet northwest from the Virginia City Mobile Home Park, and about seven miles northeast of Binghamton, NY.
381 For pre

- 2007 details, see 2007 CCW Damage Case Assessments Report, case #27 and references therein.

382 According to AES Eastern Energy, L.P. ( 2001), ash disposed at the site originated at the following generation stations: Westover, Greenidge, Hickling, and Jennison.

383 According to Stearns & Wheler (2010), AES NY, LLC entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with NYSEG on August 3, 1998.

384 Accor ding to Cherry et al., (2000) , this site has five constituents that surpassed federal limits in down

- gradient monitoring wells. Sulfate (1,308 mg/L) and TDS (2,113 mg/L) exceeded the MCL by two to five times. Manganese (27 mg/L) and iron (138 mg/L) concent rations exceeded the SMCL by 540 (SMCL for manganese) and 460 (MCL for iron) times, respectively. Aluminum, measured at 65,200 μg/L, was by far one of the highest concentrations found at any site in down

- gradient ground water. It surpassed the MCL by 326 t imes and the US EPA acute and chronic WQC by 87 and 749 times, respectively.

385 According to DEC’s cited website, as of June 2009, the DEC was pursuing a Department Initiated Modification to the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit (N Y 010 6542), pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 750

- 1.18, New York State's Environmental Benefit Permit Strategy (EBPS).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

96 

### Resolution: According to EPRI (2010), AES agreed to an October 1999 Consent Order with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in response to violation of groundwater quality standards (violation of NYCRR 703 groundwater quality standards for sulfate).

According to Stearns & Wheler (2010), the consent order included a suspended civil penalty and a requirement to submit a work plan to initiate closure of the landfill by October 8, 2000. The consent order also called for a site investigation, which was conducted and indicated a possibility that groundwater remediation at the site may be required. Further compliance with this order included a closure investigat ion report which was submitted to the NYSDEC in the spring of 2000, and a closure plan which was submitted to the NYSDEC in January 2001. The latest part of the consent order was implemented during the 2001 spring/summer construction season when the work s cope for covering the site and carrying out the future monitoring of the site per the Closure Plan was implemented.

According to EPRI (2010), AES rebuilt the leachate collection basin, 386 closed and capped (2001) in response to the Consent Order. Cap design features a 60

- mil LLDPE barrier between 120

- mil geotextile layers. Currently, the facility is closed and has been remediated. A groundwater monitoring program is in place. Down

- gradient concentrations have generally decreased since the facility was closed and capped.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site: sulfate, total dissolved solids, manganese, iron, 387 aluminum, and pH, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case. 388 According to EPRI (2010), there were also onsite exceedances of magnesium and ammonia, as well as elevated (but below MCL) cadmium and arsenic.



### References EPA (2007): 2007 CCW Damage Case Assessments, Case #27 and reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC t o Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulati ons.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

The facility is an ash disposal site that discharges one to three batches per year of treated leachate. The treatment consists of an ash pond

- m etal precipitation by addition of lime and pH adjustment by addition of muriatic acid. The maximum design flow is 192,000 gpd into Page Brook, a class

- C water. The following changes to the permit are proposed at Outfall 001:

 Nickel, Total Recoverable, has been revised;

 The action level for boron has been increased;

 The action level for fluoride has been decreased;

 Phenolic, total, has been added as an action level parameter;

 Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Requirements have been added;

 Best Management Practices pl an has been added, and

 Submittal of mercury sampling results from outfalls has been added.

386 According to EPRI (2010), “The power company concluded that the release from this facility was caused by backups in the leachate collection system during treatment , and implemented operational changes to alleviate the backups; however, groundwater quality at this facility did not improve significantly until after application of the synthetic cap. It was not determined during this evaluation if the timing of the sulf ate improvement meant that there was leakage through the liner unrelated to operation of the leachate collection system, or if backups continued until the cap was applied.”

387 EPRI (2010) claims that iron concentrations also exceeded standards at times in a n up

- gradient well; manganese exceedances reportedly due to natural conditions; sodium concentrations were highest in an up

- gradient well, reportedly due to road salting; and ammonia concentrations decreased after capping in all except one monitoring well; the plant has a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system.

388 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

97 EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes, Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

- 0406, prepared for: Hoosier Environme ntal Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online December 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

Stearns & Wheler (2010): Broome County Local Solid Waste Management Plan Update, Draft Report submitted to Broome County Divi sion of Waste Management, Stearns & Wheler, February 10, 2010. Accessed Online December 2012. http://www.gobroomecounty.com/files/dpw/pdfs/Draft%20Online%20Vers ion%20Redo.pdf

AES Eastern Energy, L.P. (2001): AES Eastern Energy, L.P., FORM 10

- K, Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, Commission file number 333

- 89725. Acc essed Online December 2012. http://www.getfilings.com/o0000893838

- 01

- 500081.html



### PTa25. C.R. Huntley Flyash Landfill, Tonawanda, Erie County, New York 389



### Type: Offsite Coal Ash Landfill

. 

### Background and Description: The Huntley Fly Ash off

- site landfill 117

- acre disposal facility is located 1,000 feet from the Niagara River south of Buffalo, in a heavily industrial area. 390 Since the early 1970s, the site has been used for the disposal of fly

- and bottom ash, pyrites, and dewatered wastewater treatment sludge from the Huntley power plant. 391 The site consists of five disposal areas: two areas closed prior to 1987, one area closed in 1987, another one (the Phase I area) operated from about 1987 to

389 Owned by NRG Energy; formerly owned by Niagara Mohawk. See EPA (2007), Case #28 and references therein. For EPA’s Facility Detail Report, see http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110009162850

. 390 See Land Use Plan (2002), Glenn (2007), and http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/55483.html

. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Materials Management Solid Waste Management Facilities Active Industrial/Commercial Landfills website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/indlist.pdf , the landfill is located at 3500 River Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150. Its current operational permit was issued in April 2013 a nd will expire in January 2023. EPRI (2010) states that “The State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation lists a landfill still operating under this name, originally permitted in 1997, but it is uncertain if this is the same waste management unit.”

391 The Plant is located about 1.5 miles south of the landfill area. According to AMC (2013) and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Huntley_Genera ting_Station_(existing) , the 816 MW generation plant comprises the following coal

- fired units (year of commissioning and decommissioning of no

- longer active units in parenthesis): Unit 63: 80 MW (1942

- 2006); Unit 64: 100 MW (1948

- 2006); Unit 65: 100 MW (1 953

- 2007); and Unit 66: 100 MW (1954

- 2007). The active units comprise Unit 67: 218 MW (1957) and Unit 68: 218 MW (1958). It currently uses Powder River Basin coal.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

98 198 9, and the active disposal area (the Phase II area) that began operation around 1989. 392 The closed landfills have no liners. There are also the South and North Equalization Basins, commissioned in 1984, a South Settling Pond System, and Ponds 1, 2, and 3. 393 NRG Energy regularly excavates the landfill to remove the fly ash for reutilization. 394

The area is located within the Erie

- Niagara Drainage Basin of the Erie

- Ontario Lowlands Physi ographic Province of New York State. This basin borders Lake Erie and the Ni agara River to the west. The stratigraphic sequence of the Erie

- Niagara Basin generally consists of glacially

- derived lacustrine, fluvial and till deposits of Pleistocene age overlying a thick sequence of shale, sandstone, limestone and dolostone of Siluri an and Devonian age. In the Huntley Landfill area, the combined thickness of glacial till and lacustrine clay ranges is approximately 65 feet. 395 The hydrogeology of the area comprises four hydrogeologic zones : (1) a shallow water

- bearing zone consisting of miscellaneous fill and the upper portion of the glacio

- lacustrine deposit; (2) an intermediate zone consisting of the glaciolacustrine deposit, serving as a confining layer that restricts the downward movement of groundwater from the shallow hydrogeolog ic z one to the deeper water bearing zones; the alluvium deposit, (3) a deep water bearing zone consisting predom inantly of glacial till, and (4) an upper bedrock water bearing zone. Water from the Niagara River and shallow hydrogeologic zone is typically calci um

- bicarbon ate water, water from the intermediate hydrogeologic zone is magnesium

- sulfate water, and water from the deep and upper bedrock hydrogeologic zones is calcium

- sulfate water. 396



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), there were exceedances of State hea lth

- based standards for arsenic and non

- health

- based standards for iron, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids at this site’s down

gradient wells, close to the landfill. While there also were exceedances in up

- gradient wells, there was statistical evidence of significant increases over up

- gradient concentrations for several of these constituents. In addition, the State regulatory agency and the site contractor identified some of these constituents as potential indicators of leachate. 397

392 The Phase II landfill, last permitted in 1997 (RCRA Permit # NY0001023) has a ‘membrane’ l iner, and a leachate collection and leachate detection systems. Apparently, it is not implicated in the groundwater impact. According to AES Special Report (2007), early in 2007, the plant was permitted to build a 13

- acre cell within its 198

- acres that wer e designated for landfilling.
393 According to NRG (2009) and AMC (2013), the South Equalization Basin (surface area: 1.58 acres; total capacity: 8.28 acre

- feet) and the North Equalization Basin (surface area: 1.58 acres; total capacity: 8.71 acre

- feet)

are used to temporarily collect fly ash, coal pile, runoff, and boiler and air preheater wash water containing coal fines, before these materials are treated by the waste water treatment system. Fly ash is removed from the equalization basins and transported t o the Huntley Station's off

- site ash landfill. Both equalization basins were commissioned in 1984 and they are asphalt

- lined. The unlined South Settling Pond system (Surface area: 7.3 acres; capacity: 47.5 acre

- feet; commission date unknown, but prior to 1 976) is a Primary Pond, collecting fly ash, bottom ash and boiler slag. Bottom ash is dredged at the inlet almost weekly, and the remaining areas of the pond are dredged periodically. Fly ash accumulates in the South Settling Pond between dredging. Overflo w discharge is regulated by the NYSDEC as part of the SPDES permit. This pond was last modified 1976. The South Settling Pond discharges via pipe to an outfall that is regulated under the NYSDEC SPDES permit program and monitored monthly for total suspende d solids. Pond 1 (commissioned in 1977, lined by two

- feet of clay, 0.40 acres), Pond 2 (commissioned in 1977, unlined, 1.15 acres), and Pond 3 (commissioning date unknown, unlined, 1.20 acres) serve as receptors of the north wastewater collection system. I n the past, Pond 3 was a Primary, CCR receiving pond, when it was called the North Slag Pond.
394 According to the attachment accompanying http://tonawandato wnny.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetingID=1276&ID=6588 , as of July 2011, about 50

- 60 percent of the fly ash was being reutilized.
395 Glenn (2007).
396 Glenn (ibid).
397 http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic

- waters/polluters/new

- york/tonawanda ( no longer accessible) ; EPA/ECHO: http://www.epa

- echo.gov/cgi

- bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool= echo&IDNumber=NY0001023IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

99 According t o NRG, 398 a 1987 hydrogeologic investigation (Malcolm Pirnie) found exceedances of State groundwater standards for sulfates, arsenic, barium, cadmium, iron, manganese, and lead in down

gradient wells of the waste area placement areas at that time. However, a ll of these exceedances were identified also in up

- gradient wells and the hydrogeologic investigation concluded that there were no apparent trends in the data that could be construed as contaminant migration from the wastes. Based on these findings, the be drock aquifer cannot be interpreted to be a primary or principal aquifer. Concerns about off

- site migration at this site are further mitigated by a lack of nearby receptors. According to the Niagara Sheet

- NYDEC/USGS, there are no aquifers used for public water supply in the vicinity of the subject property. As a result, there is no offsite damage to receptors and the groundwater pathway to offsite receptors is incomplete.



### Resolution: According to EPA’s/ECHO, there is a record of one exceedance each of ir on (September 2010) and TSS (December 2008) at discharge point 008. As of June 2011, seven CWA violations have been recorded, including a State Administrative Penalty Order (oil leak, July 2006), incurring a penalty of $500.



### Basis for Consideration as a P otential Damage Case: All of the exceedances were in wells located

on

- site, close to the waste management unit. Therefore, this case was determined to be a potential damage

case. 399



### References EPA (2007): 2007 CCW Damage Case Assessments, Case #29 and refer ence therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

NRG (2009): Respon se to Request for Information Under Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9604(e), Huntley Electric Generating Station, Tonawanda, New York, May 15, 2009. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/nrg

- huntley.pdf

AES Special Report (2007): Company plans major economic development, Tasha Kates, Ton awanda News, January 18, 2007

. Accessed Online January 2013. http://tonawanda

- news.com/local/x212263112/AES

- SPECIAL

- REPORT

- Company

- plans

- major

economic

- development/print

Glenn (2007): Special Report: Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Investigation of the Southwestern Portion of the Town of Tonawanda, Erie County, New York, Glenn M. May, CPG Engineering Geologist II, prepared by: New Yor k State Department of Environmental Conservati on Division of Environm ental Remediation, 270 Michigan Ave., Buffalo, New York

, April 2007. Accessed Online January 2013.

398 NRG’s comment to the October 2011 NODA’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0220.
399 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

100 http://www.academia.edu/2033661/Hydrogeologic_and_Geochemical_Investigation_of_the_Southwester n_Portion_of_the_Town_of_Tonawanda_Erie_County_New_York

Land Use Plan (2002): Land Use Plan, Tonawanda Waterfront Rezoning Study, April 2002. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.tonawanda.ny.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/289

AMEC (2013): Report of Dam Safety Ass essment of Coal Combustion Surface Impoundments, NRG Energy, Huntley Generating Station, Tonawanda, New York, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., March 2013. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/nrg_huntley_final.pdf



### PTa26. Duke Power 400 

### Allen Steam Generating Plant, 401 

### Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina

Type: Surface Impoundments.



### Background a nd Description: Two ash disposal ponds, located adjacent to man

- made Lake Wylie, Catawaba’s River basin. 402 (i) An inactive, 127

- acre pond used to dispose of fly

- ash and bottom ash from 1957 to 1973. This pond has since been reclaimed, and converted into a lined CCR landfill, 403 part of a

400 In July 2012, Duke Power and Progress Energy merged into Duke Energy Carolinas LLC.

401 According to http://www.duke

- energy.com/power

- plants/coal

- fired/allen.asp , the Allen Steam Plant is a 1,140 MW facility with five coal

- fired generating units. Units 1 and 2 (165 MW each) began operating in 1957; units 3, 4, and 5 (275 MW each) in 1959, 1960, and 1961, respectively. According to Duke Carolinas (2012), c oal is procured primarily from Central Appalachian (CAPP) coal mines and is delivered by the Norfolk Southern and CSX railroads. Because in the longer term, CAPP pri ces are expected to rise due to a continuing decline in CAPP reserves quality, increasingly stringent safety requirements, and longer and increasingly difficult environmental permitting for CAPP mines, Duke has been testing Northern Appalachian (NAPP) and Illinois Basin (ILB) coals at its scrubbed stations. These tests will inform Duke in determining which coal blends can be burned without requiring additional capital investment, as well as the capital investments required to consume even greater amounts of non

- CAPP coal.
402 According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wylie , the lake has a surface area of 13,400 acres and features 325 miles of shore line; it serves as Allen’s source of once

- through co oling water system.

403 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=G.G._Allen_Steam_Plant . According to http://www.smeinc.com/duke

- energy

- %E2%80%93

- allen

- steam

- station

- retired

- ash

- basin

- ash

- landfill , the 2009/2010 permitting, design, and construction of the new landfill over an existing ash basin (an ‘overfill’) establi shed a significant North Carolina and Duke precedent. The designated landfill site was a brownfield site adjacent to the steam station on a 65

- acre ash basin retired in the 1970s. The site posed numerous technical and regulatory challenges because the ret ired ash basin contained upwards of fifty feet of soft, wet, compressible sluiced ash. The retired ash basin was bound by engineered earthen dikes and the site conditions were further complicated because it was located adjacent to the Catawba River. The pr oject involved a detailed settlement analysis, to address North Carolina’s solid waste rules requirements for post

- settlement liner system slopes and vertical separation from groundwater. A geographic information system (GIS) based settlement model, combin ing classic geotechnical settlement formulas with detailed three

- dimensional surfaces of the proposed landfill cover, liner, and subsurface stratigraphy allowed to evaluate settlement across the whole landfill footprint and optimize landfill grading design

. Settlement analysis results indicated settlement up to several feet. To validate the settlement model and to better understand the settlement from overlying landfill construction, a full

- scale instrumented test fill program was designed, applying a three

- acre, twenty

- foot tall test fill with redundant instrumentation to monitor settlement and groundwater response to loading. Slope stability analyses and liquefaction potential evaluations indicated the proposed development would be stable to the satisfact ion of the NCDENR Dam Safety Section. A double

- liner system allowing landfill monitoring separate from the underlying ash basin provides a leak

- detection zone toIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

101 monitor leaking through the primary liner. Furthermore, the landfill liner system provides a c over system for the underlying ash basin, effectively isolating it from the environment.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

102 dry

- handling system. (ii) An unlined, active, 146

- acre pond 404 next to the north side of the other pond. Disposal of combined CCR, surface runoff from the power plant, and boiler cleaning wastes into this impoundment commenced in 1973.

Allen Steam Station Coal Ash Retention “active” impoundment includes two dikes: the East (cross

valley) Dike and the North Dike. 405 The East Dike is approximately parallel to the Lake Wylie (formerly Catawba River) in a northerly

- southerly orienta tion. The North Dike has a generally east

- west orientation. The North Dike was originally constructed in 1965 as an approximately 2400

- foot long earthen embankment, to impound coal ash slurry in what is now a landfill to the north of the dike. Within the confines of these two dikes, there are four cells, subdivided by intermediate dikes/berms. Intermediate structures between Cells 1, 2, and 3, and the Polishing cell were constructed in 1995.

In February 1977, the DWQ issued to Progress Energy for the Al len Plant an NPDES Permit (No. NC0004979), which was subsequently renewed. The current Permit was re

- issued on January 18, 2011 and is valid to February 28, 2015. This Permit regulates the Plant’s discharge of treated wastewater into the Catawaba and the S outh Fork Catawaba Rivers through six permitted outfalls. Among these, Outfall 002 discharges the Ash Pond effluents. 406 The January 18, 2011, renewed NPDES Permit includes new requirements for fish tissue monitoring, at least once per permit cycle; and sem i

- annual in

- stream monitoring to occur upstream and downstream of surface impoundments’ outfalls for a variety of toxic metals. 407



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), the Allen Plant of Duke Power Company was included in a study of waste disposal at coal

- fired power plants conducted by Arthur D. Little, Inc (ADL) in 1985. ADL conducted ground water sampling in 18 monitoring wells installed on

- site, immediately adjacent to the SIs, detecting exceedances of manganese (up to x280 the SMCL), iron (up to x90 the SMC L), as well as pH (up to 6.4 times the SMCL), as well as in down

- gradient monitoring wells. According to the 1985 Arthur D. Little study, previous studies showed high levels of iron and manganese in background soils, as well as exceed a nces of SMCLs for ir on and manganese in background groundwater and the river/lake
up

- gradient and upstream of the site, at levels similar to those seen in the wells immediately adjacent to the ash ponds.

According to EPA (2007), contact was made with North Carolina Departme nt of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). According to those contacted, the State had only surface water discharge information for this facility. There was no record of ground water monitoring at the facility, and no indication that violations or enf orcement actions occurred at the facility. A permit check determined that ground water monitoring at the site was not required by the facility permit. There was no indication that any ground water samples have been tested since the 1985 study.

Based on mo re recent (2004

- May 2009) Utility’s groundwater well records, concentrations of manganese and iron are below the SMCL at the only well, which shows slightly elevated boron concentration (< 0.5 mg/L). EPRI (2010) claims that the sources of the iron and mang anese are uncertain: these constituents can be naturally occurring, and concentrations of CCR indicator constituents such as boron and sulfate were low in wells with iron and manganese exceedances.

On November 8, 2012, the Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation informed state and federal environmental regulators they discovered four seepage points from coal ash ponds, one from Duke's Allen Steam Station into Lake Wylie and three into Mountain Island Lake from Duke's Riverbend Steam Station. 408 This was recently uph eld by a DWQ statement about its belief for there being both engineered and non

- engineered seeps from the Ash Pond which are different locations from those authorized under the Plant’s NPDES Permit. 409IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

103 

### Resolution: In 2009 DWQ sent a letter to Progress Energ y, directing them to place wells at the ash pond’s Compliance Boundaries to help DENR determine if further action will be required. On September 2, 2010, the DWQ approved the Plant’s proposed locations of CB wells and monitoring wells, and thirteen complia nce monitoring wells were constructed at the CBs of the coal ash pond in December 2010. 410

On January 18, 2011, NPDES permits were renewed by the NC DENR Division of Water Quality with some changes that allow the discharge of treated wastewater to the Cataw ba River Basin. They include new requirements for fish tissue monitoring, at least once per permit cycle; and semi

- annual in

- stream monitoring to occur upstream and downstream of surface impoundments’ outfalls for arsenic, selenium, mercury, chromium, lea d, cadmium, copper, zinc, and TDS. 411

Based on monitoring data from this site 412 showing some constituents exceeded state water standards, 413 on October 10, 2012, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) filed a complaint on behalf of several citizens’ grou ps with the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) requesting the following rulings: a) Operators of coal ash lagoons with NPDES permits first issued on or before December 30, 1983, must take corrective action pursuant to 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(c) when their activity results in an increase in the concentration of a substance in excess of groundwater quality standards, whether or not groundwater quality standards have been exceeded at or beyond a compliance boundary around the CCR p onds;

404 According to GZA Geoenvironmental Inc. (2009), the area of the active ash basin is 160 acres. These different area estimates are due possibly to differences in the a rea as defined by the height of the freeboard.
405 Based on GZA Geoenvironmental Inc. (2009).

406 Complaint and Motion for Injunctive Relief (2013a). The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for discharges from Outfall 002 require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Oil and Grease, Total Suspended Solids, pH, Total Mercury, Total Iron, Total Arsenic, Total Beryllium, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Nickel, Total Copper, Total Silver, Total Zinc, Total Nitrogen, and Chronic Toxicity.
407 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=G.G._Allen_Steam_Plant

408 Lake Wylie provides drinking water for York County and Belmont, while Mountain Island Lake provides drink ing water for Mecklenburg County. Both lakes are managed by Duke, and the State allows the Utility to use the opposite side of the lakes as the plants’ compliance boundary. Duke responded that regular testing of surface water and fish tissue show no ill

- ef fects as a result of the seeps. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/11/09/3654433/group

- reports

- coal

- ash

- leaking.html
409 Complaint and Motion, ibid.

410 The parameters being monitored are antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chloride, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, nitrate, pH, selenium, sulfate, thallium, TDS, Water Level, and zinc. On June 17, 2011, the DWQ adopted a Poli cy for Compliance Evaluation of Long

- term Permitted Facilities with No Prior Groundwater Monitoring Requirements. Complaint and Motion, ibid, and http://portal.ncd enr.org/web/wq/hot

topics/coalashregulation/gwatermonitoring , Map. According to DENR’s map (prepared by Altamont Environmental, April 2011), it is not clear which of the wells are ‘background’ and which are ‘down

- gradient’; considering that the plant’s pr operty boundary line (PL) in places coincides with the compliance boundary (CB), ten of the 13 wells are sited either on the PL or within several tenth of feet internally to it.

411 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=G.G._Allen_Steam_Plant

412 For the period January 2010 to July 2012. Presumably in this period, Allen’s test well sampling has shown levels of iron, manganese and nickel higher than the State’s 2L Groundwater Standards; http://www.gastongazette.com/news/local/environmental

- group

- seeks

- coal

- ash

- cleanup

- 1.31147 ; and see Complaint and Motion, ibid

413 Cape Fea r River Watch and Others (2012). DE N R h a s do c ument a t i o n of e x cee d a n c es of g r o u ndw a ter stan d a rds inside the c omp l ian c e bound a ri e s o f f ourt ee n c o a l

- fi re d po w e r pl a nts i n No r th C a rol i na with co a l ash i m poundments
pe r m i t t e d p r ior to 1984, without mode r n c onstr u c t i on te c hniques a nd p e rmit t ing stand a rd s . Similarly to the other 13 facilities, groundwater ins i de the c omp l ian c e b o und a ry of the Allen Steam Electric Plant e x cee ds stand a rds for multiple contaminants.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

104 b) Operators of CCR ponds with NPDES permits first issued on or before December 30, 1983, must take immediate action to eliminate sources of contamination that cause a concentration of a substance in excess of groundwater quality standards, in advanc e of their separate obligation to propose and implement a corrective action plan for the restoration of groundwater quality contaminated by those sources; and c) Operators of closed and inactive CCR ponds must implement corrective action as unpermitted
act ivities pursuant to 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(c).

On December 3, 2012, the North Carolina EMC upheld state regulators' interpretation of groundwater protection requirements for coal ash lagoons: in taking that action, the commission rejected a request by environmental groups for an order that would require the cleanup of groundwater at 14 coal

- fired facilities in North Carolina. The commission found the Division of Water Quality correctly interpreted state law and regulations and that pre

- 1984 lagoons at issue had compliance boundaries even though, for corrective action purposes, they were deemed “non

- permitted.” 414

In response to EMC’s decision, on January 8, 2013, SELC filed the complaint in Wake County Superior Court on behalf of several conservation groups, 415 ‘to protect North Carolina communities and groundwater from toxic coal ash contamination at 14 coal

- fired power plants across the state.’ The lawsuit would require cleanup of groundwater contamination around unlined coal ash ponds, including thos e of Duke’s Power Allen Plant. 416

A recent NC DENR’s lawsuit against Duke Energy Progress (August 16, 2013) indicates that, based on groundwater monitoring data from March 2011 through July 16, 2013, groundwater exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standar d at or beyond the compliance boundary of the Plant’s ash ponds include the following parameters: iron, manganese, and nickel. 417



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: EPA (2007) reports that according to the 1985 data, there were documented exceedances of manganese and iron, non

- health

- based standards, in wells downstream from the waste management unit. Therefore, this site is categorized as a potential damage case.



### References EPA (2007): 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #34 and reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003. Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

414 https://essential.bna.com/login/signin?msg=deny&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bna.com%2Fdeln%2Fdisplay%2Fl in k_res.adp%3Ffedfid%3D28835414%26fname%3Da0d4y8f2r4%26vname%3Ddennotallissues&authenDec=

- 203
415 The Cape Fear River Watch, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, and Western North Carolina Alliance.

416 Southern Environmental Law Center Press Release, January 8, 2013: http://www.southernenvironment.org/newsroom/press_releases/groups_in_court_to_stop_groundwater_cont aminati on_from_toxic_coal_ash_waste/

417 Complaint and Motion, ibid, Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 8. The maximum exceedances (with the 2L Standard for reference in parenthesis) were recorded as follows: iron (300 μg/L): 8,350 μg/L; manganese (50 μg/L): 945 μg/L; and nickel (100 μg/L): 544 μg/L. Due to these exceedances, “the DWR staff is working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedances are naturally occurring or if corrective action will be required.” According to the full monitoring record of the co mpliance boundary monitoring wells for the period March 2011 to March 2014, additional exceedances were recorded for pH (nine wells, lowest reading of 4.8) and nitrate (six wells, max. value of 3.5 mg/L): http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/hot

- topics/coalashregulation/gwatermonitoring , Data.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

105 Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985): Full Scale Field Evaluation of Waste Disposal from Coal

- fired Electric Generation Plants, prepared for the Air and Energy Research Laboratory of the U.S.EPA for the Office of Solid Waste, EPA

- 600

- 7

- 85

- 028, June 1985. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=AUTHOR&INPUT1=Cooper%20AND %20C%20AND%20D&TYPE1=ALL&item_count=14

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Info rmation. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx ?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Duke Energy (2009): Response to Request for Information under Section 104(e) of CERCLA, March 26, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/duke

- allen.pdf

GZA Geoenvironmental Inc. (2009): Task 3 Dam Assessment Report, Project #0

- 381, Allen Steam Station Coal Ash Retention Dam, Belm ont, North Carolina, September 16, 2009. Accessed Online August 2009. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/allen

- steam

- fin al.pdf

Cape Fear River Watch and Others (2012): Request for Declaratory Ruling to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (“EMC”) for a ruling clarifying application of the EMC’s groundwater protection rule to coal ash lagoons1 that contam inate groundwater in excess of water quality standards. Cape Fear River Watch, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, and Western North Carolina Alliance, Petitioners. October 10, 2012. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/fck/2012%2010

- 10%20Pet'r%20Mot%20%20For%20Declaratory%20Ruling%20(Motion%20only).pdf

Duke Carolinas (2012): The Duke Energy Carolinas Integrated Resource Plan (Annual Report), September 1, 2012. Accessed Online January 2013. http://dms.psc.sc.gov/pdf/matters/BC152184

- 155D

- 2817

- 1 0B3D428140C15CD.pdf

Complaint and Motion for Injunctive Relief (2013a): State of North Carolina v. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC, N.C. Supreme Ct. (Mecklenburg). Docket number unavailable, August 16, 2013. Accessed Online August 2013. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/hot

- topics/duke_energy_aug2013injunctions



### PTa27. Great River Energy (GRE) 418



### - (formerly Cooperative Powe r Association/United Power) Coal Creek Station, 419 

### Underwood, McLean County, North Dakota

Type: Surface Impoundments and Evaporation Ponds.



### Background and Description : Coal Creek Station (CCS) is located about seven miles north of the Missouri River in sou th central McLean County and about five miles south of the town of Underwood,

418 Great River Energy (GRE) is an alliance of Minnesota rural electric cooperatives

. 419 It is the largest lignite

- fired electricity plant in Nort h Dakota. Its two generators are rated each at 605 MW: Unit 1 went in service in 1979 and Unit 2 came online in 1980. According toIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

106 North Dakota and three miles west of US Highway 83. According to EPA (2007), this site includes a number 420 of evaporation ponds and two ash storage/disposal ponds 421 that were const ructed in 1978 and 1979. 422 The ponds were originally lined with compacted soil but developed severe leaks in the late 1970s. The ponds are operated as a zero discharge facility. 423 There are also fly ash and FSS landfills on the property that were not the sub ject of the 2007 USEPA Damage Case Assessment. 424 The majority of fly ash generated at Coal Creek Station is sold and beneficially used, and only a small amount is used onsite (e.g., in the construction of the Upstream Raise). Bottom Ash is also used benefic ially on

- site in addition to the Upstream Raise Construction. 425

http://www.greatriverenergy.com/m akingelectricity/coal/coalcreekstation.html , the fuel source for the plant is lignite coal, supplied by the adjoining Falkirk Mine , which is owned by the North American Coal Corporati on . Coal Creek Station uses about 22,000 tons of lignite per day, or about 7.5 to 8.0 million tons per year. According to BART Determination (2010), approximately 8,130,000 tons of lignite coal and approximately 165,000 gallons of oil were combusted in 200 6. The Paleocene

- Age lignite coal has a calorific value of 6,250 BTUs/pound, between 37 and 38.5 percent moisture, 10 percent ash, and 7 percent sulfur. For additional information on the Williston Basin lignite utilized in the Coal Creek Station, see Hoffm an (2002). In 2006, the DryFining TM coal enhancement system pilot was introduced with Federal and State support as the Lignite Fuel Enhancement System; it went commercial in December 2009. The system uses waste heat to reduce the moisture level of the lign ite to approximately 29 percent. It also segregates the lignite stream and removes the higher density compounds that contain higher levels of sulfur and mercury, thus reducing those emissions by more than 40 percent. The refined coal burns at 7,100 BTU/lb, compared to 6,250 BTU/lb prior to processing, reducing fuel input into the plant by about 14 percent by weight ( http://www.greatriverenergy.com/makingelec tricity/newprojects/dryfining_factsheet.pdf and Lignite Fuel Enhancement, 2011) . Finally, Great River Energy employs Combined Heat and Power steam to process an estimated 18 million bushels of corn into 50 million gallons of fuel ethanol annually at Blue Flint Ethanol, a biorefinery co

located with the Coal Creek Station power plant ( http://www.greatriverenergy.com/aboutus/pressroom/lead_lead2_111412_eia_chp.htm l ).

420 According to Great River Energy (2010), there are four evaporation ponds. According to Stockdill and Jorgenson (2002), CCS has two ash disposal ponds (Ash Ponds 91 and 92), four evaporation ponds (Evaporation Ponds 91, 92, 93, and 94), a recycle pon d (Drains Pond), an extended basin for cooling water storage, a river water basin for storage of raw water (River Water Holding Basin), and five special waste landfills for the containment of coal combustion by

- products (including SE Section 16 and SW Sect ion 16), along with several ancillary facilities (e.g., a runoff/sewage collection pond

– the Lignite Runoff Basin). SW Section 16 was originally part of the East Ash Pond (EAP). In 1989, the facility was reclassified as a solid waste disposal area and CC Rs from the other parts of the EAP were excavated and placed in SW Section 16. SW Section 16 was regraded and a new composite liner consisting of a 1

- foot thick clay and 60

- mil LLDPE liner was installed in three phases between 2005 and 2008. For the evolut ion and location of the different disposal

- and water

- management units, see Kleinfelder (2012), Appendix C, Section 1.2, Plate 2, and Figure 1 (virtual page 195)

. 421 The ash disposal ponds are regulated under North Dakota Department of Health (NDDoDH) Divis ion of Waste Management Permit SP

- 033. Ash Pond 91 receives bottom ash, FGD Control residues, and economizer ash. Pond 92 (The Upstream Raise) receives FGD Control residues.

422 According to EPRI (2010), two scrubber sludge impoundments and four ash contact water evaporation ponds (approximately 220 acres cumulative).

423 As such, the Plant does not require an NPDES discharge permit. The ponds contain very high concentrations of dissolved solids due to recirculation and evaporation. According to http://www.swce.coop/trivia.php , water comes seven miles from the Missouri River through a 32 inch underground pipe to a 35 acre storage basin at the plant site.

424 According to Stewart (2002), the Coal Creek Station (CCS) has consistently produced a high quality fly ash that has been demonstrated over the years to effectively enhance the performance of concrete. According to Stewart (ibid), CCS ships 40 percent of its fly ash by rail to nearby markets of Montana, North Dako ta, Minnesota, and Canada. The Falkirk Mine that supplies fuel for CCS and utilizes 160

- ton haul trucks to move the lignite fuel to the plant has been challenged by the high costs associated with poor soil conditions and road construction in regraded

areas . The application of CCS’ fly ash to improve road conditions, particularly under the freeze

- thaw cycles typical to the area was successfully demonstrated between 2000

- 2002.
425 At the time of the Dam Assessment Site visit (May 2011: Kleinfelder, ibid), fly ash was collected by electrostatic precipitators, and hauled dry to the Upstream Raise pond site by truck for use in the then ongoing enlargement ofIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

107 While quantitative data on the depth to ground water are not available, documentation from the State agency indicates that the ponds were constructed “directly over and adjacent to” the Weller Slough Aquifer, suggesting the presence of shallow ground water. 426 According to Klausing (1974), t he topography and surficial geology of McLean County is primarily the result of glacial erosion and deposition. Most of the present landforms were produced du ring the retreat and minor advances of the last, Wisconsin

- age ice sheet. The Weller Slough Aquifer lies in a buried valley that extends northwestward from Section 8, T. 145 N., R. 82 W, roughly coinciding with the Coal Creek Station’s property area, to it s intersection with Lake Sakakawea about two miles west of Coleharbor. 427 The aquifer is about 14 miles long and varies in width from half a mile to a mile. The aquifer consists of beds and lenses of sand and gravel of glacial origin extending to depths of 3 00 feet, and its average thickness is about 40 feet. The nearest neighbor is reportedly more than two miles away and residents are almost exclusively on rural water because groundwater flows through shallow coal beds and has poor quality. 428



### Impact and Dam age Claims: A groundwater monitoring program was initiated at CCS in 1979. 429 According to EPA (2007), ground water monitoring at the site showed arsenic in excess of the primary MCL in 1987 and selenium in excess of the primary MCL in 1992 and 1993. Down

- gr adient monitoring data also have shown sulfate and chloride above secondary MCLs and elevated levels of boron. 430 EPRI (2010) concedes that there were CCR

- related onsite exceedances of arsenic, selenium, chromium, chloride, and sulfate.



### Resolution: The Nort h Dakota Department of Health ( NDDoH) 431 and the Utility both claim 432 that this site was initially constructed

– with compacted soil liner and monitoring points

- long before the standards for CCR disposal were implemented. It was investigated in the 1980s d ue to concerns raised by the NDDoH about leak upon initial use. In the facility’s 1990 permit application, the State required relining of the ponds with a composite liner. Once impacts were discovered and evaluated GRE’s predecessor, Cooperative Power, red esigned facilities with suspected leakage and in the late 1980s and early 1990s installed composite (clay and synthetic) liners. This site has not impacted a source of

that facility. The bottom ash that was sluiced into Ash Pond 91 was removed and dried for later use as fil ler and ballast material in the Upstream Raise.

426 The proximity to the shallow aquifer is illustrated by the fact that the Plant’s ash

- disposal and water

- management units surround the topographically depressed Lower

- and Upper

- Samuelson Sloughs. For the co nditions conducive to the formation of sloughs, see North Dakota Geological Survey (No Date).

427 Klausing (1974), Part III Plates.
428 According to Klausing (1974), w ater levels in the aquifer range from about 57 feet below ground surface (bgs) to about 101 f

eet B GS The central and thicker parts of the aquifer can be expected to yield as much as 1,000 gpm. As of the early 1970s, the water was utilized for domestic and livestock uses. The water is a sodium bicarbonate type. The analysis of three well water sam ples from the aquifer indicates that the dissolved

- solids content ranged from 867 to 1,730 mg/L, sulfate from 188 to 561 mg/L, and iron from 80 to 4,200 μg/L. According to Klausing’s (ibid) Figure 3, these compositions are commensurate with irrigation water quality classification C3

- S1 to C4

- S4 (Low

- to High

- Sodium Hazard and High

- to Very

- High Salinity Hazard). Additional groundwater analyses of glacial till aquifers in McLean County are presented in Robinove et al., (1958), Table 6.
429 Stockdill and Jorgenson (2002).

430 According to Cherry e t al., (2000), greater than Federal limits in down

- gradient groundwater wells were as follows: selenium (1,100 mg/L); sulfate (51,000 mg/L); TDS (3,160

- 8,212 mg/L); boron (55 mg/L); iron (4.8 mg/L); sodium (1,580 mg/L); and chloride and arsenic exceeded f ederal limits by small amounts.
431 Comment EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 8211.

432 GRE’s comment EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 7047, and EPRI (2010).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

108 drinking water. Remediation was performed and the impoundments remain active. A groundw ater monitoring program is in place. 433

According to Great River Energy (2010), Ash Pond 92 (the Upstream Raise) was converted from an impoundment to a landfill/impoundment for permanent placement of scrubber sludge in 2005. The Upstream Raise was expanded over the Southwest Section 16 landfill. A composite liner and leachate collection system was installed for each expansion.



### Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: “EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: ( 1) Scientific evidence

- Arsenic and selenium exceeded (health

based) primary MCLs, and (2) Administrative

- The State required remedial action.” 434



### ICF’s Rationale: ICF (2010) downgraded this Case from a Proven to Potential Damage Case: “Onsite groundwater exceeded MCLs for arsenic and selenium. The State of North Dakota required closure of the facility without any explicit finding of specific damage.”



### References EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=E valuation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #24, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007; and references therein (Memorandum from SAIC to Den nis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases, Novem ber 29, 2000). Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identi fied Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #23. ICF, 10/2010.

Great River Energy (2010): Response to Request for Information under Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 42 U .S.C. 9604(e)

- Coal Creek Station, September 21, 2010. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/ grenergy

- coalcreek.pdf

Hoffman (2002): Western Region Fly Ash Survey, Gretchen K. Hoffman, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico. Pages 56

- 63 in Proceedings of Coal Combustion By

Products and Western Coal Mines: a Technica l Interactive Forum, Held at Denver Marriott West Hotel, Golden, Colorado, April 16

- 18, 2002; Edited by Kimery C. Vories Dianne Throgmorton. Proceedings published by: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Coal Research Center, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/MCR/Resources/ccb/PDF/CCB_and_Western_Coal_Mines.pdf

Stewart (2002) : Evaluation of Physical Properties and Engineering Performance of CCBs in the Laboratory and the Field, Andrew W. Stewart, Power Products Engineering Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Pages 83

- 87 in Proceedings of Coal Combustion By

- Products and Western Coal Mines: a Technical Interactive Forum, Held at Denver Marriott West Hotel, Golden, Colorado, April 16

- 18, 2002;IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

109 Edited by Kimery C. Vories Dianne Throgmorton. Proceedings published by: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Coal Research Center, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/MCR/Resources/ccb/PDF/CCB_and_Western_Coal_Mines.pd f

Stockdill and Jorgenson (2002): Monitoring and Environmental Performance of CCB Disposal Activities at Great River Energy ’s Coal Creek Station, Diane Stockdill, Great River Energy, Coal Creek Station, Underwood, North Dakota, and Ron R. Jorgenson, Gold er Associates Inc., Lakewood, Colorado. Pages 135

- 141 in Proceedings of Coal Combustion By

- Products and Western Coal Mines: a Technical Interactive Forum, Held at Denver Marriott West Hotel, Golden, Colorado, April 16

- 18, 2002; Edited by Kimery C. Vories D ianne Throgmorton. Proceedings published by: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Coal Research Center, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/MCR/Resources/ccb/PDF/CCB_and_Western_Coal_Mines.pdf

Klausing (1974): Ground

- Water Resources of McLean County, North Dakota. Robert L. Klausing, U. S. Geological Survey, 1974. County Grou nd

- Water Studies 19

- Part III, North Dakota State Water Commission, Bulletin 60

- Part III, North Dakota Geological Survey. Accessed Online October 2012. ht tp://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

- 295/McLean_Part_3.pdf Part III Plates (1

- 3): subglacial bedrock topography and glacial fill aquifers: http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

- 296/McLean_Part_3_Platespdf

Bluemle (1982): Geology of McHenry County, North Dakota, John P. Bluemle, North Dakota Geological Survey Bulletin 74

-- Part I and County Groundwater Studies 33

- Part I
, North Dakota State Water Commission

, Grand Forks, North Dakota, 1982. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

- 273 /McHenry_Part_1.pdf Plate 1 (Geologic map): http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

274/McHenry_Part_1_Plates.pdf

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

North Dakota State Water Commission: The Geology and Groundwater Resources of McLean County. http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetContentRecord/PB

- 270

BART Determination (2010): BART Determination for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2, February 10, 2010. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.ndhealth.gov/AQ/RegionalHaze/Regional%20Haze%20Link%20Documents/Appendix%20B /BARTCoal%20Creek%2002

- 10.pdf

433 According to http://www.swce.coop/trivia.php , there are 300 wells around t he property ‘to check the water quality on a regular basis.’

434 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

110 Lignite Fuel Enhancem ent (2011): Lignite Fuel Enhancement, a DOE Assessment, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, DOE/NETL

- 2011/1490, April 2011. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/topicalreports/pdfs/GRE

- PPA%204

- 12

- 2011.pdf

Kleinfelder (2012): Coal Ash Impoundment Site Assessment Final Report, Coal Creek Station, Grea t River Energy, Underwood, North Dakota, Kleinfelder, Golden, Colorado, October 31, 2012. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/in dustrial/special/fossil/surveys2/gre_coalcreek_final.pdf

North Dakota Geological Survey (No Date): Glacial Lake Agassiz, John P. Bluemle. Accessed Online January 2014. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndg s/ndnotes/Agassiz/

Robinove et al., (1958): Saline

- Water Resources of North Dakota, Robinove, C. J. , R. H. Langford, and J. W. Brookhart, U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Supply Paper 1428, 1958. Accessed Online January 2014. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1428/report.pdf



### PTa28. Montana

- Dakota Utilities (MDU) R.M. Heskett Station, 435 

### Mandan, Morton County, North Dakota

Type: Landfill/Ash Pile.



### Background and Description: The Heskett Station is located t wo miles north of Mandan, North Dakota, on the west side of the Missouri River. 436 According to EPRI (2010), the site comprises a 15

- acre, unlined coal ash landfill constructed in 1954 and in service from 1954 through 1989. 437

435 According to the Lignite Energy Council’s website ( https://www.lignite.com/?id=76 ), Heskett Station is a base

load, lignite

- fueled e lectric generating station with two boilers: Unit 1, a spreader stoker with generation capacity of 25 MW (came on line in 1954), and Unit 2 (stoker

- fired boiler) that came online in 1963 was retrofitted to a fluidized

- bed combustor (FBC) in 1987. According to Mann et al., (1987), the retrofit of Unit 2 was undertaken to address operational problems of clinkering (the formation of oversized bed material), slagging, fouling, and reduced combustion efficiency caused by high sodium

- oxide contents (up to 12 perc ent) of the ash generated from the combustion of the Beulah lignite. The Heskett Station consumes annually about 500,000 tons of lignite, rail

delivered from the Dakota Westmoreland Corporation’s Beulah Mine

. According to North Dakota SIP (2010), the FBC unit occasionally burns sub

- bituminous coal and tire derived fuel. According to MDU (2012), MDU is planning to construct, own, and operate an 88 MW natural gas

- fueled Combustion Turb ine Project at the R.M. Heskett Station site (“Unit 3”), to become operational in 2015.

436 The station uses Missouri River water for cooling. In 1993, a shift in the Missouri River channel resulted in significant changes in the flow pattern along the river’ s west bank. This created a shallow side water channel that experienced excessive sediment deposition, which restricted water supply. This was compounded by drought conditions and extended low releases from Garrison Dam. To address this challenge, in 2003 approximately 7,000 lineal feet of channel was dredged (about 35,000 cubic yards of sediment were removed) to a depth of around 3

- 5 feet below projected minimum water levels. In 2009, a concern that once releases from Garrison Dam were reduced to 12,500 cu bic feet/second late in the fall, there wouldn’t be enough water flowing past the power facility to sustain operations lead to the dredging of another 12,000 cubic yards ( http://www.houstoneng.com/archi ves/993 ).

437 According to MDU (2010), coal ash is regulated under Special Waste Landfill requirements permit SP

- 087 (47 acres), State Solid Waste Management and Land Protection Law Chapter 23

- 29 and ND Administrative Code Article 33

- 20 ( http://www.ndhealth.gov/wm/SolidWasteProgram ). Slots 1

- 5 of the CCR landfill are lined with five

-IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

111 The plant is located above the confluence of the glacial

- drift Heart River Aquifer into the Missouri River. 438 There is a hydraulic connection between the aquifer and the Missouri River. In this area, the aquifer is about 2 miles wide. It consists of sand and gravel units that are inter

- b edded with low

permeability layers of clay and silt. 439 According to EPRI (2010), groundwater flow is to the northeast. Rural water supply was provided to the only two local residents located within 1⁄4 mile of the site in 1995, and no other residences were de termined to be potential receptors.

According to MDU (2010), the Heskett Station produced 37, 724 tons of fly ash and 11,590 tons of bottom ash, of which 520 tons of bottom ash were applied to beneficial use. 440 According to Bland (2003) and MDU (2010), Hes kett Station fly ash is not suitable for cement replacement applications due to its high content of unburned carbon (10

- 14 percent Loss on Ignition, LOI). 441 MDU, jointly with other entities, 442 developed flowable fill materials using lignite

- fired fluidized

- bed combustion ash from the Heskett Station. 443

feet of compacted clay (maximum hydraulic conductivity 1.0 x 10

- 7 cm/ sec). The recently

- approved NDDOH composite lin er system for Slots 6 through 10 of the active ash landfill comprise (from bottom up) a 6” compact clay subgrade, a 60 Mil HDPE liner, a 6” ‘sand’(from the Station’s fluidized bed) leachate drainage layer, and a 18” fly ash cover layer. The cap system to b e applied once the active slots reach capacity comprises (from bottom up) a 24” compacted clay, 30” cover layer, and 6” top soil. The 1/3 acre, five feet deep leachate evaporation pond is lined with three feet of compacted clay (maximum hydraulic conductiv ity 1.0 x 10

- 7 cm/ sec) . Tillotson (2002) indicates that Heskett Station’s election of a composite liner has clear economic advantage: MDU found that a composite system consisting of an HDPE layer underlain by 6” of compacted clay would result in less pote ntial leachate migration than a simple, four

- foot compacted clay liner. The savings in 3.5 feet of volume in the landfill would result in substantial savings for the company.

438 Ackerman (1980) and Part III Plates.
439 According to Ackerman (1980), hydraulic conductivities in the aquifer range from 10 to 400 ft/d. The aquifer thickness ranges from 25 to 109 feet. Aquifer transmissivities range from 100 to 10,000 ft 2 /d. The storage coefficient probably ranges from 0.0005 where the aquifer is confined by laye rs of silt and clay to 0 .2 where the aquifer is near the surface. Potential yields to wells range from 10 to 600gal/min. Water from the Heart River aquifer is predominately a calcium

- magnesium

- sodium bicarbonate type.

440 These are apparently 2009 figures. The corresponding FBC unit figures for 2011 are, according to MDU (2012), 30.5 thousand tons of landfilled fly ash and 2.3 thousand tons of bottom ash. Seven hundred tons of bottom ash were used on

- site and the rest were landfilled.

441 Fly ash must usually have an LOI of less than 3 percent for suitability in ready

- mix concrete. Higher carbon levels present in ash increase the amount of additives needed to produce high

- quality concrete, making it less durable.
442 MDU has partnered with the Western Research I nstitute (WRI), the U.S. DOE
, and the North Dakota Industrial Commission

. 443 Flowable fill is a construction material that has a number of applications, the performance characteristics of which can be modified for the specific application. Typical flowable fill mixtures consist of water, Portland cement, Class F or Class C fly ash, and fine aggregate. Applications include removable backfills, structural fills, isolation fills, road base, Caisson and pile fills, and trench bedding. Flowable fills have specif ied strengths ranging from 80 to 1,200 psi at 28 days, depending on the application. Although it is in a flowable state at the time of placement, flowable fill is not a concrete. According to Bland (2003), the leachate from the MDU FBC fly ash

- based flowab le fill materials meets the regulatory limits for metals as specified by RCRA, thereby resulting in a non

- hazardous classification for both the raw fly ash as well as the MDU flowable fill material. Tillotson (2002) indicates that the Heskett Plant has rec eived NDDOH’s approval to utilize some of their waste as an admixture for a controlled flowable fill in engineering settings. Upon the successful completion of the Flowable fill pilot, WRI launched a commercialization of the technology under the trademark Ready

- Fill TM . However, according to a recent assessment by MDU (2010), there are very limited applications in the vicinity of R.M. Heskett Station for flowable fill, and the shipping and handling costs to distribute the product to other distant regions mak e it uneconomical to market for this use currently.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

112 

### Impact and Damage Claims: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site from 1998 show levels of sulfate and boron immediately down

- gradient of an old ash pile in excess of the secondary MCL. 444 Acco rding to the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDOH), the State required the company “... to install ground water monitoring wells and implement a closure plan. Since that time, the site has been effectively closed and is currently revegetated with a goo d stand of growth. EPRI (2010) concedes that CCR impacts are limited only to onsite exceedances of selenium and sulfate. 445 MDU claims that groundwater at the facility is monitored by a network of wells that have shown that there are no exceedances of ground water standards in down

- gradient wells except for historically elevated detections of cadmium, selenium and nitrates. However, because these parameters also are found at similar concentrations in up

- gradient wells, MDU claims that they are not related to t he ash management areas and are the result of off

- site sources or natural conditions. 446



### Resolution: The site was closed and capped in 1989/1990. Clay cap was constructed in pursuit of NDDOH’s guidance, and the cap was re

- vegetated in 1990. A groundwater m onitoring program is in place. According to EPRI (2010), t he groundwater monitoring data indicate that impact to groundwater has been reduced since the closure of the site.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “While the State has taken re gulatory action at this site, the sulfate and boron exceedances found are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 447



### References EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Informat ion. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq= 1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #66, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007; and reference therein (Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Hoosier Environmental Council (1999): Attachment B to the letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to Dennis Ruddy regarding damage case sites, November 11, 1999, Document ID # EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 1999

- 0022

- 1235 in the docket titled Comments In Response To The April 28, 1999 Federal Register: Availability Of Report To Congress On Fossil Fuel Combustion; Request For Comments And Announcement Of Public Hearing, Attachm ent B: Report On R.M. Heskett Station

. The Report on R.M. Heskett Station is accessible at: http://www.hecweb.org/ProgramsandInitatives/CCW/heskett.pdf

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquati c Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htmIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

113 Tillotson (2002): Coal Combustion Waste North Dakota Regulatory Perspective, Steven J. Tillotson, Division of Waste Management, North Dakota Department of Health, Environmental Health Section, Bismarc k, North Dakota. Pages 250

- 261 in Proceedings of Coal Combustion By

- Products and Western Coal Mines: a Technical Interactive Forum, Held at Denver Marriott West Hotel, Golden, Colorado, April 16

- 18, 2002; Edited by Kimery C. Vories Dianne Throgmorton. Proc eedings published by: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Coal Research Center, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/MCR/Resources/ccb/PDF/CCB_and_Western_Coal_Mines.pdf

North Dakota State Water Commission: The Geology and Groundwater Resources of Morton County. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetContentRecord/PB

- 272

Carlson (1983): Geology of Morton County, North Dakota, Clarence G. Carlson, North Dakota Geological Survey, Grand Forks, North Dakota; Bulletin 72, Part I

– Geology, North Dakota Geological Survey; County Groundwater Studies 27

- Part I, North Dakota State Water Commission, 1983. Accessed Online January 2013. http:/ /www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

- 303/Morton_Part_1.pdf Part I: Plates (geological map and cross sections): http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4 dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

- 304/Morton_Part_1_Plates.pdf

Ackerman (1980): Ground

- Water Resources of Morton County, North Dakota, D. J. Ackerman, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 72, Part III

- Ground

- Water Resources, North Dakota Geological Survey; County Gr ound

- Water Studies 27

- Part III, North Dakota State Water Commission, 1980. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

- 307/Morton_Part_3.pdf Part III: Plates (maps and geological cross sections of glacial

- drift and alluvial aquifers): http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/Get SubContentPDF/PB

- 308/Morton_Part_3_Plates.pdf

Bland (2003): Market Assessment and Demonstration of Lignite FBC Ash Flowable Fill Applications, Final Report, Alan E. Bland, WRI

- 03

- R014, September 2003. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/910129

- 1GpK4H/910129.pdf

MDU (2010): A Report on MDU Resources Group, Inc.’s Production and Safe Management of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs), Terry D. H ildestad President and CEO, MDU Resources Group, Inc. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.mdu.com/Special%20Reports/2010_CoalAshRpt.pdf

444 Hoosier Environmental Council (1999)



### . According to Cherry et al., (2000), there are seven constituents that exceeded federal limits at this site in down

- gradient monitoring wells. Sulfate and TDS were m easured up to 18,000 and 11,818 mg/L, respectively; boron, up to 23 mg/L; manganese and sodium reached 2.42 and 1,580 mg/L, respectively; and iron (0.87 mg/L) and chloride (531 mg/L) were marginally elevated.

445 According to EPRI (2010), the tabulation of e xceedances in groundwater before/after remediation is based on data provided by the power company from 1981 through 2008. For this assessment, pre

- mitigation data was assumed to be all data collected prior to capping of the landfill in 1990 (1981

- 1990). Po st

- mitigation data is assumed to be all data collected after closure (1990

- 2008). A saline seep was identified near the site that contributes to high chloride concentrations in monitoring wells. Iron and manganese are present above the secondary MCL in bot h up

gradient and down

- gradient wells. Selenium concentrations are typically below the MCL, but have exceeded the MCL on five occasions (once every three to seven years) between 1985 and 2008.
446 MDU (2010).

447 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

114 MDU (2012): Montana

- Dakota Utilities Co. Ten Year Plan for North Dakota Electric Properties For Planning Years July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2022, Submitted to North Dakota Public Service Commission, Montana

- Dakota Utilities Co., a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc., June 29, 2012. Accessed On line January 2013. http://www.psc.nd.gov/database/documents/12

- 0454/001

- 020.pdf

North Dakota SIP (2010): North Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze Supplement No. 1 : A Plan for Implementing the Regional Haze program requirements of section 308 of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P

– Protection of Visibility. North Dakota Department of Health Division of Air Quality, Air pollution Control Program, Bismarck, North Dakota, adopt ed July 28, 2010. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.ndhealth.gov/AQ/RegionalHaze/Regional%20Haze%20Link%20Documents/Supplement%20 1.pdf

Man n et al., (1987): Design of Montana

- Dakota Utilities 80 MW AFBC retrofit, Michael Mann, Mark Perna, and Bruce Imsdahl, U.S. Department of Energy Conference Proceedings, pages 6 B1

- 1 to 6 B1

- 12, 1987. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.fischer

- tropsch.org/DOE/_conf_proc/Coal%20Conferences/87_6081/doe_metc

- 87_6081

- F.pdf



### PTa29. Basin Electric, W. J. Neal Plant, Velva, McHenry County, North D akota

Type: Surface Impoundment.



### Background and Description: According to EPA (2007), this site was an unlined, 44

- acre surface impoundment that received fly ash and scrubber sludge from a two

- boiler, pulverized lignite coal

- fired power plant, 448 along wit h other wastes (including ash from the combustion of sunflower seed hulls), between 1951 and the late 1980s. 449 Apparently, the plant was located southwest of the intersection of routes 52 and 95, three miles southeast from Velva, North Dakota, towards Volta ire. According to EPRI (2010), aerial photos show less than 5 homes within a one

- mile radius; however, a 1991 report identified two rural well association wells within one mile of the site.

The W.J. Neal Plant was located on several tens of feet

- thick Wis consin

- age glacial till area south of the Lake Souris glaciated plains. Part of the Coleharbor Group, 450 it comprises till, sand, gravel, silt, and clay. 451 These deposits overlie sandstone, siltstone, claystone, shale, and lignite of the Tertiary

- age Fort Uni on Formation. The unconfined Voltaire aquifer occupies a narrow surficial glacial

- diversion stream

448 The first owner of the plant was Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc. According to Bluemle (1982), t he lignite

- bearing, Tertiary

- age Bullion Creek and Sentinel Butte Formations subcrop beneath the glacial sediment in southwestern McHenry County. According to Blumble (1982) and http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/91017AX3.PDF

, Consolidation Coal Company mined about 319 and 335 thousand tons of coal in their Velva mine, Ward County, during 1977 and 1980, respectively, to supply the W illiam J. Neal Power Plant. According to Bureau of Mines (1954), the plant was originally designed to burn lignite with 39 percent moisture, 6.6 percent ash, and 6,600 BTU/lb.
449 The 50 MW power plant that operated to 1985 was dismantled in 1999

- 2000.
450 According to http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/NewRefsmry/sumry_7577.html , in North Dakota the Co leharbor ranges from 0

- 600 ft thick. It lies stratigraphically between pre

- and postglacial sediments. Its age is indicated as "from several hundred thousand to about 9,000 years ago," or Pleistocene and Holocene.

451 Bluemle (1982)IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

115 channel that extends from Velva to Balfour in southern McHenry County, occupying some 32 mile 2 . The aquifer consists of sand and gravel beds, and ranges in t hickness from 4 to 71 ft. Water levels in the Voltaire aquifer range from 3 to 25 ft B GS . Recharge to the aquifer is derived from adjacent or underlying bedrock or glacial

- drift deposits and from infiltration of precipitation through surface sediments. In 1978

- 79, three wells supplied the plant with a total of over 740 acre feet for operational

use. 452



### Impact and Damage Claims: According to EPA (2007), sampling in 1982 found chromium at 8.15 ppm in the pond sediment and in excess of the primary MCL in down

- gradient ground water. The State issued a special use disposal permit to allow disposal to continue, but required a continuation of monitoring and site closure. The site underwent a preliminary assessment (PA) in 1990 and a Site Inspection (SI) in 1995, b oth under CERCLA, and began negotiations for closure of the site. The PA found sediments in a marshy area adjacent to the closed facility with antimony, arsenic, chromium, manganese, selenium, and sodium elevated above background. The PA also found arsenic in excess of the primary MCL and aluminum in excess of the secondary MCL in down

- gradient ground water. The SI found arsenic elevated above background in the marsh sediments and in surface water passing through the wetland. The SI also found cadmium and l ead in excess of primary MCLs and zinc in excess of the secondary MCL in a public water supply well. The SI concluded that releases had occurred from the surface impoundment to ground water and surface water. EPRI (2010) concedes only to arsenic and alumin um as exceeding standards o n

- site that are attributable to CCR. Soils underlying the facility are characterized by one source as relatively permeable (1 x 10 - 4 cm/sec). Regionally, the surficial aquifer varies in depth from 3 to 25 feet below the surface. While a precise mapping of the water table at the site is not available, the SI characterizes ground water beneath the closed, unlined impoundment as “very shallow.” Other information in the literature confirms this and possibly suggests groundwater may d irectly contact the disposed material, specifically:

• Depth to water in the monitoring wells surrounding the facility ranges from 5.5 to 16 feet, while the depth of the ash fill is estimated at approximately 10 feet.

• According to the PA, regionally, “many lakes and potholes represent “windows” into the water table ...” and an on

- site pond located directly up

- gradient and adjacent to the disposal area may be “a surface expression of the ground water onsite.”

Additionally, the site was operated without any control of surface waters from the impoundment. A tributary to the marsh and a nearby creek formerly flowed through the ash disposal areas. Even as late as 1989, surface water ran directly off the site from the surface impoundment dike into the marsh. Thi s direct discharge was not documented as being permitted under State or Federal regulations.

The 1999 Report to Congress states: “A Preliminary Assessment in 1989 indicated migration of contaminants into the underlying aquifer that supplies Velva with dri nking water, although sampling data were not provided.” 453 EPRI (2010) claims that surface water samples near the site were collected in 1995 as part of an investigation of a City of Velva water supply well in which copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc

452 Randich (1981) . The hyd raulic gradient of the Voltaire Aquifer is about 20 ft/mile northwest toward the Souris River valley from a ground

- water divide near Voltaire. Transmissivities range from 6,500 to 18,000 ft 2 /day, hydraulic conductivities

- from 160 to 250 ft/day, and stora ge coefficients

- from 0.10 to 0.15. Properly constructed wells completed in the Voltaire aquifer could yield between 50 and 500gal/minute. The water is very hard, and predominantly a mixed sodium

- calcium bicarbonate or sulfate type. Total dissolved

- solids concentrations ranged from 335 to 2,230 mg/L (a mean of 917 mg/L); sodium ranged from 13 to 590 mg/L (a mean of 175 mg/L); bicarbonate ranged from 216 to 1,290 mg/L (a mean of 459 mg/L); and sulfate ranged from 34 to 730 mg/L (a mean of 340 mg/L).

453 Ibid, Page 3

- 49.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

116 were dete cted. The 1995 investigation results indicated site constituents were not responsible for the water supply well contamination.



### Resolution: The facility was closed between 1989 and 1990, when the impoundment sediments were consolidated to a 22

- acre area an d capped with an 18

- inch engineered clay cover and an 18

- inch layer of topsoil, which was seeded and mulched. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the site underwent a preliminary assessment (PA) in 1990 and a site inspection (SI) in 1995. According to the Report to Congress (ibid), “Site closed and capped and pending NFRAP (“No Further Remedial Action Planned”). 454

According to EPRI (2010), remediation is complete. The site received final closure in 2000 and North Dakota Department of Health authorized groundwater monitoring well abandonment. The groundwater monitoring wells were approved for abandonment in 2000.



### Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: “EPA has categorized this case as a proven d amage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific investigation

- Several constituents have exceeded their (health

- based) primary MCLs in down

- gradient ground water, and the site inspection found documentation of releases to ground water and surface wat er from the site; and (2) Administrative

- The State required closure of the facility.” 455



### Postscript: ICF (2010) downgraded this case from Proven to Potential, citing ” MCL exceedances for cadmium and lead and SMCL for zinc in an onsite public water supply well”. However, accessible references have not corroborated the onsite location of the impacted drinking water well.



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #23, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of S olid Waste, July 9, 2007; and reference therein (Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases, November 29, 2000). Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #23. ICF, 10/201 0.

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Report to Congress (1999): Waste from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Volume 2

– Methods, Fin dings, and Recommendations. EPA 530

- R

- 99

- 010, March 1999. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/regs.htm

North Dakota State Wat er Commission: Geology and Groundwater Resources of McHenry County, North Dakota (including the two specific reports below and associated maps). http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/ GetContentRecord/PB

- 267

454 Ibid, Table 3

- 22.
455 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

117 Bluemle (1982): Geology of McHenry County, North Dakota, John P. Bluemle, North Dakota Geological Survey Bulletin 74

-- Part I and County Groundwater Studies 33

- Part I, North Dakota State Water Commission

, Grand Forks, North Dakota, 1982. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

- 273/McHenry_Part_1.pdf Plate 1 (Geologic map): http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

274/McHenry_Part_1_Plates.pdf

Randich (1981): Ground

- Water Resources of McHenry County, North Dakota, P. G. Randich, U.S. Geological Survey. County Ground

- Water Studies 33

- Part III, North Dakota State Water Commission Bulletin 74

- Part III, and North Dakota Geological Survey, 1981. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubContentPDF/PB

- 277/McHenry_Part_3.pdf

Bureau of Mines (1954): Technology of Lignitic Coals, Part 2

– Combustion

- Power Generation; Carbonization; Gasification; Hydrogenation; Ot her Chemical Processing, Bureau of Mines Staff, Grand Forks, N. Dak., and Washington, D.C., Information Circular 7692, July 1954. Accessed Online January 2013. ht tp://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077564584#page/n0/mode/1up



### PTa30. Cinergy 456 

### W.C. Beckjord Station, New Richmond, Clermont County, Ohio

Type : Surface Impoundment.



### Background and Description: According to EPRI (2010), Pond A, a 34

- acre coal ash pond, constructed in 1956 and operated through 1985, 457 is located approximately 200 feet of the Ohio River. 458 In addition, there are also Ash Pond B, 800 feet of the River, and Ash Ponds C and C Extension, some 200 feet of the River. All the impoundment s are unlined. 459 Ash Pond B was commissioned in 1963, 460 and Ash Pond C was commissioned in 1966 and extended in 1985. 461

The ponds area comprises a public water supply well field for the Pierce, Union, and Batavia townships in Clermont County. Groundwater flo w is to the NNW, toward Ohio River. There are approximately 25 dwellings within one mile down

- gradient of site. It is unknown whether these residences are served by private wells; however, an interceptor well is designed to prevent migration to these well.

456 The plant, purchased by Duke Energy in 2006, is located in New Richmond , 22 miles east of Cincinnati, Ohio

. Duke Energy said it expects to retire all the six coal

- fired generation units in the Beckjord Station by Jan. 1, 2015 due to the emission controls required by the recently proposed Uti lity Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) EPA rule ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/dukeenergy

- idUSL3E7IF3BV20110715 ).
457 All ponds are subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. 1TB00000 authorizing discharge from the W.C. Beckjord Station to the Ohio River and to Pond Run Creek and Tenmile Creek near their confluence with the Ohio River.

458 According to Duke Energ y (2010), the pond is approximately 34.4 acres and received bottom ash until the pond became inactive in 1985.
459 Ash Pond C Extension was commissioned in 1985. The pond is approximately 53.3 acres and is no longer active. At the time of the site assessment the pond did not have standing liquid. When active the pond received fly ash.

460 The pond is approximately 14.6 acres and receives fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and other waste water (i.e. landfill leachate, water treatment, coal pile run

- off, fire pro tection, stormwater run

- off, mill rejects, and drains from equipment cleaning).

461 According to Duke Energy (2009 and 2010), Pond C is approximately 45.9 acres and receives fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and other waste water (i.e. water treatment, fire protection, stormwater run

- off, mill rejects, and drains from equipment cleaning).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

118 Based on a review of available surficial and bedrock geology maps and reports, the site appears to be underlain by glacial till consisting of mixtures of clay, sand, gravel and boulders in various types of deposits of different modes of origin. The glac ial till is underlain by karst

- prone limestone and shale bedrock. 462



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), there were exceedances of non

- health

- based standards (secondary MCL for sulfate) and a single exceedance of a health

- based standard (primary MCL for seleni um) at this site. There was no evidence available of off

- site migration. A public water supply well within the property boundary was shut down and can no longer be used as a drinking water supply as a direct or indirect result of the contamination due to e xceedance of sulfate. EPRI (2010) concedes exceedances of selenium and sulfate.

Duke Energy Ohio reported to the Ohio EPA on April 26, 1999 a significant drop in pond water elevation on Pond C during a two day period of operation. Underwater divers identi fied the problem as holes below the control point in the vertical section of the overflow pipe. Some ash escaped into Little Indian Creek exceeding TSS limits before corrective measures could be completed. 463



### Resolution: Ash sluicing ceased in 1985. An int erceptor well was installed in 1993 to prohibit a sulfate plume from reaching off

- site public water supply wells (Ohio EPA encouraged the facility to install this well, although there was no formal compliance action.) The one public water supply well that was located on site has been abandoned. 464 Remediation has been performed. A groundwater monitoring program is in effect and sulfate concentrations are decreasing.

In 1996 and 1997, Cinergy was issued a NOV by EPA for violating the Ohio SIP for particulat e matter. 465



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “While a public water supply well within the property boundary was shut down, the contaminant of concern (sulfate) in the water supply well does not have a health

- based standard. Therefore, th is case is a potential damage case.” 466



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #61 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.) http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

462 This observation is based on a Bedrock Geology Map of Ohio compiled by the Ohio Division of Geological Survey 2006. In April and August 2009 BBCM observed a sinkhole at ea st dike of the Ash Pond C. In August 2009 the sinkhole was approximately six feet in diameter at the existing ground surface and three to four feet deep. Following the submittal of a Sinkhole Investigation and Repair Plan letter, ODNR concurred and repair work was conducted in October and November 2009.

463 Ibid.

464 In its comment to the docket, EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 8226, OHEPA concedes that analysis data from samples taken from monitoring wells around the fly ash ponds at the power station indicate sulfate c ontamination. These impoundments are near a public well field. This situation was investigated several years ago and remedial actions were implemented. The site continues to monitor groundwater.

465 EPA imposed a $77,000 penalty, and established a 3

- year com pliance program. Another NOV was issued in December 1999 following additional violation (0.49 lb

- PM/million BTU heat input

– x4.9 the allowable standard): http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/16293012b80243a38625759a0047e794/bf1c070751566809862574c8006e2232/ $FILE/Cinergynov.PDF

466 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

119 EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Pro duct Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?space=CommunityPage&cached=true&parentname=ObjMgr&parenti d=2&control=SetCommunity&CommunityID=405

Duke Energy (2009): Duke Energy’s Response to CERCLA 104(e) Request for Information Walter C. Beckjord Gene rating Station, March 25, 2009. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/hoosier

- merom.pdf

Duke Ener gy (2010): Assessment of Dam Safety Coal Combustion Surface Impoundments Final Report, Duke Energy W.C. Beckjord Station, New Richmond, Ohio, CHA, March 22, 2010. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/duke

- beckjord

- final.pdf



### PTa31. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Miamiview Landfill, 467 

### Hamilton County, Ohio

Type: Offsite FGD Landfill, in a For mer Sand & Gravel Pit.



### Background and Description: According to EPRI (2010), an offsite coal ash landfill started operating in March 1983 and operated through 1989. 468 Located on the floodplain of the Great Miami River in a former (1962/63) sand and gravel quarry as part of a reclamation project, the landfill had a two

- feet

- thick clay liner. 469 There were three groundwater monitoring wells and one residential well next to the site, all sampled between 1983 and 1987. 470 A State rule change in October 1989 exempte d CCR from Ohio’s solid waste laws and regulations, obviating the need for a permit. 471 According to EPRI (2010), groundwater discharges to nearby surface water (Great Miami River, which discharges to the Ohio River several miles downstream) and no receptors are present between the site and the river.



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site from 1994 show levels of sulfate in excess of its secondary MCL. This exceedance was identified in a well near the boundary of the landfill. An inve stigation of the site estimates that the sulfate plume extends to an area approximately 400 feet south of the site. 472 No data are available for other constituents for the site. 473 According to EPRI (2010), in addition to onsite sulfate exceedances that are at tributed to CCR, there is also an on

- site exceedance of manganese with ‘uncertain source’. 474

467 Located west of North Bend, Ohio, about one mile southeast from Elizabethtow n, Ohio.

468 According to Miamiview Road Ash Landfill (2012), some 70 acres of the total 130 acres included in the permit were used for actual landfilling.
469 According to Miamiview Road Ash Landfill (2012), the clay was mined from the site.

470 According to M iamiview Road Ash Landfill (2012), all findings during that period were in compliance.

471 Miamiview Road Ash Landfill (2012).

472 Dames & Moore (1994)

473 According to Miamiview Road Ash Landfill (2012), monthly NPDES reports provided to the Health District fro m June 1995 through April 1997 only required tracking of conductivity, TSS, and Oil & Grease.

474 EPRI’s (2010) tabulation of exceedances in groundwater before/after remediation is based on a database provided by the power company containing all analytical r esults from 1982 to 1998; results prior to 1997 used for pre

remediation, and 1997

- 1998 results used for post

- remediation. Manganese source considered uncertain because the SMCL exceedances all occurred in a monitoring well with low sulfate concentrations, and sulfate is the primary indicator for coal ash impacts at this facility.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

120 

### Resolution: In 1993, a Permit

- to

- Install was issued for leachate collection, pH neutralization, and sedimentation system for the landfill. 475 According to EPRI (201 0), the landfill was closed and capped with 2 feet of clay in 1996. The site is closed and remediation has been performed, and groundwater monitoring is no longer required. Today the property is utilized as a model airplane flying field. 476



### Basis for Consid

eration as a Potential Damage Case: “The sulfate exceedances found at this site are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 477



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #58 and a ref erence therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 201 2. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Dames & Moore (1994): Report: Sulfate Investigation, Miamiview Landfill, Hamilton County, Ohio, Prepared for the Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company by Dames & Moore. December 13, 1994. Available in the docket titled Availability of Report to Congress on Fossil F uel Combustion; Request for Comments and Announcement of Public Hearing, EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 1999

- 0022

- 0632.

Miamiview Road Ash Landfill (2012): Miamiview Road Ash Landfill, Hamilton County Public Health Closed Landfill Summary, 12/7/2012. Accessed Online Januar y 2013. http://www.hamiltoncountyhealth.org/files/files/Reports/Waste%20Management/Closed_Landfill_Summ aries /Miamiview_Road_Ash_Landfill.pdf



### PTa32. TVA Bull Run Fossil Plant, Clinton (Oak Ridge), Anderson County, Tennessee

Type: Surface Impoundments (impacting surface water and groundwater).



### Background and Description: The Bull Run Fossil Plant (BRF) 478 is loc ated along the east shore of the Clinch River and along Worthington Branch, just north (upstream) of the confluence of the river and

475 Miamiview Road Ash Landfill (2012).

476 Ibid.

477 EPA (2007).

478 According to Sutton et al., (2001) and http://www.tva.com/sites/b ullrun.htm , the BRF is a one

- unit, 900 MW (870 MW net) generation capacity. Elsewhere (TVA 2012), the nameplate generating capacity is cited as 950 MW. In operation since June 1967, it is the only single

- generator coal

- fired plant in the TVA system. The p lant consumes about 7,300 tons of coal a day. Coal, with an average of two percent sulfur and 9.6 percent ash, is delivered from over ten mid

- Appalachian mines. A wet FGD scrubber came on line in December 2008. http://www.tva.com/sites/bullrun.htm and http://www.powermag.com/issues/cover_stories/Top

- Plants

- Bull

- Run

Fossil

- Plant

- Clinton

- Tennessee_2176.htmlIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

121 Bull Run Creek, on the east side of the Melton Hill Reservoir 479 in Clinton, Tennessee. 480 Originally, the BRF used to dispose of its coal ash by pumping coal ash slurry into three surface impoundments connected in series. The slurry included fly ash, bottom ash, and pyritic wastes. The impoundments were used to settle the ash before the water flowed over a weir into the Clinch R iver. 481 These disposal methods have since changed twice: once, in the mid

- 1980s, when dry handling of fly ash was introduced, and then, at the end of 2008, when a scrubber came online.

The three currently active disposal ponds are the Bottom Ash Disposal Area 1 ( BAD

- 1 ), the Gypsum Disposal Area 2A ( GDA

- 2A ), and the Fly Ash Pond Area 2 ( FAP2 ). 482 All three ponds are unlined. 483 There are also the inactive East/West Dredging Cell ( EWDC ), 484 the Dry Fly Ash Stack ( DS1 ), 485 and the Dry Fly Ash Sediment Pond ( DSP ). 486 FA P

- 2 , the Stilling Pond and the now closed EWDC are adjacent to Bull Run Creek. The DS1

, Dry Stacking Area Runoff Pond , coal storage yard pond, coal storage area, and main plant site are adjacent to Worthington Branch. 487

, 488

The BRF site is located in the s outhern Appalachian Valley and Ridge province and overlies an area of folded and faulted Cambrian to Ordovician age sedimentary rocks. 489 The topography and geology within the vicinity of the plant are characterized by parallel ridges trending northeast to s outhwest and underlain by more erosion resistant siltstone, sandstone, and dolomite, and valleys underlain by less erosion resistant shales and limestone. The BRF plant, the disposal units along Bull Run and the Worthington Branch occupy two of these valle ys.
A succession of thrust faults within the area has resulted in several bedrock units being present beneath the BRF footprint. Four different bedrock units underlie the site. These are the Rome Formation, the Conasauga and Knox Groups, and the Chickamau ga Limestone. The Chickamauga Formation underlies the main plant area. Commonly, the bedrock of this formation consists of limestone, shaly limestone, calcareous shale, and calcareous siltstone. Shallow fractures, enlarged by carbonate dissolution, are mor e common in this formation than any other at the site. The Chickamauga Formation may locally exhibit properties in which flow is dominated by fractures enlarged by carbonate dissolution. These fractures may alternately store and transmit relatively large v olumes of water. At other areas of the site underlain by relatively impermeable strata (i.e., the Rome and Conasauga units), groundwater movement is controlled by fractures that may store fairly large volumes but transmit only limited amounts of water.

Th e portions of the BRF along the Clinch River and adjacent to Bull Run Creek, including the ash disposal areas, are underlain by alluvium consisting of silts and clays with varying amounts of sand, accumulated through flood events of the Clinch River. The r emaining portions of the BRF are primarily underlain by residual soils resulting from the in

- situ weathering of the parent bedrock. 490

Groundwater 491 underlying the BRF site is derived from infiltration of precipitation and from lateral inflow along the nor thwest boundary of the BRF plant area. Data from past investigations and sampling at the site indicates Worthington Branch and Clinch River/Melton Hill Reservoir are the principal receptors of shallow groundwater flow from the plant area and the area propo sed for the bottom ash and gypsum dewatering facility. All groundwater originating on, or flowing beneath, the proposed site ultimately discharges to the reservoir without traversing private property. The subsurface water flow occurs both in a shallow zone just beneath the land surface and in a deeper zone below the water table. The site’s groundwater potentiometric map shows a close correspondence between the groundwater table’s configuration and the topography of the site and its vicinity, with virtually no mounding associated with the ash ponds along the Clinch River. 492

Based on 1999 and 2004 surveys of water wells in the BRF vicinity, there are 17 domestic wells within approximately one mile of the BRF dry ash stacking area. 493 Well depths are unknown, but it is likely that most yield water at a relatively shallow depth in the Chickamauga Formation. Most residences locatedIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

122 northeast and northwest of the BRF plant area rely on public water provided by the Clinton Utility Board. None of the residential wells are located downgradient of the proposed facility. There is no potential for future development of groundwater supplies downgradient of the facility, as all property between the proposed facility and surface water boundaries lies within the BRF plant site.

479 http://www.tva.com/sites/meltonhill.htm . The Melton Hill Reservoir is the source of drinking water for about 170,000 people.

480 The BRF is located about five miles east of downto wn Oak Ridge and 13 miles west of Knoxville. See Dewberry & Davis (2012), Figure 2.1

- 1 for Location Map and Figure 2.1

- 2 for Aerial Photograph.

481 For the radioactive properties of the Bull Run Plant’s coal ash, as studied in a 1990s structural fill project , see Sutton et al., (2001).

482 According to Stantec (2009), BAD

- 1 occupies some 40 acres, and has been in operation since the BRF’s inception in 1966. Till the mid

- 1980s it received fly ash, and since then

– bottom ash. Seeps were noted as far back as the 1970s. GDA

- 2A occupies some 35 acres, and received fly ash between 1981 and 2008. Since late in 2008, GDA

- 2A started receiving wet

- sluiced FGD gypsum. GDA

- 2A was constructed on the top of dredged fly ash with a compacted bottom ash drainage layer. Embankme nts were constructed out of fly ash with a clay layer. FAP2 occupies some 41 acres and has been in operation since BRF’s inception. Ash sluicing started in 1971, when BAD

- 1 was connected with a channel to FAP2

. FAP2 also receives discharge from GDA

- 2A , the Coal Yard Runoff Pond

, and the Chemical Treatment Pond . According to Dewberry & Davis (ibid), Discharge from the Area 2 impoundment is regulated by the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, under an NPDES Permit No. TN0005410 (issued November 1, 2010, and expired November 1, 2013).
483 Dewberry & Davis (ibid), Appendix B, Documents 14

- 16.

484 Known also as Railroad Loop Ash Disposal Area , the 23

- acre EWDC has been in active since 1995. EWDC went on line in 1981 to receive dredged fly ash from FAP2 . The dredged ash was ponded by the railroad embankment for disposal. Due to instabilities of the railroad embankment, in 1986 ash was removed from the ponds and placed on the adjacent hillside. Ash was periodically dre dged from FAP2 into the EWDC ’s two ponds in 1970, until its official closing.
485 DS1 occupies some 50 acres. Its Phase I came on line in 1982 to receive dry fly ash. Phase I (the north portion of the stack) was completed and covered in 1993, when Phase II (the south portion of the stack) came on line.

486 The DSP is a subgrade pond (i.e., it has no embankments) occupying three acres. It came on line with Phase I of DS1 and was originally a 90 feet by 130 feet pond to collect runoff from Phase I. DSP was expa nded with Phase II of DS1 in the early 1990s. It discharges to the Coal Yard Drainage Pond.
487 TVA (2005), Figure 3

- 5, and TVA (2012), Figure 1

- 2.

488 According to TVA (2005), before the mid

- 1980s, disposal of fly ash and bottom ash at BRF included sluicing t o the ash pond, located on the east side of the Clinch River at Clinch River Mile 47, with subsequent dredging and stacking of ash within Disposal Areas 1 and 2A . As these were filled, ash was dredged and stacked at a disposal site referred to as the Railr oad Loop Ash Disposal Area . This site is now a closed landfill. Disposal Areas 1 and 2A are still currently used for disposal of bottom ash and dredged fly ash. Since the mid

- 1980s, fly ash has been mostly dry

- handled: according to Stantec (ibid), approxim ately 240,000 tons of dry fly ash used to be collected in a silo each year and hauled to an onsite permitted dry stack disposal area ( Dry Fly Ash Stack ). Since the end of 2008, when a scrubber was installed, approximately 240,000 dry tons of scrubber gypsu m are produced each year and wet sluiced to the permitted gypsum stacking area ( Gypsum Disposal Area 2A ). Approximately 25,000 tons per year of bottom ash is wet

- sluiced to the main fly ash pond ( Area 2 ). Finally, for approximately 50,000 tons of the scrub ber gypsum the plan was to have it marketed offsite to the cement industry.
489 Lemiszki (1994), Stantec (ibid), and TVA (2012).
490 Residuum produced from the Chickamauga is a silty

- clay containing variable amounts of chert. In the main BRF area, the majority of this clayey soil has been removed, and the remaining residuum is expected to range in thickness from 0 to about 25 feet.
491 The section on groundwater was taken, with slight modifications, from TVA (2012).
492 TVA (2002), Figure 4.
493 Ibid, Figure 5.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

123 

### Impact: Surface Water: According to BRF, the surface water exceedances 494 were in a surface water ditch adjacent to BAD

- 1

. 495 A study was conducted in 1974 to characterize the chemical nature and biological hazard of seepage water flow from surface impoundme nts, including a toxicity assessment involving introduced fish. 496 Water seeping through coal ash settling ponds produced a seepage effluent that was acidic (pH 3.2 or less) and high in sulfate and iron. Dissolved ferrous iron predominated in the upper end o f the seepage ditch, but partially transformed to ferric ion and a ferric hydroxide/FeOOH precipitate. When discharged to the Clinch River, the iron remaining in solution precipitated immediately at the pH of river water (about 7.9). The large amounts of i ron silt were lethal to juvenile catfish near the discharge, but not beyond a few meters. Juvenile channel catfish were exposed in wire cages for up to 2 weeks to water at various sites within the drainage ditch and mixing zone in the Clinch River. All of the fish placed at the mouth of the drainage ditch were dead within 24 hours, those located in the Clinch River close to the mouth of the ditch died within 72 hours, and those placed down river survived the entire 2 week experiment. These results indicate the potential for ecological impacts, based on the response of introduced species. There are no data, however, to indicate impacts to native species.

The effluent water, monitored by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), has been determined by the State t o show little potential for adverse environmental impacts. However, in May 2012, citizens’ groups petitioned the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board, 497 contending that the State of Tennessee NPDES Permit Number TN0005410, 498 which authorizes BRF to discharg e 19 million gallons per day of CCR effluents from its settling pond directly into Melton Hill Reservoir on the Clinch River, violates the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 (2010) et seq . and the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act. 499

Bull Run Creek empties into the Clinch River at River Mile 46.7, just south of the southwest corner of the plant boundary. 500 The average flow for Bull Run Creek at mile 0.9 is estimated to be 4.25m 3 /s. 501 Based on a TVA surface water quality sampling of Bull Run Creek in 1990, 502 except for iron, water quality upstream and downstream of the BRF was quite similar. The cited water quality assessment results seem to indicate no leachate contamination of the stream and significant dilution of groundwater recharge by surface water. Worthington Branch empties into the condenser cooling water discharge channel to the Clinch River. Streamflow data for Worthington Branch have a mean value of 0.268 cfs, and surface water

494 As referred to in EPA (2007).
495 EPRI (2010) refers to the implicated pond as a 49

- acre, unlined impoundment constructed in 1965, which contains fly ash, bottom ash, and pyritic mill rejects. According to Stantec (ibid), some ash siltation was observed in the drainage ditch of BAD

- 1 during Stantec’s early 2009 site visit inspections, and major ash deposit was noted at the confluence of drainage ditch and ash channel on southeast side of stack. Standing water was observed in the drainage ditch along the access road on the west and south side of the stack. Water was stagnant and varied in width between 4 feet and over 8 feet. This has been already noted in previous inspection reports starting in 1983.
496 Coutant et al., (1978).
497 WQCB Petition (2012).
498 TDEC gave public notice of its decision to issue the Permit on October 1, 2010.
499 The petitioners, Tennessee Clean Water Network and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, contend generally that the Permit will allow pollution in the waters of the state of Tennessee a nd is not adequately protective. They claim that TDEC violated the Clean Water Act and the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by issuing a NPDES permit to TVA that does not include any numeric technology

- based effluent limits for metals, TDS, and other pa rameters aside from pH, TSS, and oil and grease. The Petitioners contend that TDEC must reverse the isuance of this Permit and reissue it inclusive of numeric technology

- based effluent limitations ( TBELs) for all pollutants to be discharged from the BRF. P etitioners claim that this revised permit should be re

- noticed and opened to the public review and
comment.
500 TVA (2002).
501 Based on monthly measurements from 1957 to 1986: TVA (2002).

502 Summarized in the Bull Run Fossil Plant Groundwater Assessment (Julia n and Danzig, 1996), in TVA (2002).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

124 quality sampling show that concentrations of hardnes s, calcium, sodium, sulfate, TDS, and arsenic increase downstream. The upstream and downstream stations for Worthington Branch seem to indicate some leachate impacts.

Groundwater: The GDA

- 2A and DS1 , managed under Permits IDL 01

- 0208 and IDL 103

- 808,
resp ectively, have been recently implicated in groundwater impacts. 503 Recent groundwater monitoring data around the landfill and surface impoundments indicate an exceedance of the MCL for arsenic and exceedances of health

- based guidelines for boron, manganese, molybdenum, and sulfate. 504

T here are currently 12 wells monitoring groundwater at BRF. Four wells surround the Dry Fly Ash Landfill, five wells monitor the gypsum and ash landfills along the Clinch River, and three wells, installed in 2010 as part of the USWAG voluntary monitoring plan, are located along the edges of the ash ponds. Wells around the Dry Fly Ash Landfill show a clear pattern of ash

- related contamination. Since 2008, boron concentrations in down

- gradient Well 45R have been much higher than t he concentrations in up

gradient well I (consistently <200 μg/L), higher than the Child Health Advisory of 300 μg/L, and increasing. The same pattern is evident with molybdenum. Manganese and sulfate concentrations in wells 45 and 45R have also been higher than background and higher than up

- gradient concentrations. Despite the clear evidence of a problem, and despite the fact that boron and molybdenum concentrations were getting progressively worse in Well 45R, all four of these pollutants were dropped from monitoring in 2010. TVA measured these pollutants again in May 2013, and results show that the levels of boron and molybdenum continue to increase.

Wells down

- gradient of the gypsum and ash landfills along the river (wells 47

– 50) also show evidence of contamination, including unsafe concentrations of cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, and sulfate. All wells have consistently shown unsafe levels of manganese. Cobalt concentrations in down

- gradient well 48 were high enough to warrant an investigation by TVA i n 2009. That investigation concluded that “ash and or gypsum leachate may not be the source or only source of cobalt in Well 48.” In fact, it is quite likely that the ash landfill is the cause of the problem

– down

- gradient wells have higher cobalt
concent rations than the up

- gradient well, and the concentrations of cobalt in ash samples (mean of 64 mg/kg) were much higher than concentrations in soil samples (means of 9.0

– 12.7 mg/kg). Although cobalt concentrations in wells 47 and 48 have declined since 20 08, they remain unsafe.

Well 49 shows clear evidence of increasing contamination. TVA omitted manganese, strontium, sulfate, and TDS from monitoring in 2010

- 2012, but results from 2013 confirm they have all been increasing with a consistent pattern. Cobal t, which has been consistently monitored over this period, fits the same pattern. Other pollutants have not been increasing but nevertheless reflect ongoing contamination: Boron concentrations have been stable at concentrations (1.8

– 2.3 mg/L) much higher than background (<0.2 mg/L). Molybdenum concentrations in Well 49 have been declining over this period, from 700 to 410μg/L, but remain 10 times higher than the Lifetime Health Advisory of 40μg/L. Groundwater around the ash ponds has only recently been mo nitored, and not always for the full range of pollutants. The limited data show arsenic above the MCL in Well 52 in addition to manganese concentrations slightly above the lifetime health advisory in wells 51 and 52.

503 TVA Inspector General (2011): exceedances of cadmium, cobalt, nickel, and fluoride were noted mostly in the May 2009 sample data.

504 EIP (2011), Page B.5 identifies arsenic at 27 ppb (x 2.7 the MCL), boron at 17ppm (x 5 .7 the SMCL), manganese at 24.7ppm (x 82 the SMCL), molybdenum at 700 ppb (x 17.5 the SMCL), and sulfate at 2,100ppm (x 4.2 the SMCL). It is not clear how these particular exceedances relate to the ones pointed out by the TVA Inspector General (2011) eithe r temporally or spatially.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

125 Resolution: According to EPRI (2010), in the mid

- 1970s, repairs were made in the impacted surface water ditch adjacent to the impoundment and wastewater was routed through the impoundment’s NPDES permitted outfall. 505 On August 20, 2009, TVA’s Board of Directors decided to convert Bull Run’s was te management by switching to g ypsum dewatering and from wet bottom ash handling to dry storage. 506

TVA received official notification on July 17, 2009, that BRF was being placed into Phase III Groundwater Monitoring assessment due to a groundwater protecti on standard exceedance for cobalt at the Gypsum/Coal Ash Landfill Area. However, TVA provided TDEC with a Cobalt Investigation Report that satisfied TDEC that the cobalt exceedance was related to a legacy condition that was ongoing prior to the establishme nt and operation of the Gypsum/Coal Ash Landfill Area. TVA was taken out of Phase III and placed into Phase II based on statistical exceedances for cadmium and nickel. Additionally, on January 7, 2010, BRF received notification that the Dry Ash Disposal Ar ea was being placed in Phase II assessment due to an arsenic exceedance. 507 BRF is currently seeking an additional disposal space 508 and is also considering other by

- product handling changes. 509



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: According to EPA (2007), This case was categorized as a potential damage case for the following reasons: (1) exceedances of the secondary MCLs for aluminum, calcium, iron, and sulfate were detected in on

- site surface water; (2) a toxicity study indicates the potential for ecological impacts; and (3) these impacts appear to be directly attributable to CCR management.

Postscript: According to recent evidence, the BRF is also impacting groundwater (arsenic, boron, molybdenum, manganese, sulfate, and probably cobalt).



### Ref erences EPA (2007): 2007 CCW Damage Case Assessments, Case #31 and reference therein ( Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012.

505 EPRI (2010).
506 TVA (No date, presumably 2009)

507 TVA Inspector General (2011).

508 As of mid

- 2011, TVA has been purchasing properties for its Claxton storage expansion project: TVA needs about 175 acres for the expanded storage fa cility (for the storage of dried fly ash, bottom ash and gypsum), including surrounding land to serve as a buffer zone. At that time, TVA has presumably about 18 months of life left in its existing dry

- storage area at Bull Run. TVA could get another five y ears of storage on a 5

- acre tract on TVA land next to the steam plant. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/jul/15/tva

- footprint

- looms

- over

- community/?print=1

. This expansion is subject to a NEPA process (January 2013

– summer 2015) http://www.tva.gov/power/construction/BRF_boundary_expansion.html

. 509 Following the December 2008 Ki ngston incident, TVA reviewed its practices for handling and storing CCRs at its generating facilities, including the BRF, which resulted in a recommendation (Stantec, ibid) to convert the wet bottom ash and gypsum handling and storage facilities at BRF to a dry system. To enable the wet

- to

- dry conversion, TVA proposes to install a mechanical dewatering facility for bottom ash and gypsum at BRF. Plans also call for an onsite water treatment facility to be constructed to take the place of the ash pond, and e ventually, the pond would be closed. BRF currently handles fly ash on a dry basis, and no changes to the fly ash handling and storage procedures at BRF are proposed. Because TVA is a federal agency, the proposed action constitutes a federal action subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and TVA’s regulations for implementing NEPA. Accordingly, TVA has prepared an Environmental Assessment (TVA 2012) to evaluate alternatives for converting wet ponding operations to dry oper ations for handling and disposing of bottom ash and gypsum at BRF.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

126 http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?space=CommunityPage&cached=true&parentname=ObjMgr&parenti d=2&control=SetCommunity &CommunityID=405

EIP (2011): Risky Business: Coal Ash Threatens America’s Groundwater Resources at 19 More Sites

. EIP Report, Dec. 13, 2011. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0259. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/documents/121311EIPThirdDamageReport.pdf

Coutant et al., (1978): Chemistry and Biological Hazard of Coal ash Seepage Stream/C.C. Coutant et al., Journal Water Pollution Control Fed eration, Vo. 50, No. 4, April 1978. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.jstor.org/pss/25039619

Sutton et al., (2001): Radon Emissions from High Volume Coal Fly Ash Structural Fill Site, M.E. Sutton, T. S chmaltz, E.C. Miller, and K.J. Harper, 2001 International Ash Utilization Symposium, University of Kentucky. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.flyash.info/2001/envben2/91sutton.pdf

TVA Inspector General (2011): Final Report

– Inspection 2009

- 12991

– TVA's Groundwater Monitoring at Coal Combustion Products Disposal Areas, TVA Office of the Inspector General Inspection Report, June 21, 2011. Accessed Online November 2012. http://oig.tva.gov/reports/PDF/11rpts/2009

- 12991.pdf

WQCB Petition (2012): Petition for Statutory Appeal to the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board In the Matter of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, NPDES Permit Number TN0005410, May 2012. Accessed Online November 2012. http://www .southeastcoalash.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/05/FINAL

- Bull

- Run

- permit

- Appeal

petition_4.pdf

Lemiszki (1994): Geological Mapping of the Oak Ridge K

- 25 Site, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, P.J. Lemiszki, Environmental Restoration Program Division, K

- 25 Environment al Restoration Program, Report K/ER

111. 

### P repared by Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, January 1994



### . Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlet s/purl/585045

- 7Ugsq3/webviewable/585045.pdf

Stantec (2009): TVA Disposal Facility Assessment Phase 1 Plant Summary, Bull Run Fossil Plant (BRF), Stantec. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tn.gov/environment/kingston/pdf/tva/StantecBullRunAnalysisC.pdf

TVA (2012): Bottom Ash and Gypsum Mechanical Dewatering Facility, Bull Run Fossil Plant Final Environmental Assessment, Anderson County, Tennessee, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee, September 2012. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/BRFdewater/EA.pdf

TVA (2005): Installation of Flue Gas D esulfurization System at Bull Run Fossil Plant, Anderson County, Tennessee, Draft Environmental Assessment, Project Number 2004

- 103, TVA, January 2005. Accessed Online February 2013. h ttp://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/bullrun2/dea.pdf

TVA (2002): Selective Catalytic Reduction System for Nitrogen Oxide Control, Bull Run Fossil Plant Unit 1, Draft Environmental Assessment, TVA, January 2002. Accessed Online February 2013.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

127 http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/bullrun/index.htm

TVA (No date, presumably 2009): TVA’s Conversion of Wet Ash and Gypsum to Dry Storage. TVA. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.tva.gov/news/Kingston/dry_ash.pdf

Dewberry & Davis (2012): Coal Combustion Residue Impoundment Round 11

- Dam Assessment Report: Bull Run Fossil Plant (#002), CCR Impoundment Areas 1, 2, 2A, Tenne ssee Valley Authority, Clinton, Tennessee. Prepared by Dewberry & Davis, LLC, Fairfax, Virginia, December 2012. Accessed Online July 2014. http://www.epa.gov/o sw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm#T



### PTa33. Dominion Virginia Power’s Battlefield Golf Course, Chesapeake, Virginia

Type: Structural Fill.



### Brief Description: At the 216

- acre Battlefield site, 510 1.5 million cubic yard of fly ash, am ended with 1.7 to 2.3 percent cement kiln dust, were used as fill and for contouring of a golf course. 511 Groundwater contamination above drinking water levels has been found at the edges and corners of the golf course.

According to CDM (2011) and Stokes En vironmental Associates (2002) , the site is located within the Coastal Plain physiographic province of southeast Virginia. The site located on Quaternary

- age deposits of the Lynnhaven Member of the Tabb Formation. The Lynnhaven Member of the Tabb Formation consists of pebbly and cobbly, fine to coarse gray sand grading upward into clayey and silty fine sand and sandy silt. These materials form the surficial deposits of a broad swale and extensive lowlands bounded on the landward side by river, bay and ocean

- facing scarps having toe altitudes of fifteen to eighteen feet. The area is underlain by an alternating sequence of aquifers and confining zones. The topmost aquifer is the surficial aquifer, also referred to as the Columbia aquifer, which is underlain by the Yorktown aquifer.

The surficial aquifer is heterogeneous, consisting of sand and gravel that is locally inter

- bedded with fine

grained sediments. At the site vicinity, the aquifer extends from ground surface to approximately 60 feet

510 CDM (2011) estimates the footprint of the areas receiving fly ash as approximately 92.4 acres. For site location maps, see Stokes Environmental Associates (2002), virtual pages 44 and 46. The fly ash was transferred by Dominion's Chesapeake Energy Center on the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, from an overloaded, unlined coal waste landfill

- The Chesapeake Energy Center Bottom Ash/Sedimentation Pond (O’Brian & Gere, 2010)

. Dominion is on course to decommission the old plant along the Elizabeth River by the end of 2014. The ash landfill and pond there containing 973,400 tons of coal ash will be closed "in accordance with state and local regulations." (Blue Virginia, 2014).

511 According t o CDM (2011), the site is located at 1001 Centerville Turnpike South on the east side of the road, south of Whittamore Road, and north of Murray Drive in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia. The site is bounded by residential properties to the south along Mur ray Drive. Additional residential properties are located to the east

northeast on Whittamore Road and to west beyond Centerville Turnpike. Agricultural properties exist to the north and east of the site and beyond the residential properties to the south. T he Battlefield Golf Club opened to the public on October 13, 2007. Prior to the construction of the golf course, fly ash derived from the burning of coal was used as fill material. The fly ash was then covered with soil for the construction of the golf cou rse. Groundwater wells have historically been used by residents in the vicinity of the golf course but these residents are now served by the City’s municipal supply. For site photos, see The Virginian Pilot (2013).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

128 below ground surfa ce ( B GS ). The surficial aquifer is unconfined (i.e., under water table conditions), and the depth to groundwater in the site vicinity is generally less than 5 feet. 512

The surficial aquifer is underlain by the 20 to 30

- feet thick Yorktown confining zone. T his confining zone forms a gradational transition between the underlying Yorktown aquifer and the overlying surficial aquifer and exhibits characteristics of both units. Because of the heterogeneity of the confining zone, it may act as a semi

- confining zon e or may allow locally hydraulic communication between the surficial and the Yorktown aquifers. 513

The Yorktown aquifer is a heterogeneous unit composed of glauconitic, phosphatic, and fossiliferous quartz sand with inter

- bedded silt/clay. The lower part c onsists of fossiliferous sands. This aquifer is present at an estimated depth of approximately 80 to 90

- feet in the site vicinity. 514 The Yorktown aquifer is underlain by the Saint Mary’s confining zone at an estimated depth of 130 to 140 feet. 515

Both the s urficial aquifer and the Yorktown aquifer are used locally for residential water supplies. The average residential water supply well depth in Chesapeake is approximately 80 feet B GS . There are approximately 200 residential supply wells in the site vicinity . All of the residences in the immediate site vicinity, including those along Murray Drive and Whittamore Road, are currently supplied by the municipal provider.

Previous mapping of the surficial aquifer’s potentiometric surface at the site has been perfo rmed 516 and all of these maps have indicated a general southeast groundwater flow direction. Locally, the groundwater flow patterns are influenced by the onsite ponds and the ditch on the south boundary of the site. The North Tributary appears to form the su rficial aquifer’s local hydraulic base level in the site vicinity with groundwater flowing toward the tributary and eventually discharging to the tributary as surface water. The overall groundwater flow direction of the Yorktown aquifer is east

- northeast. Water level elevations also decrease to the northwest, toward MW

- 1C, to elevations below sea level.



### Impact: Groundwater: The City of Chesapeake installed 13 monitoring points around the site. No monitoring points were installed through the fly ash area to avoid creating an additional path of contaminant migration. EPA conducted a site investigation by reviewing analytical data from fly ash, soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater sampling events completed in 2001, 517 2008, and 2009. 518 The sampling resu lts of the City of Chesapeake groundwater and surface water sampling indicated that the

512 The estimated transmissivity of the sur ficial aquifer in the site vicinity ranges from 1,000 to 1,500 feet 2 per day. According to Stokes Environmental Associates (ibid), the following median values have been reported for hydraulic characteristics of the Columbia aquifer: Well yield of thirty ga llons per minute (gpm), specific capacity of 6.1 gpm per foot of well drawdown, median transmissivity of 1,070 square feet per day, and a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 28.7 feet per day.

513 The estimated vertical leakance of the Yorktown confining zo ne is from 0.0001 to 0.001 inches per day.

514 Its transmissivity ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 feet 2 per day. According to Stokes Environmental Associates (ibid), the following median values have been reported for hydraulic characteristics of the Yorktown aqui fer: Well yield of 46 gpm, specific capacity of 8.1 gpm per foot of well drawdown, a transmissivity of 2,460 square feet per day, and a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 23.1 feet per day.
515 The estimated vertical leakance is from 0.00001 to 0.0001 inch es per day.

516 W ater levels were recorded on September 15, 2009 in monitoring wells.

517 Baseline groundwater tests of the golf course site in 2001, before any fly ash was placed there, did not detect arsenic, lead, vanadium and other fly

- ash related contamin ants, according to data in the first of two URS 2001 studies for Dominion (Virginian

- Pilot, 2009).

518 For well monitoring data between December 2008 and March 2012, see: http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/city_attorney/battlefield_golf_club/54215

- 54234.pdfIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

129 highest detections of metals occurred in monitoring wells located on the golf course property. The concentrations of arsenic, boron, chromium, copper, lead, and vanadiu m in groundwater from on

- site monitoring wells were significantly above background concentrations. Of these, only boron has been detected in about 25 drinking water wells. The highest level of boron reported in a residential well was 596 μg/L, which was we ll below the health

- based regional screening level for boron in tap

- water (7,300 μg/L). Overall, there were exceedances of SMCLs in both on

- site and offsite groundwater (in nine residential wells); however, the natural levels of both manganese and iron in the area’s shallow aquifer are very high (0.14 mg/L to 0.24 mg/L and 5.0 mg/L to 13.0 mg/L, respectively), 519 and, thus, it is possible that the elevated levels of both these metals are a result of the natural background levels of these two contaminants. 520

C DM (2011) identified ten constituents in shallow groundwater onsite that are elevated as compared to the baseline data set: aluminum, ammonia, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, and zinc. With the exception of nitrite, all of th ese constituents were detected by leaching tests performed on the fly ash. Analyses for nitrite have not been performed on the fly ash. It is likely that these constituents are elevated because of the site. However, none of these constituents presents curr ent groundwater plumes that can be reasonably mapped by concentration and they have apparently irregular spatial distribution patterns. This is likely because sufficient time has not elapsed following fill emplacement for the water quality effects to becom e fully recognizable. 521

519 Stokes Environmental Associates (ibid, page 8), cites significantly higher levels of iron and manga nese: According to a U.S. Geological Survey, National Research Program study: Quality of Ground Water, Water Quality Data, Water Year October 1999 to September 2000, water sampled from wells, similar to those tested in their study, within the vicinity of t he subject site exhibited levels of iron from < 10 to 8,740 mg/L and levels of manganese from < 2 to 279 mg/L.
520 In a baseline study to establish drinking water quality in 40 randomly selected private potable drinking water wells within 2,000 feet of the p rospective gulf course project site, none of the tested wells detected the following: antimony, barium, nickel, selenium, or cyanide. Some of the properties did exhibit detectible levels for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, lead, mercury, a nd zinc, but none of these were above levels cited in SDW standards. Of the tested properties, nine exhibited detectible levels of copper, two of which exhibited copper concentrations that were above the national primary safe drinking water standard and al so above the Virginia action level. Of the twenty

- four properties with detectible iron, fourteen exhibited concentrations above the national and Virginia’s secondary safe drinking water standards; of the eleven properties with detectible manganese, ten exh ibited concentrations above the national and Virginia’s secondary safe drinking water standards; and of the eleven properties with detectible thallium, three exhibited concentrations that are at national and Virginia’s primary safe drinking water standards and one

– above these standards (Stokes Environmental Associates, ibid).

521 Onsite monitoring wells MW

- 5A and MW

- 8A were qualitatively identified as high

- concentration outliers based on aluminum and nickel and the cause for these high concentrations should be evaluated. CDM (2011) developed a range of estimated arsenic to groundwater mass loading rates over time for the transport model simulations based on several assumptions. The simulated steady

- state groundwater flow field and the estimated arsenic loadi ng rate were used to simulate potential future transport of arsenic in the groundwater over a period of 200 years. The groundwater transport simulations represent advection of arsenic with flowing groundwater, adsorption of arsenic to the soil, and dispers ion of the arsenic plume. Because arsenic has a strong tendency to adsorb to soil particles, its transport in the subsurface is much less rapid than the groundwater velocity. Field data were not available to calibrate the transport model, so a range of tra nsport parameters and loading rates was simulated. After a simulated period of about 20 years, the model results indicated very minor impacts to the surficial aquifer. Because the arsenic depletion rate in the fly ash is expected to be low, the model predi cts that water quality impacts in shallow groundwater beneath the site would persist for 200 years or more. Simulated arsenic concentrations in the upper surficial aquifer at the conclusion of the 200 year arsenic transport simulations were 0.1 mg/L to 2 m g/L, with the higher concentrations reflective of a conservatively high estimate of mass leaching into the aquifer. The model did not indicate that appreciable arsenic from the site will migrate offsite beyond the ditch during that period. The model indica ted that arsenic would ultimately discharge to the drainage ditch just south and east of the golf course. There was no arsenic migration to the Yorktown aquifer in the simulation result. The groundwater flow and transport model simulations of future condit ions can becomeIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

130 Surface water: Surface water samples showed elevated levels of aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, and thallium in one or more on

- site samples. The lone off

- site surface water sample had elevated levels of aluminum, iron, and manganese.



### Resolution: Virginia’s Administrative Code allowed the use of fly ash as fill material: it was considered a beneficial use under Virginia’s Administrative Code without a liner as long as the fly ash was placed at least two

- feet above groundw ater and covered by an 18” soil cap. 522

On July 16, 2008, the City of Chesapeake sent a letter to EPA’s Regional Administrator petitioning EPA to perform a Preliminary Assessment of the golf course. EPA Region 3 tasked Tetra Tech to conduct a site inspecti on (SI) under CERCLA. D uring a community meeting chaired by the City in August 2008, Dominion Power offered to pay the costs for installing public water to the two communities closest to the site; Dominion has been working with the City on the plan for ins talling public water. On July 9, 2010, the Chesapeake Department of Public Utilities has completed the construction of the Centerville Turnpike portion of the public water improvements and mandated that all residences along this water line be connected to the public water service within six months, and disconnect wells and water softeners from the affected household piping. Dominion Virginia Power has agreed to pay the water line connection fees and water meter installation fee. 523 Dominion Virginia Power wi ll continue to monitor wells on the golf

course. 524

A Final EPA Site Inspection Report 525 concluded that (i) metals contaminants were below MCLs and Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA ) action levels in all residential wells that EPA tested; (ii) the residential we ll data indicate that metals are not migrating from the fly ash to residential wells; (iii) Metal contaminants were below MCLs and SDWA action levels in all residential wells that EPA tested, except for lead, but the lead does not appear to be from the fly ash, and (iv) there are no adverse health effects expected from human exposure to surface water or sediments on the Battlefield Golf Course site as the metal concentrations were below the ATSDR standards for drinking water and soil. Additionally, the sedi ments samples in the ponds were below EPA Biological Technical Assistance Group screening levels and are not expected to pose a threat to ecological receptors.

invalid if the assumptions related to leaching from the fly ash and the site

- wide hydrology change because of future land use changes. An example of the type of changes that could occur include changes in the depth and configuration of the drainage ditch located to the south and southeast of the site, caused by both natural and anthropogenic events.

522 According to an ex

- tempo VDEQ geologist/regulator, VDEQ allowed the golf course to be built against the backdrop of a chronic arsenic leaching problem at Dominion's Chesapeake Energy Center coal

- ash landfill, the source of the ash. Whereas the ash was treated with a binding agent prior to application at the gulf course, this treatment turned out to be ineffective. A "corrective action plan" to r emediate the leaching arsenic at the Chesapeake Energy Center landfill has been in development for years. “ The golf course project should have been regulated as a landfill, with a liner and groundwater monitoring, but instead, it was considered exempt from such requirements because the fly ash was deemed a ‘beneficial use’... The golf course site will likely contaminate both the Yorktown and Columbia aquifers." (The Virginian

- Pilot, 2010).

523 http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/city_attorney/battlefield_golf_club/2010

- 07

- 09

- Water

- Improvements

- Centerville

- Section

- I

- II .pdf

524 Dominion Virginia Power has committed $6 million to bring municipal water to residents concerned about ash leachate from the nearby golf course, and the city has requested additional funds.

525 EPA (2010).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

131 Edison Mission Energy, LLC suggested 526 that “the Agency offered no evidence that the contaminati on it observed was migrating, whether observed levels were still increasing, or what receptors might be impacted by the observed contamination.”

Two lawsuits were filed in 2009 by plaintiffs who live near Battlefield Golf Club in Virginia, against VEPCO a nd other defendants: 527 the Fentress suit filed in Chesapeake Circuit Court in March 2009 on behalf of 400 plaintiffs, seeks over $1 billion in damages. 528 The suit claims that Dominion Virginia Power sent fly ash to the site, ignoring a consultant's determin ation that the ash would leach harmful elements into the local drinking water supply. 529 The lawsuit names as defendants Dominion, course developer CPM Virginia LLC, and VFL Technology Corp., Dominion's coal

- ash management consultant. 530

Portions of that laws uit were dismissed by the Circuit Court because the plaintiffs could not provide sufficient evidence that toxic constituents from the fly ash had reached the water supply and caused any health problems or property damage. 531 In response, the attorney for the plaintiffs, Fentress Families Trust , notified the court he wanted to re

- file the case within six months and start anew. The parts of the suit allowed to move forward allege that airborne contaminants and pollution in surface water runoff from the golf cou rse that floods Murray Drive pose a health risk. So was a claim seeking to remove the fly ash from the golf

- course. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint and VEPCO filed an answer to the amended complaint, along with a motion to sever claims, on November 12, 2010.

526 Comment to the docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 06 40

- 8244.
527 Fentress Families Trust v. Virginia Electric and Power Co. , Va. Cir. Ct., No. CL09

- 710 and Sears v. Virginia Electric and Power Co ., Va. Cir. Ct., No. CL09

- 912.
528 Earthjustice Comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6311, and Fehrenbach et al., (2011).
529 According to the Virginian

- Pilot (2009), Dominion Virginia Power was warned by URS Corporation, a consultant it hired in 2001, that building a golf course with fly ash from its local coal

- fired power plant might pose environmental risks. How ever, Dominion was eager to move CCRs from its regulated landfill, where they had been piling up at levels high enough to prompt a warning from the VDEQ. Based on their initial findings, URS presented Dominion with several options, including trying to lowe r the initial concentrations of arsenic and other constituents expected to leach from the fly ash by adding twice as much binding agent or more, moving the ash mounds farther from nearby homes, creating a "more expansive residential buffer;" extending city water to nearby homes, or drilling replacement wells deep enough to avoid possible contamination from fly ash. Because any of these options may have resulted in a potentially unacceptable project cost, re

- permitting issues, and negative public perception, Dominion opted instead to fund an enhanced model that purportedly yielded more accurate projections, showing the project was safe. The full reports became public only after Dominion was sued in late March 2009. Extensive leaching data on the fly ash from Dominion's Chesapeake Energy Center

- both from its lined, regulated ash landfill and from its silos

- was included in URS' December 2001 report. URS analyzed raw fly ash as well as ash mixed in varying proportions with binding agents such as cement kiln d ust and lime kiln dust. The analyses identified seven "chemicals of potential concern"

- that were leachable from the fly ash and which could be transported to groundwater: arsenic, lead, vanadium, beryllium, chromium, selenium and thallium. The enhanced

m odeling, using the most conservative, worst

- case

- scenario leaching data for arsenic, found it would take about 400 years for the leached constituents to get to the property boundary, where the concentrations would still be under the drinking

- water standard

. URS estimated that 82 percent of the residential wells around the site drew water from the shallow aquifer underlying the golf course property. The study concluded that wells drawing water from this aquifer were "potential receptors" of constituents that could leach from the amended ash used to fill the golf course site. URS also recommended that the utility come up with a strategy for long

- term groundwater monitoring. Dominion obtained an easement from the property owner in 2002 to install monitoring wel ls around the perimeter, but followed through only late in 2008.
530 http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/400

- residents

- sue

- dominion

- developer

- over

- flyash

- site

531 http://hamptonroads.com/2011/07/chesapeake

- judge

- dismisses

- portion

- fly

- ash

- case , July 14, 2011.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

132 The second lawsuit (the Sears suit), filed in August 2009, was brought by 62 additional residents in the surrounding neighborhoods and seeks $1.25 billion to remove the fly ash, clean and restore the site, and bring public water and sewer to the neighborhoods. The Sears suit also seeks unspecified millions of dollars more to pay for homes, properties, medical bills, and the nuisance created by the golf course development.

VADEQ’s cites 532 EPA’s April 2010 report as evidence for vindic ating the Agency from claims of inadequate CCR regulatory program. Dominion claims 533 that t he two lawsuits alleging groundwater contamination filed by residents of the neighboring community were dismissed by the Court, based on the lack of factual or scient ific support.

According to The Virginian Pilot (2013), in February 2012, the attorneys representing the Fentress suit filed two new lawsuits on behalf of the neighbors against the companies. The suits list more than 400 complainants and seek more than $ 2 billion in damages. During a hearing in November 2012, attorneys for Dominion and the other companies argued for the case to be dismissed. The judge has not issued a ruling and no new hearings have been scheduled. 534 The City of Chesapeake has been negotia ting with Dominion and MJM Golf LLC

– the owner of the golf course

– since 2008 to develop a plan of action for “environmental protection and remediation,” but a resolution is being delayed by the outstanding suits against Dominion. 535



### Previous Basis for C

onsideration : ” An EPA study in April 2010 established that residential wells near the site were not impacted by the fly ash and, therefore, EPA does not consider this site a proven damage case. However, due to the onsite groundwater contamination, EPA cons iders this site to be a potential damage case.” 536



### References The Virginian

- Pilot (2009): Dominion kept 7

- year secret on fly ash's environmental risks. The Virginian

Pilot© May 3, 2009. Accessed Online November 2014. http://hamptonroads.com/2009/05/dominion

- kept

- 7year

- secret

- fly

- ashs

- environmental

- risks

Federal Register

/Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010/ Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities ( CCR Proposed Rule). http://www.regulations.gov/#!docum entDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 0352

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case # 27

. ICF, 10/2010.

532 Comment to the docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9284.

533 EPA

- HQ

- R CRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0254.
534 The other four pending lawsuits and countersuits involve the various companies that helped develop the golf course as they seek to protect themselves from liability and enforce old contracts. In one, Wallace’s company, CPM Virginia, c laims the golf course owners missed a payment deadline and owe $700,000 plus interest. He said his company wants to reclaim the property so it can work to remove the fly ash. The golf course owners counter that Wallace’s company failed to properly cover th e fly ash with 18 inches of topsoil before selling them the property. The club said it paid outside contractors $2 million to “fully satisfy” construction

- permit requirements, so Wallace’s company actually owes them $1.3 million.

535 The Virginian Pilot (ibi d).

536 Federal Register (June 21, 2010).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

133 EPA (2010). Final Site Inspection Report for the Battlefield Golf Club Site, Tet ra Tech., EPA Contract No. EP

- S3

- 05

- 02, April 2010. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/CurrentIssues/finalr

- battlefield_golf_club_s ite/index.html

Stokes Environmental Associates (2002): Baseline Drinking Water Quality Survey, Etheridge Greens Site Golf Course Development, Chesapeake, Virginia. Prepared by Stokes Environmental Associates, Ltd. for Combustion Products Management, Easl ey, South Carolina, 27 February 2002. Accessed Online August 2014. Ref 15 (PDF)

- Environmental Protection Agency

The Virginian

- Pilot (2010): Former worker: Agency's OK to use fly ash 'unconscionable'. PilotOnline. com, October 3, 2010. Accessed Online August 2014. http://hamptonroads.com/2010/10/former

- worker

- agencys

- ok

- use

- fly

- ash

- unconscionable

O’Brien & Gere (2010 ): Dam Safety Assessment of CCW Impoundments, Chesapeake Energy Center, O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., September 30, 2010. Accessed Online August 2014. http:/ /www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm#V

City of Chesapeake, Virginia: Information Related to Battlefield Gold Club. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.cityo fchesapeake.net/page2077.aspx

CDM (2011): City of Chesapeake Battlefield Golf Club Hydrogeologic Investigation and Groundwater Modeling Report, CDM, March 15, 2011. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/city_attorney/battlefield_golf_club/Hydr ogeologic_Investigation _and_Groundwater_Modeling_Report/6000

- 60057.pdf.pdf

Fehrenbach et al., (2011): Recent Developments in Coal Ash Disposal/Reuse Litigation. The American Bar Association's Annual Review 2011, Volume 2: Section 15.3. John Fehrenbach, Eric P. Gotting, Scott P . DeVries, Yelitza V. Dunham, Averil M. Edwards, and Michael T. Champion, Winston & Strawn LLP, and Andreas H. Leskovsek 

### , Dynegy Inc. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.winston.com/siteFiles/Publications/Ann.Rev.11ch15%20Environmental%20Law.pdf

The Virginian Pilot (2013): Chesapeake fly ash fight yields little resolution, The Virginian Pilot, May 5, 2013. Accessed Online January 2013. http://hamptonroads.com/2013/05/chesapeake

- fly

- ash

- fight

- yields

- little

- resolution

Blue Virginia (2014): Burned Once, Chesapeake Shouldn't Trust Dominion Virginia Power . Blue Virginia, July 14, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/11884/burned

- once

- chesapeake

- shouldnt

- trust

- dominion

- virginia

- power



### PTa34. Dairyland Power Cooperative Alma Off

- site Fly Ash Landfill, Alma, Belvidere Township, 537 

### Buffalo County, Wisconsin

Type: CCR Landfill (Originally, a Surface Impoundment).

537 According to WDNR’s comment to the proposed CCR Rule: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416, Appendix Section D, Table 2, the License Number of the original landfill was #2927 (current, phase IV monofill license # 4126).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

134 

### Background and Description: A 29

- acre coal ash, ‘upland’ ‘landfill’ 538 constructed in 1983, located in a seasonal stream valley which drains to the Mississippi River. The site is located approximate ly two miles southeast of Alma, in Belvidere Township, Buffalo County, Wisconsin. Ash was originally sluiced to this ‘landfill’ that was converted to dry handling in 1995. Phases I through III were filled between 1983 and 2007. Presently, a monofill, recei ving bottom ash, fly ash and asbestos. 539

, 540 The currently active landfill ( Phase IV) is not implicated. 541

, 542

Monitoring data include one surface water and 15 groundwater locations (14 piezometers and one water

table well), operating between June 1982 and December 1998. The landfill is located in high

permeability, unconsolidated glacial deposit sediments: a sand and gravel unit (permeability of 2 x 10

- 4 to 5 x 10

- 3 cm/sec) and a silt and clay (reworked loess?) unit overlying a Cambrian Sandstone (with
per meability of 1 x 10

- 3 to 2 x 10

- 3 cm/sec). Groundwater level at the site varies from 28 feet to 110 feet below the ground surface. 543 Groundwater flow is southwest, down a valley fill sand and gravel deposit, toward the Mississippi River. There are two dwel lings and a campground/RV park (with approximately 85 units) located within one mile and down

- gradient of the site, all serviced by private water wells. 544

Based on recent Dairyland information, this facility handles the small percentage of fly ash that is non

recyclable from the Alma and Genoa sites. 545 The ash is transported to the off

- site facility, located three miles from the two Dairyland Power Cooperative generation stations. It is then pressure

- pumped from the truck trailer into a pair of holding silos , preceding treatment and disposal.


### Impact: EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination. 546 This analysis, along with additional information submitted by commenters to the Second Report to Congress (1999), shows down

- gradient levels of sulfate and manganese that would be in excess of WDNR’s Enforceable Standard (ES) levels (equivalent to secondary MCLs for these constituents). The monitoring data also show levels of boron that exceed WDNR’s Preventative Action Level (PAL). According to information provided by WDNR, however, the sulfate and manganese exceedances were not found at ES points of application; they were found in an on

- site well within the design management zone of the landfill. Th us, the State considers the exceedances PAL, not ES, exceedances. None of the ES wells for the site have shown exceedances. Because of the PAL exceedances and a proposal by the owner to expand the ash disposal area, WDNR required an analysis of the perform ance of the existing landfill along with an upgraded liner system and other design improvements for the new facility on the site. Ongoing monitoring at the site includes indicator parameters plus iron and boron, although the company has monitored some well s for a list of metals as part of the siting for the expansion.

WDNR reports 547 the following exceedances: selenium: 2.9

- 30 ug/L; boron: 1.4

- 1.9 mg/L; and sulfate: 750

- 2000 mg/L. According to EPRI (2010), exceedances of boron, sulfate, and manganese are att ributed to CCRs, whereas those of cadmium and iron are of ‘unknown source’. 548



### Resolution: WDNR required analysis of landfill performance and upgraded liner system. In 2009, a study was in progress to consider additional mitigation. A groundwater monitoring program is in effect. Phase II final cap was placed in 2000 and Phase I/III final cap was placed in 2007. Approved caps were required to have a permeability of 1 x 10

- 5 cm/sec or less. 549



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “While the State has taken regulatory action at the site, the exceedances found at this site, sulfate and manganese, are within the design management zone of the landfill and are for constituents without health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage c ase.” 550 EPRI (2010) essentially concurs with this conclusion. 551IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

135 538 Ac cording to EPRI (2010), all ash was placed above the water table.
539 WDNR (2012).
540 FR 66 (18429), April 9, 2001. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2001

- 04

- 09/html/01

- 8646.htm
541 EPRI (2010).
542 According to EPRI (2010), the impoundment had a 5

- foot clay layer liner. No leachate collection system installed on Phase I through III. The current active landfill (Phase IV) has a geosynthetic liner with a leachate collection system.
543 For Buff

alo County groundwater susceptibility, depth to water table, bedrock type, depth to bedrock, and soil deposits maps, see USGS (2007).

544 EPRI (2010).
545 According to http://www.dairynet.com/ene rgy_resources/alma.pdf , in addition to Alma’s Power Station, the Alma Site also comprises The John P. Madgett Station (JPM), which is located just south of the Alma Station on the Mississippi River. JPM has been in operation since November 1979. The singl e

- unit station has a generating capacity of 369 MW. According to http://www.dairynet.com/energy_resources/genoa.pdf , the Genoa Site is located on the bank of the Mississippi River, approxim ately 20 miles south of Dairyland’s La Crosse, Wis., headquarters. Genoa Station #3 (G

- 3), completed in 1969, was so named because it was the third generating facility to be built in Genoa, Wis. This single

- unit coal

- fired facility has a generating capacit y of 378 MW.

546 Supplemental Analysis (1993).

547 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416, Table 2 (ibid).

548 Tabulation of exceedances in groundwater before/after remediation based on a power company

- provided database containing results from 1982 through 2007. Cadmium ex ceedances were sporadic in occurrence and concentrations were highest in an up

- gradient well (Station 2); analysis of this constituent ended in 1992. Therefore, these exceedances are listed as ‘source uncertain.’

549 EPRI (2010).
550 EPA (2007)
551 “The landfill phases subject to the damage case are closed and capped, and all ash management is now in a landfill with a geosynthetic liner and a leachate collection system. Ash indicator constituents observed within the design management zone of the landfill have not migrated offsite or even to the facility’s on

- site sentinel wells.”IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

136 

### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #51 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commen ter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Supplemental Analysis (1993): Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment fr om Large

- Volume Coal Combustion Waste. U.S. EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

1993

- 0042

- 1642 (Microfilm).

WDNR (2012): Solid Waste Landfills Licensed in W isconsin, Licensed for Year 2012 (Oct. 1, 2011

- Sept. 30, 2012). June 29, 2012. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. A ccessed Online September 2012. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Waste/documents/faclists/WisLic_SWLandfills_byCnty_withWaste.pdf

FR 66 (18429), April 9, 2001: Dairyland Power Cooperative; Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact. Rural Utilities Service, USDA: A project proposed by Dairy land Power Cooperative of La Crosse, Wisconsin, to construct a coal ash landfill at its existing Alma off

- site disposal facility. Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 68/Monday, April 9, 2001/Notices, Page 18429. A ccessed Online September 2012. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2001

- 04

- 09/html/01

- 8646.htm

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Buffalo County/Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Plann ing. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater contamination susceptibility map and evaluation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 p. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/buffalo/susceptibility.html



### PTa35. Dairyland Power Cooperative Alma On

- site Fly Ash Landfill, Buffalo County, Wisconsin

Type: CCR Landfill.



### Background and Description: The Alma Station is located on the bank of the Mississippi River in Alma, about 50 miles northwest of La Crosse

, Wisconsin. It was built in 1947. 552 A 56

- acre, unlined coal ash landfill was constructed in 1947 and removed from service in 1986. The Site is in the Mississippi floodplain and ash fill may have been placed below the water table/surface water elevation. 553

Whereas the long

- term groundwater gradient is westward (from the floodplain bluffs to the River), 554 there are transient gradient reversals under high

- river stage. Groundwater data are based on three surface water locations and 16 groundwater locations (s even piezometers and nine water

- table wells), sampled between December 1981 and December 1998.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

137 

### Impact: According to EPA (2007), EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination. 555 This analysis , along with additional information submitted by commenters to the Second Report to Congress, shows down

- gradient levels of sulfate and manganese that would exceed WDNR’s Enforcement Standard 

### ( ES) levels (equivalent to secondary MCLs for these constituents ). According to information provided by WDNR, however, there are no ES points of standards application at the site (i.e., all wells are within the design management zone of the landfill). Thus, the State considers these exceedances Preventative Action Leve ls (PALs), not ES exceedances.



### Resolution: According to EPA (2007), in 1975, WDNR issued an administrative order as a result of an inspection that disclosed a number of operational and locational problems at the facility. Among other things, the order re quired submission of a closure plan and an in

- field conditions report. The closure plan was approved in 1981 and included ground water monitoring. In 1986, the Department required the company to install additional monitoring wells and to monitor seven priv ate water supply wells for two rounds of monitoring. 556 Ongoing monitoring at the site includes indicator parameters plus manganese and boron.

The Site was closed in 1986 (2’ clay cap with 6” topsoil cover) and is under long

- term care requirements. 557 Followi ng the decommissioning of the on

- site’s landfill, Alma power station reverted to disposal at the Alma off

- site landfill of the limited tonnage that was not recycled for beneficial re

- use, such as use as a cement additive (in 2004, 90 percent of Dairyland’s fly ash was beneficially used). 558

552 According to http://www.dairynet.com/energy_resources/alma.pdf and http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/

, the Alma Station comprises five generation units of pulverized coal wall

- fired dry bottom boiler, with a total generation capacity of 210 MW by the end of 2011. The first two units of the station, Alma #1 and #2 (joint generation: 40 MW), were constructed in 1947. Alma #3 (21 MW) was built in 1950, and Alma #4 (56 MW) in 1957. The largest and final unit of the Alma Station, Alma #5 (80 MW), came on

- line in 1960. The Alma Station burns blended coal that arrives by barge, train and truck from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Utah. The barge coal moves by train to St. Louis and then up the Mississippi River about 575 miles to Alma. According to Dairyland Power Cooperative (undated), Units 1, 2, and 3 ceased op erations on Dec. 31, 2011, and in October 2013, Dairyland announced plans to indefinitely suspend operations at Alma Station units 4 and 5 by early 2015. The Plant’s two

- phased retirement resulted from the EPA’s investigation, launched in 2006, of the Dai ryland Power Cooperative (DPC) system as part of the Coal

- Fired Power Plant Initiative . EPA Region 5 concluded that violations of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program e xisted at some of DPC’s plants. On February 13, 2012 the EPA issued the statutorily required Notice of Violation (NOV), alleging that DPC performed projects that triggered PSD applicability at the Alma/Madgett and Genoa plants, violating Title V of the CAA . The consent decree secured injunctive relief from all of DPC’s coal

- fired power units, and compliance with the settlement were to substantially reduce nitrogen oxide (NO x ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions. The settlement included, among others: (i) Ces sation of coal burning at Alma Unit 4 and install of FGD or Dray Sorbent Injection (DSI) on Alma Unit 5, or installation of FGD or DSI on Alma Unit 4 and a tight declining emission cap on Alma Units 4 and 5, and (ii) Permanent retirement of Alma Units 1, 2 , and 3. See EPA (2014) and St. Croix Electric (2013).
553 For Buffalo County groundwater susceptibility, depth to water table, bedrock type, depth to bedrock, and soil deposits maps, see USGS (2007).

554 EPRI (2010).
555 Supplemental Analysis (1993).

556 WDNR’s l etter required that seven private wells located east of the site be sampled on September and December 1986; however, the database obtained by Geo

- Hydro did not include results of any such samples, hence it is unknown whether the private wells have been eve r sampled, and if so

– what were the sampling results.
557 EPRI (2010).
558 http://www.dairynet.com/energy_resources/alma3.phpIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

138 

### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “While the State has taken regulatory action at this site, the action appears to be based on operational and locational problems, not evidence of contamination. The exce edances found at the site, sulfate and manganese, are of non

- health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 559



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #50 and a reference therein ( Memorandum fro m SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.re gulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Supplemental Analysis (1993): Supp lemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large

- Volume Coal Combustion Waste. U.S. EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

1993

- 0042

- 1642 (Microfilm).

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Buffalo County/Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater contamination susceptibility map and evaluat ion: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 p. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.usgs.gov /gwcomp/find/buffalo/susceptibility.html

Dairyland Power Cooperative (undated): Alma Station, Dairyland Power Cooperative. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.dairynet.com/energy_reso urces/alma2.php

St. Croix Electric (2013): Coal

- Fired Alma Power Plants Indefinitely Suspended by 2015. St. Croix Electric, October 21, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. https://www.scecnet.net/content/coal

- fired

- alma

- power

- plants

- indefinitely

- suspended

- 2015

EPA (2014): Dairyland Power Cooperative Settlement, EPA enforcement, web page last updated March 16, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/dairyland

- power

- cooperative

- settlement



### PTa36. Alliant (Wisconsin Power and Light Co.) Edgewater 1

- 4 Ash Disposal Site, Sheboygan, Sheboygan County, Wisconsin

Type: Surface Impoundments.

559 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

139 

### Background and Description: The Alliant WP&L Edgewater power station 560 contains five unli ned surface impoundments; a landfill, and a ‘CCR landfill contact pond’ located some 1,000 feet west of Lake Michigan. The waste units were commissioned as follows: in 1969 (C & F Ponds); in 1977 (North and South A & B Ponds); and in 1985 (Boiler Slag and landfill Contact Ponds). 561 Coal ash is reportedly present at depths below the water table. Based on WDNER’s description of a ‘sluice site’ 562 and the reference to groundwater mounding at the site, it is hereby inferred that the RCRA

- permitted landfill was

a ctually an ash pond.

Monitoring data were collected from three surface water sites and 52 groundwater locations (21 potable wells, eight piezometers, and 23 water table wells) between April 1976 and October 1998. Over six feet of groundwater mounding is e vident from an (undated) groundwater contour map. According to EPRI (2010), approximately 20 dwellings are located south of the site, and these homes have private water supply wells.

Glacial ice repeatedly covered Sheboygan County during the late Wisconsi n Glaciation (from about 30,000 to 10,000 years ago). Erosion by later ice advances and sediment deposited by the most recent advances obscure the record of earlier glaciations. The late Wisconsin deposits belong to the Holy Hill, Oak Creek, and Kewaunee F ormations, all of which include till deposited directly by the glacier and outwash deposited by meltwater flowing away from the glacier. 563 The Edgewater ash disposal site was modified by Lake Michigan post

- glaciation erosion and sedimentation processes and is underlain by lake silt and clay. 564 At a depth of several tenths of feet, it is underlain by Silurian

- age Niagara dolomite. 565

, 566



### Impact: M onitoring data at the site show down

- gradient levels of boron that exceed Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ (WDNR) health

- based ES level. 567 Additional data indicate that private water supply wells have shown ES exceedances for sulfate and iron (equivalent to secondary MCLs for these contaminants) and PAL exceedances for chloride.

According to WDNR, 568 arsenic ra nged between 150

- 540μg/L (mean: 364μg/L); selenium

– between 1

- 8.4μg/L; boron

– between 29

- 120ppm (mean: 69ppm); and sulfate

– between 640 and 2600ppm (mean: 1661ppm). 569 The levels of boron exceed WDNR’s health

- based ES levels. However, the site does not ha ve down

- gradient ES points of standard application (i.e., all wells are within the design management zone of the ‘landfill’) 570

.


### Resolution: The ‘landfill contact pond’ closed with clay cap in 1986 after construction of a new ‘landfill’. As a result of thes e exceedances, WDNR required a series of investigations from 1988 to 1997. The investigations found that cessation of ash sluicing and capping of the landfill had effectively controlled the contamination of groundwater and no additional remedial actions we re required. Ongoing monitoring at the site (including monitoring of the private wells) includes boron, sulfate, and arsenic. Previous monitoring included selenium, iron, fluoride, and chloride.

According to the Utility (EPRI, 2010), groundwater monitorin g continues, including private wells. Most monitoring wells are located within the design management zone (DMZ) and exhibit stable or decreasing concentrations. ‘One well outside of the DMZ has increasing concentrations which are reportedly from a differen t source.’



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The level of boron found down

- gradient exceeds a health

- based standard. It is unclear, however, whether this exceedance is in an off

- site monitoring location. The exceedances found in off

- sit e private wells are for constituents without health

based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 571IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

140 

### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #45 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy Regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#! documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Alliant Energy (2009): Response to Request for Inf ormation under Section 104(e) of CERCLA, May 15, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/alliant

- edge.pdf

560 According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgewater_Generating_Station#cite_note

- EIA

- 2 , the nameplate capacity of the Edgewater Generation Station (EGS) is approximately 767 MW (784 MW according to http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/wisconsin/pdf/wisconsin.pdf ), comprising three generating units that came online in 1951 (Unit 3: 60 MW), 1965 (Unit 4: 330 MW), and 1985 (Unit 5: 380 MW). It uses rail

- delivered Powder River Basin coal. According to WP&L (2012), selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology to control NO x emissions was installed in Units 3 and 4 in 2009, and similar technology in Unit 5 is scheduled to come online at t he end of 2012 (Alliant Energy, 2012). In addition, a scrubber and baghouse to reduce SO 2 and mercury emissions are to be completed in Unit 5 by 2016 (ibid). According
to http://host.madison.com/business/wisconsin

- power

- light

- unveils

- billion

- plan

- to

- clean

- up

- energy/article_591abccc

- d80b

- 11e1

- a271

- 0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz26SB3QZFG , i n July 2012 WP&L said it will shut down, by the end of 2015, the 60 MW Unit 3; and either close Unit 4 or convert it to burn natural gas by the end of 2018. These decisions resulted from a settlement, based on an April 22, 2013 consent decree between the EPA and Wisconsin Power and Light (WPL) due to WPL’s violation of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program and CAA’s Title V requirements. The consent decree required the retirement, refueling, or repowering the Nelson Dewey Units and Edgewater Unit 3 by December 31, 2015, and Edgewater Unit 4 by December 31, 2018 (Milwaukee.Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 2013). Compliance with th e settlement were to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) emissions by approximately 54,000 tons per year from 2011 levels. The EPA estimates that the cost of the injunctive relief will be more than $1 billion (EPA, 2013).
561 According to Alliant Energy (2009) and GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012), ponds A, B, C, and F are recipients of fly ash and ‘other waste’; the Slag Pond was constructed within the Ash Disposal Facility (ADF), north of North Pond A for settling an d recovery of slag (Pond B receives also slag); and the Landfill Contact Pond (closed: 1986) received sediment and storm runoff from the landfill. The Slag Pond, North Pond A, and South Pond A serve as the primary receiving ponds for CCR generated by the f acility. Slag is the primary CCR received by the Slag Pond. Unsettled solids and water are discharged to Pond B and subsequently to Pond C and Pond F. The corresponding areas of the Slag pond, and Ponds A, B, C, F, and Landfill Contact Pond are 1.77, 4.4, 1.93, 0.65, 0.9, and 1.11 acres, respectively. The coal ash ‘landfill pond’ has a RCRA permit #2524.

562 WDNER Comment to the Docket: Document # EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416.
563 Carlson et al., (2011).
564 “Postglacial wave

- cut terraces and associated river terra ces along the shore of Lake Michigan. Sand and gravel less than 1 m to several meters thick over older diamicton (poorly sorted glacial deposits); generally well sorted; in many places contains imbricated pebbles; sand is water deposited beach and off shor e sediment.”

565 Haydin et al., (2004).

566 For maps depicting depth to groundwater, bedrock, soil types, bedrock permeability, and groundwater susceptibility to contamination in Sheboygan County, see USGS (2007).
567 As of January 1, 2000, Wisconsin elevated bo ron to the status of a human health

- related parameter.

568 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416.
569 According to Cherry et al., (2000), four constituents in down

- gradient monitoring wells exceeded federal standards. Sulfate and TDS were measured at 1,900 and 3,200 mg/ L, respectively, boron reached a high of 66 mg/L, and arsenic was measured at a high of 540μg/L. The reason for the partial mismatch with WDNER’s data is unknown.
570 Hence, the state would consider the boron exceedances to be PAL, not ES, exceedances.

571 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

141 Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Tech., Blacksbu rg, Virginia. Prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Sheboygan County/Protecting Wi sconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater contamination susceptibility map and evaluation: WDNR, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 p. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/sheboygan/susceptibility.html

WP&L (2012): Wisconsin Power and Light Company Notice of 2012 Annual Meeting, Proxy Statement and 2011 A nnual Report, May 2012. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.alliantenergy.com/wcm/groups/wcm_internet/@int/documents/document/023337.pdf

Carlson e t al., (2011): Quaternary Geology of Sheboygan County, Wisconsin, Anders E. Carlson, Sarah M. Principato, Dawn M. Chapel, David M. Mickelson, Wisconsin Geological and natural History Survey, Bulletin 106, 2011. Accessed Online January 2013. http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/B106

- web.pdf

Haydin et al., (2004): Sheboygan County Natural Areas and Critical Resources Plan, Shannon K. Haydin and Shawn Wesener, Sheboygan County Plannin g & Resources Department, and Mark Walter, Bay

- Lake Regional Planning Commission, December 2, 2004. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.co.sheboygan.wi.u s/county_depts/planner/nat_area_plan/Nat_Area_Plan.pdf

GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012): Final Report Round 10 Dam Assessment, Wisconsin Power and Light Company

– Edgewater Generating Station Slag Pond, North Pond A, South Pond A, Pond B, Pond F, Sheboygan, W isconsin, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., Norwood, Massachusetts, December 28, 2012. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industr ial/special/fossil/surveys2/alliant_edgewater_final.pdf

Alliant Energy (2012): Wisconsin Power and Light Company outlines energy resources strategy, Alliant Energy, July 27, 2012. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.alliantenergy.com/AboutAlliantEnergy/Newsroom/NewsReleases/032047

EPA (2013): Wisconsin Power and Light, et al. Settlement, EPA/Enforcement, April 22, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/wisconsin

- power

- and

- light

- et

- al

- settlement

Milwaukee.Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (2013): EPA settles with Wisconsin utilities on coal plant a ir pollution. Milwaukee.Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, April 22, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.jsonline.com

/business/epa

- settles

- with

- wisconsin

- utilities

- on

- coal

- plant

- air

- pollution

1p9lo5u

- 204201561.htmlIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

142 

### PTa37. Lemberger Landfill, Whitelaw, Franklin Township, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin

Type: Sand and Gravel Pit used as a ‘Dual’, MSW and an Off

- Site Indus trial Waste Landfill.



### Background and Description: According to EPA (2007), the 21

- acre Lemberger Landfill, Inc. site is located in Manitowoc County. 572 The Township of Franklin used the site, an old, unlined gravel pit, as an open dump from 1940 to 1969. 573 L emberger Landfill, Inc. operated the site as a sanitary landfill under a license from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) from 1969 to 1976. From 1976 to 1977, the Wettencamp and Brunner Excavating Company transported fly ash from Manitowo c Public Utilities to the LL. An estimated 1,750 to 2,500 cubic yards of fly ash were disposed of monthly. Past WDNR inspections showed that LL used fly ash and bottom ash as cover, instead of burying them along with the refuse.

The terrain of the gene ral area is rolling to hilly with numerous wetlands. According to the Remedial Investigation, there are wetlands within 100 feet of LL. The terrain generally slopes to the west and northwest. The Branch River, which drains into Lake Michigan, is located ab out 3,000 feet west of LL and 3,500 feet northwest of LTR. 574

According to EPA Region 5 (2010), the Lemberger Site is geologically located within an interlobate glacial geomorphology characterized by alternating and random sequences and deposits of sand, gr avel, and clay soils. Near the Site there are two distinct sand and gravel deposits referred to as the upper granular unit (UGU) and the lower granular unit (LGU), which are generally separated by a clay unit. Below the LGU lies Niagara Formation dolomitic limestone bedrock, a grayish

- white massive

- to thinly

bedded rock with highly weathered surfaces. There are two groundwater systems of concern: a localized perched system called the upper groundwater system (UGS), and a more regional unit called the lowe r groundwater system (LGS). The UGS refers to perched groundwater lying atop a clay layer above the LGU. The UGS may be a single interconnected aquifer or may comprise several discontinuous perched zones. The top of the LGS water table occurs from 10 to 40 feet below the top of the bedrock in the vicinity of LTR. Based on recent mapping of groundwater heads, flows are to the west with some convergence toward the southwest corner of the LL Site. 575

The LGS consists of the upper bedrock and saturated portions of the overlying dense sandy gravel and gravely sand of the LGU. The upper part of the bedrock is more weathered and fractured, and fracture frequency decreases with depth. The horizontal and vertical fractures provide significant migration pathways. The p otentiometric surface of the LGS slopes to the NNW. 576

Much of the waste disposed at LL was within the UGS, and above the clay layer, which separates the UGS from the LGS. However, during construction of the slurry wall, bedrock was encountered above the cl ay layer in the northeast corner of LL; so the clay layer was not continuous below LL.

At LTR, the documented total quantity of waste disposed is about 870,000 gallons. 577 The parent compounds of the major groundwater contaminants (TCA, tetrachloroethylene, and TCE) were most likely from degreasing operations and were described as oil

- water mixtures. It is estimated that the 47,760 gallons of oil

- water mixtures likely contained about 30,000 gallons of solvent. The LTR site operators dumped liquids into trenc hes, excavated to a depth of about five feet, where the liquids infiltrated rapidly into the underlying soil or bedrock, i.e., where the surficial clay layer had been breached.



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), damages at the site include the seepage of la ndfill leachate onto adjacent property. Ground water at the site is contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compoundIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

143 (CVOC) 578 and inorganic constituents including arsenic, barium, chromium, cadmium, and lead. CVOCs were present in residential wells i n the vicinity of the site, according to monitoring conducted by the State in 1984 and 1985; and the Branch River near the site also is impacted by VOCs, cadmium, and lead.

Concerning potential receptors, EPRI (2010) states that groundwater flows north

- no rthwest from the landfill. 579 Twenty three private wells are sampled as part of continuing site activities. None of the metals exceeded MCLs in private well samples; one well had a VOC concentration exceeding an MCL. No VOCs attributable to LTR or LL were de tected in private well sampling results from March 2007 to April 2009. 580

The Niagara dolomite aquifer serves as the primary drinking water source in the area. Most of the residential wells found to be affected by the LL contamination in 1985 were screened near the top of the dolomite rock and were replaced with wells screened starting at about 250 feet below ground surface. 581



### Resolution: The LTR was designated to the Superfund National Priorities List in September 1984, and the LL

– in June 1986 (site ID# W ID980901243) 582 due to groundwater contamination. 583 Between 1988 and 1992, EPA conducted Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), and in September 23, 1991, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the LL source area’s containment.

572 The reclaimed landfill site is located about two miles (as the crow flies) northwest of Whitelaw, in the southwestern corner of the intersection of Hempton Lake Road and Sunny Slope Road, and about 1,000 feet southwest of the active, sanitary Ri dgeview Landfill (EPA Region 5, 2010, Exhibit 9).

573 According to EPA Region 5 (ibid), Lemberger Landfill (previously called Lemberger Flyash Landfill) site (LL) is located about 1,000 feet north of the Lemberger Transport and Recycling site (LTR). LTR ope rated as a licensed industrial waste disposal facility between 1970 and 1976, receiving primarily liquid and drum disposal. For location and plans of the LTR and LL, see there, Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 5.

574 According to EPA Region 5 (2010), the Branch River is used for fishing, canoeing and water supply. It is designated as Exceptional Resource Water, as defined by Wisconsin NR 102.11, protected as a Great Lake aquatic community, noted for its annual steelhead trout spawning runs, and is a managed smallmouth bass stream.
575 See EPA Region 5 (ibid), Exhibit 5.

576 See EPA Region 5 (ibid), Exhibit 7. For Manitowoc County groundwater location and properties, see USGS (2007).
577 The documented waste volumes and types from disposal records are summarized in EPA Region 5 (ibid), Exhibit 10.
578 Including vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, and trans

- 1, 2

- dichloroethylene. Other contaminants identified were ethylbenzene, toluene, tetrachloroethane, trichloroethane, dichloroethane, arsenic, barium, total xylenes, chromium,

c admium, and lead. About 2,700 people depend on public and private wells within three miles of the site as a source of drinking water. The Branch River, located 0.5 mile west of the site is also potentially impacted. It is used for recreational activities. A marsh borders the southwestern portion of the site.
579 This statement applies to the LGS: see Exhibit 7, EPA Region 5 (ibid). For general information on depth to groundwater, bedrock, soil types, bedrock permeability, and groundwater susceptibility to con tamination in Manitowoc County, see USGS (2007).

580 EPA Region 5 (ibid), virtual page 51.

581 EPA Region 5 (2010). According to EPA Region 5 (ibid), at LL, citizen complaints of leachate releases to their properties first occurred in 1980; following citizens’ complaints about drinking water in 1985, WDNR sampled nearby residential wells, and replaced seven wells with much deeper wells. See There, Exhibit 8.

582 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/np l/nar735.htm
583 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/f860610.htm#summary . The Site’s name was changed from the proposed NPL to the final NPL as follows: Lemberger Fly Ash Lan dfill, Whitelaw

- Lemberger Landfill, Inc.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

144 Using data fro m the RI, EPA determined that there were unacceptable human health risks from exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater at LL and LTR. The unacceptable incremental risks that were calculated in the RI included:

• From exposure to LL surface soil in case of future residential development, a lifetime incremental cancer risk of 1 x 10

- 5 (1 x 10

- 5 from arsenic and 2 x 10

- 6 from benzo(a)pyrene) and a chronic health hazard for children ages 1 to 6 (index =1.1);

• From future residential usage of groundwater i n the UGS near LL, a lifetime incremental cancer risk of 9 x 10

- 4 and a chronic health hazard for children ages 1 to 6 (index =28.8);

• From future residential usage of groundwater from the LGS near LL, a lifetime incremental cancer risk of 3 x 10

- 4 and for children ages 1 to 6 a chronic health hazard (index =1.5).

According to EPA (2007), a group of Potentially Responsible Parties entered into a consent decree (CD) with U.S. EPA in 1992 to perform design and remedy implementation activities. 584 Remediation, completed in September 1996, included waste relocation; landfill capping; slurry wall construction; leachate collection and groundwater treatment system installations; and implementing groundwater monitoring and use restrictions. The (first) Five

- Year Rev iew of September 2000 identified that the groundwater extraction system was not capturing the entire contaminant plume. In order to correct this problem, modifications to the groundwater extraction system were constructed in winter 2001.

On June 15, 2006 , U.S. EPA and WDNR approved the PRP's workplan for the monitored natural attenuation pilot study and gave approval to shut down the groundwater pump

- and

- treat system. The
pump

- and

- treat system was shut down on August 1, 2006. USEPA's review of the pump

- an d

- treat shut

down, the monitored natural attenuation, and leachate withdrawal shut

- down is being incorporated into the 2010 Five

- Year Review. 585



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: According to EPA (2007), “Because the available documentatio n does not clearly implicate, or rule out, coal combustion waste as a source of the contamination, this case is a potential damage case.” 586

584 The 1992 Consent Decree requires that the PRPs effectuate deed restrictions for all of the facility property. The deed restrictions must prohibit development permanently, and prohibit installation of drinking wa ter supplies until MCLs, ESs and PALs are achieved. The two restrictive covenants dated May 20, 2009 between the LL and LTR property owners and PRPs and supplant previous agreements between these parties. See EPA Region 5 (ibid), Exhibits 19 and 20. 585 The Second (September 21, 2005) Five

- year Review Report states that the remedies at the LL and LTR sites are currently protective of human health and the environment only in the short term because the landfill caps, the LL slurry wall, gas vent system, leachat e collection system and groundwater pump and treat system continue to function adequately in order to prevent exposure. Access to the site is controlled, and groundwater and nearby residential wells are monitored as required. Groundwater in residential wel ls within the contaminant plume do not exceed State or Federal drinking water standards. Data indicate predominantly stable concentrations of contaminants in area monitoring wells and leachate head levels in the LL are decreasing. However, it does not appe ar that the groundwater cleanup goals will be achieved within the timeframe that was originally anticipated. The current pump and treat system has not reduced the size of the plume which exceeds the cleanup levels and it appears that natural attenuation ra ther than active pumping may have removed most of the contamination to date. Therefore, the Agencies have approved the PRPs’ request to perform an engineering demonstration project to temporarily shut down the pump and treat system and evaluate whether nat ural attenuation is occurring and what the impact is on the groundwater contaminant plume. Additionally, institutional controls must still be completed at both sites to prevent site development and installation of drinking water wells. For the latest (thir d) Five

- Year Review Report, see EPA Region 5 (2010).

586 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

145 According to WDNR, “The Lemberger Landfill accepted both municipal/industrial waste and power plant ash during its l ife. Due to the nature of the disposal methods, it was determined that groundwater impacts from contaminants in the municipal and industrial waste could not be separated from potential impacts from coal ash. Given these uncertainties, this site was determi ned to be unsuitable for any study attempting to quantify the impacts of CCB disposal on groundwater.” 587



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #62 and references therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding R ationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000; and Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases, November 29, 2000.) http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Informati on. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1 &k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Manitowoc County/Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater c ontamination susceptibility map and evaluation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 p. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/manitowoc/susceptibility.html

EPA Region 5 (2010): (Third) Five

- Year Review Report for Lemberger Landfill (Lemberger Flyash), Lemberger Transport and Recycling, Franklin Township, Manitowoc County , Wisconsin. Prepared by U.S.EPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois, July 2010. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2010050003650.pdf

Zilmer and Fauble (2004): Groundwater Impacts from Coal Combustion Ash Disposal Sites in Wisconsin, Pub

- Wa 1174 2004, Michael Zillmer and Philip Fauble, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Waste & Materials Management Division. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/publications/anewpub/WA1174.pdf



### PTa38. Alliant Energy (Former Wisconsin Power and Light Company, WPL) Nelson Dewey Ash Landfill, Grant County, Wiscon sin

Type: Surface Impoundments.



### Background and Description: According to EPA (2007), this 24

- acre coal ash impoundment complex was originally constructed next to the Nelson Dewey power plant northwest of Cassville between the late

1950s and mid

- 1970s 588 a s a series of unlined settling basins for sluiced ash and permitted by the State in

587 Zillmer and Fauble (2004), in EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416, Appendix, Section D.
588 According to Alliant Energy (2009), GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012), and EPRI (2010), the slag pond was commis sioned in 1959 and modified in 1976 and 1996. The Ash Pond was commissioned in 1976 and modified inIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

146 1979. 589 The site is in the Mississippi floodplain and ash fill may have been placed below the water table/surface water elevation. A groundwater mound appears to have devel oped in the disposal area due to sluice discharge. Groundwater flow is outward from the ash disposal/recharge area and eventually flows back in the direction of the Mississippi River. 590

Soil at the site comprises a thin veneer of alluvium over unconsolidat ed, high

- permeability glacial outwash. Total thickness of the glacio

- fluvial deposits is about 150 feet at the Plant and about 300 feet or more in the bedrock valley of the Mississippi River. The Silurian age Prairie du Chien dolomite is the underlying bed rock encountered in the Village Well No. 2 of Cassville, below some 160 feet of Quaternary deposits. The thickness of the dolomite ranges between 240

- 300 feet. It is underlain by approximately 1,000 feet of Cambrian age sandstone over basement rock. The Pr airie du Chien dolomite

1999. The respective areas of the ash and slag ponds are 4.65 acre and 4.35 acre, and their storage capacities are 42,600 cubic yard and 32,000 cubic yard, respectively. The WPDES Pond receives fly/economizer ash from non

chemical equipment wash activities, slag from washing of boilers, boiler water wash, air heater wash (fly ash), storm water runoff from Site, and coal pile runoff. The Slag Pond primarily re ceives fly/economizer ash and slag. Water in the WPDES Pond is typically recycled and used for dust control on the coal pile. As necessary, water is pumped from the WPDES Pond to the Slag Pond via the pump house which is located near the northwestern porti on of the impoundment. This discharge is regulated as Outfall 002 under WPDES Permit Number WI

- 0002381

- 06

- 0. Nelson Dewey’s two generation units (11999 County Road VV, Cassville, Wisconsin), with nameplate capacity of 100 MW each, were commissioned in 1959 and 1962. Late in July 2012, WPL announced plans to shut down the Nelson Dewey Plant ( Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 2012). This decision resulted from a settlement, based on an April 22, 2013 consent decree between the EPA and Wisconsin Power and Light (WPL) due to WPL’s violation of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program and CAA’s Title V requirements. The consent decree required the retirement, refueling, or repowering the Nelson Dewey Units and Edgewater Unit 3 by December 31 , 2015, and Edgewater Unit 4 by December 31, 2018 (Milwaukee.Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 2013). Compliance with the settlement were to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) emissions by approximately 54,000 tons per year from 2011 levels. The EPA estimates that the cost of the injunctive relief will be more than $1 billion (EPA, 2013). Early in 2007, Wisconsin Power & Light Company , a subsidiary of Alliant Energy , has proposed a 300 MW coal plant at its existing Nelson Dewey facility in Cassville, near the Mississippi River. The plant would utilize circulating fluidized bed technology; 10 percent of fuel burned at the plant would be biom ass. In May, 2008, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (WPSC), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassville plant. The EIS identified several serio us impacts that would be caused at the Cassville location ( http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.nsf/(PDFView)/20080202/$file/20080202.PDF?OpenElement ), including damage to the bed of the Mississippi River, harm to a rare species of mussels, and potential destruction of a 20

- acre forest ( http://www.jsonline.com/business/34277094.html). In November 2008, WPSC has rejected the plan, citing concerns about global warming as well as the plant's $1.3 billion price tag. In December 2012, Wisconsin Power & Light decided to shut down the Nelson Dewey Plant by the end of 2015. http://host.madison.com/business/wisconsin

- power

- light

- unveils

- billion

- plan

- to

- clean

- up

- energy/art icle_591abccc

d80b

- 11e1

- a271

- 0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz2LNfZWAme
589 The Old Fly Ash Pond, which is licensed as a closed landfill, no longer can impound water and was not assessed by GZA GeoEnvironmental (ibid). For the location of the closed pond and the two a ctive ponds, see GZA GeoEnvironmental (ibid), Figure 2.
590 Wisconsin DNR (1976) and Wisconsin DNR (1979). The permit (RCRA landfill Permit #2525) cites the installation of 22 groundwater monitoring wells, required to sample pH, specific conductivity, sulfat e, boron, harness, and iron on a quarterly basis, in addition to shoreline river sampling in two up

- gradient and one down

gradient points, as well as outfall’s effluents. The surface sampling was to include, in addition to general water quality parameters, also the following constituents: arsenic, barium, chromium, mercury, selenium, iron, calcium, magnesium, sodium, zinc, boron, potassium, strontium, and manganese. According to GZA GeoEnvironmental (ibid, Figure 4), si x of the monitoring wells (B

- 7R, B

- 11, B

- 11A, B

- 11B, B

- 31A, and B

- 31B) are located along the southern portions of the slag pond, and another monitoring well (B

- 28) is located near the southeastern embankment of the WDPES impoundment.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

147 is overlain by the Ordovician age St. Peters sandstone. The composite thickness of the three Cambrian

Ordovician units is about 320 feet. 591



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), waste disposal at the site resulted in exceedances of the State’s Preventative Action Levels (PALs) for arsenic, selenium, sulfate, boron, and fluoride. These exceedances occurred within the design management zone of the facility. 592 Waste disposal also has resulted in exceedances of the State’s Enforcement Standar ds (ES) for boron, fluoride, and sulfate outside the design management zone of the facility. 593 As a result of these exceedances, the State required an investigation of ground water contamination in 1993. In 1996, the facility began converting to dry ash man agement and covering/closing phases of the facility. 594

The facility is not only unlined, but was originally designed to allow sluiced liquids to infiltrate to ground water, with direct discharge to surface water occurring only occasionally. For much of th eir life, the basins operated with a relatively high hydraulic head. In fact, in 1986, the facility began using direct discharge to reduce the hydraulic head in response to PAL exceedances for sulfate. This combination of conditions resulted in a ground wa ter mound beneath the ash disposal area. While depth to ground water at the site is generally approximately 10 feet, the height of the ground water mound was estimated at five to eight feet, resulting in an estimated effective depth to ground water of only two to five feet underneath the disposal area.

The Barge Company (CRT) potable water well, located between the fly ash basin and the landfill, has been rendered unsuitable for drinking, due to contamination by sulfate, boron, fluoride, and TDS. Boron in itially passed the EPA lifetime health advisory of 0.6 mg/L in 1986 and permanently crossed the 10

- day health advisory for children (0.9 mg/L) in 1991. As of late 1998, the boron concentration (2.8 mg/L) was approaching the long

- term adult health advisory of 3 mg/L.

As to potential receptors, EPRI (2010) claims that while the site is located just northwest of the town of Cassville, groundwater flow direction is toward the Mississippi River. There is a state historical park immediately north of the site. 595 T he source of water for the park is unknown, but there is a water supply well located at the park which is monitored by the power company. Another water supply well approximately 500 feet west of the facility is also monitored.



### Resolution: The State requir ed an investigation of groundwater contamination in 1986 596 and in 1993. 597 In 1996, the facility began converting to dry ash management and covering/closing phases of the facility. 598 Capping (geosynthetic clay liner covered by top soil) of the Old Fly Ash Pond was concluded in 2001. A groundwater monitoring program has been on from January 1976. EPRI (2010) claims that concentrations are mostly decreasing or stable, and there are no off

- site impacts.

In its comment to the docket, Alliant Energy states 599 that t his site was p reviously defined as a proven damage case due to fly ash sluicing surface impoundment/landfill which had impacted an adjacent drinking water well. WPL, working closely with WDNR, converted to dry handling and closed the landfill with an engin eered design cover, while continuing to monitor groundwater on and off site. Consequently, there are no longer impacts to the offsite well and groundwater quality levels have been restored to, or closely to historical low levels. 600



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: According to EPA (2007), “EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific

- Although the boron standard was not health

- based at the time of the exceedances, the boron levels repor ted for the facility would have exceeded the State’s recently promulgated health

- based ES for boron; and (2) Administrative

- As a result of the various PAL and ES exceedances, the State required a ground waterIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

148 investigation, and the facility took action t o remediate ground water contamination and prevent further contamination.” 601

EPA has recently redesignated this Proven Damage Case to a Potential Damage Case: 602 “Onsite groundwater exceeded MCL for arsenic and selenium. Administrative action required ground water investigation without explicit finding of specific damage.”



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #15 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding C ommenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

591 Wisconsin DNR (1976). The consists of 0

- 5 feet of topsoil (loess and alluvium); 1

- 18 feet of sandy silt

- silty sand (alluvium; permeability in the range of 10

- 2 and 10

- 5 cm/sec); and approximately 145 feet of alternating sand and gravel layers, with occasional silt (outwash; permeability in the range of 10

- 1 and 1 0

- 5 cm/sec). For the soil and geohydrologic properties of Grant County, see USGS (2007).
592 ‘Significant contamination of groundwater (iron and sulfate) in the disposal area’ is mentioned in Wisconsin DNR (ibid), suggesting that groundwater impact preceded 1 979, and cited again in DNR (1986), discussing the February 1986 Nelson Dewey Exceedance Report.
593 Overall, t he impact of the ash pond was greater than that of the slag pond. According to Zillmer and Fauble (2004), In EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416, Appendix, Section D, t he reported values are: arsenic

- range: 5.5

- 800 μg/L; mean: 197 μg/L; selenium

- range: 10

- 320 μg/L; mean: 78.8 μg/L; sulfate

- range: 75

- 2100ppm; mean: 1144ppm; and boron

- range: 2.3

- 28.4ppm; mean: 9.23ppm. There are also exceedances of mang anese

- range: 0.72

- 1.2ppm

. Cherry et al., (2000) report additional exceedances, including of primary MCLs, but with the exception of cadmium (up to 140 μg/L), it is not evident w hether the values they report represent maximum constituent levels in groundwater wells or in the ash ponds.
594 The PAL either is 10 percent, 20 percent, or 50 percent of the enforcement standard, as specified by statute based on the health

- related charact eristics of the particular substance. Ten percent is used for cancer

- causing substances, 20 percent for substances with other health effects, and 50 percent for substances having aesthetic or other public

welfare concerns.
595 Stonefield Historic Site, sho wcasing Wisconsin’s rural history in the early 20 th Century.
596 Wisconsin DNR (1986): Two quarters of expanded groundwater monitoring to include dissolved metals, continued analysis of groundwater quality to assess whether off

- site sulfate contamination exc eeds PAL levels, which might trigger operational changes (e.g., a switch to dry handling), and an analysis of alternative capping systems and long

- term operational effects of the ash basin, and the submittal to DNR of annual groundwater quality reports, th e environmental effects of sluicing versus dry ash handling and evaluation of an alternative low

permeability cap.
597 Wisconsin DNR (1993). In response to Nelson Dewey’s failure to comply with NR 140, Wis. Adm. Code (public health or welfare related groundw ater quality Enforcement Standard (ES) and Preventive Action Limits (PALs), Tables 1 and 2 in http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/drinkingwater/documents/haltable.pdf , DNR required that the P lant prepare an Environmental Contamination Assessment report; the DNR stated that upon the review of that report it may require additional responses, such as changing the design or construction of the facility or taking remedial action to restore groundwa ter quality.
598 Wisconsin DNR (1996).
599 USWAG’s comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432, Appendix C.

600 Based on the information and documentation cited, USWAG requests that EPA identify the Nelson Dewey Site as a site where the previousl y alleged “proven damage” has been resolved to the satisfaction of the State through implementation of the modifications and site closure measure.
601 EPA (2007).

602 ICF (2010).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

149 ICF (20 10): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #15. ICF, 10/2010.

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, Septembe r 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%2 0 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Alliant Energy (2009): Response to Request for Information under Section 104(e) of CERCLA, May 15, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/alliant

- nelson.pdf

GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012): Final Report, Round 10 Dam Assessment, Wisconsin Power and Light Company

– Nelson Dewey Generating Station Slag Pond, WPDES Pond, Cass ville, Wisconsin, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Norwood, Massachusetts, December 27, 2012. Accessed Online February 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/in dustrial/special/fossil/surveys2/alliant_nelsondewey_final.pdf

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Grant County/Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater contamin ation susceptibility map and evaluation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 p. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/rock/susceptibility.html

Cherry et al., (2000): Cherry, Donald S., Rebecca J. Currie and David J. Soucek, 2000: Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from C oal Combustion Wastes; Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

Zilmer and Fauble (2004): Groundwater Impacts from Coal Combustion Ash Disposal Sites in Wisc onsin, Pub

- Wa 1174 2004, Michael Zillmer and Philip Fauble, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Waste & Materials Management Division. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www. dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/publications/anewpub/WA1174.pdf

Wisconsin DNR (1979): A Report on the Plans and Specifications for an Ash Disposal Facility to be Licensed by Wisconsin Power & Light Company. Department of Natural Resources, State of Wisconsin, Febru ary 28, 1979.

Wisconsin DNR (1986): Meeting of October 30, 1986: A Report to WP&L Nelson Dewey File. Department of Natural Resources, State of Wisconsin, November 4, 1986.

Wisconsin DNR (1993): Modification to the Conditional Plan of Operation Approval for the Wisconsin Power & Light Company Nelson Dewey Ash Disposal Facility, License #02525, Town of Cassville, Grant County. Department of Natural Resources, State of Wisconsin, March 8, 1993.

Wisconsin DNR (1996): Plan modification for dry Ash Disposal a nd revised Final Cover, Wisconsin Power & Light

- Nelson Dewey Ash Disposal Landfill, License #2525. Department of Natural Resources, State of Wisconsin, May 15, 1996.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

150 EPA (2013): Wisconsin Power and Light, et al. Settlement, EPA/Enforcement, April 22, 2013 . Accessed Online August 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/wisconsin

- power

- and

- light

- et

- al

- settlement

Milwaukee.Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (2013): EPA settles with Wisconsin utilities on coal plant air pollution. Milwaukee.Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, April 22, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.jsonline.com/business/epa

- settles

- with

- wisconsin

- utilities

- on

- coal

- plant

- air

- pollution

1p9lo5u

- 204201561.html

Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (2012): Alliant closing Cassville coal plant. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sent inel, July 27, 2012. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.jsonline.com/business/alliant

- closing

- cassville

- coal

- plant

- eg699i4

- 164086556.html



### PTa39. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) Port Washington Facility 603 

### / Druecker Quarry Fly Ash Site, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin

Type: Sand and Gravel Pit and Limestone Quarry.



### Brief Description: WEPCO placed 40

- to 60

- foot

- deep column of fly ash 604 in the unlined 605 Druecker sand and gravel pit 606 from 1948 to 1971. This 15

- acre coal ash fill in and adjacent to a former limestone quarry received approximately 735,000 cubic yards of coal ash. Some ash in the quarry is below the water table. A well located about 250 feet south of the old quarry was reportedly impacted. 607

603 According to EPA letter (undated) and EPA Press Release (2003) , WEPCO’s Port Wa shington facility consisted of five coal

- fired, steam

- generating units with an original design capacity of 80 MW when they were placed in service between 1935 and 1950. Due to age

- related deterioration and loss of efficiency, Unit 5 was shut down completel y and by 1987, WEPCO was faced with removing the remaining units from service as they reached their planned retirement dates beginning in the early 1990s, unless it undertook a costly "life extension" program to restore the physical and economic viability of the units and extend their useful life for about 20 years. In a series of applicability determinations in 1988 and 1989, EPA ruled that the renovations planned under WEPCO's life extension program would be subject to both the New Source Performance Stan dards (NSPS) provisions and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions of the of the Clean Air Act (CAA). WEPCO did not want to be constrained by new source requirements, and so sought review in the Court of Appeals. On January 19, 1990, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. Reilly, Nos. 88

- 3264 and 89

- 1339, issued its decision regarding a challenge by WEPCO to the two final determinations issued by the EPA, deciding that WEPCO's proposed ren ovations to its Port Washington power plant would be subject to NSPS and PSD requirements. On April 29, 2003, the U.S. EPA and the DOJ announced a major CAA settlement with WEPCO, also known as We Energies (WE), to resolve CAA violations at several of the company's coal

- fired power plants. Under the settlement agreement, the WEPCO coal

- fired units that were at issue in the WE decision will be shut down or controlled in 2004 under the settlement. Subsequently, t he coal

- fueled units at the Port Washington Gen erating Station were replaced with two 545

- MW, high

- efficiency natural gas

- fueled units. The first unit achieved commercial operation in July 2005 and the second unit was placed into service in May 2008 ( http://www.we

- energies.com/home/projects/port_gen_station.htm ).

604 According to EPRI (2010), however, this ash consists of coarse bottom ash.

605 EPRI (ibid).

606 Located north of Port Washington, and about 9 miles northeast of Cedarb urg, the site of the Cedar Sauk proven damage case.

607 According to Wisconsin’s Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System (BRRTS), the remediated quarry site is located at 1745 Shady Lane (SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec 09, T11N, R22E), about 1, 500 feet SWS of the intersection of Lake Drive and ‘County Highway Kw’, and is transversed by the tracks of theIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

151 The sand and gravel pit was sited in a hummocky end

- moraine of the Ozaukee M ember of the Kewaunee Formation, Wisconsinian (Late Pleistocene) aged glacial deposits, 608 with thicknesses ranging between less than 50 feet and zero. 609 Underlying the glacial deposits is a relatively thick deposit of Silurian dolostone of the Niagaran Seri es. 610 The Niagara Dolomite and the glacial till form a hydraulically well

connected, joint unconfined aquifer. In the Quarry’s area, the probability of a well to yield 100

- 500 gl/minute is good. The quality of the Niagara aquifer’s water in the area is one of the best in Ozaukee County, with sulfate levels below 25 mg/L, TDS below 300 mg/L, and hardness of about 250 mg/L. 611

Values of hydraulic conductivity ranging from 0.01 to 585 ft/d (median: 3.2 ft/d) were determined from specific

- capacity data for 534 w ells in the Niagara aquifer of Ozaukee and Washington counties. The upper few feet of the aquifer generally have a greater hydraulic conductivity than the remainder because of interconnecting fractures, joints, and solution openings formed during pre

- glaci al erosion. 612

The site is in an upland area where down

- gradient groundwater is utilized as a source of drinking water. Groundwater flow is southerly, and there are approximately 30 residences located within one mile down

gradient. The Site borders on the w est with Sauk Creek, which is designated an Area of Special Natural Resource Interest. 613



### Impact: 614 According to EPA (2007), a copy of the original Water Well Journal article cited by the commenters was obtained from the National Ground Water Association (NG WA). The article presented instances in which boron and selenium concentrations exceeded standards in a well located down

- gradient of the CC R disposal site. A representative of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Waste Management Program re ported that the site affects a residential, private water well supply. In lieu of providing up

- gradient well monitoring data, the DNR representative stated that in his best professional judgment the boron levels reported for the well are not naturally occu rring , and that the contaminants
must come from the quarry because of the proximity to the monitoring well.

Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul railway: http://dnr.wi.gov/

botw/GetActivityDetail.do?detailSeqNo=33727&crumb=0 and http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/SL/Viewer.html?Viewer=RR+Sites&runWorkflow=ZoomToBRRTS&brrtsid=35228

. 608 Syverson et al., (2011a).
609 See, for instance, Mickelson and Syverson (1997), Young and Batten (1980, Fig. 7), and USGS (2007)

. 610 Steidman et al., (1924, pages 72 and 189, analysis #183) provide an averaged composition of a high

- purity dolomite from the Independent Lime and Stone Company’s Druecker Quarry: 95.4 percent dolomite and 3.49 percent limestone. The Druecker Quarry provided dolomite to local lime kilns since the mid

- 19 th Century, with lime shipped to markets by boat via Lake Michigan (Bertrand, 1944). According to the Ozaukee County Management Plan (2011, Table 2.7 and Map 2.9), the Druecker Lime Kiln was designated as a site of regional geologic importance.

611 Young and Batten, ibid.

612 Young and Batten, ibid.

613 EPRI (ibid).
614 According to EPA (2 007) and the references cited below, originally, the commenters on the March 1999 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels identified this Wisconsin site in a table that alleged fly ash contaminated several drinking water wells with boron and selenium. Following a preliminary evaluation by the EPA, this site was initially classified as indeterminate because (i) the commenters did not identify the source of the information, and (ii) No quantitative data or further information about th is site was available. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy: Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000; and Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Reso lution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

152 According to EPA’s inquiry with the DNR, s elenium in the contaminated well exceed ed the Preventative Action Limit (PAL) , not MCL or enforceable s tandard (ES). 615

, 616 Boron exceeds current Wisconsin ES although there was no standard at that time. 617 According to EPRI (2010), onsite exceedances of sulfate were also recorded.

Sediment samples were collected in 1994 at three sites in Sauk Creek to obtain baseline sediment quality data for Sauk Creek and to assess the potential sediment quality impacts from the fly ash landfill adjacent Sauk Creek near Druecker's Quarry. Whereas selenium, boron, and cadmium were higher in Sauk Creek near the former fly ash landfill, the levels were relatively low and not perceived to be at levels of concern. Consequently, Sauk Creek adjacent the Druecker's Quarry does not require specific management activities. 618



### Resolution: Wisconsin has not pursued any administrative acti on against WEPCO. 619 The DNR was first notified about the contamination in January 1980, then again in November 1990. After notifying the primary responsible parties, DNR received the Site Investigation Report in February 1994 and a Remedial Design Report in May 2007. 620 The impacted private well that had boron and sulfate exceedances was replaced with a deeper well, the property with the quarry were purchased by WEPCO, and the well was purchased and retired. 621 Remediation includes an engineered cap (installed i n 2007

- 2008), and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of ash were pulled back from the bank of Sauk Creek on the western boundary of the ash fill site, creating over one acre of wetland. The wetland and adjacent swales were vegetated using a native seed mix t o complement the adjacent natural areas. Remediation has been performed and the site is inactive. 622

WEPCO monitors nine private water supply wells that represent potential down

- gradient receptors at a frequency of one sampling event every two years. No exc eedances have been detected in any of these wells. 623



### Previous Basis for Consideration: This case wa s categorized as a proven damage case because of the off

- site exceed a nce of a health

- based standard. 624



### ICF (2010) Rationale : “Not a damage case: No exceedanc es of MCL or comparable health based standard ”.

615 EPA (2007) and reference therein. According to a laboratory report from the State Laboratory of Hygiene

, s amples collected at the John & Dolly Keating Port Washington Sample T ap Pit

, an off

- site drinking water well

, showed very high concentrations of boron and elevated selenium concentrations

. 616 Today’s selenium MCL standard is 50 μ g/L

. According to Zilmer and Fauble (2004), Wisconsin’s enforcement standards (ESs) are roughly e quivalent to the federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The preventive action limit (PAL) is generally 10 percent of the ES for all substances that have carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic properties, selenium included.

617 According to Zilmer and Faubl e (2004), enforcement standards and preventive action limits for boron became effective on January 1, 1999. The Wisconsin groundwater standard for boron is 0.960 mg/L.

618 Galarneau and Masterson (2001).
619 EPRI (2010).
620 http://dnr.wi.gov/botw/GetActivityDetail.do?detailSeqNo=35228&crumb=0

621 EPRI (ibid) also claims that “Contrary to the narrative in the 2007 USEPA Damage Case Assessment, the well where boron concentrations w ere high was on the same property as the ash fill, rather than off

- site.” This reference is, apparently, to the impacted well that has been acquired by WEPCO.

622 According to EPRI (ibid), the engineered cap consists of a 2.5

- foot topsoil/rooting

- zone layer, geocomposite drainage layer, and 40

- mil PVC geomembrane over a fly ash bedding layer.
623 EPRI (ibid).

624 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

153 

### Postscript: EPRI claims 625 that “The analytical data for this site indicate that the basis for categorizing this site as a proven damage case is questionable. This site was categorized by USEPA as a proven da mage case on the basis that selenium concentrations in an off

- site drinking water well exceeded a health based standard. However, the 2007 USEPA Damage Case Assessment narrative is contradictory on selenium concentrations, because the history section notes that selenium concentrations in this well were lower than the MCL. Furthe rmore, the power company database shows that the highest selenium concentration monitored in any well for this facility (14 μg/L) was a factor of three lower than the MCL and state standard of 50 μg/L, and all other selenium concentrations are very low (2 μg/L or less).”

Considering that selenium has not exceeded the MCL, and that boron and sulfate have exceeded the corresponding secondary MCLs in a drinking water well that was originally offsite (prior to its purchase by WEPCO), this case qualifies as a p otential damage case. 

### Reference EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #17, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007, and reference therein. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #17. ICF, 10/2010.

E PRI (2010): Damage Case Report, V. 2: Case Summaries, EPRI, September 2010. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/ Pages/results.aspx?k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20Produc t%20Damage%20Cases

Zilmer and Fauble (2004): Groundwater Impacts from Coal Combustion Ash Disposal Sites in Wisconsin, Pub

- Wa 1174 2004, Michael Zillmer and Philip Fauble, Wisconsin Dept. o f Natural Resources Waste & Materials Management Division. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/wa/WA1174.pdf

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, O zaukee County/Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater contamination susceptibility map and evaluation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 p. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/ozaukee/susceptibility.html

Syverson et al., (2011a): Lexicon of Pleisto cene Stratigraphic Units of Wisconsin: Syverson, K.M., Clayton, Lee, Attig, J.W., and Mickelson, D.M., eds., Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Technical Report 1, 2011, 180 p. Accessed Online November 2013. http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/lexicon/pdf/formations/kewaunee

- formation.pdf

Syverson et al., (2011): Lexicon of Pleistocene Stratigraphic Units of Wisconsin: Introduction, appendix,

re ferences. Kent M. Syverson, Lee Clayton, John W. Attig, David M. Mickelson, Editors. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Technical Report 1, 2011. Accessed Online November 2013. http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/lexicon/pdf/intro

- appendix

- references.pdf

625 Ibid.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

154 Mickelson and Syverson (1997). Quaternary Geology of Ozaukee and Washington Counties, Mickelson, D., and Syverson, K., Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geologi cal and Natural History Survey Bulletin 91. 56 p. Accessed Online November 2013. http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/gis.htm , Ozaukee.

EPA letter (undated): Letter on r evised prevention of sign ificant deterioration (PSD) applicability determination in response to the January 8, 1990 court's remand order concerning Port Washington power plant’s being subject to new source performance standards (NSPS) and PSD requirements, from William G. Rosenber g, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, to Mr. John Boston, President, WEPCO. Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/nsr/nsrmemos/wepco.pdf

EPA Pres s Release (2003): U.S. Announces Major Clean Air Act Settlement with Wisconsin Electric Power Co.

- Company Agrees to Reduce More Than 105,000 Tons of Pollutants Annually, Release Date: 04/29/2003. Accessed Online November 2013. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/383a40d0cc9b8e62852 56d17005a99e4?OpenDocument

Galarneau and Masterson (20 01): Water Resources of the Sheboygan River Basin, Supplement to The State of the Sheboygan River Basin, Steve Galarneau and John Masterson. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ Sheboygan River Basin Geographical Management Unit (GMU), Publication # WR

669

- 01, May, 2001. Accessed Online November 2013. http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/sheboygan/WATERRESOURCES_JUNE_2001.pdf

Steidman et al., (1924): Limestones and Marls of Wisconsin, Steidman, Edward; Hotchkiss, William Otis, and Bean, Ernest F., Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin No. 66, Economic Series No. 22, Madison, Wisconsin, 1924. Accessed Online November 2013. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi

- bin/EcoNatRes/EcoNatRes

idx?type=turn&entity=EcoNatRes.WGB66Econ22.p0005&id=EcoNatRes.WGB66Ec on22&isize=text

Young and Batten (1980): Ground

- Water Resources and Geology of Washington and Ozaukee Counties, Wisconsin, H. L. Young and W. G. Batten, U. S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Informat ion Circular Number 38, 1980. Accessed Online November 2013. http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/IC38.pdf

Bertrand (1944): A Survey of the Wisconsin Lime Industry, Kenneth Bertrand, W isconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 413 pages, 1944. Accessed Online November 2013. http://images.library.wisc.edu/WI/EFacs/transactions /WT1944/reference/wi.wt1944.kbertrand.pdf

Ozaukee County Management Plan (2011): Ozaukee County Land and Water Resource Management Plan 2011

- 2015, Prepared by the Ozaukee County Land and Water Management Department, Version 5, 2/10/2011. Accessed Online N ovember 2013. http://www.co.ozaukee.wi.us/LandWaterManagement/PDF/DraftOzaukeeLand&WaterPlan2011

- 2015.pdfIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

155 

### PTa40. Wisconsin Power Service Corporat ion (WEPSCO) 626 

### Pulliam Power Station’s Ash Disposal Site, Green Bay, Brown County, Wisconsin 627



### Type: Landfill.



### Background and Description: An unlined, 80

- acre coal ash landfill commissioned in 1971, located in a diked area built on a former shallow wetlan d close to the mouth of the Fox River’s discharge to Green Bay. Considering that the landfill’s site borders on a significant water body to the north and on drainage ditches on the other three sides, ash may have been placed below the water table and/or su rface water elevation. Thick, dense clay till (with low hydraulic conductivity) underlies the landfill. 628 Portions of the landfill have been covered with about 4” of dredged material from Green Bay for diversion of run

- off and percolation. Groundwater flow is radial outward due to mounding. Older monitoring wells (designated “DNR”) were at least partially screened within the ash fill (hence, they represented actually leachate compositions); they were abandoned in 1995, and replaced by “MW” piezometers that w ere screened below the ash fill.

EPRI (2010) claims that, considering that Green Bay is immediately down

- gradient and the site is located in an urban area that receives municipal water obtained from Lake Michigan, there are no potential human receptors.

All of Brown County was subject to glaciation during Wisconsin and probably older stages of the Pleistocene epoch, and it is largely covered with unconsolidated glacial drift and lake deposits ranging in thickness from a thin veneer to more than 160 feet. 629 Lake deposits of sorted sand are present along the Fox River from De Pere (about 10 miles from the Fox River’s discharge point to the Green Bay) northward and along the shores of Green Bay. The Pleistocene deposits overlie Ordovician

- age dolomites and sa ndstones, which, in turn are underlain by a sequence of Cambrian

- age sandstones. The most important water

- bearing formations underneath the Green Bay area are the sandstones of Cambrian age, and the Prairie du Chien group dolomite and the St. Peter sandsto ne of Ordovician age. The three units can be considered to form one aquifer (hence, the sandstone aquifer or the deep aquifer ) which supplies large quantities of ground water to municipalities and industries. 630 The water of this deep confined aquifer is su bject to artesian conditions and is derived from rain and melting snow at or near the outcrop area about 5 to 20 miles to the west and northwest. 631 In the Green Bay area, the thickness of the deep aquifer ranges in from 550 to 640 feet, and 400 feet at the City of Green Bay. Groundwater in Brown County is typically a very hard, calcium magnesium bicarbonate type. Naturally occurring radium, 632 arsenic, 633 and strontium in the deep aquifer have been recently reported. 634

Sands in glacial lake deposits furnish smal l quantities of water to domestic wells along the shores of Green Bay. The water is from local precipitation. The bottoms of the Fox River and Green Bay are effectively sealed by silt, and very little, if any, recharge occurs directly from the river or bay to the aquifers.



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site showed down

- gradient levels of sulfate and manganese that would exceed WDNR’s Enforceable Standard (ES) levels (equivalent to secondary MCLs for these constituents) and levels of iron that exceed WDNR’s Preventative Action Level (PAL). According to information provided, however, the site had no down

- gradient ES points of standards application (i.e., all wells are within the Design Management Zone of the landfill). Thus, the Sta te would consider the sulfate and manganese exceedances to be PAL, not ES, exceedances. Further review by WDNR found an inadequate monitoring network at the facility.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

156 According to Cherry et al., (2000), this site has nine constituents in down

- gradient mo nitoring wells and ash wells (the older monitoring wells that were at least partially screened within the ash fill, and

626 WEPSC is a subsidiary of subsidiary of Integrys Energy Group.
627 In 2007, WEPSCO was purchased by Integrys Energy Group. According to Sourcewatch (2012), the Plant’s nameplate capacity was originally 410 MW, comprising eight generation units. Four have been retired and are no longer operating: Units 1 and 2 (10 MW each, came online in 1927 and retired in 1980); and Units 3 (30 MW, cam e online in 1943) and 4 (30 MW, came online in 1947), retired in 2007. The four operating units are fueled using low sulfur, Powder River Basin (PRB) coal from Wyoming, which contains about 5 percent ash: Unit 5: 50 MW (online since 1949), Unit 6: 62 MW (1 951), Unit 7: 75 MW (1958), and Unit 8: 125 MW (1964). Together, the units are capable of producing 312.5 MW of electricity. The Pulliam Plant burns 1.5 million tons of coal annually, which produce 60,000

- 70,000 tons of fly ash and 10,000 tons of bottom a sh annually. In 2009 and 2010, Pulliam installed equipment to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) on Units 5,6,7,8, and in 2009, Pulliam installed activated carbon system on Unit 8 to capture mercury. ( http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/company/pulliam.aspx ). There is also a natural gas fueled combustion turbine (82.6 MW) commissioned in 2003, which runs during peak energy demand. For beneficial use applications such as road embankments, see http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/environment/coal.aspx

. 628 EPRI (2010). For Brown County groundwater susceptibility, depth to water table, bedrock type, depth to bedrock, a nd soil deposits maps, see USGS (2007).
629 The unconsolidated materials, consisting mostly of fine grained silts and clays, were deposited by glacial Lake Oshkosh that existed in front of the Green Bay Lobe of the Laurentide Ice Sheet during the last glacia tions (Mass, 2010).

630 This statement reflects the realities of the late 1940s. Subsequent large increases in water withdrawal have resulted in an unsustainable drawdown and a large cone of depression, which was centered around the Green Bay metropolitan ar ea. Consequently, in 1957 the City of Green Bay switched to the use of Michigan Lake water as a drinking water source (e.g., Mass, 2010, Figs. 1

- 2 and 1

- 5). The current, limited level of pumping from the sandstone aquifer is also the result of the natural radium contents of this aquifer, which occasionally exceed EPA’s standard of 5 pCi/L.

631 Drescher (1953), Mass (2010), and Batten and Bradbury (1996, Figs. 7, 8, and 9). According to Drescher (ibid), in the Green Bay city area, the sandstone aquifer has a t ransmissivity of 10,600gpd/ft, and a coefficient of storage of 0.0002. Knowles (1964) cites a transmissivity of 13,200gpd/ft and a coefficient of storage of 0.0004 for the 590 feet deep Well BN 76, on the west side of Fox River on WEPSC’s property. Accord ing to Drescher (ibid), at the location of Well BN 76, the top of the aquifer is at a depth of 150 feet below ground level. Interpolating from Figs. 10, 12, and 13 in Drescher (ibid) yield the following approximate concentration levels for chloride, sulfat e, and TDS in the sandstone aquifer in the Pulliam Plant’s area: 15ppm, 50ppm, and 350ppm, respectively. Based on Drescher (ibid, Table 9) and Batten and Bradbury (1996, Table 6), the dissolved iron content of the sandstone aquifer waters ranges between 0. 2 and 2.8ppm, and the pH values are slightly alkaline (between 7.3 and 7.7).

632 For the probable causes, see http://il.water.usgs.gov/proj/gwstudies/radium/

, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0931/ML093160829.pdf , and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16857029

. 633 http://info.ngwa.org/GWOL/pdf/pdf/001467082.pdf and http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FPL00021535# According to Mass (ibid) and references therein, the top of the St. Peter Sandstone in the deep aquifer typically contains a zone of abundant arsenic

- bearing sulfide minerals (known as the secondary sulfide cement horizon, SCH). These sulfides tend to oxidize when exposed to air or to oxygenated water. Another possible natural s ource of dissolved arsenic in the deep aquifer ’s groundwater is the reduction of arsenic

- bearing iron (hydr)oxides where the aquifer is under confined conditions and the groundwater is reducing ( http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/staffpdf/Gotkowitzetal2004.pdf ). To the extent that sulfide oxidation is the major cause for mobilizing arsenic into the deep aquifer , potentiometric records of Well BN 76 from 1950 to 2 009 indicate that only around 1957, when the Green Bay’s area depression cone hit its lowest point ever of 340 feet msl, was the SCH at this well site exposed above the saturated zone. See Figs. 2

- 1 and 3

- 6 to 3

- 13 in Mass (ibid); Figure 7 and Plates 3

- 6 i n Knowles (ibid), and Drescher (ibid).

634 Mass (ibid) and references therein.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

157 monitored from 1975

- 1995) that exceeded federal standards: sulfate, TDS, boron, manganese, iron, chloride, aluminum, zinc, and pH. 635



### R esolution: The landfill was closed and capped in 1986. In 1994, WDNR required investigation of groundwater contamination and upgrade of monitoring network to reflect concentrations outside the screened ash zone intervals (deep piezometers in three separate locations), and a groundwater monitoring program is in effect. Ongoing monitoring at the site includes indicator parameters plus boron, selenium, manganese, and iron.


### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances found at this site , sulfate, manganese and iron, are within the design management zone of the landfill and are for constituents without health

- based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 636



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Asse ssments, Case #46 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Pro duct%20Damage%20Cases

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, Biology Department, Virginia Te ch., Blacksburg, Virginia. Prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Brown County/Prot ecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater contamination susceptibility map and evaluation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 p. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/brown/index.html

Drescher (1953): Ground

- Water Conditions in Artesian Aquifers in Brown County, Wisc onsin, W. J. Drescher, Geological Survey Water

- Supply Paper 1190, Prepared in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin, 1953. Accessed Online February 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1190/report.pd f

635 Sulfate was barely above the MCL (one time) in shallow down

- gradient, groundwater wells but excessive in nearby ash wells at 7,260 mg/L. TDS levels reached 1,750 mg/L in the gro undwater and 7,917 mg/L in the ash well. Boron was high at 28 mg/L; manganese was measured at 0.469 mg/L in groundwater and 6.240 mg/L in an ash well; iron from an ash well reached 142 mg/L; chloride levels reached 1,491 mg/L; aluminum and zinc were elevat ed in an ash well at 7,960 and 1,030 mg/L, respectively; and the highest pH in an ash well was 9.56.

636 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

158 Mass (2010): Drawdown, Recovery, and Hydrostratigraphy in Wisconsin’s Northeast Groundwater Management Area (Brown, Outagamie, and Calumet Counties), Julie C. Maas, Master Thesis, University of Wisconsin Green Bay, January 7, 2010. Accessed Online Febr uary 2013. http://www.uwgb.edu/luczajj/reprints/Maas_Thesis.pdf

Knowles (1964): Ground

- Water Conditions in the Green Bay Area, Wisconsin, 1950

- 60, Doyle B. Knowles, Geological Survey Wat er

- Supply Paper 1669

- J. P repared in cooperation with the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 1964. Accessed Online February 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1669j/report.pdf

Batten and B radbury (1996): Regional Groundwater Flow System between the Wolf and Fox Rivers near Green Bay, Wisconsin. William G. Batten and Kenneth R. Bradbury, Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey and Brown County Planning Commission, Wisconsin G eological and Natural History Survey Information Circular 75, 1996. Accessed Online February 2013. http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/IC75.pdf

Sourcewatch (2012): Pulliam Power Plan t, Sourcewatch, webpage last modified 5 September, 2012. Accessed Online August 2014. http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Pulliam_Power_Plant



### PTa41. Alliant (Formerly, Wisconsin Power and Light Company) Rock River Ash Disposal Facility, Beloit, Rock County, Wisconsin

Type: Surf

ace Impoundments (Ash Disposal Area and four Settling Basins).



### Background and Description: The Rock River Generating peak load Station is located north of Beloit, Wisconsin at 827 (West Beloit Rock) W. B. R. Townline Road on the west bank of the Rock Rive r. 637

, 638 Coal has not been burned at the site since 2000 because the facility closed the landfill it had used for fly ash. 639

, 640

Some confusion arises as a result from the waste site being classified as a ‘landfill’ under a RCRA permit (RCRA License #0728). H owever, by token of receipt of sluice water, it was actually a group of surface impoundments. 641 The unlined coal ash impoundment(s) near the banks of Rock River were active

637 The Rock River is a tributary of the Mississippi River.

638 The facility opened in the early 1950s and consists of two 284 MW boilers each wi th one steam turbine. Originally designed to burn Illinois Basin bituminous coal supplied by rail car or barge, the site switched to natural gas or lower sulfur Powder River Basin coal. Additionally, a 30 MW combustion turbine was added in 1967 and two 5 0 MW combustion turbines were added between 1972 and 1977. As of 2000, the boilers were capable of operating on a variety of fuel sources, including natural gas, Powder River Basin coal, #2 fuel oil and tire

- derived fuel. Electricity is generated via steam turbines and process water is taken from the Rock River.
639 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_River_Generating_Station
640 http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/46127242.html

641 According to Alliant Energy (2009) and GZA GeoEnvironmenta (2013), there are actually four impoundments that are subject to a WPDES permit, all commissioned in 1978 and decommissioned in 2000. These ponds have the following surface area and storage capacity, respectively: WPDES Pond 1 (1.7 acre, 18 acre

- feet), WPDES Pond 2 (1.35 acre, 19 acre

- feet), Slag Pond (2.94 acre, 166 acre

- feet), and Final Ash Pond (3.68 acre, 24 acre

- feet). All four

rec eived fly ash, slag and ‘other’ waste. While operating, solids were allowed to settle and water was discharged from the WPDES Pond 1 and WPDES Pond 2 into the Slag Pond. In addition to historically receiving water and unsettled solids from WPDES Pond 1, WP DES Pond 2 and the facility, the Slag Pond has and continues to receiveIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

159 between the 1950s and 2000, when the power plant switched to natural gas as its fuel source. 642 Ash may have been placed below the water table and/or surface water elevation. 643 While groundwater flow direction is toward the Rock River, no dwellings were observed between the site and the river. 644

The Rock River Disposal Facility is located in the floodplain of the Rock River, overlying the ancestral Rock River valley which has eroded more than 300 feet into the underlying bedrock

- sandstones of Cambrian age, and subsequently filled with Quaternary outwash and other fluvial deposits. 645 These

ou twash deposits consist of sorted and stratified medium to very coarse sand and gravel. The high permeability and transmissivity of these deposits renders them a plentiful aquifer. According to Zaporozec (1982, Figure 7), the main groundwater users within a radius of one mile from the Rock River Disposal Facility in 1979 were two industrial wells (one of which is apparently serves the power plant) and one irrigation well west of the Rock River, as well as seven small public water wells (less than 10,000 gall ons/day) and twelve irrigation wells on the east side of Rock River. 646



### Impact: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site show down

- gradient levels of arsenic and mercury that would exceed the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) dri nking water Enforcement Standard (ES) levels (equivalent to primary MCLs). The data also show down

- gradient levels of sulfate and iron that would exceed their ES levels (equivalent to secondary MCLs for these constituents). According to information provide d by WDNR, however, the site has no down

- gradient ES points of standards application due to its proximity to the Rock River (i.e., all wells are within the design management zone of the landfill). Thus, the State considers the Preventive Action Limit (PAL) exceedances

, not ES exceedances. The preventive action limit represents a lesser concentration of the substance than the enforcement standard. 647

EPRI claims that the tabulation of exceedances in groundwater before/after remediation in its 2010 report is based on time

- series plots in a power company report to the WDNR covering the period 1977 to 2007,

water from the Coal Pile Runoff Pond and stormwater runoff from the closed Landfill. Water and unsettled solids discharged from the Slag Pond into the Final WPDES Pond and then into th e Rock River. At least three of these inactive ponds can be still recognized in a recent Google Map image (accessed February 20, 2013) as their embankments have not yet been breached. See also Figure 25 in Zaporozec (1982): map showing location of solid wa ste disposal sites and surface impoundments in Rock County, and Table 12, ibid.

642 According to GZA GeoEnvironmenta (2013), the impoundments were commissioned for the purpose of settling CCW from the process streams of the facility and clarification of wate r prior to discharge.

643 For Rock County groundwater susceptibility, depth to water table, bedrock type, depth to bedrock, and soil deposits maps, see USGS (2007).

644 According to EPRI (2010).

645 Zaporozec (1982). These outwash deposits are a southward exte nsion of the Late

- Wisconsin age Johnstown Moraine.
646 According to Zaporozec (1982), pumping tests performed on Janesville and Beloit municipal wells yielded specific capacity of 280 to 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm) per foot of drawdown. Large yields of mo re than 500 gpm can be obtained in much of the sand and gravel deposits (See Figure 9 in Zaporozec 1982, for a map showing probable yields of wells in the sand and gravel aquifer of Rock County, Wisconsin). All high

- capacity industrial wells in the Beloit area and most irrigation wells are constructed in these aquifers. Groundwater of the three bedrock aquifers and the Quaternary aquifer in Rock County is a very hard, calcium

- magnesium

- bicarbonate type. The quality of the Quaternary aquifer’s water is good, with TDS in the Rock River’s Facility area being about 400 mg/L (Figure 20). Among the constituents that were determined in chemical analyses of groundwater in Rock County (including the three bedrock aquifers) are arsenic, barium, c admium, chromium, coba lt, copper, cyanide, lead, lithium, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, strontium, and zinc. All of them are below the recommended limits.

647 The PAL either is 10 percent, 20 percent, or 50 percent of the enforcement standard as specified by statute base d on the health

- related characteristics of the particular substance. Ten percent is used for cancer

- causing substances, 20% for substances with other health effects, and 50 percent for substances having aesthetic or other public

- welfare

concerns.IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

160 except for arsenic and mercury, which are based on data from the WDNR GEMS database. According to industry, onsite exceedances associated with CCRs involve a rsenic (>MCL), boron (above health advisory level), sulfate (up to x2 the SMCL), and TDS (x3 SMCL); and onsite exceedances (source uncertain) involve iron (up to x26 the SMCL). 648 According to WDNR’s comment to the docket, 649 arsenic ranged between 7

- 11 μg/L, selenium: 1

- 5 μg/L, boron: 1.3

- 3.7 mg/L, and sulfate, between 53

- 900ppm (mean: 322ppm). 650

The Utility claims (EPRI 2010) that according to the WDNR’s GEMS database, mercury was only sampled three times, during 1976 and 1977. The first samples in 1976 yield ed mercury values that were about x 1000 higher than the two subsequent samples, for which results were lower than the MCL of 2μg/L. Therefore, industry considers the first set of mercury sample results to be outliers. 651 EPRI (2010) claims also that accordi ng to records in the WDNR GEMS database, arsenic was sampled twice, with both samples taken in 1977. One down

- gradient well had arsenic concentrations higher than the current MCL in both samples.



### Resolution: According to EPA (2007), in 1996, as a result o f the PAL exceedances for sulfate and iron, WDNR required the company to begin submitting biennial ground water reports evaluating causes and trends relating to the continued PAL exceedances. Monitoring record comprises two surface water locations in the R iver, three piezometers, and 12 water

- table wells, spanning the period between September 1976 and October 1998. Ongoing monitoring at the site includes indicator parameters and iron.

According to EPRI (2010), the impoundment was capped in 2007, included 2 feet of soil with 6” topsoil cover, and remediation has been performed. According to GeoEnvironmenta (2013), in June 2011, WP&L was in the process of establishing closure requirements in cooperation with the WDNR. WP&L indicated they anticipate obtaining permanent closure status for the impoundments by 2014.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “Whereas the levels of arsenic and mercury in down

- gradient wells exceed health

- based enforcement standards, these exceedances are within the desig n management zone of the landfill and there is no evidence available of off

- site migration of contaminants. Therefore, this case was determined to be a potential damage case.” 652



### References EPA (2007): 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Cas e #42 and a reference therein ( Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

648 Note that according to Zaporozec (1982, Figure 19: Range of major constituents of ground water by aquifer ), the range of dissolved iron in sampled drinking water wells of the Quaternary aquifer is between 0.03 to 1.9 ppm/L, with a median of 0.04 mg/L. Hence, no n

- impacted wells contain dissolved iron up to only about six times the SMCL.
649 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416.
650 For a map of groundwater quality exceedances as of October 2009, see Figure 4 in Appendix F of GZA GeoEnvironmental (2013, virtual page 125), taken from RMT’s March 2010 Biennial groundwater monitoring report.
651 EPRI (2010): “A total of ten monitoring wells were sampled in 1976 and all ten had anomalously high mercury results. Five of these wells were sampled in 1977, and the other five were not sam pled again. Mercury was analyzed in two samples taken in 1977, before mercury analysis was discontinued at this site, and all ten mercury results (two sample events for five wells) were lower than the MCL.”

652 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

161 EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed On line July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%2 0Cases

Alliant Energy (2009): Response to Request for Information under Section 104(e) of CERCLA, May 22, 2009. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epa. gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/alliant

- rock.pdf

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Rock County/Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater Cont amination Susceptibility Map and Evaluation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 p. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/rock/susceptibility.html

Zaporozec (1982): Ground

- Water Quality of Rock County, Wisconsin, Alexander Zaporozec, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Information Circular Number 41, in Cooperati on with Rock County Division of Environmental Health, March 1982. Accessed Online February 2013 http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/IC41.pdf

GZA GeoEnvironmenta (2013): WPDES Pond 1, WPDES Pond 2, Slag Pond, and Final WPDES Pond, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Rock River Generating Station, Beloit, Wisconsin, GZA Engineers and GeoEnvironmental, Inc., January 31, 2013. Accessed Online April 2013. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/alliant_rockriver_final.pdf

A brief summary, site map, GW contour map, and selected monitoring records of B

- 9A (down

- gradient) vs. W

- 1 (up

- gradient) are found in D. Rudy’s ’legacy’ files.



### PTa42. PacifiCorp Energy’s Dave Johnston Power Plant, 653 

### Glenrock, Converse County, Wyoming

Type: Landfills, and a 2009 Spill into the North Platte River.



### Background and Description : The Dave Johnston power plant is located approximately 5 miles east of Glenrock, Converse County, Wyoming, along Interstate 25, on the north (left) bank of the North Platte River. In addition to three landfills (one active and two inactive), the Site com prises also eight ponds (not

implicated) : two active CCR settling ponds, one active clear pond, one conveyance canal (referred to as the Blowdown Canal), two former CCR settling ponds, and two former clear ponds (currently used as supplemental water storag e and clear ponds). 654 The CCR impoundments are located generally west and

653 Commissioned in 1958, the plant c omprises four generation units

– for a total of 817 MW nameplate capacity (net capacity: 762 MW). Units and In

- Service Dates : 114 MW (1959), 114 MW (1961), 230 MW (1964), 360 MW (1972). Dave Johnston burns as much as 4 million tons of sub

- bituminous coal p er year. Until the mine’s closure in 2000, that coal came from neighboring Dave Johnston Mine; currently it is supplied via rail from other Wyoming mines. http://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pacificorp/doc/Energy_Sources/EnergyGeneration_FactSheets/RMP_GFS_ Dave_Johnston.pdf
654 GEI (2011). For summary information on impoundment dimensions, storage capacity, and performanc e history see Table 2

- 1 in GEI (2011).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

162 north of the power plant. The primary uses of the CCR impoundments are the holding and recovery of bottom ash received from the power plant and storage of water for later re

- use at th e plant. 655

According to EPRI (2010), three (dry) ash management areas, all unlined, are located east of the power plant. Two are closed and received only fly ash, while an active site (as of 1988) received fly ash and small amounts of plant trash. The thre e sites cumulatively covered an area of about 50 acres, and there was no information on the age of these facilities. There were several other closed ash management areas

on

- site, estimated to be 10 to 20 years old, and the power company reports that there are no water quality exceedances associated with these areas.

The Dave Johnston Plant is located in the southern, steep flank of the Powder River Basin, close to the foothills of the Laramie Mountains. 656 According to GEI (2011), the plant and related struc tures are presumed to be constructed on Quaternary alluvial (sand, silt, and clay) deposits of the North Platte River. The overburden thickness is not known and large areas of the plant site have been disturbed by cut and fill activities over the last 60 y ears. According to the Geologic Map of Wyoming (1985) bedrock in the area consists of the Late

- Cretaceous age Lance Formation, 657 which underlies the Paleocene age Fort Union Formation. The Lance Formation is characterized by thickly

- bedded gray sandstone wi th thin inter

bedded shale and conglomerate layers. Its maximum thickness in Converse County is 2,900 feet. 658

According to EPRI (2010), groundwater flow is to the south toward, but not necessarily discharging to, the North Platte River. There are no homes within one mile down

- radius.



### Impact: 659 Groundwater: According to EPA (2007), exceedances of the primary MCL for cadmium and the secondary MCLs for manganese and sulfate were observed in ground water up

- gradient and down

gradient of the site. Interpretatio ns of sampling results were difficult to make because other potential sources of contamination exist, such as other waste disposal areas at the site; contaminants naturally occurring in the soil which is highly mineralized around the Johnston site; 660 and un certainties with regard to what degree leachate from the two landfills had reached the down

- gradient wells. 661 In addition, elevated boron levels were detected in groundwater beneath the site. 662

EPRI (2010) claims that exceedances of cadmium, sulfate, and ma nganese are not associated with CCR. Cadmium, manganese, and sulfate concentrations also exceeded the MCL in up

- gradient wells suggesting their source was uncertain. The power company reports that a follow

- up investigation found that the cadmium and mangan ese were naturally occurring, while the source of sulfate was uncertain. 663

Surface Water: On January 8, 2009, the Blowdown Canal 664 released, over a 24

- hour period, 14,400 gallons of coal ash processing water into the recirculation canal, which feeds NPDES Outfall 007. 665 In response to a low pH at Outfall 007, fresh water flow was increased to the No.4 Clear Pond and Blowdown Canal to keep the discharge waters in compliance. The flow into the pond eventually exceeded the Blowdown Canal discharge capability s o the water level bridged the berm and flowed into 1B ash pond, bypassing the normal designed flow configuration. The water ultimately discharges into the North Platte River.



### Resolution: According to EPRI (2010), there is no information on remedial act ion or on the existence of a monitoring well network associated with the landfill area.

In response to the January 2009 spill, plant personnel opened a water control valve at the discharge end of the Blowdown Canal to stop it from overflowing. Samples we re taken of the process water in the Blowdown Canal, the recirculation canal water, and the water of the North Platte River upstream ofIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

163 where the recirculation canal discharges into the river. 666 A contractor was to build up the Blowdown Canal berm with fill material to remediate the discharge.

In response to stakeholder’s concerns raised in the 2010 Denver Public Hearing, WDEQ responded to EPA Region 8 followup inquiry 667 that corrective action has been taken by the state to address the spill. EPA Region 8 wa s to close the investigation pending a confirmation letter from the state water program.



### Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “Whereas exceedances of the primary MCL (cadmium) and the secondary MCLs (manganese and sulfate) were observed in ground water down

gradient of the site, the natural occurrence of mineralization products in the local soils and possible and other potential sources of contamination Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.” 668



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustio n Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #65 and a reference therein ( Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.) http://www.reg ulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

655 According to GEI (2011), ash ponds 1A/1B and 4A/4B are lined with a flexible membrane installed after ponds’ commissioning, and Ponds 4A and 4B are also lined with 3 feet of compacted clay that was installed during pond construction . All the other ponds (The 1A/1B Ponds, Blowdown Canal, and the 4 Clear Pond) are unlined.

656 Lane et al., (1972).
657 For additional information on the Lance Formation, see: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc

unit.php?unit=WYKl%3B0

658 Lane et al., (1972).
659 For citizens’ complaints about fugitive dust impacts, see Docket comment EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10019. Citizen concerns expressed in the CCR proposed rul e’s Louisville, KY Public Hearing (September 28, 2010) about fugitive dust, are substantiated by dust wipes from residents’ properties and indoors, with arsenic at 2.72 mg/wipe and lead at 1.34mg/wipe.

660 ADL (1985) states that: “Widespread measurement at the site of what might elsewhere be considered elevated chemical constituent level (e.g., sulfate, about 1,000ppm) is not due to the waste landfill.....Most of the ‘elevated’ measurements reflect pervasively high background levels characteristic of highly mi neralized groundwater in many western settings. However, lower measured values (e.g., sulfate about 100ppm) at one background and one peripheral well indicate that even in highly mineralized arid areas there may be areas of good water quality.” Rapp and Du rum (1963) describe the general properties of groundwater in both the upper, unconsolidated aquifer along the North Platte River as characterized by a wide rang e in

- the chemical constituents; high TDS contents (occasionally with more than 1,500 ppm of dissolved solids and a hardness of more than 400 ppm). Sodium and sulfate are the principal mineral substances in solution.

661 ADL (1985) states that “Travel time fr om the 20

- year old inactive landfill to a much closer (to the landfill) down

gradient well is estimated to be in excess of 20

- years, accounting for both unsaturated and saturated zone travel.”

662 ADL (1985), cited in the RTP (1988), page 5

- 32.

663 Tabulation of exceedances in groundwater based on results presented in the RTC (1988).

664 Constructed in 1972, with one

- acre foot capacity.

665 PacifiCorp Energy (2009); and Exhibit 5B

- 1 of the proposed CCR rule’s June 2010 RIA and Table L.1 of that RIA’s Appendix K11. According to GEI (2011, page 13), “The cut slope to the south of the Blowdown Canal failed during a rainstorm in 2008 and resulted in the release of approximately 300 gallons to the recirculation canal. The plant subsequently re

- configured the blowdown can al to reduce the potential for future releases.” This is apparently a reference to the same event cited above, but we are unsure about the reason for the difference in cited dates and spilled volume.

666 The incident (#090109

- 1535) was documented (January 16 , 2009) in a letter of release from the power plant to WDEQ.

667 R elayed in an October 21, 2011 email from K. Morrison to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER

. 668 EPA (2007).IIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

164 EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Site Information. EPRI 1020554, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online August 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

RTP (1988): Report to Congress (RTP ) on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants (EPA530

- SW

- 88

- 002), US EPA, February, 1988. Accessed Online October 2012 http://www.epa.gov/osw/non haz/industrial/special/fossil/coal

- rtc.pdf

ADL (1985): Arthur D. Little, Inc., Full Scale Field Evaluation of Waste Disposal for Coal

- Fired Electric Generation Plants, prepared by the Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory of the U.S. Environme ntal Protection Agency for the Office of Solid Waste, EPA

- 600

- 7

- 85

- 028, June 1985. Accessed Online January 2013. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=AUTHOR&INPUT1=Cooper%20AND %20C%20AND%20D&TYPE1=ALL&item_count=14

GEI (2011): Specific Site Assessment for Coal Combustion Waste at PacifiCorp Energy, Dave Johnston Power Plant, Glenrock, Wyoming. GEI Consultants, June 2011. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/pacificorp

- davejohnson

- final.pdf

PacifiCorp Energy (2009): Dave Johnston Power Station: Response to Request for I nformation Under Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9604(e), March 30, 2009. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/pacific

- johnson.pdf

Rapp and Durum (1963): Reconnaissance of the Geology and Ground

- Water Resources of the La Prele Area, Converse County, Wyoming, J.R. Rapp, with a Sec tion on the Chemical Quality of the Ground

Water, W.H. Durum, U.S. Geologic Survey Circular 243, 1963. Accessed Online January 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1953/0243/report.pdf

Lane et al., (1972): Geologic Map Atlas and Summary of Economic Mineral Resources of Converse County, Wyoming, Donald W. Lane in collaboration with Forrest K. Root and Gary B. Glass. The Geological Survey of Wyoming County Resource Series No. 1, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, April 1972. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/public

- info/onlinepubs/docs/CRS

- 1.pdfIIa. C CR Damage Case Reassessment December 2 01 4

165