Alexander Livnat, Ph.D.

12/18/2014

This is the second out of five volumes describing EPA’s current state of knowledge of CCR damage 

cases. This volume comprises 42 damage case-specific modules. Each module contains background 

information on the host power plant, type and design of the CCR management unit(s), their 

hydrogeologic setting and status of groundwater monitoring system, evidence for impact, regulatory 

actions pursued by the state and remedial measures taken, litigation, and rationale for the site’s 

current designation as a potential damage case in reference to pre-existing screenings. Ample 

footnotes and a list of references provide links to sources of information.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

1

IIa. Coal Combustion Residuals

Potential Damage Cases

(Reassessed, Formerly Published);

(Cases PTa01 to PTa42)
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PTa01. TVA Colbert Fossil Fuel Plant, Colbert County, Alabama .............................................................4

PTa02. TVA Widows Creek Steam Fossil Fuel Plant, Stevenson, Jackson County, Alabama .................10

PTa03. Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla Steam Electric Generating Station, Navajo County, Arizona14

PTa04. Florida Power & Light Lansing Smith Plant, Bay County, Florida ..............................................18

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

Illinois.........................................................................................................................................................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

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

County, Hutsonville, Illinois.......................................................................................................................36

PTa09. Commonwealth Edison/Midwest Generation Powerton Plant – 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 Power 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 Generating Station, Wheatfield, Jasper County, 

Indiana ........................................................................................................................................................74

PTa19. Muscatine County Landfill, Montpelier, Iowa ..............................................................................79

PTa20. Duke Energy (Formerly 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 .............................................................................................................................................84
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Power Allen Steam Generating Plant, Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina.............100

PTa27. Great River Energy (GRE) - (formerly Cooperative Power Association/United Power) Coal 

Creek Station, Underwood, 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 County, Tennessee ......................120

PTa33. Dominion Virginia Power’s Battlefield Golf Course, Chesapeake, Virginia..............................127

PTa34. Dairyland Power Cooperative 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 Power 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 .......161
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 

Pickwick 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 nearby 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 3and Disposal Area 5 Drainage Basin);

4

and two landfills (Disposal Area 5 Dry Stack,

5

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

adjacent to Bottom Ash Pond 4 there is also a clay-lined chemical pond7that 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 consumes 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 coal 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 Illinois 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, dewatered, 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 pond, 

but shortly after its commissioning, a sinkhole failure occurred in its northwestern portion. The sinkhole caused 

release of sluiced ash. The sinkhole was reportedly treated and capped, and disposal operations then shifted to 

dredge cell method in south 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 plan was

developed in 1976 for final grading and storm water management. Between 1982 and 1990, COF periodically drystacked 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 that is less than 3 feet-thick.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 to dry fly ash handling in 

1990. Because 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 Bottom 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

 For 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 medium-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, oriented 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 with 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 auxiliary 

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 intermittently through serial discharge DSN 010.

12 According to http://www.tva.com/environment/air/colbert.htm, in support of recent 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) in 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 subsurface 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) in February of 2012, a sinkhole caused process water from the coal 

unloading 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 encountered during the subsurface explorations are indicators of karst terrain and the 

potential for future sinkhole development.”
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

6

The upper bedrock surface at the site is extremely irregular due to differential weathering of the 

limestone. 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 limited 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 occur 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 saturation 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 Mean 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. Monitoring 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). This 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 whole 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 site 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 decreased 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 level 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 River, 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 groundwater 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 deertoe (truncilla 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 Pickwick 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

7

Impact: According to EPA (2007), only limited 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, chromium, 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 recorded 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 concentrations 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 since 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 manganese, 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 completed 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) claims22 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), lead 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 between 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 downgradient 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, respectively, 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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

For the sampling period between April 2010 and April 2013, the following exceedances were recorded in 

more than two sampling events24 (unless otherwise noted, maximum values - in ppbs - in parenthesis): 

Arsenic (76), cobalt (19), antimony (59), lithium (200), molybdenum (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 exceedance 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 Disposal 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 migration 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 regarding CommenterIdentified 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 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 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. Accessed Online July 2012.

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 Risk-based Corrective Action, to semiannual monitoring of 18 parameters. The 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 was 

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 regularly. 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

9

EIP (2011): Risky Business: Coal Ash Threatens America’s Groundwater Resources at 19 More Sites. 

EIP Report, December 13, 2011. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0259. Accessed Online July 2012. 

http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/documents/121311EIPThirdDamageReport.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 (Issued 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/onlinepubs/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 Online 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. Accessed 

Online August 2012.

http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/A-REVIEW-OF-THE-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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, February 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 Plant 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, Tennessee 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): 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

TVA (2013): Fact Sheet: Colbert Fossil-Coal Retirements, November 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#T
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 of 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 located west of Widows Creek), and the other, 

for FGD gypsum (including a main pond and a settling/stilling pond, pool area of 104 acres29) from 

 

26 Construction 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 through 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 emissions, 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 sulfur 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 plans 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 scrubber 

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) Permit 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 to 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, Document 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, Document 18.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 from 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 Widows 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 within 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, however, 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 and 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 left 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 corrective 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 Fossil 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) contamination 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 (2010), 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 macroinvertebrates and dislocating the resident fish community. Concentrations 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 Health 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

12

up-gradient well was attributed to an off-site source.37 The 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-based 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), substantially

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 creek 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 remains 

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 was 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 

habitat 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 actions 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 convert 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 with 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 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

 

37 EPRI (2010).

38 This site also experienced 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 not 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed 

Online August 2012.

http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/A-REVIEW-OF-THE-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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): Widows Creek Fossil Plant Gypsum Removal Project, Jackson County, Alabama, Final 

Environmental Assessment, Project Number 2009-38, Tennessee Valley Authority, July 2009. Accessed 

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–2009–0640-

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#T
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 northeastern 

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 ash43 and the other – high 

density slurry bottom ash),44 and two small, de-minimis, 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 and 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 the 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 tons 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 was 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 pilot site, with injection targeting the Devonian-age 

Martin Formation, at a depth of 3,600 to 4,500 ft BGS (http://www.azdeq.gov/download/012709fact.pdf). A recent 

controversy between the USEPA and 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 Cholla 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 inadequate. 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 highdensity 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 storage in a monofill north of the bottom ash 

pond.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 background 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 provenance 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 Formation, 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 anhydrite) 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 roughly 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 developed 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), monitoring 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 poor water quality,” but no background or up-gradient data are available. The commenters50

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 management 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-specific 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, and 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 ponds 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 Council (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 Arizona’s Aquifer Protection Program.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 (from 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, chloride, 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 the 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 levels 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 decreased. 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 submits56 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

References

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #67, docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA2006-0796-0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007; and a reference therein (Memorandum 

from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions 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 tissue 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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 Environmental 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/industrial/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 Cretaceous 

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 Groundwater 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. Accessed 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.openrepository.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.google.com/books?id=oAPy_2xYf_YC&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=Arizona+Public+Serv

ice+Co.+Cholla+lake&source=bl&ots=Qybb9yqwlO&sig=ePdyLxIH7Sl5y2wsU9ICi39GD8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IwzYUuSQOrXMsQSFpYHgDg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ

#v=onepage&q=Arizona%20Public%20Service%20Co.%20Cholla%20lake&f=false

December 14, 2011 email from K. Morrison, EPA R8, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

18

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

Type: Surface Impoundment.

Background and Description: An unlined, 172-acre surface impoundment,59 constructed in 1965 at 

the Florida Power and Light Lansing Smith power plant in a coastal area60 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 supplemental 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 aquifer. The water of this aquifer 

showed exceedances of Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWSs) for cadmium (in 10 of the 14 

downgradient wells), chromiumvi (in one of the 14 downgradient wells), and fluoride (in five of the 14 

downgradient wells); and of 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 standards, as cited above, in on-site ground water attributable to CCR.

According to EarthJustice,64 groundwater monitoring data in the Florida DEP report65 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 at 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, Middle 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 owned 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

19

Florida Power’s rebuttal 66 states that the alleged exceedances of radium 226 and 228 are the result of 

natural background conditions;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 groundwater 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 upgradient 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 located 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 Intracoastal 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 sand 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, sulfate ≤ 

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 aquifers, 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 belt 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 defined 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 construct 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 detection 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, as tabulated in Section 5 of the 1988 Report to Congress.

71 EPRI (2010).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

20

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This site has been reclassified 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 CommenterIdentified 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 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 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 

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 

Station, 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, Florida, 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 Series 46, 1972. Accessed Online January 2013.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

21

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

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

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 uppermost 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 migration 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 preservation 

(http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/lakeoftheozarks/Documents/PreservationFactSheet.pdf), this power plant is built 

on 9,000 acres of mostly un-reclaimed 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 Station, together with four other Ameren power plants in 

Illinois (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130314005493/en/Dynegy-Acquire-Ameren-EnergyResources-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 were 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 been 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 the 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 Hlinka 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, 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 generated much of the glaciofluvial 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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: According 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 constituent.79 There is no clear indication of downgradient 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 IEPA,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 

case 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 CommenterIdentified 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACTS-OF-COAL-COMBUS.htm

 

78 Illinois EPA (2011).

79 According to Cherry et al., (2000), overall six constituents in down-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 children 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 plant. 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 environmental 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 

showed 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

23

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 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 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 Site 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-coalash/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.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

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

Mason County, Illinois

Type: Surface Impoundments.

Background and Description: The Havana Power Station84 (HPS) is located in the town of Havana in 

central Illinois, on the east bank of the Illinois 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.sourcewatch.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 operation. 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 arrived 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

24

the Havana Power Plant: (i) the active, lined85 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, no 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).

According 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 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-company-et-al-civilaction.

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

86 Havana Power Station (2009). However, according 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 annually 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 runoff. 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, narrative 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 rejects 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 lowvolume wastes to the Main Pond, where most of the solid by-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 Pond 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 Pond System.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 medium-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 10-2cm/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 to 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 underflowing 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 sheet 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 postclosure 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 

Impoundment, 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 Protection 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. Illinois 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 River 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 of 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-degradation

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 concluded 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. Finally, 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 Jan. 1-Sept. 30, 2013, 

Securities report, Note 13—Commitments and Contingencies, the permit appeal remains pending:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1379895/000137989513000023/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 impoundment (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 similar 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-gradient 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 manganese 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 Consent 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 concentrations 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 source. 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 postclosure 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 states106 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 downgradient 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, however, 

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-closure groundwater quality improvement 

than the type of cap.

106 IEPA (2011).

107 EPA (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

28

References

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #49 and a reference therein 

(Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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/ProductAbstract.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 Strategy Progress Report, October 2011. Accessed Online 

August 2012.

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash-impoundment/documents/ash-impoundment-progress-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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

29

Havana Power Plant, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., Havana, Illinois, Project # 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 Midwest 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 14, 2012. 

Accessed Online January 2013.

http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2011/dynegy-havana/responsiveness-summary.pdf

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.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

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

Hennepin, Putnam County, Illinois

Type: Surface Impoundments, 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 systems: 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.sourcewatch.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 the 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 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-civilaction.

109 State Rte. 71 W, Hennepin, IL 61327.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

30

impoundment (EAPS) operated from 1958, both decommissioned in 1997.110 There is also, a new, twocell, 20.5-acres lined ash pond that came into service in 1997.111

 

110 According to GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012), there are 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 cells. 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 disposal 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 existing 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. The 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 designed 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 the 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 landfill 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 ash, 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/edgar/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 mercury), 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 

were 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 mercury emissions and fish mercury levels in Illinois (Muller, 2006).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 consisting 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

The 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 than 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 feet higher than normal river stage, and is bordered to the southwest and west by a swampy 

area.116 Depth 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 upland 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 definition 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-Stage 

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 Generation (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) states that the ‘Geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of 

the aquifer is 1.7 x 10-1cm/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 The 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 public 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 east-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 pile 

(Dynegy Generation, ibid).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

32

Groundwater monitoring at AEAPS comprises 15 monitoring wells. The Primary and Secondary AEAPS 

Cells are monitored 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 Illinois 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 appeared 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 ash 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 ‘background 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), groundwater 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 is 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 towards 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 groundwater 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, numbered 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 estimated 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 study.

123 According to Cherry et al., (2000), exceedances involved the same three constituents in wells situated downgradient 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 before 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 beginning 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. Monitoring data postdating the 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 conductivity, 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 consistently 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 eastern 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 PZ27.126 TDS exceeded the standard once at PZ-23. Iron and manganese 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 three 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 concentrations 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, organicrich, channel-fill deposits (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 release 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 was 

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 concentration 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 once 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

34

soil, or to the depth that some wells were finished in the aquifer.127 The same low-oxidation potential is 

invoked also to explain 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 well130 and selenium was observed only one time at one well. Other parameters that 

exceeded State standards are iron, lead, manganese, and nitrate. However, these 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 

Environmental 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 are 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 impoundment 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 trending 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). Similarly, 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 only 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 Arsenic 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 groundwater 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 Illinois 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 

extensive use of nitrogen fertilizers upgradient of the site: Nitrate is a widespread and nonpoint source of 

contamination to shallow groundwater in the region. 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

35

established in 1997.132 Monitoring continues under a closure work plan. The 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 CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000).

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796-0015

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 (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 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

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 the IEPAapproved 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 still 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

36

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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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 Report 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 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.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-108994. 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: Surface 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-CountyIllinois_2178.html, the two oldest generation units that came 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=irolnewsArticle&ID=1613335&highlight=). Closure took place as planned (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-

07/news/sns-rt-utilities-firstenergycoal-factboxl1e8g38dr-20120503_1_coal-fired-power-plants-gas-plants-coalplants/2.

136 NPDES #IL0004120.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 impoundments 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 service 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 uppermigration zone140 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 facility 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 runoff 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 unconfined, 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 downgradient 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 the 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, Cross-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 screened 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 alluvial 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 residential 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 that 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 elevated 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 aquifer, 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 deleterious 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 landowner 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 through 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 with 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 boron 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 Cherry 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 2,450 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 accord 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 aquifer at Hutsonville.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

39

standards for these four contaminants. IPCB denied the petition, a position upheld 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 such a site-specific rule has been indeed 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 Pond-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 Regarding CommenterIdentified 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* definition 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 

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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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/.../PondDClosureAlternativesReport.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, October 16, 2012. Accessed Online January 2014.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/ameren_hutson_final.pdf

GenerationHub (2014): 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-atproposed-coal-waste
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 miles south of Pekin, off Illinois 

Route 29. EPA (2007) and a document cited therein155 provide a detailed description of this site and its 

history.156 The only recent revisions157 comprise a correction of the landfills’ area from 438 acres (as cited 

in the 1988 Report 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 Commonwealth 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 originally 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 each, 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 EPRI (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 (Powerton 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 of 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 Materials in Pavement Construction, Publication Number: FHWA-RD-97-148

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/97148/020.cfm), “Crack 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 

still 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 an 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 contamination 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 categorizing 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 water 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 December, 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 

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-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-complaintover-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), cadmium 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 samples 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 out 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). Ten 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 CA PHG for hexavalent 

chromium; and SMCL exceedances also include iron and TDS.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 groups170 filed a complaint with the Illinois 

Pollution Control Board against the Powerton Plant as well as other three Midwest Generation plants.171

Based on Powerton’s own monitoring reports since 2010, at which time monitoring was mandated by 

IEPA, arsenic, boron, chloride, iron, lead, manganese, 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 disposal173 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 Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: There are exceedances of primary and 

secondary MCLs in ground water and surface water at the site. The exceedances of secondary MCLs in 

ground water appear attributable to management of CCW. The exceedances 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): Sierra 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-RCRA2006-0796-0022).

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 

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 Citizens 

against Ruining the Environment.

171 Sierra Club et al, (ibid) and http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1238774052/Environmental-groups-file-complaintover-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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

44

Envirosphere (1979): Report to Utility Solid Waste Activities 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 Disposal 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-SW88-002. 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 2013.

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 Groundwater Resources at 19 More Sites, 

Environmental Integrity Project, December 12, 2011. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0259. Accessed 

Online January 2013.

http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/documents/121311eipthirddamagereport.pdf

Illinois Coal (1979): James Krohe Jr., Illinois Periodicals Online, Illinois Issues, September 1979. 

Accessed Online January 2013.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1979/ii790914.html

PeoriaStory (2013): Pekin power plant purchased, October 21, 2013. Accessed Online January 2014.

http://peoriastory.typepad.com/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 

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

PTa10. Dynegy Midwest (formerly: Illinois Power) Vermilion 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 River 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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-1970s) 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-AnnouncesComprehensive-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-company-et-al-civilaction.

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 

facilities 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 overflow 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 Permit (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 backwash 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 According 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 about 

2,280 acre-feet filled with CCR (fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and ‘other’, associated waste). According to 

Dewberry & Davis (2012), since 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

46

cell, lined and active New (East) Ash Pond System (constructed in 1988 and expanded in 2002).182

Whereas 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 also 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 Plant 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 MCLs. 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, sulfate, 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 semi-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 power 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 from 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 application, 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). Dewberry & 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 http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2011/dynegy-vermilion/index.pdf

189 IEPA (ibid).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 CommenterIdentified 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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%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 Information under CERCLA Section 104(e), March 24, 2009. 

Accessed Online August 2012.

http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/dynegy-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 2012. 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/dynegy-vermilion/index.pdf

 

190 EPA (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Station192 is located about 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 operated 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 dryhandled in a landfill.197, 198

The plant site is situated 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 drinking 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 downgradient. 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 nameplate 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 Ameren’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 cooling 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 capacity. 

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 the 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

49

Impact: According to EPA (2007), monitoring data at this site200 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 directly 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 associated 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 constituents 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 CCR 

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 groundwater 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, iron, 

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 the 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 findings 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 samples 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 iron 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 high.

• 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 higher concentrations in wells with very low 

CCR indicator concentrations, suggesting a potential alternative cause for the observed concentrations.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

50

According to EPRI (2010), the caps of Cells A-D and of Cell E consist of 3-feet of clay with hydraulic 

conductivity 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 ”approved 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 

to 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 CommenterIdentified 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?k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20Produc

t%20Damage%20Cases

IEPA (2010): Illinois Environmental Agency (IEPA)’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 Environmental Agency (IEPA)’s Ash Impoundment 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 Environmental Services (2010): Response to Request for Information under CERCLA Section 

104(e), January 16, 2010. Accessed Online August 2012.

http://www.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 Responsiveness 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 Permit No. IL0064785 (2012).

205 EPA (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed 

Online August 2012.

http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/A-REVIEW-OF-THE-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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) Permit 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 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-company-et-al-civilaction.

207 According to EPRI (2002), the 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 constructed 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 Survey, 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, 2000, Investigation of Closure Options for the West Ash Impoundment, Wood 

River Power Station
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

52

complexes: the 19 acres, 210 ac-ft- capacity West Ash Pond (WAP),208 and the 38 acres, 435 ac-ftcapacity East Ash Pond (EAP).209

In 1993, the primary pond was 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 1999, 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 current 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 EPRI (2002), 

 

208 According to Dewberry & Davis (2011), comprising four cells: cells #1 and #2W have been inactive for an 

extended period of time, whereas cells #2E and #3 have been active since 1977.

209 According to Dewberry, ibid, comprising 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 10-7cm/sec; an 8” layer of drainage rock and pipe to serve as a leachate-collection 

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 discharged 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 Natural 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 northeast 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 federal 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 190 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

53

there 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 appear 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 industrial 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 areas.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, respectively. 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 higher 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) Wood 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 leachate 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 microbiallyenhanced 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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, Case #54 and a reference therein 

(Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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 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 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

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

Dewberry & 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. Accessed Online August 2012.

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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

55

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

County, Indiana222

Type: Landfills and Surface Impoundments. 

Background and Description: EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on 

Wastes from the 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 Michigan 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 landfills225 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/index.php?title=Bailly_Generating_Station, the Plant’s nameplate capacity is

604 MW, comprising two coal-fired units (“Unit 7”: 190 MW and “Unit 8”: 413 MW), that came online in 1962 and 

1968, respectively. According to Hardy (1981), the Bailly Generating Station (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 southern 

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 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-coalplant01132011,0,4399852.story). The settlement also calls for upgrades to existing FGD and selective catalytic reduction 

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 and 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 NIPSCO (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 GeoEnvironmental, 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 (1981) 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 (‘ponds 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 periodically 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 facility 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 (HDPE) liner.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

56

According to EPRI (2010) the two landfills occupy less than 4 and 16 acres, respectively, while 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) permit.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 comprises 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 portion of the Great Marsh (an interdunal 

lowland), and the Calumet 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 footprint. According to GZA GeoEnvironmental (2012, Section 1.2.2 and 

Figures 2 and 3) they 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 

goes 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 Management, 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 area 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 includes 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 risk 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 Pleistocene to Holocene geology of the southern shore of Lake 

Michigan, see KellerLynn (2010) and references therein.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 combined 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 Areas 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 Michigan. 

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 artificial northsouth 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 feet 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 formation 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 sand 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 Michigan, 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 across 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 

depth 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 has 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 ponds. 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

58

feet northeast of the site. However, no exceedances of site-related constituents 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) and 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 observed241 that 

cadmium was the only constituent whose down-gradient off-site concentration exceeded 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 wells. 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 north 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, manganese, 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 increased 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 settling 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-pond 

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 potassium-40, ranged between about 1.5 and 17 pCi/L.

According to U.S.EPA (2012), in 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 samples 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 and 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, respectively, 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 between coal combustion waste and cadmium 

were based on the detection of cadmium exceedances also in upgradient wells. These observations can be reinterpreted as caused by groundwater mounding (as pointed out by Hardy, 1981), whereby wells designated as 

‘upgradient’ were actually located downgradient. 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

59

wetland complex243 and into Blag Slough244 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, 

respectively. 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 addition 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 

Section 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 

wetland 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 Congress 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 adjacent 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 written 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/pdfs/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 to 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 report 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, specifically, 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

60

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “While levels of arsenic and lead found onsite 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 (2010) 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 Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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 2012. 

http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20

Product%20Damage%20Cases

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

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. 

Region 5 Waste (2013): Northern Indiana 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 Indiana 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 impacts, 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

61

http://archive.org/stream/effectsofseepage00meye#page/n9/mode/2up

Thompson (1987): Sedimentology, 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. (Unpublished.)

Thompson (1994): History and Architecture of Wetland Development 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 

Lakes 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 Dunes National Lakeshore. Paul E. Rothrock and George C. Manning, Randall 

Environmental Center, Taylor University, Upland, Indiana, August 2011.

http://www.epa.gov/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 Assessment 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 Comments, 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 Generating 

Station, Porter County, Indiana, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EA-0420, April 1990. Accessed 

Online January 2013.

http://www.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 WaterResources Investigations Report 85-4340, 1986. Accessed Online January 2013.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1985/4340/report.pdf
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

62

Shedlock et al., (1993): Interactions between ground water and wetlands, 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=PDF&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 Interior, 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 and 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 InService 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 gas. 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 adjacent, about 0.4 acres large, leachate collection pond.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

63

dry calcium sulfite. There are also two unlined surface impoundments, 252 which apparently are not 

implicated.253

The site is located about 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 dwelling 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 subjected 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 regionally in a western direction. A normal fault trending northeastsouthwest 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 thickness 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 

combined 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 flexibility 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 United States. http://www.usa.com/frs/sigeco-a-b-browngenerating-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-trenddetail.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 Atherton 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 primarily 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 covers 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 lowpermeability strata above water-bearing zones.257

Impact: According to EPA (2007), the Agency initially 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, and 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 

last 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 Potential 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 exceedance 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 Assessments, Case #57 and a reference therein 

(Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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 Unterreiner (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 measurement 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 As 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 tubular 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 August 2012.

http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/A-REVIEW-OF-THE-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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%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-RCRA1993-0042-1642. 

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 Online 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.

http://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 Section, 

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. Unterreiner, 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_bedrock_text.pdf

Note: Unterreiner 2006a, Unterreiner 2006b, and Unterreiner 2006c can be all accessed at:

http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/4596.htm
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

66

PTa15. Hoosier Energy Merom Generating Station262 CCR Landfill, 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 landfill. 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 Creek 

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 

reach 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. According 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) concedes 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 levels, 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 

bluegill, 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 the ‘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; aluminum 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Reservoir 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 remains 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 ditch. 

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 zone 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 

no 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 exceedances 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 Waste 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 failure, 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 the 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 Reservoir” 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 bass. 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 Plant 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-notesting-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 (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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%20Coal%20Combustion%20

Product%20Damage%20Cases

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (2010): Biological and Chemical 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 comment 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 Wastes; 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 Turtle Creek 

and Little Turtle Creek, Partnership for Turtle Creek, Watershed 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 

Indiana272

Type: Surface Impoundments. 

Background and Description: EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on 

Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants. It is described in detail in 

 

272 http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Michigan_City_Generating_Station
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 on 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 generation 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-startmillion-michigan-city-project/article_46f3ac34-8874-583a-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, NIPSCO 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-coalplant01132011,0,4399852.story). The settlement also calls for installation of new flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and an 

upgrade to existing selective 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 Stations is transported for disposal to Schafer Generating Station in 

Wheatfield, about 20 miles south of Valparaiso. 

http://www.citybythelake.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php?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 storing 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 separate 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 support 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, Michigan 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 therein.

276 Golder Associates (2012).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 general, 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 the 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 within 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 soil 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. Therefore, 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 CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000. 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. 

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 disposal 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 Station.

280 EPA (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

71

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

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, Michigan 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/geology/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 (2012, Appendix F). Accessed Online April 2013.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/nipsco_michigan_city_final.pdf

PTa17. Indianapolis Power & Light281 (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 active 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 CCR 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 1986) 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 indicated 

impacts were from the mines rather than the landfill. According to EPRI (2010), it is assumed that 

groundwater flow is toward the White River285 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 bedrock 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 

dissolved 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 onsite exceedance of sulfate but claims that source is uncertain; 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/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/97148/026.cfm, the permeability can range 

between about 1 x 10-6cm/sec and as low as 5 x 10-8cm/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 Pond 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 the 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 wastes. 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, respectively. 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 northern 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 runoff 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

73

Resolution: According to EPRI (2010), The Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

(IDEM) concurred with the IPL 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 CommenterIdentified 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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%20Coal%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 

surface 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 compressive 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 10-7cm/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, chloride, 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, cadmium, 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 closer 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Company 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 Online 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 floodplain 

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; units 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 potential 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 located 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 Swampland 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 

Kankakee River's final receiving waters. http://www.waterworld.com/articles/iww/print/volume-11/issue-3/featureeditorial/mixed-oxidant-replaces-cocktail-of-chemicals-in-power-plant-cooling-tower-water-system.html.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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) Material 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 Area302 and (ii) 

Retired Waste Disposal Area.303

In mid-2011, NIPSCO was in the process 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 bottom 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 gypsum 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 bottom ash, boiler slag and other waste. 

295 The Yard Drain Stormwater Retention Pond, in service since 1999, has surface area of 1.3 acres and water 

capacity of 9000 CY.

296 The Recycle Basin, in service since 1982, has surface area of 30 acres and water capacity of 600,000 CY.

297 The FGD Landfill Stormwater Runoff Pond, in service since 1983, has surface area of 4.5 acres and water 

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 

handling 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 cannot 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 unlined 

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 gypsum 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 agreement 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 said 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/nipsco.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 slated 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

76

The landscape of the Kankakee River Basin is primarily a product of the latest Wisconsinan glacial events 

of the Lake Michigan lobe. Major 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 unconsolidated 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 underneath 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 river 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 highlyproductive 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-water 

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 high, 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 concluded 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, molybdenum, 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).

306DNR (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 to 

remediation.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

77

monitoring program is in effect and wells closest to the property boundary have concentrations below 

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 down-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 Damage Case Assessments, Case #55 and a reference therein 

(Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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 Northern 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/waste/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 of: 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 2012.

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&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dnisource

%2520m.%2520schahfer%2520generating%2520station%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=%22nisource%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-RCRA1993-0042-1642. 

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 assessment report: (as of December 17, 2014, NIPSCO’s dam assessment report is still 

unaccessible because NIPSCO claims it is Confidential Business Information, CBI).

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/nipsco_schahfer_cbi.pdf
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

79

PTa19. Muscatine County Landfill, 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, 

commissioned 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 

ravine 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 from 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 available 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 the 

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 exceedances of the SMCL for sulfate (over 2,000 mg/L) and possibly 

an isolated exceedance of MCL for selenium. All of the exceedances 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 meters 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 mid1970s, and first applied for a permit in 1991.319 A 2003 review of the then most recent monitoring data for 

the active site revealed down-gradient exceedances of the SMCLs for pH and iron in wells close to the 

disposal area. These exceedances, however, are correlated with exceedances 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 & Drake (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 affect 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 Assessment, 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

80

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: “The exceedances of non-health-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

References

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #64 and references therein 

(Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000; 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.org/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-gradient 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, and 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 leased 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 from 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 summer 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 options 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 the 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 landfills 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 active 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 permit. After the rulemaking, many pre-existing facilities came under the permit program for 

the first time. 

320 EPA (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Description: Duke Energy’s East Bend Generating Station322 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 disposal 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, the 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 and 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 River 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 flow 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 According 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.

324Duke 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 leachate 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 pond, which yielded groundwater temperature of 73.50F, as compared to 

590F in typical shallow aquifer well on-site.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

82

In its comment to the docket,327 the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KDEP) states 

that assessment of monitoring wells data associated with the surface impoundments328 indicates that 

exposure risk to residential uses would be confined only to wells put next to or under the surface 

impoundment. 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 stream.

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 landfill, a down-gradient well at sludge Pond B, two downgradient 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 

required 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 1999 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 exceedances 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 downgradient 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 concentrations 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 above 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: 

temperature, 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 available. 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 

Temperature, chloride, Specific conductance, total dissolved solids (TDS), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), pH, 

and copper, none of which has an EPA MCL standard.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 the 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 Oxygen Demand (COD) have occurred in January 2008 at wells MW-4, MW5, 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 onsite workers but that any future residential use would not be acceptable; and (iii) there was no risk to 

ecological receptors. Quarles 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 receiving stream, and included 

very limited ash pond water samples.

EPRI’s (2010) tabulation of exceedances/elevated levels in groundwater334 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 extent, 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 nonhealth-based standards for total dissolved solids, iron, and sulfate at this site, and subsequent state 

regulatory action based on these exceedances, this 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 Candidate 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: sulfate; 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 

concentrations ‘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 listed as ‘source uncertain’ because their highest concentrations 

occur at wells with low CCR leachate indicator (boron) concentrations.

335 EPA (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

84

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

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 Alliance, 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 Landfill – PG&E, Freetown, Bristol County, 

Massachusetts336

Type: Structural Fill in a Sand and Gravel Pit.

Background and Description: The Rezendes South Main Street Ash Landfill in Freetown337 is a 35-

acre coal ash, state-permitted, unlined, off-site monofill 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 River 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 proven 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 Freetown 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 restoring 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 activity 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&E 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

85

 

estimates that a total of 310,000 tons of ash have been disposed 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 

operation 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

86

Taunton 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 Undisturbed 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 modifications 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 late 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 landfill 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 categorized350 as a 

potential damage case for 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-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 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 September 2002. Accessed Online 

February 2013.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/WDR_MA-RI-02-1/pdfs/excerpt4.pdf
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Draft 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 (2002).

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 are 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 concentrations 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 (lead 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 from 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=assonet&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 November 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 to 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 nesting 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 in 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 

proponent 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

88

Lapham (1988): Yield and Quality of Ground Water from Stratified-Drift Aquifers, 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 Investigations 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 Change, 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 Supplemental 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, Minnesota351

 

351 http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Sherburne_County_Plant#cite_note-iss-8; 

http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/Power_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 Plant 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 

scrubbers, 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

89

Type: Surface Impoundments.

Background and Description: The Northern States Power Sherburne County Plant is located 

approximately 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-lined353 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 basin 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 Combustion 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 the 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 lower 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 at 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 of 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, spills 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 site to the north and east of the river, 

groundwater flow is generally to the southwest toward the river.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

90

Impact: Groundwater contamination detected in on-site wells in 1985. The original study366 identified fly 

ash and FGD sludge in one surface impoundment and 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, 

and 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 1x10-7and 1x10-9cm/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 capped 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. Rollercompacted 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 geomembrane, with a permeability of 5x10-9cm/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 6x10-8cm/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 with 

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 data 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 of 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 monitoring 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 

primary 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

91

available. All of the monitoring data are for on-site locations 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, and 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 represent 

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 recent 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 power 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) postmitigation 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 standards.

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 categorized 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-RCRA2006-0796-0022).

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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

92

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.

Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985): Full-scale Field Evaluation of Waste Disposal 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-SW88-002. Accessed Online August 2012. 

http://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, Compensation, 

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/northern-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 August 2012.

http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/ns-sherburne-final.pdf

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2012): Proposed 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 2014.

http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/Power_Generation/Sherburne_County_(Sherco)_

Generating_Station

PTa23. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.371 Danskammer Waste Management 

Facility, Newburgh, Orange County, New York372

Type: Coal Ash Landfill.

Background and Description: This old, unlined landfill (established: 1959) is located on the west 

shore of the Hudson River in the 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.edgaronline.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 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 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 capacity 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 dissolved 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-disposal 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 nonhealth-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 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

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, March 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 Service 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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_Notices/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 Department, 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, 2006 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 cooling 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 Danskammer 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/dynegy-announces-results-of-roseton-and-danskammerauction-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 Court 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 Dynegy 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 Public 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 coal 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 percent 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_060106.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), while 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

95

http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/A-REVIEW-OF-THE-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACTS-OF-COAL-COMBUS.htm

Public Service Commission, NY (2014): In The Matter of the Verified 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 the 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 

York381

Type: Offsite Coal Ash Landfill with a Leachate Collection/Sedimentation Basin.

Background and Description: According to EPRI (2010), this is a 12.1-acre offsite382 coal ash landfill 

constructed between 1978 (cell 1) and 1980 (cell 2), with a PVC liner (20-mil) and leachate collection 

system. According to Stearns & 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, aluminum, 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 leakage 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. There 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 hundred 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 According 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) concentrations 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 times 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 (NY 010 6542), pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 

750-1.18, New York State's Environmental Benefit Permit Strategy (EBPS).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 

investigation 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 scope 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 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

 

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 - metal 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 plan 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 sulfate 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 an 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 

Environmental 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACTS-OF-COAL-COMBUS.htm

Stearns & Wheler (2010): Broome County Local Solid Waste Management Plan Update, Draft Report 

submitted to Broome County Division of Waste Management, Stearns & Wheler, February 10, 2010. 

Accessed Online December 2012.

http://www.gobroomecounty.com/files/dpw/pdfs/Draft%20Online%20Version%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. Accessed Online December 2012.

http://www.getfilings.com/o0000893838-01-500081.html

PTa25. C.R. Huntley Flyash Landfill, Tonawanda, Erie County, New York389

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 and 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_Generating_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 (1953-2007); 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

98

1989, 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 Physiographic

Province of New York State. This basin borders Lake Erie and the Niagara 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 Silurian 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 hydrogeologic zone to the deeper water bearing zones; the alluvium deposit, (3) a deep water

bearing zone consisting predominantly of glacial till, and (4) an upper bedrock water bearing zone. Water

from the Niagara River and shallow hydrogeologic zone is typically calcium-bicarbonate 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 health-based standards for arsenic 

and non-health-based standards for iron, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids at this site’s downgradient 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’ liner, 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 were 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 to 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 1976) 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. Overflow 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 suspended 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. In 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://tonawandatownny.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=NY0001023
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

99

According to NRG,398 a 1987 hydrogeologic investigation (Malcolm Pirnie) found exceedances of State 

groundwater standards for sulfates, arsenic, barium, cadmium, iron, manganese, and lead in downgradient wells of the waste area placement areas at that time. However, all 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 bedrock 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 iron (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 Potential 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 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

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): Response 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, Tonawanda 

News, January 18, 2007. Accessed Online January 2013.

http://tonawanda-news.com/local/x212263112/AES-SPECIAL-REPORT-Company-plans-majoreconomic-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 York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental

Remediation, 270MichiganAve.,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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Assessment 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 Power400 Allen Steam Generating Plant,401 Belmont, Gaston County, North 

Carolina

Type: Surface Impoundments. 

Background and 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), coal 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 prices 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 cooling 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’) 

established 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 retired 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 project 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, combining 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 satisfaction of the NCDENR Dam Safety Section. A double-liner 

system allowing landfill monitoring separate from the underlying ash basin provides a leak-detection zone to 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

101

 

monitor leaking through the primary liner. Furthermore, the landfill liner system provides a cover system for the 

underlying ash basin, effectively isolating it from the environment.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

102

dry-handling system. (ii) An unlined, active, 146-acre pond404 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 (crossvalley) Dike and the North Dike.405 The East Dike is approximately parallel to the Lake Wylie (formerly 

Catawba River) in a northerly-southerly orientation. 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 Allen 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 South 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 semi-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 SMCL), 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 exceedances of SMCLs for iron 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 Department 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 enforcement 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 more 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 manganese 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 upheld 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.409
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

103

Resolution: In 2009 DWQ sent a letter to Progress Energy, 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 compliance 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 Catawba 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, lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, and TDS.411

Based on monitoring data from this site412 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’ groups 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 ponds;

 

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 area 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 

drinking 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-effects 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 Policy for Compliance Evaluation of Long-term Permitted Facilities with No 

Prior Groundwater Monitoring Requirements. Complaint and Motion, ibid, and http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/hottopics/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 property 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 Fear River Watch and Others (2012). DENR has documentation of exceedances of groundwater standards 

inside the compliance boundaries of fourteen coal-fired power plants in North Carolina with coal ash impoundments 

permitted prior to 1984, without modern construction techniques and permitting standards. Similarly to the other 13 

facilities, groundwater inside the compliance boundary of the Allen Steam Electric Plant exceeds standards for 

multiple contaminants.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 advance 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 

activities 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 

those 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 Standard 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

 

414https://essential.bna.com/login/signin?msg=deny&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bna.com%2Fdeln%2Fdisplay%2Fl

ink_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_contaminati

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 compliance 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 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 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, Belmont, North Carolina, September 16, 2009. Accessed Online 

August 2009.

http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/allen-steam-final.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 contaminate 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-2817-10B3D428140C15CD.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 Power 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 south 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 North 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 to 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

106

North Dakota and three miles west of US Highway 83. According to EPA (2007), this site includes a 

number420 of evaporation ponds and two ash storage/disposal ponds421 that were constructed 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 subject 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 beneficially on-site in 

addition to the Upstream Raise Construction.425

 

http://www.greatriverenergy.com/makingelectricity/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 Corporation. 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 2006. 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 Hoffman (2002). In 2006, the DryFiningTM 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 lignite 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/makingelectricity/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 colocated with the Coal Creek Station power plant 

(http://www.greatriverenergy.com/aboutus/pressroom/lead_lead2_111412_eia_chp.html).

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 pond (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 Section 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 CCRs 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 evolution 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) Division 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 Dakota, 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 of 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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), the 

topography and surficial geology of McLean County is primarily the result of glacial erosion and 

deposition. Most of the present landforms were produced during 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 its 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 300 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 Damage 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-gradient 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 North Dakota Department of Health (NDDoH) 431 and the Utility both claim432 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 due 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, redesigned 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 filler 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 conditions conducive 

to the formation of sloughs, see North Dakota Geological Survey (No Date).

427 Klausing (1974), Part III Plates.

428 According to Klausing (1974), water levels in the aquifer range from about 57 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 

about 101 feet BGS 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 samples 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 et 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 federal 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

108

drinking water. Remediation was performed and the impoundments remain active. A groundwater 

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 (healthbased) 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=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20

Product%20Damage%20Cases

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #24, docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA2006-0796-0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007; and references therein (Memorandum 

from SAIC to Dennis 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, 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, 10/2010.

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 ByProducts 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. 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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.pdf

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, Golder 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 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

Klausing (1974): Ground - Water Resources of McLean County, North Dakota. Robert L. Klausing, U. S. 

Geological Survey, 1974. County Ground-Water Studies 19 - Part III, North Dakota State Water 

Commission, Bulletin 60 - Part III, North Dakota Geological Survey. Accessed Online October 2012.

http://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/PB274/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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-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 the property ‘to check the water 

quality on a regular basis.’

434 EPA (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

110

Lignite Fuel Enhancement (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,

Great River Energy, Underwood, North Dakota, Kleinfelder, Golden, Colorado, October 31, 2012. 

Accessed Online January 2014.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/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/ndgs/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 two 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 baseload, lignite-fueled electric 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 percent) of the ash generated from the 

combustion of the Beulah lignite. The Heskett Station consumes annually about 500,000 tons of lignite, raildelivered 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 Turbine 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 cubic 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/archives/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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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-bedded with lowpermeability 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 determined 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), Heskett 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 10-7cm/ sec). The recently-approved NDDOH

composite liner 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 be 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 conductivity 1.0 x 10-7cm/ 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 potential 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 layers 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 Institute (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 specified 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 flowable 

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 received 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-FillTM. 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 make it uneconomical to market for this 

use currently.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 According 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 good 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 groundwater 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 the 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 monitoring program is in 

place. According to EPRI (2010), the 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 regulatory 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 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 (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #66, docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA2006-0796-0015, 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-HQRCRA-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, Attachment 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 

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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACTS-OF-COAL-COMBUS.htm
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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, 

Bismarck, 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. 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

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/4dlink9/4dcgi/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 Ground-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/GetSubContentPDF/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. Hildestad 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 measured 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 exceedances 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). Post-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 both upgradient 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Online 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, adopted July 28, 2010. Accessed Online January 

2013.

http://www.ndhealth.gov/AQ/RegionalHaze/Regional%20Haze%20Link%20Documents/Supplement%20

1.pdf

Mann 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 Dakota

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 with 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 Voltaire. 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 Wisconsin-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 

Union 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), the 

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 William 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 Coleharbor 

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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

115

channel that extends from Velva to Balfour in southern McHenry County, occupying some 32 mile2. The 

aquifer consists of sand and gravel beds, and ranges in thickness from 4 to 71 ft. Water levels in the 

Voltaire aquifer range from 3 to 25 ft BGS. 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, both 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 lead 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 

aluminum as exceeding standards on-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 directly 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. This 

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 drinking 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 hydraulic 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 ft2/day, 

hydraulic conductivities - from 160 to 250 ft/day, and storage 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

116

were detected. 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 and 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 

damage 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 water 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-RCRA2006-0796-0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid 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, 10/2010.

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, Findings, 

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 Water 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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/PB274/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; Other Chemical Processing, Bureau of Mines Staff, Grand 

Forks, N. Dak., and Washington, D.C., Information Circular 7692, July 1954. Accessed Online January 

2013.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077564584#page/n0/mode/1up

PTa30. Cinergy456 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 impoundments 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 flow 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 Utility 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 Energy (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 protection, 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 glacial 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 selenium) 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 exceedance 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 identified 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 interceptor 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 particulate 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, this 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 east 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 contamination. 

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 compliance 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

119

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

Duke Energy (2009): Duke Energy’s Response to CERCLA 104(e) Request for Information Walter C. 

Beckjord Generating Station, March 25, 2009. Accessed Online October 2012.

http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/hoosier-merom.pdf

Duke Energy (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 Former 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 exempted 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 

investigation 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 attributed 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 Elizabethtown, 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 Miamiview 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 

from 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 results from 1982 to 1998; results prior to 1997 used for preremediation, 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 (2010), 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 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.”477

References

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #58 and a reference therein 

(Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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

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 Fuel 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 January 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 located 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/bullrun.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 plant 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-RunFossil-Plant-Clinton-Tennessee_2176.html
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

121

Bull Run Creek, on the east side of the Melton Hill Reservoir479 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 River.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 FAP-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 southern 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 southwest 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 valleys.

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 Chickamauga 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 more 

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 volumes 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.

The 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 remaining portions of the BRF are primarily 

underlain by residual soils resulting from the in-situ weathering of the parent bedrock.490 

Groundwater491 underlying the BRF site is derived from infiltration of precipitation and from lateral 

inflow along the northwest 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 proposed 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 located 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 downtown 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. Embankments 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 inactive 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 dredged 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 expanded 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 to 

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 Railroad 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), approximately 

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 gypsum 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 scrubber 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

123

Impact: Surface Water: According to BRF, the surface water exceedances494 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 impoundments, 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 of 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 iron 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 to 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 discharge 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 4.25m3/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 and 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 parameters 

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. Petitioners 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 (Julian and Danzig, 1996), in TVA (2002).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

124

quality sampling show that concentrations of hardness, 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, 

respectively, 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

There 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 the concentrations in upgradient 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 in 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 

concentrations 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 2008, 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. Cobalt, 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 monitored, 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) either temporally or spatially.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 waste 

management by switching to gypsum 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 protection 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 establishment 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 Area was being placed in Phase II 

assessment due to an arsenic exceedance.507BRF is currently seeking an additional disposal space508 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).

References

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 facility (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 years 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 Kingston 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 eventually, 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 operations for handling and disposing of bottom ash and gypsum at BRF.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Federation, 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. Schmaltz, 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-Appealpetition_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 Environmental Restoration Program, Report K/ER111. Prepared 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/servlets/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 Desulfurization System at Bull Run Fossil Plant, Anderson County, 

Tennessee, Draft Environmental Assessment, Project Number 2004-103, TVA, January 2005. Accessed 

Online February 2013. 

http://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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

Clinton, Tennessee. Prepared by Dewberry & Davis, LLC, Fairfax, Virginia, December 2012. Accessed 

Online July 2014.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/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, amended 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 Environmental 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 finegrained 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 to 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 Murray Drive. Additional residential properties are located to the eastnortheast 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.

The 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 course. 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

128

below ground surface (BGS). 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. This 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 zone 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 consists 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 surficial 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 BGS. 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 performed516 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 surficial 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 results of the City of Chesapeake groundwater and surface water sampling indicated that the 

 

512 The estimated transmissivity of the surficial aquifer in the site vicinity ranges from 1,000 to 1,500 feet2 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 gallons 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 zone is from 0.0001 to 0.001 inches per day.

514 Its transmissivity ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 feet2 per day. According to Stokes Environmental Associates (ibid), 

the following median values have been reported for hydraulic characteristics of the Yorktown aquifer: 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 inches per day.

516 Water 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 contaminants, 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.pdf
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

129

highest detections of metals occurred in monitoring wells located on the golf course property. The 

concentrations of arsenic, boron, chromium, copper, lead, and vanadium 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 well 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

CDM (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 these 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 current 

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 become fully recognizable.521

 

519 Stokes Environmental Associates (ibid, page 8), cites significantly higher levels of iron and manganese: 

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 the 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 prospective 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, and 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 also 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 

exhibited 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 loading 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 

dispersion 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 transport 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 predicts 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 mg/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 indicated 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 conditions can become 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 groundwater 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 inspection (SI) under CERCLA. During 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 installing 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 will continue to monitor wells on the golf 

course.524

A Final EPA Site Inspection Report525 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 well 

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 sediments 

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 remediate 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

131

Edison Mission Energy, LLC suggested526 that “the Agency offered no evidence that the contamination 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 and 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 determination 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 lawsuit 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 course 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-2009-0640-8244.

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. However, 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 lower 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 dust 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 

modeling, 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 wells 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 cites532 EPA’s April 2010 report as evidence for vindicating the Agency from claims of 

inadequate CCR regulatory program. Dominion claims533 that the two lawsuits alleging groundwater 

contamination filed by residents of the neighboring community were dismissed by the Court, based on the 

lack of factual or scientific 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 negotiating 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 Consideration:” 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 considers 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 VirginianPilot© 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/#!documentDetail;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-RCRA-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, claims 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 the 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 (ibid).

536 Federal Register (June 21, 2010).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

133

EPA (2010). Final Site Inspection Report for the Battlefield Golf Club Site, Tetra Tech., EPA Contract 

No. EP-S3-05-02, April 2010. Accessed Online October 2012. 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/CurrentIssues/finalr-battlefield_golf_club_site/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, Easley, 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.cityofchesapeake.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. Accessed 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 approximately 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, receiving 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 watertable well), operating between June 1982 and December 1998. The landfill is located in highpermeability, unconsolidated glacial deposit sediments: a sand and gravel unit (permeability of 2 x 10-4

to 

5 x 10-3cm/sec) and a silt and clay (reworked loess?) unit overlying a Cambrian Sandstone (with 

permeability of 1 x 10-3to 2 x 10-3cm/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 dwellings 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 nonrecyclable 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. Thus, 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 performance 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 wells for a list of metals as 

part of the siting for the expansion.

WDNR reports547 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 attributed 

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 10-5cm/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 case.”550 EPRI (2010) essentially concurs with this conclusion.551
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

135

 

538 According 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 Buffalo 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/energy_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 single-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, approximately 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 capacity 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 exceedances 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 CommenterIdentified 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 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-RCRA1993-0042-1642 (Microfilm). 

WDNR (2012): Solid Waste Landfills Licensed in Wisconsin, Licensed for Year 2012 (Oct. 1, 2011 -

Sept. 30, 2012). June 29, 2012. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Accessed 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 Dairyland 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. Accessed 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 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/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 (seven piezometers and nine water-table wells), sampled 

between December 1981 and December 1998.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 Levels (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 required 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 private 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 Following 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 operations 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 

Dairyland 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 existed 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 (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. The settlement 

included, among others: (i) Cessation 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 letter 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 ever sampled, and if so – what were the sampling results.

557 EPRI (2010).

558 http://www.dairynet.com/energy_resources/alma3.php
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 exceedances 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 from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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 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-RCRA1993-0042-1642 (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 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

Dairyland Power Cooperative (undated): Alma Station, Dairyland Power Cooperative. Accessed Online 

August 2014. 

http://www.dairynet.com/energy_resources/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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

139

Background and Description: The Alliant WP&L Edgewater power station560 contains five unlined 

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 

actually 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 evident 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 Wisconsin 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 Formations, 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: Monitoring 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 ranged 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 

have 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 these 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 were 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 monitoring 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 

different 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-site private wells are for constituents without healthbased standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.”571
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 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-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 NOx emissions was installed in Units 3 

and 4 in 2009, and similar technology in Unit 5 is scheduled to come online at the end of 2012 (Alliant Energy, 2012). In 

addition, a scrubber and baghouse to reduce SO2 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, in 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 the settlement were to reduce sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), 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 and 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 facility. 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 terraces 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 shore 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 boron 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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., 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACTS-OF-COAL-COMBUS.htm

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Sheboygan County/Protecting 

Wisconsin’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 Annual Report, May 2012. Accessed Online January 2013.

http://www.alliantenergy.com/wcm/groups/wcm_internet/@int/documents/document/023337.pdf

Carlson et 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 Planning & Resources Department, and Mark Walter, Bay-Lake 

Regional Planning Commission, December 2, 2004. Accessed Online January 2013.

http://www.co.sheboygan.wi.us/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, Wisconsin, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., Norwood, Massachusetts, December 28, 2012. 

Accessed Online January 2014.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/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 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-pollution1p9lo5u-204201561.html
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

142

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

Type: Sand and Gravel Pit used as a ‘Dual’, MSW and an Off-Site Industrial 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 Lemberger 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 Manitowoc 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 general 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 about 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, gravel, 

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 thinlybedded 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 lower 

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 potentiometric 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 

clay 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 trenches, 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 landfill leachate onto 

adjacent property. Ground water at the site is contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compound 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

143

(CVOC)578 and inorganic constituents including arsenic, barium, chromium, cadmium, and lead. CVOCs 

were present in residential wells in 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-northwest 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 detected 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# WID980901243) 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 Ridgeview 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 operated 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, 

cadmium, 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 contamination 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/npl/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 Landfill, Whitelaw - Lemberger Landfill, Inc.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

144

Using data from 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 in the UGS near LL, a lifetime incremental cancer 

risk of 9 x 10-4and 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 10-4and 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 Review 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-and-treat shutdown, 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 documentation 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 water 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, leachate 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 wells 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 appear 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 rather 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 natural 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 (third) Five-Year Review Report, see EPA 

Region 5 (2010).

586 EPA (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

145

According to WDNR, “The Lemberger Landfill accepted both municipal/industrial waste and power plant 

ash during its life. 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 determined 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 Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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 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

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Manitowoc 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/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, Wisconsin

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 as 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 

commissioned in 1959 and modified in 1976 and 1996. The Ash Pond was commissioned in 1976 and modified in 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 developed 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 unconsolidated, 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 bedrock 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 Prairie 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 nonchemical 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 receives 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 portion 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 (SO2), 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 biomass. 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 serious 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/article_591abcccd80b-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 active 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, sulfate, boron, 

harness, and iron on a quarterly basis, in addition to shoreline river sampling in two up-gradient and one downgradient 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), six 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

147

is overlain by the Ordovician age St. Peters sandstone. The composite thickness of the three CambrianOrdovician 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 Standards (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 management 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 their 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 water 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 

initially 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 The 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 required an investigation of groundwater contamination in 1986596 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 states599 that this site was previously 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 engineered 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 reported 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 water 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

148

investigation, and the facility took action to 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 groundwater 

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 CommenterIdentified 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 10-2and 10-5cm/sec); and approximately 145 feet of alternating sand and 

gravel layers, with occasional silt (outwash; permeability in the range of 10-1and 10

-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 1979, and cited again in DNR (1986), discussing the 

February 1986 Nelson Dewey Exceedance Report.

593 Overall, the 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, the 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 manganese - 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 whether 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 characteristics 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 publicwelfare concerns. 

595 Stonefield Historic Site, showcasing Wisconsin’s rural history in the early 20th 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 exceeds 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, the environmental effects of sluicing versus dry ash handling and evaluation of an alternative lowpermeability 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 groundwater 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 Plant 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 groundwater 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 previously 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

149

ICF (2010): 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, 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

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, Cassville, Wisconsin, GZA 

GeoEnvironmental, Norwood, Massachusetts, December 27, 2012. Accessed Online February 2014.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/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 

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/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 Coal 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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACTS-OF-COAL-COMBUS.htm

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

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, 

February 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 and revised Final Cover, Wisconsin 

Power & Light-Nelson Dewey Ash Disposal Landfill, License #2525. Department of Natural Resources, 

State of Wisconsin, May 15, 1996.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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-pollution1p9lo5u-204201561.html

Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (2012): Alliant closing Cassville coal plant. Milwaukee 

Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 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 Facility603/ 

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 ash604 in the unlined605 Druecker 

sand and gravel pit606 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 Washington 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 

completely 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 Standards (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 renovations 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, the coal-fueled units 

at the Port Washington Generating 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 Cedarburg, 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 the 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

151

The sand and gravel pit was sited in a hummocky end-moraine of the Ozaukee Member 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 Series. 610 The Niagara Dolomite and the glacial till form a hydraulically wellconnected, 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 wells 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-glacial 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 downgradient. The Site borders on the west 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 (NGWA). The article presented 

instances in which boron and selenium concentrations exceeded standards in a well located down-gradient 

of the CCR disposal site. A representative of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

Waste Management Program reported 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 occurring, 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-19th 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 (2007) 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 this 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 

Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

152

According to EPA’s inquiry with the DNR, selenium in the contaminated well exceeded the Preventative 

Action Limit (PAL), not MCL or enforceable standard (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 action 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 in 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 to 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 exceedances have been detected in any of these 

wells.623

Previous Basis for Consideration: This case was categorized as a proven damage case because of the 

off-site exceedance of a health-based standard.624

ICF (2010) Rationale: “Not a damage case: No exceedances of MCL or comparable health based 

standard”. 

 

615 EPA (2007) and reference therein. According to a laboratory report from the State Laboratory of Hygiene, 

samples collected at the John & Dolly Keating Port Washington Sample Tap 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 μg/L. According to Zilmer and Fauble (2004), Wisconsin’s enforcement 

standards (ESs) are roughly equivalent 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 Fauble (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 were 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

153

Postscript: EPRI claims625 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 

damage 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. Furthermore, 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 potential damage case.

Reference

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #17, docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA2006-0796-0015, 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.

EPRI (2010): Damage Case Report, V. 2: Case Summaries, EPRI, September 2010. Accessed 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. of Natural 

Resources Waste & Materials Management Division. Accessed Online July 2012.

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/wa/WA1174.pdf

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Ozaukee 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 Pleistocene 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, 

references. 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

154

Mickelson and Syverson (1997). Quaternary Geology of Ozaukee and Washington Counties, Mickelson, 

D., and Syverson, K., Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin 91. 56 p. 

Accessed Online November 2013.

http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/gis.htm, Ozaukee.

EPA letter (undated): Letter on revised prevention of significant 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. Rosenberg, 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 Press 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 (2001): 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 # WR669-01, 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/EcoNatResidx?type=turn&entity=EcoNatRes.WGB66Econ22.p0005&id=EcoNatRes.WGB66Econ22&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, Information 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, Wisconsin 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 November 2013.

http://www.co.ozaukee.wi.us/LandWaterManagement/PDF/DraftOzaukeeLand&WaterPlan2011-

2015.pdf
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

155

PTa40. Wisconsin Power Service Corporation (WEPSCO)626 Pulliam Power Station’s Ash 

Disposal Site, Green Bay, Brown County, Wisconsin627

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 wetland 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 surface 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 were 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 sandstones, 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 sandstone 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 subject 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 small 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 State 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

156

According to Cherry et al., (2000), this site has nine constituents in down-gradient monitoring 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, came 

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 (1951), 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 ash 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, and 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 glaciations (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 area. 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 transmissivity 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. According 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, sulfate, 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 source 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 

2009 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 in Knowles (ibid), and Drescher (ibid).

634 Mass (ibid) and references therein.
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

157

monitored from 1975-1995) that exceeded federal standards: sulfate, TDS, boron, manganese, iron, 

chloride, aluminum, zinc, and pH.635 

Resolution: 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 Assessments, Case #46 and a reference therein 

(Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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

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-ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACTS-OF-COAL-COMBUS.htm

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Brown 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/brown/index.html

Drescher (1953): Ground-Water Conditions in Artesian Aquifers in Brown County, Wisconsin, 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.pdf

 

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 groundwater 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 elevated 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 February 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 Water-Supply Paper 1669-J. Prepared 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 Bradbury (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 Geological and Natural 

History Survey Information Circular 75, 1996. Accessed Online February 2013.

http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/IC75.pdf

Sourcewatch (2012): Pulliam Power Plant, 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: Surface 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 River.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). However, 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 with 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 

50 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 

received 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, WPDES Pond 2 and the facility, the Slag Pond has and continues to receive 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 

outwash 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 

gallons/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) drinking 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 provided 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 the 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 waste 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 water 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 extension 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 more 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, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 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 based 

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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 arsenic (>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 yielded 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 according 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 of 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 River, 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 

design 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, Case #42 and a reference therein 

(Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified 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, non-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 sampled 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. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

161

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

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 

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/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 Cooperation 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 comprises also eight ponds (notimplicated): 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 storage and clear ponds).654 The CCR impoundments are located generally west and 

 

653 Commissioned in 1958, the plant comprises 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 per 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 performance history 

see Table 2-1 in GEI (2011).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 the 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 three 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 structures 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 years. 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 with thin interbedded 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 downgradient of the site. Interpretations 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 uncertainties 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 manganese 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 manganese 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 so 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 action 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 were taken of the process water in the 

Blowdown Canal, the recirculation canal water, and the water of the North Platte River upstream of 
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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 inquiry667 that corrective action has been taken by the state to address the spill. 

EPA Region 8 was 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 downgradient 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 Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #65 and a 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

 

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/sgmcunit.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 rule’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 mineralized 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 Durum (1963) describe the general properties of groundwater in both the upper, unconsolidated aquifer along 

the North Platte River as characterized by a wide range 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 from the 20-year old inactive landfill to a much closer (to the landfill) downgradient 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 canal 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.

667Relayed in an October 21, 2011 email from K. Morrison to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.

668 EPA (2007).
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

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/nonhaz/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. 

Environmental 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 Information 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 Section on the Chemical Quality of the GroundWater, 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.pdf
IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014

165