# Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste

July 9, 2007Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

With the exception of the documents listed belo w, the documents referenced throughout this

assessment are available from the docket to the Notice of Data Availability on the Disposal of Coal Combustion Wastes in Landfills and Surface Impoundments at www.regulations.gov

, docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796, through internet links provided, or from other identified

sources.

1. Application of Don Frame Trucki ng, Inc. Petitioner for a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR against the New York State De partment of Environmental Conservation Respondent; Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Chautauqua (July 22, 1988). Order G11278.

2. Selenium Posting on Hyco Lake Rescinded, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS), August 2001.

3. Feasibility Study for the Y-12 Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 Filled Coal Ash Pond, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DOE/OR/02-1259&D1. August 1994.

4. Final Site Investigation Repor t on Groundwater Contamination, Township of Pines, Porter County, Indiana. December 2002.

5. Texas Bureau of Health (TBH). 1992. Fish Advisory: Brandy Branch Reservoir. May 1992.

6. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2003. Improving Water Quality in Brandy Branch Reservoir; One TMDL for Selenium. February 2003.

7. Report: Sulfate Investigation, Miamiview Landfill, Hamilton County, Ohio . Prepared for the

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co mpany 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.

iiCoal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007



# Table of Contents

Description Page

I. Summary..................................................................................................................... 2

II. Proven Damage Cases .................................................................................................... 12

1. Salem Acres Site, Massachusetts ...................................................................................... 13

2. City of Beverly/Vitale Brothers Fly Ash Pit, Massachusetts ............................................ 14

3. Don Frame Trucking, Inc. Fly Ash Landfill, New York .................................................. 15

4. Virginia Electric Power Co. (VEPCO) Possum Point, VA .............................................. 16

5. PEPCO Morgantown Generating Station Faulkner Off-site Disposal Facility, Maryland.................................................................................................................... 17

6. Virginia Power Yorktown Power Station Chisman Creek Disposal Site, Virginia .......... 17

7. Hyco Lake, Roxboro, North Carolina ............................................................................... 19

8. Georgia Power Company, Plant Bowen, Cartersville, GA ............................................... 19

9. Department of Energy - Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 ........... 20

10. South Carolina Electric & Gas Canadys Plant, South Carolina ........................................ 24

11. Belews Lake, North Carolina ............................................................................................ 25

12. U.S. Department of Energy Sava nnah River Project, South Carolina .............................. 25

13. Dairyland Power Cooperative E.J. Stonema n Generating Station Ash Disposal Pond,

Wisconsin................................................................................................................... 26

14. WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill, Wisconsin ....................................................................... 27

15. Alliant (formerly Wisconsin Power & Light ) Nelson Dewey Ash Disposal Facility,

Wisconsin................................................................................................................... 27

16. WEPCO Cedar-Sauk Landfill, Wisconsin ........................................................................ 28

17. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (WEPCO) Port Washington Facility, Wisconsin ............. 29

18. Lansing Board of Water & Light (LBWL) North Lansing Landfill, Michigan ................ 30

19. Northern Indiana Public Service Corp. (NIPSCO) Yard 520 Landfill Site (Brown’s Landfill) Township of Pines, Porter County, IN ............................................................... 32

20. Brandy Branch Reservoir, Texas ...................................................................................... 33

21. Southwestern Electric Power Co mpany Welsh Reservoir, Texas .................................... 34

22. Texas Utilities Electric Mart in Lake Reservoir, Texas ..................................................... 34

23. Basin Electric Power Cooperative W.J. Neal Station Surface Impoundment, North

Dakota...................................................................................................................... 35

24. Cooperative Power Association/United Power Coal Creek Station Surface Impoundments, North Dakota ........................................................................................... 36

III. Potential Damage Cases..... .............................................................................................. 38

25. K.R. Rezendes South Main Street Ash Landfill, Freetown, Massachusetts ..................... 38

26. New England Power, Brayton Point, Massachusetts ........................................................ 39

27. AES Creative Resources Weber Ash Disposal Site, New York ....................................... 40

iiiCoal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Description Page

28. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporati on Danskammer Waste Management Facility,

New York................................................................................................................... 40

29. C. R. Huntley Flyash Landfill, New York ........................................................................ 40 30. Elrama Plant, Pennsylvania .............................................................................................. 41

31. Tennessee Valley Authority - Bull Run Steam Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee .................. 41

32. Tennessee Valley Authority Widows Creek Fossil Fuel Plant, Alabama ........................ 41

33. Tennessee Valley Authority Colbert Fossil Fuel Plant, Alabama .................................... 42 34. Duke Power Allen Steam Generating Plant, North Carolina............................................ 42

35. Cinergy East Bend Scrubber Sludge Landfill, Kentucky ................................................. 43

36. Florida Power and Light Lansing Smith Plant, Florida .................................................... 43

37. Florida Power and Light Port Everglades Plant, Florida .................................................. 44

38. Florida Power and Light Riviera Plant ............................................................................. 44

39. Florida Power and Light P.L. Bartow Plant ...................................................................... 44

40. Commonwealth Edison Powerton Plant - Ma honey Landfill, Pekin, Tazewell County,

Illinois........................... ........................................................................................... 45

41. Xcel Energy/Southern Minnesota Municipa l Power Agency - Sherburne County (Sherco) Generating Plant Becker, Minnesota .................................................................. 45

42. Alliant Rock River Ash Disposal Facility, Wisconsin ...................................................... 46

43. Michigan City Site, Michigan City, Indiana ..................................................................... 46

44. Bailly Generating Station, Indiana .................................................................................... 47

45. Alliant Edgewater 1-4 Ash Disposal Site, Wisconsin ...................................................... 47

46. Wisconsin Power Supply Co. (WPSC) Pulliam Ash Disposal Site, Wisconsin ............... 48

47. Central Illinois Light Co. Du ck Creek Station, Illinois .................................................... 48

48. Illinois Power Co. Hennepi n Power Station, Illinois ........................................................ 48

49. Illinois Power Co. Havanna Power Plant, Illinois ............................................................ 49

50. Dairyland Power Alma On-site Fly Ash Landfill, Wisconsin .......................................... 49

51. Dairyland Power Alma Off-s ite Fly Ash Landfill, Wisconsin ......................................... 50

52. Illinois Power Vermillion Power Station, Illinois ............................................................. 50

53. Central Illinois Public Service Company Hutsonvill e Power Station, Illinois ................. 51

54. Illinois Power Company Wood River Power Station, Illinois .......................................... 51

55. R.M. Schahfer Generating Station, IN .............................................................................. 51

56. Coffeen/White & Brewer Trucking Fly Ash Landfill, Illinois ......................................... 52

57. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Compa ny (SIGECO) A.B Brow n Generating Station,

Indiana...................................................................................................................... 52

58. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Miamiview Landfill, Ohio ............................................... 52

59. Indiana Power & Light Petersbu rg Generating Station, Indiana ...................................... 53

60. Hoosier Energy Mermon Generating Station Coal Combustion Waste Landfill, Indiana 53

61. Cinergy W.C. Beckjord Station, Ohio .............................................................................. 53

62. Lemberger Landfill, Wisconsin ........................................................................................ 54

63. Conesville Fixed FGD Sludge Landfill, Ohio .................................................................. 54

64. Muscatine County Landfill, Iowa ..................................................................................... 56

65. Dave Johnston Power Plant, Wyoming ............................................................................ 56

66. Montana-Dakota Utilities R.M. Heskett Station, North Dakota ....................................... 56

67. Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla St eam Electric Generating Station, Arizona ............. 57

ivCoal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Description Page

IV. Rejected Damage Cases..... .............................................................................................. 59

68. American Coal Corporation #5 Landfill ........................................................................... 59

69. Cardinal PFBC Monofill.... .............................................................................................. 59

70. Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment ................................................................... 59

71. Clinch River, Virginia ..................................................................................................... 60 72. Copicut Road.................. ............................................................................................ 60

73. Dixie Caverns County Landfill, Virginia .......................................................................... 60

74. Gavin Impoundments........ .............................................................................................. 61

75. Kyger Creek Power Plant Impoundments ......................................................................... 61

76. Lake Erie, Ohio............................................................................................................ 61

77. Muskingum River Power Plant Impoundments ................................................................ 62

78. Muskogee Environmental Fly Ash Disposal Site, Oklahoma .......................................... 62

79. Public Service Co Fly Ash Disposal Site, Oklahoma ....................................................... 63

80. Star Coal Company #6 Landfill ........................................................................................ 63

81. Star Coal Company #14 Landfill ...................................................................................... 63

82. Stuart Station Impoundments ............................................................................................ 63

83. Thompson Landfill, Michigan .......................................................................................... 64

84. Turris Coal Company El khart Mine, Illinois .................................................................... 64

85. Western Farmers Electrical Fly Ash Site, Oklahoma ....................................................... 64



# List of Tables

Description Page

Table 1. Eleven Damage Cases Cited in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination...................... 3 Table 2. Fossil Fuel Combustion (FFC) Dama ge Case Resolution, excluding minefills.............. 8

Table 3. Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Chest nut Ridge Operable Unit 2 Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Programs............................................................................21

vCoal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007



# Summary of Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case AssessmentsCoal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

I. Summary

Under the Bevill Amendment for the “special wast e” categories of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, EPA was statutorily required to examine “documen ted cases in which danger to human health or the environment has been proved” from the dispos al of coal combustion wastes. The criteria used to determine whether danger to human health and the environment has been proven are

described in detail in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination at 65 FR 32224. For the May 2000 Regulatory Determination for Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels (Regulatory Determination), the Agency determined there were approximately 300 CCW landfills and 300 CCW surface impoundments used by 440 coal fired utilities.

In comments on the March 1999 Report to Congre ss on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, public interest groups identified 59 cases in which they alleged damage to human health or the environment had been caused by fossil fuel combustion wastes 1 . The Agency reviewed each of the cases. That review resulted in identifying nine of the 11 damage cases cited in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination 2 (see Table 1 below for comple te listing of the 11 proven damage cases 3 ). Of the remaining 50 cases, 25 were cla ssified as “potential” damage cases as

1 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to th e RCRA Docket Information Center regarding the CCW
RTC, June 11, 1999, Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council and the Citizens Coal Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding the CCW RTC, June 14, 1999 and Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council, et. al., to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC, September 24, 1999.

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

3 Per the May 2000 Regulatory Determination, 65 FR 32224 ( http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr22my00-22.pdf ) and Section 1.4.4 of the 1999 Report to Congress ( http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/volume_2.pdf ), proven damage cases ar e those with (i)documented exceedances of primary MCLs or other h ealth-based standards measured in gr ound water at sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituen ts have migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns, and/or (ii) where a scientific study demonstrates there is documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage), and/or ( iii) where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment. In cases of co-manag ement of CCWs with other industrial waste types, CCWs must be clearly implicated in the reported damage.

The May 2000 Regulatory Determination falls short of providing a comprehensive definition of the review criteria ("test of proof") for assessing the validity of damage case allegations; it only discusses the review criteria in response to public comments on the review process of the Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) proposed rule, and focuses only on the location of the exceedance point with respect to the source term (32224 CFR 65):

”Proven damage cases were those with documented MCL exceedances that were measured in ground water at a sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituents had migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns.”

The "test of proof" criteria were fully defined on pp. 3-4 of the Technical Background Document to the Report to Congress on Remaining Waste from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Potential Damage Cases (1999):

2Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

defined in the Regulatory Determination 4 and five cases were determined to be not applicable to the Regulatory Determination. Four of these five cases could not be li nked to coal combustion wastes and the other was at a coal mine, which is outside the scope of this NODA. Of the remaining 20 cases, one damage case was the result of wastes other than coal combustion wastes;

one was not considered because it was an illegal, unpermitted dump; and 18 cases were

indeterminate due to insufficient information 5

.

Table 1. Eleven Damage Cases Cited in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination

Damage Case Wastes Present Event Criteria
(Test of Proof) Comment

Coal-Fired Utility Comanaged Wastes

Chisman Creek (VA) Coal ash and petroleum coke
landfill. Se primary MCL exceedance; V, Se, and sulfate in residential drinking

water wells. Scientific 6 /Admini

strative 7 Was put on NPL. EPA required

remediation: new water supply to nearby residents, capping disposal area, ground water
treatment,
relocation of
surface water tributary; other possible sources of

contamination.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer /other/fossil/ffc2_397.pdf . This language, in turn, is derived from the 1993 Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust Waste : http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/cement2.htm

.

According to the 1993 CKD Report to Congress (Chapter Five), Section 8002(o)(4) of RCRA require s that EPA's study of CKD waste examine "documented cases in which danger to human health or the environment has been proved." In order to address this requirement, EPA define d danger to human health to include both acute and chronic effects (e.g., directly observed health effects such as elevated blood lead le vels or loss of life) associated with management of CKD waste. Danger to the environment in cludes the following types of impacts: (1) Significant impairment of natural resources; (2) Ecological effects resu lting in degradation of the structure or function of natural ecosystems and habitats; and (3) Effects on wildlife resu lting in damage to terrestrial or aquatic fauna.

4 Per the May 2000 Regulatory Determination, 65 FR 322 4, potential damage cases are those with (1) documented exceedances of primary MCLs or other h ealth-based standards only directly be neath or in very close proximity to the waste source, and/or (2) documented exceedances of secondary MCLs or ot her health-based standards on-site or

off-site.

5 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

6 Where a scientific study demonstrates there is docu mented evidence of damage to human health or the environment other than ground water contamination (e.g., ecological damage).

7 Where there has been an administrative ruling by a stat e or federal agency, or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the en vironment [e.g., listing on EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL)].

3Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Damage Case Wastes Present Event Criteria
(Test of Proof) Comment

Faulkner Offsite Disposal Facility (MD) Coal ash and pyritic mill rejects. Low pH; exceedance of State standard;

landfill and collection pond seepage and discharges resulted in plant and fish impacts to adjacent

wetlands. Scientific/Administ

rative State required

remediation included pond liners, landfill cover, and sequestration of pyrites.

DPC – Old E.J.
Stoneman Ash Pond (WI) Coal ash,

demineralizer regenerant, other

water treatment

wastes. Cd and Cr primary MCL exceedance; ‘gross contamination’ by pond cited by
State – Elevated
levels of Zn and sulfate; Boron near 5 mg/L in private drinking water well. Administrative State required Closure plan and
relocation of town water supply well.

Basin Electric W.J. Neal Station (ND) Coal ash and sludge; comanaged wastes probable. Cr exceeded state

standard and other

metals detected at

elevated levels in downgradient

sediments and ground water. Administrative (limited
information available) State required the

site closed and capped, NFRAP (No Further

Remedial Action Planned).

VEPCO – Possum Point (VA) Coal ash, pyrites, oil ash, water
treatment wastes, and boiler cleaning

wastes Cd primary MCL

exceedance in ground water; ground water

contaminated with Cd and Ni, attributed to pyrites and oil ash. Administrative Response included sequestration of oil ash, pyrites, and metal cleaning wastes to separate
lined units.

WEPCO Hwy 59 Ash Landfill (WI) Coal ash and mill rejects; other comanaged wastes probable. Boron exceedance
of state standard in down gradient ground water; elevated levels of As, Fe, Se, Mn, sulfate in private drinking

water wells. Scientific /

Administrative State required

additional monitoring for problem/damage

assessment.

Alliant Nelson Dewey (WI) Coal ash, comanaged wastes. Boron exceedance
of state standard in down gradient ground water; elevated levels of As, Se, Fl, sulfate in ground water. Administrative State required company to investigate and assess problem;

remedial action change to dry ash handling and modify landfill cover

to reduce
infiltration.

4Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Damage Case Wastes Present Event Criteria
(Test of Proof) Comment

Coal Creek Station (ND) Coal ash, comanaged wastes. Se and As
exceedance of primary MCL in ground water on site;
elevated sulfate and

chloride levels in down gradient ground water. Administrative Impacted shallow ground water aquifer. State required additional impoundment

liners.

Non-Utility Coal Combustion Waste Sites

Salem Acres (MA) Large volume; many

other wastes present including municipal solid

waste and industrial

solid waste. PAHs, VOCs, PCBs, metals including As and Cr; in soils, surface-waters, and ground water. Administrative (on NPL) 8 Contribution of FFC wastes to damage not separable from

other wastes.

Remedial measures taken including excavation, treatment, removal of sludges and

soils.

Lemberger Landfill,

Inc. 9
(WI) Comanaged wastes; many other materials including municipal solid waste; adjacent site

contains industrial

solid waste. Elevated levels of As, Cr, and Pb onsite, VOCs, PCBs. VOCs in private

water wells initiated

action. Administrative (on NPL) 10 Contribution of FFC wastes to damage not separable from

other wastes.

Don Frame Trucking Fly Ash
Landfill (NY) Coal ash, other

materials. Pb exceedance of primary MCL action

level in down gradient ground water; elevated levels of Mn, sulfate,
TDS in a water supply well. Administrative State required

remedial action: site
closure landfill cover; post-closure

care and monitoring.

Soon after the publication of the Regulatory Dete rmination, the Agency conducted a reevaluation of the damage cases identified in the Regulatory Determination, including the 11 proven damage

8

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/f52fa5c31fa8f5c885256adc0050b631/C8A4A5BEC0121F048525691F0063F 6F3?OpenDocument

9 Reclassified as a potential damage case. See Section III., Potential Damage Cases. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases, November 29,

2000.

10 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar735.htm

5Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

cases, the four additional ecological damage cases 11 which were identified in comments on the 1999 Report to Congress, the illegal disposal case, and the two poten tial damage cases attributed to non-utility coal combustion waste in the 1999 Repor t to Congress. As a result of this review, one of the cases identified in the Regulatory De termination as an ecological damage case, and the case identified as an illegal disposal case we re reclassified as proven damage cases due to contamination of ground water from the disposal of CCW in sand and gravel pits and another site, the Lemberger Landfill, was reclassified as a potential damage case 12

.

In October 2000, the Agency began collecting a dditional information from its own experience, from state agencies, and from commenters to clarify the details of the 18 previously indeterminate cases, which were included as part of the 59 cases identified by the public interest groups in their comments on the March 1999 Report to Congress. After analyzing this additional information, EPA classified three of the 18 cases as proven damage case s, nine as potential damage cases, and six as cases without documente d evidence of proven or potential damage or where the damage could not be clearly attribut ed to CCW. Two of the three proven damage cases involved management of CCW in sand and gravel pits and the third - a surface impoundment 13

.

Finally, in February 2002, environmental- and citizen-organizations submitted to the Agency 16 alleged cases of damage 14 . Some of these cases had been submitted to EPA previously and evaluated for the 1999 Report to Congress. The Agency evaluated ten of the 16 cases 15 ; one case was not evaluated because it involves mine filling of CCW, which, while under the scope of the 2000 Regulatory Determination, is outside the scope of this NODA that deals exclusively with surface disposal. The other five cases were not evaluated because they involved allegations with little or no supporting information. Of the ten cases evaluated, one case has been categorized as a proven damage case with docum ented off-site damages to ground water, while

six cases were categorized as potential damage cas es due to on-site exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs 16 . Another damage case was determined to be a proven ecological damage case as a result of documented impacts to fish and other wildlife on-site; this case also has been categorized as a potential (human health) da mage case due to documented exceedances of primary and secondary MCLs attributable to an inactive CCW surface im poundment detected in on-site monitoring wells. Finally, one case was rejected because monitoring data for the site

11 Ecological damages are damages to mammals, amphibians, fish, benthic layer organisms and plants.

12 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases, November 29, 2000.

13 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

14 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council, et. al ., to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC, September
24, 1999.

15 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

16 See Potential DCs, Section III of this document.

6Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

revealed no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs attributable to coal combustion waste placement at the site, while another site is an oil burning facility and, therefore, is not covered by the May 2000 Regulatory Determination 17

.

In August 2005, another damage case was recorded when a dam confining a surface impoundment in eastern Pennsylvania failed. This damage case result ed in discharge of coal-ash

contaminated water into the Delaware River a nd concomitant pollution of ground water when an unlined surface impoundment was temporarily us ed to divert the ash from the breached impoundment. Other than obtaining verification of the event from state authorities, the Agency did not conduct an independe nt evaluation of this case 18

.

In summary, EPA gathered or received info rmation on 135 possible damage cases and has

evaluated 85 of these cases. Six of the 50 cases that were not evaluated were minefills and outside the scope of this NODA. The remaini ng 44 cases that were not evaluated involved allegations with little or no supporting informa tion. (See Table 2: Fossil Fuel Combustion (FFC) Damage Case Resolution, excluding minefills)

Of the 85 cases evaluated, EPA determined that 24 were proven cases of damage 19 . Sixteen were determined to be proven damages to ground water and eight were determined to be proven damages to surface water. Four of the prove n damages to ground water were from unlined landfills, five were from unlined surface impound ments, one was due to a liner failure at a surface impoundment, and the remaining six were fr om unlined sand and gravel pits. Another 43 cases were determined to be potential damages to ground water or surface water. Four of the potential damage cases were attributable to oil combustion wastes. The remaining 18 alleged damage cases were not considered to be proven or potential damage cases; they were, therefore, rejected due to either (1) lack of any evidence of damage or (2 ) lack of evidence that damages were uniquely associated with CCW 20

.

Of the 16 proven cases of damages to ground water, the Agency has been able to confirm that corrective actions have been completed in six ca ses and are ongoing in nine cases. The Agency has not received information regarding the one re maining case. Corrective actions measures at these CCW management units vary depending on s ite specific circumstances and include formal closure of the unit, capping, the installation of new liners, gr ound water treatment, ground water monitoring, and combinations of these measures.

17 Status of Alleged Damage Cases Submitted by HE C, et. al., to Dennis Ruddy, February, 2002.

18 PA DEP Press Release, December 27, 2005.

19 See Proven Damage Cases, Section II of this document. In addition to the documents previously cited, additional discussions of proven damages can be found in the Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Additional Information Regarding Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000; and Ecological Assessment of Ash Deposition and Removal, Euharlee Creek, Georgia Power Bowen Plant.

20 See Rejected Cases Excluding Minefills, Section IV of this document.

7Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Table 2. Fossil Fuel Combustion (FFC) Damage Case Resolution, excluding minefills (Updated 2/03/05)

Final Final Final Indeter- Not re- Sand & Oil Comb. EcoOccurence State Proven Po tential Rejected minate ev aluated Non-FFC Gravel Pi t Non-Utility Waste Damage

TVA Widows Creek AL X

TVA Colbert Plant AL X

Arizona Public Serv Cholla Station AZ X

Comanche, PSCC CO X

Pierce Site CT X

Hunts Brook Watershed (3 sites) CT X
FP&L - Lansing Smith Plant (part 1) FL X

TECO Big Bend Electric Plant FL

TECO Polk Power Station FL
FP&L Port Everglades (EPRI #6) FL X (oil) X

FP&L Riviera (EPRI #10) FL X (oil) X

FPC P.L. Bartow (EPRI #66) FL X (oil) X

Georgia Power Bowen GA X

Muscatine County IA X

American Coal Corp. #5 CCR Landfill IA X

Star Coal Co. #6 CCR Landfill IA X

Star Coal Co. #14 CCR Landfill IA X

Powerton Plant IL X X

Central IL Light Duck Creek IL X

IL Power Hennepin Station IL X

IL Power Havana Plant IL X

IL Power - Vermillion IL X

Cent. IL PSC - Hutsonville Station IL X

IL Power - Wood RIver IL X

Cofeen, White, Brewer Ash Landfill IL X

Turris Coal Company Elkhart Mine IL X

Michigan City Site IN X

Bailly Station IN X

RM Schaffer Station (Schahfer) IN X

SIGECO - AB Brown IN X

IP&L - Petersburg Station IN X

Hoosier Energy Merom Landfill IN X

Yard 520 Landfill Pines IN X Indiana-Kentucky Electric Clifty Creek

Station IN X Cinergy/Cinn. G&E - East Bend/Boon County - FGD KY X

LG&E Mill Creek Plant KY X

LG&E Cane Run Plant KY X

Salem Acres MA X

Vitale Fly Ash Pit MA X X Rezendes Ash Landfill (South Main Street Site/Freetown) MA X X

Copicut Road Monofill, Freetown MA X X

PG&E Salem Harbor, Salem MA X
Brayton Point (EPRI #27) MA X (oil) X

8Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Table 2. Fossil Fuel Combustion (FFC) Damage Case Resolution, excluding minefills (Updated 2/03/05)

Final Final Final Indeter- Not re- Sand & Oil Comb. EcoOccurence State Proven Po tential Rejected minate ev aluated Non-FFC Gravel Pi t Non-Utility Waste Damage

PEPCO Faulkner MD X

Constellation Energy Crofton MD X

Brandywine Disposal Site MD X

Lansing Board P&L - N. Lansing Landfill MI X X

Thompson Landfill MI X

Motor Wheel, Inc MI X

Dagget Sand & Gravel, Inc MI X X

Sherburne County Plant MN X

Colstrip Power Plant MT
Hyco Lake (CP&L Roxboro) NC X X

Belews Lake NC X X

Duke Power - Allen Plant NC X

Ecusta Ash Monofill NC X X

BASF Industrial Landfill NC X X

Neal Station BESI ND X

Coop Power & United Power - Coal Creek ND X

Montana-Dakota - Heskett Station ND X

Stanton Site, United Power ND X

Leland Olds Site, Basin Electric ND X

Don Frame Trucking NY X

AES Creative Weber Site NY X

Central Hudson G&E - Danskammer Site NY X

C.R. Huntley Ash Landfill NY X

Cinergy/Cinn. G&E - Miamiview Landfill OH X X

Cinergy/Cinn. G&E - Beckjor d Station OH X Muskingum River Power Plant Impoundments OH X Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment OH X

Cardinal PFBC Monofill OH X

Stuart Station Monofill OH X

Gavin Impoundments OH X

Kyger Creek Power Plant Impoundments OH X

Lake Erie OH X X

Conesville FGD Landfill (part 1) OH X

Tristate Asphalt Flyash Landfill OH X

Muskogee Env. Ash Site OK X

Western Farmers Ash Site OK X

Public Service Ash Site OK X

Fort Gibson Fly Ash Monofill OK X

Grand River Dam Authority OK X

IMCO OK X

Elrama Plant PA X Hatsfield Ferry Power Plant, Greene County PA X

Zullinger Quarry PA X

9Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Table 2. Fossil Fuel Combustion (FFC) Damage Case Resolution, excluding minefills (Updated 2/03/05)

Final Final Final Indeter- Not re- Sand & Oil Comb. EcoOccurence State Proven Po tential Rejected minate ev aluated Non-FFC Gravel Pi t Non-Utility Waste Damage

Veterans Quarry, Domino Salvage PA X

Shawville Site, Penelec PA X

Montour Ash Disposal Area PA X

SC Elec & Gas Canadys Plant SC X

Savannah Riv. Project SC X X

SCE&G McMeekin Station SC X Chestnut Ridge Y-12 Steam Plant Operable Unit 2 TN X X

TVA Bull Run Steam Plant TN X

Brandy Branch Reservoir TX X X

Welsh Reservoir TX X X

Martin Creek Reservoir TX X X JT Deely Power Plant, San Antonio

Public Services TX X

VEPCO Possum Pt (Virginia Power) VA X OCW &

CCW

VEPCO Chisman (Virginia Power) VA X X
Clinch River (part 1) VA X X

Dixie Caverns Landfill VA X X

Chesterfield, Virginia Power VA X Georgia Pacific Industrial Waste Landfill, Big Island VA X X Dairyland Power Stoneman (Old E.J. Stoneman) WI X

WEPCO Hwy 59 WI X X

Alliant Nelson Dewey WI X
WEPCO Cedar Sauk Landfill (part 1) WI X X

WEPCO Port Washington WI X X

Alliant Rock River WI X

Alliant Edgewater 1-4 WI X

Wisconsin Power Pulliam Ash WI X

Dairyland Power Alma On-site Landfill WI X

Dairyland Power Alma Off-site Landfill WI X

Lemberger Landfill WI X X Genoa #3, Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) WI X

Old Columbia, WPL WI X

Oak Creek, WEPCO WI X

New Columbia, WPL WI X

Locks Mill Landfill WI X X

Biron On-site Landfill WI X X

Kraft Division Off-site Landfill WI X X Niagara of Wisconsin Paper Corporation Flyash Landfill WI X X

RPC Landfill #1 WI X X

RPC Landfill #2 WI X X

RPC Pine Lake Landfill WI X X

Ward Paper Company Landfill WI X X

Pleasant Prairie, WEPCO WI X

Dave Johnston Power Plant WY X

10Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007



# Proven Coal Combustion Waste Damage CasesCoal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

II. Proven Damage Cases

Per the 2000 Regulatory Determ ination, 65 FR 32224 and the Technical Background Document to the Report to Congress on Remaining Waste fr om Fossil Fuel Combustion: Potential Damage

Cases (1999), classifying damage to groundwater as a proven damage case requires the

satisfaction of at least one of the following "tests of proof" 21 :

1) Scientific investig ation: Damages that are found to ex ist as part of the findings of a scientific study. Such studies should include both formal investigations supporting litigation or a state enforcement action, and the results of techni cal tests (such as monitoring of wells). Scientific studies must demonstrate that dama ges are significant in terms of impacts on human health or the e nvironment. For example, information on contamination of drinking water aquifer must indicate that contaminant levels exceed drinking water standards. (2) Administrative ruling. Damages are found to exist through a fo rmal administrative ruling, such as the conclusions of a site report by a field inspector, or through existence of an enforcement that cited specific health or environmental damages. (3) Court decision. Damages are found to exis t through the ruling of a court or through

an out-of-court settlement. (4) As a practical matter, EPA employed a fourth criterion in determining whether damages are proven: available information needed to clearly implicate fossil fuel combustion wastes in the damage observed.

The above definition does not limit proven damage cases only to those sites with a primary MCL exceedance(s) in ground water distant from the waste management unit. A case still may be considered proven under the scientific investigation test if a scientif ic study demonstrates there is

21 The May 2000 Regulatory Determination falls short of providing a comprehensive definition of the review criteria ("test of proof") for assessing the validity of dama ge case allegations; it only discusses the review criteria in response to public comments on the review process of the Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) proposed rule, and focuses only on the location of the exceedance point with respect to the source term (32224 CFR 65):

”Proven damage cases were those with documented MCL exceedances that were measured in ground water at a sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituents had migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns.”

The "test of proof" criteria were fully defined on pp. 3-4 of the Technical Background Document to the Report to Congress on Remaining Waste from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Potential Damage Cases (1999): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer /other/fossil/ffc2_397.pdf . This language, in turn, is derived from the 1993 Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust Waste : http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/cement2.htm

.

According to the 1993 CKD Report to Congress (Chapter Five), Section 8002(o)(4) of RCRA require s that EPA's study of CKD waste examine "documented cases in which danger to human health or the environment has been proved." In order to address this requirement, EPA define d danger to human health to include both acute and chronic effects (e.g., directly observed health effects such as elevated blood lead le vels or loss of life) associated with management of CKD waste. Danger to the environment includes the following types of impacts: (1) Significant impairment of natural resources; (2) Ecological effects resu lting in degradation of the structure or function of natural ecosystems and habitats; and (3) Effects on wildlife resu lting in damage to terrestrial or aquatic fauna.

12Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage).

1. Salem Acres Site, Massachusetts 22

History : Fly ash disposal occurred at this site from at least 1952 to 1969. The site was originally contaminated by fly ash, sewage sl udge, tannery waste and material s from a landfill on the site.

The contamination was confined to the sout hernmost 13 acres of the 235 acre parcel and consisted of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins/furans, volatile organi c compounds (VOCs), chromium, arsenic, beryllium, vanadium

and thallium.

EPA proposed adding the Salem Acres site to the NPL on October 15, 1984, and added it to the final list on June 10, 1986 23 . On May 26, 1987, EPA signed a Consent Order with the South Essex Sewerage District (SESD) to perform the studies to examine the nature and extent of contamination and present technical options for cleanup. In December 1993, EPA signed a

Consent Decree with the SESD to clean up the lagoons. The EPA also signed a separate Consent

Decree with the Massachusetts Elec tric Company to clean up the fly ash pile on site. In October 1994, the EPA signed a Consent Order with DiBase Salem Realty Trust, the owner of the property and remaining party, to clean up the landfill and three debris piles.

Cleanup of the site was addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site. In 1987, lagoon water was removed and disposed of, the slurry wall at the disposal areas was capped a nd a fence was installed. In 1988, EPA covered the sludge pits with a high density polyethylene synthetic cap, removed the liquid wastes from the disposal pits to an off-site storage facilit y, and constructed concrete cut-off walls to prevent further releases into the wetlands. In 1990, re pairs were made to a monitoring well and a security fence on site, and signs were posted to further restrict access.

The South Essex Sewerage District completed an investigation into the nature and extent of the soil and sludge contamination in early 1993. Th e investigation defined the contaminants of

concern and recommended alternatives for final cleanup. Ground water at the site and adjacent wetlands demonstrated only minor contamination a nd therefore, no further remedial actions were planned. EPA selected a final remedy for the si te, including sludge-fixation with fly ash and other substances such as cement and soil, as n ecessary and disposed of off-site to a secured landfill. A contingent remedy includes the instal lation of an EPA-approved cap. In 1995, the fly

ash area and “old landfill” on site were excavat ed and the contaminated material was taken off site to a municipal landfill. Final site restor ation of these areas occurred in 1996. The sludge lagoon cleanup was completed in the fall of 1997 and final site restoration was completed in the

22 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Additional Information Regarding Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

23

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/f52fa5c31fa8f5c885256adc0050b631/C8A4A5BEC0121F048525691F0063F 6F3?OpenDocument

13Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

spring of 1998. In the summer of 1999, fly ash was removed from the wetland adjacent to the former fly ash pile. The wetland wa s restored at this time. The si te was officially deleted from

the National Priorities List (NPL) effective July 23, 2001 24 . The site now allows for unrestricted

land use

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : The criteria for classifying this site as a proven damage case were (1) Scientific – Arse nic and chromium exceeded (health-based) primary MCLs, and (2) Administrative – The si te has been placed on the NPL list, and EPA signed a Consent Order with the owner to clean up the lagoons.

2. City of Beverly/Vitale Broth ers Fly Ash Pit, Massachusetts 25

History : This site is an abandoned gravel and sand mine that was used as an unpermitted landfill from the 1950’s until the mid-1970s. The site was operated by the Vitale Brothers until 1980, when the City of Beverly Conservation Commission gained owners hip because of failure to pay property taxes. On the site, the Vitale Brothe rs accepted and disposed saltwater-quenched fly ash from New England Power Company along with other wastes. Leak ing underground storage tanks containing petroleum products were also located at the site. In 1973, fly ash at the site eroded into a nearby swamp and a stream that is a tributary to a surface drinking water supply. The erosion created a damming eff ect and resulted in flooding of neighboring property. In 1988, surface water sampling of the stre am revealed levels of iron a nd manganese significantly greater than upstream levels. Additionally, there were co mplaints of fugitive dust from the site from neighbors located 500 feet away. Air sampli ng on one occasion in 1988 revealed arsenic concentrations of 2 parts per billion. Fina lly, 1988 ground water sampling found arsenic and

selenium in excess of their primary MCLs and aluminum, ir on, and manganese in excess of secondary MCLs. According to the State, fly ash is the suspected source of contamination in all

of these media.

Fly ash is disposed at the site at depths from 14 to 36 feet. Not only is the site unlined, but ground water depth at the site is between 10 a nd 21 feet, indicating th e likelihood of direct contact with fly ash. Fly ash also is observed to be present at the surface of the site with no cover or other surface runoff, erosion, or fugitive dust controls. Finally, the site is located in close proximity to a wetland and a surface water body.

The site has a long history of noncompliance w ith local and State la ws and regulations. Following the completion of a Comprehensive Site Assessment and Risk Characterization in preparation for potential remedi al action under Massachusetts regu lations for the assessment and cleanup of hazardous waste sites, the fly ash wa s removed and the site was redesigned with special attention to protecting the adjacent water courses from erosion 26 . The Vitale Flyash site

24 Ibid

25 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases, November 29, 2000.

26 http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ecm_0603_erosion.html

14Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

submitted a site closure report February 1, 2007, and a preliminary screening of the site closure report is underway 27

.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : This case was not counted as a proven damage case in the 1999 Regulatory Determination b ecause it was a case of illegal disposal not representative of historical or current disposal practices. The case, however, otherwise meets the criteria for a proven damage case for the followi ng reasons: (1) Scientific – (i) selenium and arsenic exceeded (health-based) primary MCLs, a nd (ii) there is eviden ce of contamination of nearby wetlands and surface waters; and (2) Admini strative - the facility was the subject of

several citations and the State has enforced remedial actions.

3. Don Frame Trucking, Inc. Fly Ash Landfill, New York 28

History : This solid waste management facility had b een used for disposal of fly ash, bottom ash, and other material including yard sweepi ngs generated by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation’s Dunkirk Steam Station. The age of the facility was not iden tified in the materials provided. The available monitoring data for this facility include quarterly water quality analysis

and various miscellaneous data collected at the facility from March 1989 through September 1998. These data show down-gradient levels of lead greater than the primary MCL Action

Level. These exceedances occurred in 1989 and 1996. The data also document elevations from background of sulfate, total dissolved solids, and manganese, includ ing levels of manganese in a water supply well greater than the secondary MCL.

As a result of the contamination, Don Fram e Trucking recommended to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) that th e affected water supply well should immediately be connected to a public water supply. Also, on September 16, 1988, Don Frame Trucking, Inc. was directed to cease receivi ng the aforementioned wastes at the facility no later than October 15, 1988, in accordance with the standards contained in 6 NYCRR Part 360. 29
The site was divided into five separate s ections. The NYSDEC directed Don Frame Trucking, Inc. to place two feet of a “fin al cover” over Section I. The soil should have a coefficient of permeability of 1 x 10 -5 cm/sec. NYSDEC directed Section II to be covered w ith 18 inches of clay cover with a coefficien t of permeability of 1 x 10 -7 in two shifts. Once the permeability was tested and considered acceptable, NYSDEC dir ected Don Frame Trucking, Inc. to place six additional inches of topsoil wa s over the clay cover and then seed and mulch the section. Eighteen inches of clay with a coefficient of permeability of 1 x 10 -7 was also directed to be placed on Sections III, IV, and V, followed by reseeding and mulching. Don Frame Trucking,

Inc. was instructed to finish all remediati on procedures by October 15, 1988, and then provide

27 MADEP tracking number 3-00230; email message from Patricia Donahue, MADEP, July 9, 2007.

28 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

29 Application of Don Frame Trucking, Inc. Petitioner for a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Respondent; Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Chautauqua (July 22, 1988). Order G11278.

15Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

certification by a licensed profession al engineer that the facility was closed in accordance with the rules and regulations as stipulated by the NYSDEC by October 21, 1988. Post-closure ground water and surface water monitoring and mainte nance were also expected to continue for 30 years after final closure of the entire facility.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case :(1) Scientific - The lead levels found in downgradient wells exceed the primary MCL Acti on Level; (2) Administra tive - The State has required remedial action as a re sult of the contamination; and (3) Court order – The owner was directed, by the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Chautauqua (July 22, 1988), to cease receiving the aforementioned wastes at the facility no later than October 15, 1988.

4. Virginia Electric Power Co. (VEPCO) Possum Point, VA 30

History : EPA identified this site as a proven damage case in the March 1999 Report to Congress.

It is described in detail in the Report and supporting techni cal background documents in the rulemaking docket.

The technical background document 31 states: “One additional documented damage case is the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEP CO) Possum Point Site, described in the 1993 Regulatory Determination. This is an active f acility with 40-acre unlined ash ponds with solids dredged to 80-acre lined ponds. These ponds receive d coal ash, pyrites, water treatment wastes, boiler cleaning wastes, and oil ash. Ground water monitoring found cadmium at concentrations 3.6 times and nickel, at 26.4 times the primary MCLs. Monitoring for vanadium was conducted but no results were given. The elevated concentra tions were attributed to the pyrites and oil ash. These wastes, along with metal cleaning wastes, were ordered sequestered to separate lined

units.”

The 1999 Report to Congress 32 states: “ Possum Point, Virginia (described in the 1993 Supplemental Analysis). At this site, oil ash, pyrites, boiler chem ical cleaning wastes, coal fly ash, and coal bottom ash were comanaged in an unlined pond, with solids dredged to a second pond. Levels of cadmium above 0.01 mg/L were r ecorded prior to 1986 (the primary MCL is 0.005 mg/L). After that time, remedial actions we re undertaken to segreg ate wastes (oil ash and

low volume wastes were believed to be the source of contamination). Following this action, cadmium concentrations were below 0.01 mg/L.”

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : Based on evidence on exceedances of cadmium and nickel, the State pursued an Admini strative Action by requir ing the removal of the waste, thus qualifying it as a proven damage case.

30 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

31 Technical Background Document For the Report to Congress On Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Potential Damage Cases, March 15, 1999 ( http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/ffc2_397.pdf )

32 http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/volume_2.pdf

16Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

5. PEPCO Morgantown Generating Station Faulkner Off-site Disposal Facility, Maryland 33

History : Landfills at this site manage fly ash, bottom ash, and pyrites from the Morgantown Generating Station starting in 1970. Unlined settli ng ponds also are used at the site to manage stormwater runoff and leachate from the ash disposal area. In 1991, the State found that water quality was degraded in the underlying aquife r and that ground water contamination had migrated to nearby surface waters (including a stream and a wetland area). The impacts included vegetative damages, orange staining from iron precipitation, and low pH. Because of the ground water migration, the operator was cited for unpermitte d discharges to surface water. The low pH impacts are believed to have resulted from pyrite oxidation. The low pH may also have contributed to the migration of other contam inants. Additionally, ground water beneath the facility is shallow. Documentation shows the wa ter table is very close to the bottom of the ash disposal area at the down-gradie nt end of the facility and well above the base of the settling ponds used to manage stormwater runoff a nd leachate from the ash disposal area.

Remedial measures at the site in cluded closure and capping of olde r units, installation of liners in newer units, installation of a sl urry wall to prevent ground water migration, and sequestration of pyrites. EPA identified this site as a proven damage case in the March 1999 Report to Congress.

It is described in detail in the Report and supporting techni cal background documents in the rulemaking docket.

Basis for Consideration as a proven Damage Case : EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scie ntific - Ground water contamination migrated off-site; and (2) Administrative - The State required remedial action.

6. Virginia Power Yorktown Power Station Chisman Creek Disposal Site, Virginia 34

History : This site consists of thr ee parcels of land that cover 27 acres. Between 1957 and 1974, abandoned sand and gravel pits at the site received fly ash fr om the combustion of coal and petroleum coke at the Yorktown Power Stati on. Disposal at the site ended in 1974 when Virginia Power began burning oil at the Yorkto wn plant. In 1980, nearby shallow residential

wells became contaminated with vanadium and se lenium. Water in the wells turned green and contained selenium above the primary MCL and sulfate above the secondary MCL. Investigations in response to the discolored drinking water found heavy metal contamination in the ground water around the fly as h disposal areas, in onsite ponds, and in the sediments of Chisman Creek and its tributaries. Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, and selenium were de tected above background levels.

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

34 Ibid. Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

17Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

The contamination at the site’s vicinity was cause d by the combination of several factors: (i) The facility was operated with no dust or erosion controls; (ii) The fac ility is unlined and located in close proximity to drinking water wells, and gr ound water at the site was very shallow and possibly in contact with disposed waste.; (iii) A surface water tributary passed through or near the disposal areas.

In September 1983, EPA added the site to the National Priorities List (NPL) 35 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Comp ensation, and Liabilit ies Act (CERCLA). Cleanup began in late 1986 and was conducted in two parts. The first part addressed the fly ash pits and contaminated ground water and included the following steps:

• Extension of public water to 55 homes with contaminated well water,

• Capping the disposal pits with soil (2 pits) or compacted clay (1 pit) overlain with topsoil and vegetative growth,

• Ground water and leachate collection for treatmen t and to lower the water table beneath the pits, and

• Post-closure monitoring.

The second part addressed the onsite ponds, a fr eshwater tributary stream, and the Chisman Creek estuary and included the following steps:

• Relocation of a 600-foot portion of the tributary to minimize cont act with the fly ash disposal

areas,

• Diversion of surface runoff, and

• Long-term monitoring for the ponds, tributary, and estuary.

Construction of all cleanup components was completed on December 21, 1990. The site has been redeveloped as a public park. Following the completion (in December 2006) of its third five-year review of the site, EP A determined that the remedial action at Operable Unit 1 is protective in the short te rm because the extent of the vana dium contamination in the shallow ground water aquifer is not presen tly known. EPA is presently work ing with Virginia Power to

determine the extent of the vanadium contaminati on and to amend the restriction to make sure it provides the necessary assurance that it will be protective over time.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA identified this site as a proven damage case in the March 1999 Report to Congress. It is described in detail in the Report and supporting technical background documents in the rulemaking docket. EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Sc ientific – (i) Drinking water wells contained selenium above the (health-based) primary MCL and (ii) There is evidence of surface water and sediment contamination; and (2) Administra tive - The site was remediated under CERCLA.

35 http://epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/VAD980712913.htm

18Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

7. Hyco Lake, Roxboro, North Carolina 36

History : This case was originally identified by a public interest group in a table alleging selenium contamination, and a selenium fish consumption advisory 37

.

Hyco Lake was constructed in 1964 as a cooling water source for the CP&L Roxboro Steam Electric Plant. The lake received discharges from the plant’s ash-settling ponds containing high

levels of selenium. The selenium accumulated in the fish in the lake, affecting reproduction and causing declines in fish populati ons in the late 1970s and 1980s. The North Carolina Department

of Health and Human Services issued a fish consumption advisory in 1988 38

.

In 1990, CP&L installed a dry ash handling system to meet new permit limits for selenium. To

determine the effectiveness of the new handling system, the Department of Water Quality is requiring long-term monitoring of the lake. Based on the results of fish tissue sampling, the fish consumption advisory has been rescinded in stages starting in 1994 39 . It was completely rescinded in August, 2001 40

.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : This case is categorized as a proven ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1 ) Scientific - declines in fish populations were observed (1970s & 1980s); (2) Administrative - The State conc luded that the impacts were attributable to the ash ponds, and issued a fi sh consumption advisory as a result of the

contamination.

8. Georgia Power Company, Plan t Bowen, Cartersville, GA 41

History : This unlined CCW management unit was put in service in 1968. On July 28, 2002, a sinkhole developed in the (coal) ash pond of the Georgia Power Co mpany - Plant Bowen Facility (coal-fired generating facility). The sinkhole ultimately reached four acres and a depth of thirty

36 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

37 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding comments on the May 2000 Regulatory Determination, September 19, 2000.

38 Selenium Posting on Hyco Lake Rescinded, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS), August 2001.

39 Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Section B, Chapter 5: Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), July 2001. Available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/roanoke/2001/2001_Roanoke_wq_management_plan.htm

40 Selenium Posting on Hyco Lake Rescinded, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS), August 2001.

41 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007. Ecological Assessment of Ash Deposition and Removal, Euharlee Creek, Georgia Power Bowen Plant, available in the docket to the CCW NODA (EPA-HQ-RCRA -2006-0796).

19Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

feet. The integrity of the ash pond dikes did not appear to be compromised. The company estimated that 2.25 million gallons of ash/water mi xture was released to an unnamed tributary of the Euharlee Creek, containing 281 tons of ash. Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources alleges an unpermitted discharge of water containing approximately 80 tons of ash slurry entered Euharlee Creek through a stormwater drainage pi pe resulting in a tem porary degradation of public waters.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources issued a consent order on November 20, 2002. The order contained the following provisions:

• Fine of $31,250 was imposed;

• Company to perform ecological impact st udy of the ash discharge into Euharlee Creek and recommend remedial action;

• Company to submit proposed dredging plan if necessitated by impact study;

• Company to submit report on actions ta ken to fill sinkhole and grout fissures under the dike;

• Company to perform geological engineer ing assessment of the ash pond stability

and recommend corrective actions to a ddress future sinkhole development;

• Company to submit a revised ash water management plan;

• Georgia EPD approved corrective action plans shall be implemented; and

• Company shall submit interim progress re port and final schedule for completion of implementation of corrective action plans.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : (1) Scientific - unpermitted discharge of water containing ash slurry into the Euharlee Creek resulting in a te mporary degradation of public waters; and (2) Administrative - Georgia Department of Natural Resources issued a consent order requiring, among others , a fine and corrective action.

9. Department of Energy - Oak Ridge Y-12 Pl ant Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2
DOE Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 42

History : This case was originally identified by public commenters in a table that alleged aluminum, arsenic, iron, and selenium contaminati on, as well as fish deformities and a region of

a stream where no fish are found 43

.

Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit (OU) 2 consists of Upper McCoy Branch, the Filled Coal Ash Pond (FCAP), and the area surrounding the sluice channel formerly associated with coal ash disposal in the FCAP. Upper McCoy Branch r uns from the top of Chestnut Ridge across the FCAP into Rogers Quarry. The FCAP is an 8.5 acre area. The sluice channel area extends approximately 1,000 feet from the crest of Ch estnut Ridge to the edge of the FCAP.

42 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

43 Letter from HEC et. al., to Dennis Ruddy, February, 2002.

20Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

The FCAP is an ash retention impoundment used to dispose of coal ash slurry from the Y-12 steam plant. It was constructed in 1955 by build ing an earthen dam across a northern tributary of Upper McCoy Branch, and was designed to hold 20 years of ash. By July of 1967, the impoundment was filled to within four feet of the top of the earthen dam. Once the impoundment was no longer able to re tain the ash solids, the slurry was released directly into Upper McCoy Branch through direct flow ove r the earthen dam. In 1967 and 1968, Upper McCoy Branch was diverted into Rogers Quar ry. Between 1967 and 1989, the ash slurry flowed directly from the FCAP into Upper McCoy Bran ch and then into Rogers Quarry. In 1989, a bypass pipe was constructed to carry the slurry directly from the steam plant to Rogers Quarry. Disposal of ash into Rogers Quarry was discon tinued in 1990, when a chemical vacuum system and a bottom ash dewatering system were installed at the plant. Both fly ash and bottom ash are now disposed in a landfill. Existing ash deposits we re left in place. Erosion of both the spillway and the ash itself has occurred, leading to releases of ash into Upper McCoy Branch 44

.

In the mid-1980s, the Y-12 plant began investigat ion and ground water mo nitoring at a number

of locations within its boundari es, as required under RCRA and by the Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation (TDEC). The entire Oak Ridge Reservation was placed on the NPL in 1989. CERCLA requires all sites under investigation to complete a remedial investigation to

determine the nature and extent of contaminati on, evaluate the risks to public health and the environment, and determine remedial action goals. The Remedial Investigation for OU conducted in two phases. Phase I was conducte d by CH2M Hill in the Upper McCoy Branch zone. Phase II was conducted by CDM Federal in the FCAP and sluice area zones. Both investigations consisted of su rface and ground water, soil, and ash sampling. The table below shows a summary of the results of the monitoring programs 45

.

Table 3. Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Programs

Monitoring type Monitoring

location Constituents with exceedances

of ambient/ reference/background

concentrations Constituents with

exceedance of MCLs

or SMCLs

Upper McCoy Branch (Phase I) Al, Fe, Cu Al, As, Fe, Mn

Upper McCoy Branch (Phase II) Al, As, Ca, Mn, K, Na Al, As, Mn Surface Water

FCAP Pond Water Al, As , Ba, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn, K, Na, V, Zn Al, As, Fe, Mn

44 Feasibility Study for the Y-12 Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 Filled Coal Ash Pond, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DOE/OR/02-1259&D1. August 1994.

45 Ibid.

21Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Monitoring type Monitoring

location Constituents with exceedances

of ambient/ reference/background

concentrations Constituents with

exceedance of MCLs

or SMCLs

Spring Water Al, As, Ba, Ca, Pb, Mn, Hg,
K, V, Zn Al, As, Fe, Pb, Mn

Upper McCoy Branch (Phase I) Al, Ba, Ca, Co, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Se, Zn Al, Fe, Mn

Upper McCoy Branch (Phase II) information not provided Mn Ground Water

Sluice Channel

Area information not provided Mn

Near Upper McCoy Branch (Phase II) Al, As, Ba, Fe, Mn, K, Na Not applicable Soil

Near FCAP Al, As, K, Na Not applicable

Ash Entire Site No background data Not applicable

Biological monitoring has also been conducted at the site as part of a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) required by the 1984 Hazar dous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA, and as part of the Phase I Remedial Investiga tion. The biological monitoring conducted for the RFI included toxicity testing, bioaccumulation studies, fish community assessments, and a benthic macro-invertebrate community assessment. Biological monitoring for the Phase I RI consisted of toxicity testing, a benthic macro-i nvertebrate assessment, a soil (ash) invertebrate survey, and bioaccumulation studies 46

.

The conclusions for the RFI biological m onitoring programs were as follows:

• Toxicity testing: The results of the toxicity testing did not show si gnificant evidence for toxic conditions in Upper McCoy Branch.

• Bioaccumulation studies:

• Concentrations of selenium, arsenic, and possibly thallium were elevated in largemouth bass from Rogers Quarry, rela tive to bass from another nearby site;

• Arsenic exceeded screening criteria;

• Some fish from Rogers Quarry had defo rmed bony structures (these effects were

not described in literature as eff ects of arsenic or selenium); and

• Bioaccumulation was not indicated in Upper McCoy Branch discharge

46 Ibid.

22Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

• Fish community assessment: The results indi cate that Upper McCoy Branch is under

severe stress:

• No fish populations were found above Rogers Quarry; and

• Downstream sunfish populations had high percentages of deformed heads and

eroded fins.

• Benthic Macro-invertebrate Community Assessment: The results were indicative of moderate stress. The stress appears to be ha bitat alteration as a re sult of ash deposition within the stream channel and possibly leaching of potential toxicants from the ash.

The conclusions for the RI biological m onitoring programs were as follows:

• Toxicity testing: The results did not show toxic conditions in Upper McCoy Branch.

• Benthic Macro-invertebrate Assessment: Th e results exhibited no strong evidence of impact at Upper McCoy Branch. There were some differences in July samples, which

could be due to natural variations between th e two locations, or could be due to low flow conditions increasing concentrations of contaminants from the ash.

• Soil (ash) Invertebrate Study: No invertebrates were found in samples from the sluice channel area or the FCAP, indicating this is not a possible pathway for contamination of

the food chain.

• Bioaccumulation Studies:

• Vegetation: The results show that selenium uptake into plants is a possible source of exposure to soil inverteb rates and small mammals.



### • Small mammals: The study found higher concen trations of arsenic, selenium and

lead in animals from the FCAP than in animals from a reference site.

A remedial action was conducted to stabiliz e the filled coal ash pond, McCoy Bridge dam holding contaminated pond sediments in pla ce. A wetland, removed during stabilization activities, was re-constructed as part of the re medial action. Physical work was completed in March 1997. The remedial action report was approved in May 1997 47

.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: This case has been categorized as a proven ecological damage case based on scientific documen tation of impacts to fish and other wildlife

on-site. This case has also been categorized as a potential (hum an health) damage case based on (1) Scientific basis - Exceedances of primary and secondary MCLs were detected in on-site monitoring locations, and (2) Administrative grounds - Federal RCRA and the Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation (TDE C) requirements, including placement of the entire Oak Ridge Reservation on the NPL.

47 http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/npltn/oakridtn.htm

23Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

10. South Carolina Electric & Gas Canadys Plant, South Carolina 48

History : This facility is a coal-fired power plant located along the Edisto River approximately 10 miles south of St. George, South Carolina. Ash from the power plant is mixed with water and managed in an ash storage pond. The facility operated an unlined, 80-acre ash pond from 1974 to 1989. A new, 95-acre ash pond lined with a bentonite slurry wall began operation in 1989.

Since 1982, arsenic has consisten tly been found in monitoring wells surrounding the old ash pond at levels above the MCL. Nickel also ha s occasionally been found above a State standard in a single monitoring well adjacent to the old ash pond. Because of these results, DHEC required the facility to delinea te the extent of the contamin ation surrounding the old ash pond. The contamination was found to extend beyond the or iginal property boundary of the facility, but the operator was allowed to buy neighboring prop erty under State policy at the time. The investigation also showed that the contaminatio n was not reaching the Edis to River and that its vertical extent was limited by a confining geol ogic unit 15 to 30 feet below the property. The facility is currently deactivating the old ash pond, with ash being removed and sold to a cement company. DHEC concluded that further migrati on of contaminants was not likely given the ground water conditions and the ongoing deactivation. In 1996, therefore, DHEC approved a mixing zone with ongoing monitoring around the old ash pond. The mixing zone establishes a compliance boundary around the old ash pond. Arsenic concentrations above the MCL are permitted within the mixing zone, but not at or outside of the compliance boundary.

The new ash pond extends beyond the compliance boundary of the old ash pond. Sampling in May 2000 found arsenic above its MCL at, and ex ternal to, the compliance boundary in wells that are adjacent to the new ash pond. Resampli ng in June 2000 confirmed the noncompliance. The facility’s engineering contra ctor and DHEC suspect this arseni c contamination is associated with a separate plume originating from th e new ash pond. DHEC suspects improper anchoring or a breach of the slurry wall surrou nding the new ash pond. Based on a geophysical investigation, the facility’s engine ering contractor concluded that the slurry wall appears to have failed in various locations, allo wing multiple seeps. The contractor noted that drought-like conditions during the preceding thre e years have caused a site-wide de crease in the water table. The increase in potentiometric head between the new ash pond and the falling water table may be a contributing factor to the breaches in the slur ry wall. The facility has proposed additional monitoring to delineate the extent of the new ar senic plume and an extension of the compliance boundary to encompass the new ash pond. The faci lity also is evaluating possible corrective action alternatives for repairing or replacing the slurry wall. The extent of the new plume has not yet been fully delineated and DHEC has not yet de termined what response may be required of the facility.

This site was initially classifi ed as indeterminate because there was no information on the extent of the contamination (on-site or off-site), quant itative data on whether arsenic levels exceeded State standards, or confirmation that the contamination was attributable to fossil fuel combustion waste. In a follow-up assessment conducted after the Regulatory Determination, a representative

48 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

24Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

from South Carolina’s Department of Health an d Environmental Control (DHEC) confirmed that

there is arsenic contamination attributable to two coal combustion waste (CCW) management units at this site. According to the DHEC cont act, it is unlikely that th ere are any ground water supply wells or other human exposure points in the vicinity of the facility. Furthermore, ground water supply wells in the region typically are drilled beneath th e underlying confining geologic

unit.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: Scientific - There ar e exceedances of the

health-based standard for arseni c at this site. While there are no known human exposure points nearby, some recent exceedances have been detected outside an established regulatory boundary.

11. Belews Lake, North Carolina 49

History : This Lake was impounded in the early 1970s to serve as a cooling reservoir for a large coal-fired power plant. Fly ash produced by th e power plant was dispos ed in a settling basin,

which released selenium-laden effluent in re turn flows to the Lake. Due to the selenium contamination, 16 of the 20 fish species original ly present in the reservoir were entirely eliminated, including all the primary sport fish. The pattern of selenium contamination from the plant and fish impacts persisted from 1974 to 1985. In late 1985, under mandates from the State of North Carolina, the power company changed op erations for fly ash disposal, and seleniumladen effluent no longer entered the Lake.

A fish advisory was issued for selenium in 1993 which was rescinded December 31, 2000 50

.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA has categorized this case as a proven ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific evidence of extensive impacts on fish populations due to direct discharge to a surface water body, and (2 ) Administrative - The State required changes in operating practices to mitigate the contamination.

12. U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Project, South Carolina 51

History : The Savannah River Project co mmenced operations and disposal of ash in 1952. At this site, a coal-fired power plant sluices fly ash to a series of open settli ng basins. A continuous

flow of sluice water exits the ba sins, overflows, and enters a swam p that in turn discharges to Beaver Dam Creek. Observations of bullfrogs of all developmental stages in the settling basins and swamp suggest that the mixt ure of pollutants that characte rize the site does not prevent

49 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases, November 29, 2000.

50 http://134.67.99.49/scripts/esrimap.dll?Name=Listing&Cmd=NameQuery&Left=-178.215026855469&Right=- 52.6202812194824&Top=83.1083221435547&Bottom=- 14.3755550384521&shp=3&shp=6&idChoice=3&lo c=on&NameZoom=NC%20-%20Belews%20Lake

51 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases, November 29, 2000.

25Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

completion of the life cycle. However, bullfrog tadpoles inhabiting the site have oral deformities and impaired swimming and predat or avoidance abilities. There also is evidence of metabolic impacts on water snakes inhabiting the site.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA has categorized this case as a proven ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific evidence of impacts on several species in a nearby wetland caused by re leases from the ash settling ponds.

13. Dairyland Power Cooperative E.J. Stoneman Generating Station Ash Disposal Pond,

Wisconsin 52

History : This facility is an unlined pond that ma naged ash, demineralizer regenerant, and sand filter backwash from the 1950’s until 1987. During the facility’s operating life, ground water monitoring of on-site wells around the pond found cad mium and chromium in excess of primary MCLs and sulfate, manganese, iron, and zinc in excess of secondary MCLs. Nearby private drinking water wells showed levels of sulfate and boron elevated from background. As a result,

the State concluded that other constituents coul d reach the drinking wate r wells in the future. 53
Because of the evidence of ground water contamin ation and because the facility violated State location standards, the State de nied the operator’s proposal to continue operation of the pond. The State also required the operator to close the f acility and provide alternative drinking water to the affected residences. The history of contamin ation also led the State to require a new landfill

on the site to be constructed with a double liner and leachate collection.

In addition to being unlined, the unconsolidated soils beneath the site consist of highly permeable sand and gravel (estimated permeability of 10 -2 cm/sec). The pond was located close to the Mississippi River, in vi olation of the State’s requirement for 300 feet of separation from navigable rivers. The proximity to the river cau sed variable water table levels and periods of ground water mounding, during which the depth of ground water beneath the unit was very shallow (possibly as low as 1 foot). Finall y, the pond was located closer to 15 water supply wells than allowed by State standards.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA identified this site as a proven damage case in the March 1999 Report to Congress. It is described in detail in the Report and supporting technical background documents in the rulemaking docket. EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific - Cadmium and chromium exceeded (health-based) primary MCLs, and contamination migrated to nearby, private drinking water wells; and (2) Administrative - The St ate required closure of the facility.

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

53 More recent monitoring data confirm this conclusi on, with cadmium exceeding th e primary MCL and iron and manganese exceeding secondary MCLs in the drinking water wells.

26Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

14. WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill, Wisconsin 54

History : This site is located in an old sand and gr avel pit and received fly ash and bottom ash between 1969 and 1978. Ground water monitoring between 1988 and 1998 found sulfate, boron, manganese, chloride, and iron above the State’s Enforcement Standards (ES) and arsenic above the State’s Preventive Action Level (PAL) in nearby private wells. Other down-gradient monitoring wells showed sulfate, boron, iron, and manganese in ex cess of the ES and selenium and chloride in excess of PALs. State agency sta ff considered this site one of the most seriously

affected coal ash sites in the State. The State re quired a continuation of m onitoring at this closed facility in 1982 and an investigation into ground water contamination in 1994.

The facility is unlined and the soil underlying the site consists of fine to coarse sands and gravel with minor amounts of silt and clay and is believed to be relatively permeable. The original sand and gravel pit included an area of standing wa ter. The presence of the standing water is

attributed to the elevat ion of the ground water tabl e exceeding the base of the pit in this area. Waste was disposed directly into this area to a de pth of 5 to 10 feet below the water table. (Note

also that the fac ility is located in cl ose proximity to a wetland, although there is no documentation of impact to flora in the wetland.)

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case of the following reasons: (1) Scie ntific - Although the boron standard was not health-based at the time of the exceedances, the boron levels reported for th e facility would have exceeded the State’s recently promulgated health -based ES for boron; and contamination from the facility appears to have migrated to off-site private wells; and (2) Administrative - As a result of the various PAL and ES exceedances, the State required a ground water investigation.

15. Alliant (formerly Wisconsin Power & Ligh t) Nelson Dewey Ash Disposal Facility,

Wisconsin 55

History : This facility was orig inally constructed in the early 1960’ s as a series of settling basins for sluiced ash and permitted by the State in 197 9. 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. Waste disposal also has resulted in exceedances of the State’s Enforcement Standards (ES) for boron, fluoride, and sulfat e outside the design management zone of the facility. As a result of these exceedances, the State required an investigation of ground water contamination in 1993. In 1996, the facility began converting to dr y ash management and covering/closing phases of the facility.

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

55 Ibid.

27Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Soil underlying the site consists of unconsolidated gl acial outwash deposits of relatively high permeability (estimated between 10 -2 and 10 -5 cm/sec). 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, th e facility began using direct discharge to reduce the hydraulic head in response to PAL ex ceedances 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 gene rally approximately 10 feet, the height of the ground water mound was estimated at 5 to 8 feet, resulting in an es timated effective depth to ground water of only 2 to 5 feet underneath the disposal area.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scie ntific - Although the boron standard was not health-based at the time of the exceedances, the boron levels reported for th e 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 investigation, and the facility took action to remediate ground wa ter contamination and prevent

further contamination.

16. WEPCO Cedar-Sauk Landfill, Wisconsin 56

History : This facility is an abandoned sand and grav el pit that received coal combustion waste from the WEPCO Port Washington Power Plant from 1969 to 1979. After closure of the facility, ground water monitoring revealed exceedances of the primary MCL for selenium, the State standard for boron, and the secondary MCL for sulf ate. Vegetative damage resulting from boron uptake also was observed in a ne arby wetland. Presumably, this damage is the result of ground water migration to the wetland. As a result, th e State required installa tion of relief wells to confine and remediate the contamination plume and in stallation of an upgraded cover at the site. The facility is not only unlined, but was constructe d over shallow ground water 57 in highly permeable (10 -3 to 10 -2 cm/sec) media. Some time after closure, the water table rose, saturating portions of the ash fill. Furthermore, the original soil cover installed at closure -- less than 2 feet in places -- was found to be insufficient. Fina lly, the site was located in close proximity to a

wetland.

EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Re port to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants and analyzed it furthe r in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination 58 . This case was not counted as a

56 Ibid.

57 Quantitative data on the original depth to ground water are not available, but documentation on the site reports

that the water table was near th e base of the original pit.

58 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 (Par t 1), EPA-HQ-RCRA -1993-0042-1642.

28Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

proven damage case in the 1999 Report to Congress, however, because there was no evidence of comanagement of low-volume wastes at the site.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scient ific - Selenium in ground water exceeded the (health-based) primary MCL, and there was cl ear evidence of vegeta tive damage; and (2)

Administrative - The State re quired remedial action.

17. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (WEPCO) Port Washington Facility, Wisconsin 59

History: Originally, the commenters identified this Wi sconsin 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 initiall y classified as indeterminate because (i) the commenters did not identify the sour ce of the information, and (ii) No quantitative data or further inform ation about this site was available.

In the course of reassessment conducted follo wing the Regulatory Determination, a copy of the original Water Well Journal article cited by the commenters was obtained from the National Ground Water Association (NGWA). The articl e presented instances in which boron and

selenium concentrations exceeded standards in a well located down- gradient of the CCW disposal site. Contact was established with Wi sconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Waste Management Program. The DNR representative reported that the site affects a residential, private water well supply. He located the well at about 250 feet south of an old quarry that was filled to 40-60 feet in depth with fly ash from the Wisconsin Electric Power Company. The power company placed fly ash in the quarry from 1948-1971, so the ash had been there at least 20 years prior to the contamination described by the article.

In lieu of providing up-gradient well monitori ng data, the DNR repres entative stated with certainty that in his best prof essional judgment the boron levels reported for the well are not naturally occurring. He also is confident that the contaminants come from the quarry because of the proximity to the monitoring well. He added th at boron is characteristic of coal ash and that geologically there is no naturally -occurring source in that area of Wisconsin that would produce boron levels that high. However, he was not awar e that a boron standard existed at the time of

the exceedances. He reiterated that the seleni um concentration exceeds the selenium standard reported in the article. Based on today’s standard of 50ug/L, th e levels of selenium reported would not be considered a compliance problem.

Based on the information provided by the State, cont amination from this facility appears to have migrated to off-site private wells. Documentati on to confirm this analysis was received in the form of a laboratory report from the State Labora tory of Hygiene. Samples collected at the John & Dolly Keating Port Washington Sample Tap Pit (an off-site drinking wa ter well) showed very high concentrations of boron. A lthough the State did not have a health-based standard for boron at the time of the exceedances, the boron levels re ported for the facility would have exceeded the State’s recently promulgated health-based enfo rcement standard for boron. Samples collected

59 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

29Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

also showed elevated selenium concentrations, but the levels detected would not exceed the current primary MCL.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : This case is categorized as a proven damage

case based on a scientific observation - The off-site exceedance of a health-based standard for selenium, caused by the fact that the site is an unlined former sand and gravel quarry and is in close proximity to drinking water wells.

18. Lansing Board of Water & Light (LBW L) North Lansing Landfill, Michigan 60

History : The North Lansing Landfill (NLL), a former gravel quarry pit, was licensed in 1974 for disposal of inert fill materials including soil, concrete, and brick. From 1980 to 1997, the NLL was used for disposal of coal ash from the La nsing Board of Water and Light (LBWL) electric and steam generating plants. The NLL has three dis posal areas, two of which were used for coal ash disposal. Filling of Area I ceased in 1988 and a temporary cover was placed over the ash. Area III was the active disposal area from 1988 to January 1997. A temporary cover was placed over Area III in September 1998 and grass was plan ted on this cover. Area II was not actively used for disposal, although some ash has washed into this area. Since 1992, Area II has usually contained standing water from on- and off-site storm water runoff.

Among the damages that commenters alleged existe d at this site were down-gradient selenium and arsenic exceeding their MCLs and down-grad ient sulfate greater than “allowable water quality standards.” The commenters also stated that an adjacent m unicipal well field is

“threatened.”

The site owner claimed that sulfate contaminatio n is due to wastes other than fly ash in the

landfill or else is due to off-site sources. Th e Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) confirmed in writing that ground water c ontamination had occurred at this historic landfill, which was constructed before current State regulations were in place. The site was eventually closed because the inadequate contro l of contamination violat ed current regulatory requirements. According to the letter, the NLL wa s forced to take remedi al action to address the

contamination.

This site was initially classified as indeterminate because (i) th e documents and quantitative data supporting the alleged damages were not available; (ii) information was needed to positively identify the source of the contam ination; and (iii) more informa tion was needed to describe the extent of ground water contamination and to es tablish whether this contamination extends offsite.

In an effort to reassess this alleged damage case, EPA’s contractor contacted MDEQ and found that this site was in the process of a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feas ibility Study (FS). The following information is based on the RI Re port, published in May 1999 and revised in

December 1999.

60 Ibid.

30Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

There are two aquifers beneath the NLL. The uppe r aquifer is highly permeable, but is not used for drinking water. The lower a quifer (the Saginaw), however, supp lies the City of Lansing with drinking water. Fill underlying the ash has lower hydraulic conductivity than the underlying aquifer, but does not constitute a liner. The unde rlying fill has settled in places and the water table has risen, so that lower portions of the as h are now saturated in Areas I and III. The standing water in Area II has merged with gr ound water, forming a mound in the water table. According to the Lansing Board of Water and Light North Lansing Landfill Remedial Investigation Report (the RI Report), this moundi ng effect likely extends laterally into the ash, thereby increasing the saturated ash thickness, and consequently the volume of ash subject to leaching in Areas I and III. Because of the rise in the water table, the facility no longer meets the State’s requirement for a 4-foot isolation distan ce between wastes and ground water. Moreover, in mid- to late-1993, abrupt increases were observe d in sulfate and selenium concentrations in an on-site monitoring well. As a result, LBWL was required to pe rform a remedial investigation and feasibility study. The RI Re port concluded that the timing of the increase in contamination

indicated that leachate released from the saturated fly ash was th e source of the contamination.

The objectives of the RI included characterization of site conditions , definition of the nature and extent of ground water impacts, and estimation of fu ture migration. This an alysis is complicated by the presence of other known or potential sources of ground water contamination both upgradient and down-gradient of the NLL site. Therefore, the remedi al investigation used statistical comparisons (i.e., to lerance intervals calculated from up-gradient and background monitoring data) to delineate ground water impacts from the NLL. Ground water concentrations were compared to Michigan’s Part 201 criteria. The Part 201 standards for ground water identify

contaminant concentrations that are safe for l ong-term, daily consumption. The investigation’s statistical analysis, modeling resu lts, and conclusions form the ba sis for the analysis of the NLL as a damage case.

For a variety of reasons, the RI Report conclude d that boron, iron, pH, strontium, selenium, and sulfate are of little concern. The RI Report concluded that the constituents of the most concern are lithium, manganese, and potassium. Based on st atistical analysis and consideration of sitespecific factors, however, the following cannot be conclusively linked to the NLL: boron, iron, pH, and sulfate. Of the remaining contaminants of concern:

• Lithium appears to be attributable to the NLL and concentrations are above health-based standards off-site; • Manganese contamination on-site appears to be attributable to the NLL and concentrations are above non-health based-standards. (Note that o ff-site concentrations of manganese also are above non-health-based standards, but do not appear to be attributable to the NLL); • Potassium appears to be at tributable to the NLL, but has no regulatory standard; • Selenium appears to be attri butable to the NLL and concentr ations are above health-based standards on-site, but not off-site; • Strontium appears, based on statistics, to be a ttributable to the NLL, but concentrations are

below health based standards.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : This site was classified as a proven damage

case based on a scientific observation of off-site exceedances of the State’ s health-based standard

31Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

for lithium. The exceedance was caused by the fact that the site is an unlined former gravel quarry with an elevated ground water ta ble leading to ground water contact.

19. Northern Indiana Public Service Corp. (NIPSCO) Yard 520 Landfill Site (Brown’s Landfill) Township of Pines, Porter County, IN 61

History : NIPSCO’s Bailly and Michigan City power plants have deposited an estimated 1 million tons of fly ash in the Town of Pines since 1983. Fly ash was bur ied in the landfill and

used as construction fill in the town. The ash is pervasive on site, visible in roads and driveways 62

.

Pines is located near the Indiana Dunes Nati onal Lakeshore, about 2 miles south of Lake Michigan. This is a region of sand dune ridges which separate low-lying, poorly drained wetland areas. The soil is very sandy, unconsolidated, high ly-acidic, and with a high organic content. These sands overlie a less permeable clay-rich unit. The ground water flows in a northerly

direction from the Yard 520 landfill toward the town 63

.

In April 2000, Indiana DEM received a complain t from a Pines resident that water from her private well tasted foul. IDEM conducted samp ling and found residential wells contaminated with elevated levels of benzene, arsenic, manganese, and VOCs including benzene. In 2001, EPA’s Superfund program conducted a preliminary assessment and site i nvestigation, and found elevated levels of MTBE, boron, manganese , and molybdenum. In January 2002, IDEM

recommended the site for EPA’s National Priorities List 64

.

Additional site investigations indicate that the Pi nes Yard 520 Landfill site is the likely source of

contamination of residential wa ter wells, caused by leaching of heavy metals (manganese, boron, molybdenum, arsenic, lead) from fly ash that was buried in the landfill a nd used as construction fill. The presence of elevated levels of contamin ants that are not associated with coal ash, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and MTBE, i ndicate that there are additional sources of

contamination that are not related to coal ash 65

.

EPA and the responsible parties signed an Admi nistrative Order of Consent effective January 2003 to cover costs of connecting the affected areas to Michigan City’s water system (USEPA 2003a). In April 2004, EPA and IDEM negotiated an Administrative Order of Consent with the

61 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

62 Tim Drexler, Remedial Project Manager, telephone communications with Bonnie Robinson, USEPA. June 5,

2003.

63 Final Site Investigation Report on Ground water Contam ination, Township of Pines, Porter County, Indiana.

December 2002.

64 EPA Announces Investigation Results at Pines Site (Fact Sheet). January 2003.

65 Final Site Investigation Report on Ground water Contam ination, Township of Pines, Porter County, Indiana.

December 2002.

32Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

responsible parties for c ontinued work at the site 66 . . In January 2004, the Hoosier Environmental Council, Inc. file d a complaint for declaratory a nd injunctive relief against NISOURCE, the parent company of NIPSCO (U.S. District Court).

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : This site was classified as a proven damagecase based on (1) Scientific evidence for boron, molybdenum, arsenic and lead exceeding healthbased standards in water wells away from the Pines Yard 520 Landfill site, and (2) Administrative Orders of consent signed betw een the EPA and IDEM with responsible parties

for continued work at the site.

20. Brandy Branch Reservoir, Texas 67

History : This case was originally identified by a public interest group in a table alleging selenium and chromium contamination, a nd a selenium fish consumption advisory 68

.

The Brandy Branch Reservoir is a power plant co oling reservoir built in 1983 for Southwestern Electric Power Company’s Pirkey Power Plant. The cooling reservoir received discharges from ash ponds containing elevated levels of selenium, resulting in incr eased selenium concentrations in fish from the reservoir. From 1986 to 1989, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department reported that average selenium concentra tions in fish from the Brandy Br anch Reservoir increased from 0.81 to 2.29ppm 69 . In 1992, the Texas Department of H ealth (TDH) issued a fish consumption advisory for the reservoir 70

.

The advisory recommended that adults consume no more than eight ounces of fish from the reservoir per week; children seven years a nd older - no more than four ounces/week; and children under six and pregnant women or women who may become pregnant should not consume any fish from the reservoir. In 1996 and 1997, TDH collected 17 fish from the

reservoir. Selenium concentrations in thes e fish ranged between 0.46 and 1.79ppm, with an average concentration of 0.87ppm (ATSDR 1998).

A total maximum daily load (TMDL) project has been initiated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to determine th e necessary steps to improve water quality in Brandy Branch reservoir. The project involved a fish sampling and analysis program and a

66 http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/pines/

67 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

68 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding comments on the May 2000 Regulatory Determination, September 19, 2000.

69 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1998. Health Consultation: Brandy Branch Reservoir, Marshall, Harrison County, Texas. September 1998. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/marshall/mar_toc.html

.

70 Texas Bureau of Health (TBH). 1992. Fish Advisory: Brandy Branch Reservoir. May 1992.

33Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

human health risk assessment, and was completed in August 2003 71 . Based on its findings, The

Texas Commissioner of Health fish advisory was lifted in March 2004 72

. Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: This case is categorized as a proven ecological damage case for the following reas ons: (1) Observations of impacts on fish populations were confirmed by scientific study, based on which the State concluded that the impacts were attributable to the ash ponds; and (2) Administrative - Th e State issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of the contamination.

21. Southwestern Electric Power Co mpany Welsh Reservoir, Texas 73

History : This Lake was constructed in 1976 to serve as a cooling reservoir for a power plant and receives discharges from an open ash settli ng pond system. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s (TPWDs) monitoring program documen ts elevated levels of selenium and other

metals in fish. In 1992 the Texas Commissioner of Health issued a fish consumption advisory

for selenium similar to the one issued for the Brandy Branch Reservoir described above 74 . The TPWD’s report concludes that “discharges from the open ash se ttling ponds may be a source for

the elevated levels of selenium in fish.” The Texas Commissioner of Health fish advisory was

lifted in March 2004 75

.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA has categorized this case as a proven ecological damage case for the following reason s: (1) the State concluded that, based on scientific evidence, selenium accumulation in fish may be attributable to the ash settling ponds; and (2) Administrative - The Stat e has issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of the

contamination.

22. Texas Utilities Electric Ma rtin Lake Reservoir, Texas 76

History : This Lake was constructed in 1974 to serve as a cooling reservoir for a power plant and was the site of a series of major fish kills in 1978 and 1979. Investigations determined that unpermitted discharges from ash settling ponds resulte d in elevated levels of selenium in the

71 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) . 2003. Improving Water Quality in Brandy Branch Reservoir; One TMDL for Selenium. February 2003.

72 Assessing the Fish Consumption Use, Water Quality in Brandy Branch Reservoir, TCEQ, March 2004.

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

74 http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/water/tmdl/14-welshreservoir.html

75 Assessing the Fish Consumption Use, Water Quality in Welsh Reservoir, TCEQ, March 2004.

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

34Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

water and fish. The State’s monitoring program continues to document elevated levels of

selenium and other metals in fish at the Lake. The Texas Commissioner of Health issued a fish consumption advisory for this Lake similar to the one issued for the Brandy Branch Reservoir

described above in 1992 77 . There also is evidence of elevated selenium concentrations in birds nesting near the Lake. The Te xas Commissioner of Health fish advisory was lifted October 14,

2004 78

.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA has categorized this case as a proven ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientifically based evidence of adverse effects on wildlife - impacts on fish populations were observed, and the St ate concluded that the impacts were attributable to the ash setting pond s; and (2) Administrative - The State has issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of the contamination.

23 . Basin Electric Power Cooperative W.J. Neal Station Surface Impoundment, North

Dakota 79

History : This site was an unlined, 44-acre surf ace impoundment that received fly ash and scrubber sludge from a coal-fired power plant, along with other wastes (including ash from the combustion of sunflower seed hulls), from th e 1950’s until the late 1980’s. Sampling in 1982 found chromium at 8.15 parts per million in the pond sediment and in excess of the primary MCL in down-gradient ground water. The State i ssued a special use disposal permit to allow disposal to continue, but requi red a continuation of monitori ng and began negotiations for closure of the site. The facility was cl osed between 1989 and 1990, when the impoundment

sediments were consolidated to a 22-acre area and capped. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Li ability Act (CERCLA), the site underwent a preliminary assessment (PA) in 1990 and a site in spection (SI) in 1995. 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 se condary 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 cad mium and lead in excess of primary MCLs and zinc in excess of the secondary MCL in a pub lic water supply well. The SI concluded that

releases had occurred from the surface impoundment to gr ound water and surface water.

Soils underlying the facility are characterized by one source as relatively permeable (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 wate r 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 gr ound water may directly contact the disposed material, specifically:

77 http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/water/tmdl/12-martincreekreservoir.html

78 Assessing the Fish Consumption Use, Water Qua lity in Martin Creek Rese rvoir, TCEQ, March 2004.

79 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases, November 29, 2000.

35Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

• Depth to water in the monitoring wells surr ounding 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 operate d without any control of surface waters from the impoundment. A tributary to the marsh and a nearby creek form erly 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.

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) pr imary MCLs in down-gradient ground water, and the site inspection found documentation of releases to gr ound water and surface water from the site; and (2) Administrative - The State re quired closure of the facility.

24. Cooperative Power Association/United Power Coal Creek Station Surface Impoundments, North Dakota 80

History : This site includes a number of evaporati on ponds and ash storage/disposal ponds that were constructed in 1978 and 1979. The ponds were originally lined but de veloped severe leaks in the late 1970’s. The ponds ar e operated as a zero discharge facility. While quantitative data on the depth to ground water are not available, do cumentation from the State agency indicates that the ponds were constructed “directly ov er and adjacent to” the Weller Slough Aquifer, suggesting the presence of sha llow ground water. Ground water m onitoring 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. In the facility’s 1990 permit application, the State required relining of the ponds with a composite liner.

Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case : EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scient ific evidence - Arsenic and selenium exceeded (health-based) primary MCLs, and (2) Administ rative - The State required remedial action.

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

36Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007



# Potential Coal Combustion Waste Damage CasesCoal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

III. Potential Damage Cases

According to 65 FR 32224, “Potential damage cases were those with documented MCL exceedences that were measured in ground water be neath or close to the waste source. In these cases, the documented exceedences had not been de monstrated at a sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that waste cons tituents had migrated to the extent that they

could cause human health concerns . State regulations typically use a compliance procedure that relies on measurement at a receptor site or in ground water at a point beyond the waste boundary (e.g., 150 meters).” In addition, groundwater contam ination would be considered as a potential damage case also where there are documented exceedances of secondary MCLs or other nonhealth based standards on-site or off-site.

25. K.R. Rezendes South Main Street Ash Landfill, Freetown, Massachusetts 81

History : This case was originally identified th rough contacts with State regulators.

This site consists of an ash monofill located in a former sand and gravel quarry located in Freetown, Massachusetts. The landfill began operation in 1976 and has an area of approximately 35 acres. It was originally approved as a 14-acre monofill by the Freetown Board of Health and by permit from the MADEP. The Board of Heal th 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.

The site accepted ash from PG&E’s Salem Harbor (approximately 250,000 tons/year) and Brayton Point Plants (approximately 140,000 tons/y ear). According to PG&E estimates, a total of 2,500,000 tons of ash have been disposed at the K.R. Rezendes South Main Street Ash

Landfill.

Ground water monitoring at the site has detected levels of sele nium above the primary MCL. Elevated levels of sulfates, to tal dissolved solids, manganese, ir on, and aluminum have also been detected at the site, although levels are belo w the relevant secondary MCLs. All of the monitoring wells at the site ar e 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 sour ce due to its brackish water.

In early 2001, MADEP required modifications to the ground water monitoring program, including:

• Increase in sampling from annual to semi-annual;

• Semi-annual surface water sampling;

• Evaluation of wells to ensure the wells yield representative samples;

• Installation of additiona l monitoring wells; and

81 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

38Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

• Evaluation of ground water discharg e to the adjacent Assonet Bay.

Operations at the landfill ended in 2001 as the re sult of a bylaw passed by the Town of Freetown. The bylaw bans the disposal of coal combustion wastes within the town. It was appealed by the landfill operator and PG&E, but upheld by the State Attorney General.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This case has been categorized as a potential damage case for the following reasons: (1 ) Scientific - Selenium exceeded its primary MCL in on-site monitoring wells; and (2) Administra tive - The State requir ed modification to the site’s ground water monitoring program.

26. New England Power, Brayton Point, Massachusetts 82

History : Associated with the largest coal- and oil- powered generating station in New England, this is one of nine sites managing oil combusti on wastes that have ground water contamination identified for the 1999 Report to Congress. Seve n of the nine, including this site, were

documented in EPRI’s oil ash report; the two other sites were found in the 1993 Regulatory

Determination and in RCRA Corrective Action record s. Most of the nine sites evaluated were solid settling basins, while one site had a landfill and a second site had a solids disposal pond. At each of the nine sites, the waste management unit was found to negatively impact ground water in one of the following ways: (1) at least one constituent was found in down-gradient ground water monitoring wells above its MCL, but was not present in up-gradient wells above its MCL,or (2) a constituent exceeded its MCL both up-gradient and down-gradient, but the downgradient concentrations were noticeably highe r than the up-gradient concentrations. These constituents most often include manganese and nickel. Other parameters (including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, selenium, silver, and zinc) exceeded their MCL in down-gradient wells at only one of the sites. Although vanadium does no t have an MCL, the parameter was found in ground water down-gradient of waste management units.

At several of the sites revi ewed, EPA found that the waste management unit very likely

contributes to the contamination of constituents , such as manganese, nickel, and vanadium, into ground water. Many of these sites are located next to the ocean or other large bodies of water

where such releases can be diluted and no dri nking water wells would be located between the management unit and the surface water. EPA did not find any cases of drinking water contamination or other environmental damages resulting from these releases. Additionally, most or all unlined units are operated under state permit allowing exceedances of ground water standards close to the management unit, but whic h must be met outside the zone of discharge.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This case has been categorized as a potential damage case for the following reasons: exceedance of one or more MCL standards

82 Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Potential Damage Cases , March 15, 1999 ( http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/ffc2_397.pdf ). Status of Alleged Damage Cases Submitted by HEC, et. al., to Dennis Ruddy, February, 2002. Brayton Point Administrative Consent Order (ACO-BO-00-2002, undated), Brayton Point Administrative Consent Order Timetable, August 22, 2006.

39Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

down flow from the plant’s unlined wastewater treatment basins that does not impact drinking

water wells offsite.

27. AES Creative Resources Weber Ash Disposal Site, New York 83

History : Monitoring data at this si te 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. There is no information availabl e on the location of these wells relative to the waste management units.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site: sulfate, total dissolved solids, manganese , iron, aluminum, and pH, are of non-health-based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

28. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp oration Danskammer Waste Management Facility, New York 84

History : There were exceedances of State non-health-based standards f or sulfate, sulfide, total dissolved solids, turbid ity, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodi um, boron, and pH attributable to

CCW at the site. It is uncl ear whether the exceedances of health-based standards were

attributable to CCW.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The contamination at the site: sulfate, sulfide, total dissolved solids, turbidity, iron, magnesium, mangan ese, 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.

29. C. R. Huntley Flyash Landfill, New York 85

History : There were exceedances of State health-based standard s for arsenic and non-healthbased standards for iron, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids at this site’s downgradient wells. While there also were exceedan ces in up-gradient wells, there was statistical evidence of significant increases over up-gradie nt concentrations for several of these constituents. In addition, the State regulatory ag ency and the site contractor identified some of these constituents as potential indicators of leachate.

83 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

84 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

85 Ibid.

40Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

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.

30. Elrama Plant, Pennsylvania 86

History : EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Powe r Plants. It is described in detail in that document. In the 1988 Report, EPA found concentr ations of cadmium in down-gradient wells above the primary MCL; the highest concentrations were found in th e well closest to the landfill.

EPA concluded that coal combustion wastes have been a source of contamination at the site, but also concluded that exceedances for many cont aminants were probably due to concurrent contamination from acid mine drainage.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While levels of cadmium exceed the primary MCL, the contamination appears to be at le ast partially attributable to sources other than coal combustion wastes. Therefore, th is case is a potential damage case.

31. Tennessee Valley Authority - Bull Run Steam Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 87

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This case was categorized as a potential damage case for the following reasons: (1) exceed ances of the secondary MCLs for aluminum, calcium, iron, and sulfate were detected in on-site surface water; (2) a toxi city study indicates the potential for ecological impacts; a nd (3) these impacts appear to be directly attributable to CCW

management.

32. Tennessee Valley Authority Widows C reek Fossil Fuel Plant, Alabama 88

History: Monitoring data at this site show lead in excess of the pr imary MCL Action Level. 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 primar y MCLs) in this well and recommended that

corrective action measures be established.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While the ADEM has expressed concern

with on-site contamination and recommended that corrective action measures be established,

86 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.

87 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

88 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

41Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

there is no evidence available of off-site migratio n of contaminants. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

33. Tennessee Valley Authority Colbert Fossil Fuel Plant, Alabama 89

History : Only limited information on this site was available from the commenters. The commenters’ summary of monitoring data s hows no exceedances of primary MCLs in ground water at the site. The only primary MCL excee dances (for sulfate, chromium and selenium) reported by the commenters are found in a well inst alled within the saturated ash of the surface impoundment. A 1998 letter from the facility ow ner to the ADEM, however, does indicate some exceedances of primary MCLs in on-site wells that the owner proposes to eliminate from its sampling program. The only constituent identified in this letter is cadmium. The commenters report that ADEM believes ground water contaminati on has resulted from the disposal of coal combustion wastes at this facility. An ADEM geol ogist also reported to th e commenters that the disposal area has been subject to collapse into a karst sinkhole.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While some primary MCL exceedances (for sulfate, chromium and selenium) appear to have occurred in on-site well s, there is no evidence available of off-site migration of contaminants. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

34. Duke Power Allen Steam Generating Plant, North Carolina 90

History: The Allen Plant of Duke Powe r 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 in stalled on-site, detecting exceedances of manganese and iron, both seconda ry water quality standards.

Contact was made with North Carolina Depart ment of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). According to those contacted, the St ate has only surface water discharge information for this facility. There is no record of ground wa ter 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 is not required by the facility permit. There is no indication that any ground water samples have been tested since the 1985 study.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: According to the 19 85 data, there were documented exceedances of manganese and iron, non-health-based standards, in wells downstream from the waste management unit. Theref ore, this site is cate gorized as a potential damage case.

89 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, Ap ril 20, 2000. TVA Colbert ground water data, undated.

90 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.

42Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

35. Cinergy East Bend Scrubber Sludge Landfill, Kentucky 91

History: Commenters identified this site in a table that alleged an estimated 300 tons of sulfate per year is leaking into the Ohio River from this site. This site was initially classified as

indeterminate because the commenters did not identify the source of the information and no quantitative data or further informa tion about this site was available.

Subsequently, additional information was obt ained through the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). According to the DEP, there were on-site exceedances of nonhealth-based standards for total di ssolved solids, iron, and sulfate at this site. The State has taken regulatory action based on these exceedances.

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 exceedance s, this case is a potential damage case.

36. Florida Power and Light Lansing Smith Plant, Florida 92

History : EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental an alysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination 93

. As a result of this analysis, EPA rejected this site as a damage case

because there was no evidence that coal combus tion wastes were comanaged with low-volume wastes at this site. A subseque nt evaluation of the information for this site indicates that there were documented exceedances of primary drinki ng water standards for cadmium, chromium and fluoride and secondary drinking wa ter standards for sulfate, chlo ride, manganese and iron in onsite ground water attributable to CCW



### .

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This site has been reclassified as a potential damage case Based on documented exc eedances of primary drinking water standards for cadmium, chromium and fluoride and seconda ry drinking water standards for sulfate, chloride, manganese and iron in on-s ite ground water attributable to CCW.

91 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

92 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000. Status of Alleged Damage Cases Submitted by HEC, et. al., to Dennis Ruddy, February, 2002. Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

93 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal

Combustion Waste . U.S. EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA-HQ-RCRA- 1993-0042-1642.

43Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

37. Florida Power and Light Port Everglades Plant, Florida 94

History : This is one of nine sites managing oi l combustion wastes that have ground water contamination identified for the 1999 Report to Congr ess. Seven of the nine, including this site, were documented in EPRI’s oil ash report; the two other sites were found in the 1993 Regulatory

Determination and in RCRA Corrective Action record s. Most of the nine sites evaluated were solid settling basins, while one site had a landfill and a seco nd site had a solids disposal pond. At each of the nine sites, the waste manage ment unit was found to negatively impact ground water in one of the following ways: (1) at le ast one constituent was found in down-gradient ground water monitoring wells above its MCL, but was not present in up-gradient wells above its MCL, or (2) a constituent exceeded its MCL bot h up-gradient and down-gradient, but the downgradient concentrations were noticeably highe r than the up-gradient concentrations. These constituents most often include manganese and nickel. Other parameters (including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, selenium, silver, and zinc) exceeded their MCL in down-gradient wells at only one of the sites. Although vanadium does not have an MCL, the parameter was found in ground water down-gradient of waste management units.

At several of the sites revi ewed, EPA found that the waste management unit very likely

contributes to the contamination of constituents , such as manganese, nickel, and vanadium, into ground water. Many of these sites are located next to the ocean or other large bodies of water

where such releases can be diluted and no dri nking water wells would be located between the management unit and the surface water. EP A did not find any cases of drinking water contamination or other environmental damages resulting from these releases. Additionally, most or all unlined units are operated under state permit allowing exceedances of ground water standards close to the management unit, but whic h must be met outside the zone of discharge.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This case has been categorized as a potential damage case for the following reasons: exceedance of one or more MCL standards down flow from the plant’s disposal facility that does not impact dr inking water wells offsite.

38. Florida Power and Light Riviera Plant 95

See the preceding description for the Port Everglades Plant.

39. Florida Power and Light P.L. Bartow Plant 96

See the preceding description for the Port Everglades Plant.

94 Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Potential Damage Cases , March 15, 1999 ( http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/ffc2_397.pdf ).

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid.

44Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

40. Commonwealth Edison Powerton Plant - Mahoney Landfill, Pekin, Tazewell County,

Illinois 97

History : This case was originally identified during th e review of candidate damage cases for the 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Com bustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. Although it was rejected as a proven da mage case in EPA’s 1993 Supplemental Analysis

of Potential Risks to Human Health and the E nvironment from Large-Volume Coal Combustion Waste (EPA 1993), this case was re-examined in li ght of EPA’s subsequently developed criteria for categorizing cases as “ potential” damage cases.

There were exceedances of primary MCLs for cad mium, lead, and nitrate and secondary MCLs for iron, manganese, and sulfate in ground water a nd surface water at the site. The exceedances of secondary MCLs in ground water appear attributable to management of CCW.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: All the reported exceedances that are attributable to management of CCW are for constituents with non-health-based standards and are located in on-site wells. Therefore, this case was categorized as a potential damage case.

41. Xcel Energy/Southern Minnesota Municipa l Power Agency - Sherburne County (Sherco) Generating Plant Becker, Minnesota 98

History : This case was originally identified during th e review of candidate damage cases for the 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Com bustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. Although it was rejected as a proven da mage case in EPA’s 1993 Supplemental Analysis

of Potential Risks to Human Health and the E nvironment from Large-Volume Coal Combustion Waste (EPA 1993), this case was re-examined in li ght of EPA’s subsequently developed criteria for categorizing cases as “ potential” damage cases.

There were exceedances of primary MCLs for arse nic, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, lead, and nitrate and secondary MCLs for chloride, copper, ir on, manganese, sulfate, and zinc at the site, at least some of which appear attributable to management of CCW. Wh ile a scientific study indicated the potential for future increases in contam ination, more recent data were not available.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The reported exceedances of both primary and secondary MCLs were located in on-site we lls and the potential fo r off-site migration of contamination may be limited. Therefore, this ca se was categorized as a potential damage case.

97 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

98 Ibid.

45Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

42. Alliant Rock River Ash Disposal Facility, Wisconsin 99

History : Monitoring data at this site show down-gradient levels of arsenic and mercury that would exceed the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNRs) drinking water enforcement standard (ES) levels (equivalent to primary MCLs). The data also show downgradient 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 appli cation 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 concentr ation of the substance than the enforcement standard 100 . In 1996, as a

result of the PAL exceedances for sulfate a nd iron, WDNR required the company to begin submitting biennial ground water reports evaluati ng causes and trends relating to the continued PAL exceedances. Ongoing monitoring at the si te includes indicator parameters and iron.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case : Whereas the levels of arsenic and mercury in down-gradient wells exceed health-based enfor cement 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.

43. Michigan City Site, Michigan City, Indiana 101

History : EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Powe r Plants. It is described in detail in that document. In the 1988 Report, EPA concluded th at 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.

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.

99 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

100 The PAL is either 10%, 20%, or 50 % of the enforcement standard as spec ified by statute based on the healthrelated characteristics of the particular substance. Ten percent is used fo r cancer-causing su bstances, 20% for substances with other health effects and 50% for substances having aesthetic or other public-welfare concerns.

101 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.

46Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

44. Bailly Generating Station, Indiana 102

History : EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants. The site is id entified as the “Bailly Site, Dune Acres, Indiana” and described in de tail in that document. In the 1988 Report, EPA concluded that leachate from ash disposal ponds was the most proba ble 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. EPA also observed, however, that cadmium was the only constituent whose down-gradient off-site concentration exceeded the primary MCL. Elevated cadmium concentratio ns also were found in samples taken from the background well, leading EPA to conclude that th e elevated down-gradient concentrations of cadmium may not have been caused by leachate from the coal ash.

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 attri butable to coal combustion waste. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

45. Alliant Edgewater 1-4 Ash Disposal Site, Wisconsin 103

History : Monitoring data at the site show down-gradient levels of boron that exceed WDNR’s

health-based ES level 104 . Additional data shows that privat e water supply wells have shown ES exceedances for sulfate and iron (equivalent to secondary MCLs for these contaminants) and

PAL exceedances for chloride. 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 contro lled the contamination of ground water and no additional remedial actions were required. O ngoing monitoring at the si te (including monitoring of the private wells) includes boron, sulfate, and arsenic. Previous monitoring included selenium, iron, fluoride, and chloride.

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-s ite private wells are for constituents without health-based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

102 Ibid.

103 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

104 As of January 1, 2000, Wisconsin elevated boron to the status of a human health-related parameter.

47Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

46. Wisconsin Power Supply C o. (WPSC) Pulliam Ash Disposal Site, Wisconsin 105

History : Monitoring data at this site showed down-gradient levels of sulfate and manganese that would exceed WDNR’s ES levels (equivalent to secondary MCLs for these constituents) and

levels of iron that exceed WDNR ’s PAL. According to information provided, however, the site had no down-gradient ES points of standards app lication (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 facili ty. Therefore, in 1994, WDNR re quired an investigation of the ground water contamination and an upgrade of the monitoring network. 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 mana gement zone of the landfill and are for

constituents without health-based standards. Th erefore, this case is a potential damage case.

47. Central Illinois Light Co. Du ck Creek Station, Illinois 106

History : Monitoring data at th is site from April 1999 showed le vels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, manganese, and iron in excess of their secondary MCLs . There is no clear indication of down-gradient wells or whet her these wells are on-site or off-site.

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.

48. Illinois Power Co. Hennepin Power Station, Illinois 107

History : Monitoring data at this si te from between 1997 and 1999 showed levels of sulfate and

total dissolved solid s in down-gradient wells in excess of their secondary MCLs. There is no

information available on the location of these we lls relative to the waste management units. There is no monitoring data for metals at this site.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site, sulfate and total dissolved solids, are of non-health-based st andards. Therefore, th is case is a potential damage case.

105 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

106 Ibid.

107 Ibid.

48Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

49. Illinois Power Co. Havanna Power Plant, Illinois 108

History: Monitoring data at this si te between 1997 and 1999 showed levels of manganese downgradient of the south ash impoundment in excess of the secondary MCL. The data also show levels of sulfate down-gradient of the east ash impoundme nt greater than up-gradient levels, but within the secondary MCL. There is no inform ation available on the location of the monitoring wells relative to the waste management units.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site, manganese and sulfate, are of non- health-based standards. Theref ore, this case is a potential damage case.

50. Dairyland Power Alma On-site Fly Ash Landfill, Wisconsin 109

History : EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental an alysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination 110 . This analysis, along with additional information submitted by commenters, shows down-gradient levels of sulf ate and manganese that would exceed WDNR’s ES levels (equivalent to seconda ry MCLs for these constituents). According to information provided by WDNR, however, there are no ES points of standards application at th e site (i.e., all wells are within the design management zone of the landfill). Thus, th e State considers these exceedances PAL, not ES exceedances. In 1975, WDNR issued an administrative order as a result of an inspection that disclosed a numbe r of operational and loca tional problems at the facility. Among other things, the order required submission of a closure plan and an in-field conditions report. The cl osure 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. Ongoing monitoring at the site includes indicato r parameters plus manganese and boron.

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-healthbased standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid.

110 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal

Combustion Waste . U.S. EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA-HQ-RCRA- 1993-0042-1642.

49Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

51. Dairyland Power Alma Off-site Fly Ash Landfill, Wisconsin 111

History : EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental an alysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination 112 . This analysis, along with additional information submitted by commenters, shows down-gradient levels of sulf ate and manganese that would be in excess of WDNR’s ES levels (equivalent to secondary MCLs for these constituents). The monitoring data

also show levels of boron th at exceed WDNR’s PAL. Accord ing to information provided by WDNR, however, the sulfate and manganese ex ceedances were not found at ES points of application; they were found in an on-site well within the de sign management zone of the landfill. Thus, the State considers the exceedance s 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 sy stem and other design improvements for the new facility on the site. Ongoing mon itoring at the site includes indi cator 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.

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.

52. Illinois Power Vermillion Power Station, Illinois 113

History : Monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate and total dissolved solids in downgradient wells in excess of th eir secondary MCLs. No mon itoring data for metals, trace elements, or organics were available.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site, sulfate and total dissolved solids, are of non-health-based st andards. Therefore, th is case is a potential damage case.

111 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

112 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal

Combustion Waste . U.S. EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA-HQ-RCRA- 1993-0042-1642.

113 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

50Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

53. Central Illinois Public Service Compan y Hutsonville Power Station, Illinois 114

History : 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. There is no clear indi cation of down-gradient

wells or whether these wells are on-site or o ff-site. No monitoring data for metals, trace elements, or organics were available.

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 standard s. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

54. Illinois Power Company Wood River Power Station, Illinois 115

History : Monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, manganese, and iron in excess of their secondary MCLs. It is unclear from the information provided whether these exceedances were observed in wells close to the waste management unit

boundaries or in more distant well s. All of the monitoring wells, however, appear to be within the property boundary. There is in sufficient information to designate wells at this site as upgradient or down-gradient.

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.

55. R.M. Schahfer Generating Station, IN 116

History : EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental an alysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination 117 . This analysis, along with additional information submitted by commenters, showed down-gradient levels of sulfate in excess of its secondary MCL. EPA concluded in the supplemental analysis that other pol lutant exceedances at th e site appeared to be outliers or were for up-gradient wells only.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The sulfate exceedance s found at this site

are of non-health-based standa rds. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid.

116 Ibid.

117 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal

Combustion Waste . U.S. EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA-HQ-RCRA- 1993-0042-1642.

51Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

56. Coffeen/White & Brewer Trucking Fly Ash Landfill, Illinois 118

History : Monitoring data at this site 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 Illin ois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)

documents areas of dead or dist ressed grass on-site, apparently due to ground water seepage.

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 standard s. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

57. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Comp any (SIGECO) A.B Brown Generating Station, Indiana 119

History : EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental an alysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination 120 . This analysis, along with additional information submitted by commenters, shows down-gradient levels of sulfat e, total dissolved solids, chloride, and pH in excess of their secondary MCLs.

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.

58. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Miamiview Landfill, Ohio 121

History : Monitoring data at th is 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 estimat es that the sulfate plume extends to an area approximately 400

feet south of the site 122 . No data are available for ot her constituents for the site.

118 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

119 Ibid.

120 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal

Combustion Waste . U.S. EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1), EPA-HQ-RCRA- 1993-0042-1642.

121 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

122 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-HQRCRA-1999-0022-0632.

52Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The sulfate exceedance s found at this site

are of non-health-based standa rds. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

59. Indiana Power & Light Petersburg Generating Station, Indiana 123

History : Monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate and total dissolved solids in downgradient wells in excess of thei r secondary MCLs. There is no information available on the

location of these wells relative to the waste management units.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site, sulfate and total dissolved solids, are of non-health-based st andards. Therefore, th is case is a potential damage case.

60. Hoosier Energy Mermon Generating Station Coal Combustion Waste Landfill,

Indiana 124

History : The historical exceedances of health-bas ed standards (primary MCLs for barium, chromium, cadmium, and lead and secondary MCLs for sulfate and chlori de) at this site are correlated with up-gradient exceedan ces and occur in on-site wells.

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.

61. Cinergy W.C. Beckjord Station, Ohio 125

History : There were exceedances of non-health-based standards (s econdary MCL for sulfate) and a single exceedance of a health-based standard (p rimary MCL for selenium) at this site. There

was no evidence available of off- site migration. A public water s upply 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 contaminati on due to exceedance of sulfate.

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. Theref ore, this case is a potential damage case.

123 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

124 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

125 Ibid.

53Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

62. Lemberger Landfill, Wisconsin 126

History : The 21-acre Lemberger Landfill, Inc. site is located in Manitowoc County. The Township of Franklin used the site, an old gravel pit, as an open dump from 1940 to 1970. Lemberger Landfill, Inc. operated the site as a sanitary landfill under a license from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resour ces (WDNR) from 1969 to 1976. From 1976 to 1977, the Wettencamp and Brunner Excavating Company transported fly ash from Manitowoc Public Utilities to the Lemberger faci lity. An estimated 1,750 to 2,500 cubic yards of fly ash were disposed of monthly. Past WDNR inspections sh owed that Lemberger used fly ash and bottom ash as cover, instead of buryi ng them along with the refuse.

Damages at the site include the seepage of landfill leachate onto adjacent property. Ground

water at the site is contaminated with volatile organic compound (VOC) and inorganic constituents including arsenic, barium, chromium, cadmium, and lead. VOCs were present in residential wells in the vicinity of the site, according to monitoring conducted by the State in 1984 and 1985; and a river near the site also is impacted by VOCs, cadmium and lead. A group of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) entered into a consent decree (CD) with U.S. EPA in 1992 to perform design and remedy implementation activities. Construction was completed in September 1996. The five-year review of Se ptember 2000 identified that the groundwater extraction system was not capturing the entire co ntaminant plume. In order to correct this problem, modifications to the groundwater extrac tion system were constructed in winter 2001.

On June 15, 2006, U.S. EPA and WDNR approved th e 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 127

.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: Because the available documentation does not clearly implicate, or rule ou t, coal combustion waste as a s ource of the contamination, this case is a potential damage case.

63. Conesville Fixed FGD Sludge Landfill, Ohio 128

History : EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Po wer Plants. Ground water monitoring data are described in detail in the report.

126 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Additional Information Regarding 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.

127 http://www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/wisconsin/WID980901243.htm

128 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.

54Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

Thirty-four monitoring wells were installed (two up-gradient) to monitor the effectiveness of a Poz-O-Tec fixation process (fluidized gas desulf urization (FGD) sludge mixed with fly ash and lime) to stabilize and thus immobilize potential contaminants. The stabilized FGD sludge was deposited next to the fly ash pond.

Two sets of samples were collected, one between February 27 and April 12, 1979 and the other between December 4, 1979 and July 10, 1980. Samples fr om the first set of data contained lead concentrations which exceeded the primary drinki ng water standard (PDWS) in two on-site wells and three off-site wells. Samples from on-site wells in the first set of data also showed increases above background levels in the secondary drin king water standards (SDWS) of calcium, magnesium, total disso lved solids (TDS), sulfate and iron.

In the second set of data, samples from on-site wells showed increases in calcium, magnesium,

TDS and sulfate relative to the first set of data . Exceedances of the PDWS for arsenic, cadmium,

chromium and selenium were found in on-site wells and exceedances of the PDWS for

chromium were found in off-site wells. Lead was not detected in a ny of the second set of samples.

Elevated levels of selenium were detected in up- gradient wells in both the first and second sets of samples suggesting that selenium is originati ng from indigenous sediments rather than coal combustion wastes. The only constituents that appear ed to be migrating off- site were lead in the first set of sampling and chromium in the second set of sampling.

Based on data collected, there appeared to be a temporal change in ground water quality at this site, and potential adverse impacts from constituents migrating off-site appeared to be limited.

While the data indicated that lead and chromium appeared to be migrating off-site, EPA rejected this site as a damage case due to apparent limited potential adverse impacts. Subsequent to the March 2000 Regulatory Determination, this site wa s reevaluated and rejected as a damage case

because there was no evidence that coal combus tion wastes were comanaged with low-volume

wastes at this site so the site was no t covered by that Regulatory Determination 129 . Since then, the Agency has learned that the site receives va rious types of coal combustion wastes, including fly ash, and is covered by the March 2000 Regulatory Determination.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: Based on the on-site ground water contamination of the cited secondary drinki ng water standards (calcium, magnesium, total dissolved solids, sulfate and ir on), and of primary drinking wate r standards (arsenic, cadmium, chromium and selenium) and the limited potential fo r the off-site migration of contaminants, this site has been reclassified as a potential damage case.

129 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

55Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

64. Muscatine County Landfill, Iowa 130

History : 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. Ho wever, the issue of whether or not the sites are the same does not affect the analysis here, beca use the available data for the active site do not cover the constituents of concern (sulfate and sele nium) for the older site. 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.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances of non-health-based standards (secondary MCL for sulf ate) and possibly a single hea lth-based standard (primary MCL for selenium) at this site are in wells locat ed on-site, close to the waste management unit. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

65. Dave Johnston Power Plant, Wyoming 131

History : Exceedances of the primar y MCL for cadmium and the secondary MCLs for manganese and sulfate were observed in ground water up- gradient and down-gra dient of the site. Interpretations of sampling results were difficult to make because other potential sources of contamination exist, such as other waste dispos al areas at the site; contaminants naturally occurring in the soil which is highly mineralized around the Johnst on site; and uncertainties with regard to what degree leachate from the two landfills had reached the down-gradient wells.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: Whereas exceedances of the primary MCL (cadmium) and the secondary MCLs (manganese and sulfate) were observed in ground water down-gradient of the site, the na tural occurrence of mineralization products in the local soils and possible and other potential sources of contaminati on Therefore, this case is a potential damage

case.

66. Montana-Dakota Utilities R.M. Heskett Station, North Dakota 132

History : Monitoring data at this si te from 1998 show levels of sulfate and boron immediately down-gradient of an old ash pile in excess of the secondary MCL. According to the NDDOH, the State required the company “... to insta ll ground water monitoring wells and implement a closure plan. Since that time, the site has been effectively closed and is currently revegetated

130 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

131 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

132 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

56Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

with a good stand of growth. The ground water m onitoring data indicate that impact to ground

water has been reduced since closure of the site 133 .”

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While the State has taken regulatory action at this site, the sulfate an d boron exceedances found are of non-health-based standards. Therefore, this case is a potential damage case.

67. Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla Steam Electric Generating Station, Arizona 134

History : Monitoring data at this site show levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, chloride, and

fluoride in excess of their s econdary MCLs. These exceedances are found in a well located directly at the foot of the fly ash pond. The aff ected aquifer has “naturally poor water quality,” but no background or up-gradient data are availa ble. The commenters use a comparison to distant alluvial ground water to implicate pond leachate as a source of contamination. The commenters also allege that c onstruction of the waste management units has caused naturally poor quality water from upper aquifers to contam inate the pristine lower aquifer, regardless of

leachate contamination.

Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site, sulfate, total dissolved solids, ch loride 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.

133 Attachment B to the letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to Dennis Ruddy regarding damage case
sites, November 11, 1999, Document ID # EP A-HQ-RCRA-1999-0022-1235 in the docket titled Comments In Response To The April 28, 1999 Federal Register: Availability Of Report To Congress On Fossil Fuel Combustion; Request For Comments And Announcement Of Public Hearin g, Attachment B: Report On R.M. Heskett Station

. The Report On R.M. Heskett Station is accessible at: http://www.hecweb.org/Programsa ndInitatives/CCW/heskett.pdf

134 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

57Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007



# Rejected Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases (Excluding Minefills)Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

IV. Rejected Damage Cases

The following alleged damage cases were rejected due to either (1) lack of any evidence of damage or (2) lack of evidence that dama ges were uniquely associated with CCW.

68. American Coal Corporation #5 Landfill 135

No information available

69. Cardinal PFBC Monofill 136

According to Ohio EPA representatives, the Card inal PFBC Monofill is used for the disposal of bed ash from the Ohio Power Cardinal Power Plant. The monofill was constructed on top of the closed Fly Ash Reservoir I Impoundment. The St ate has ground water monitoring data for the site, but the representatives coul d not confirm the presence of any suspected impacts. The data do not show any exceedences of primary or secondary MCLs. Furthermore, according to the State’s hydrogeologists, interpreta tion of the data is occluded by mining impacts in the area. There are no exceedences of primary or secondary MC Ls at this site. Therefore, this site is categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to human

health or the environment.

70. Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment 137

According to Ohio EPA representatives, the Ca rdinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment is used for the disposal of fly ash from the Ohio Po wer Cardinal Power Plant. The State has ground water monitoring data for the site, but the repres entatives could not confirm the presence of any suspected impacts. The data do not show any exceedences of primary or secondary MCLs. Furthermore, according to the State’s hydrogeologis ts, interpretation of the data is occluded by mining impacts in the area. Ther e are no exceedences of primary or secondary MCLs at this site. Therefore, this site is categor ized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to human health or the environment.

135 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Revised Identification of New Candidate Damage Cases,
December 7, 2001.

136 Ibid.

137 Ibid.

59Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

71. Clinch River, Virginia 138

EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Re port to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants. It is described in detail in that document. EPA concluded that this site repr esented a proven damage case fo r purposes of the 1993 Regulatory Determination. In conducting its analysis for the 1999 Report to Congress, however, EPA concluded that there was no evidence of comanageme nt at this site. EPA therefore rejected this site as a damage case for purposes of the 1999 Report to Congress. 139

72. Copicut Road 140

Monitoring results do not document any exceedances of federal or state standards (Ruddy 2001), except for pH. The ground water pH was below (more acidic than) its minimum secondary MCL both prior to and during placement (PG&E undated). Because acidic ground water was present prior to ash placement, this exceedance cannot be attributed to ash placement. Monitoring data

for the site reveal no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs attributable to coal combustion waste placement at the site. Therefore, this case is categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to human health or the environment. 141

73. Dixie Caverns County Landfill, Virginia 142

Dixie Caverns Landfill was operated by Roanoke County, Virginia, as a disposal site for municipal refuse, solvents, and fly ash. When the landfill was closed in 1976, it was not capped

and an intermittent stream on the site flowed th rough a large drum pile and the fly ash pile and emptied into the Roanoke River, approximately two miles southeast of the landfill. There was also a sludge disposal pit on site. The contamin ants identified on site include lead, cadmium, zinc, silver, iron, benzene, subs tituted benzene, chlorinated et hane, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Based on review of the materials provided by the commenters, it is apparent that the fly ash disposed at the site is emission control dust from an electric arc furnace,

138 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding the CCW
RTC, June 11, 1999, Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council and the Citizens Coal Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding the CCW RTC, June 14, 1999 and Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council, et. al., to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC, September 24, 1999.

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

140 Letter from HEC, et. al., to Dennis Ruddy, February, 2002.

141 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases, May 3, 2007.

142 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council and the Citizens Coal Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding the CCW RTC, June 14, 1999 and Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council, et. al., to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC, September 24, 1999.

60Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

not fossil fuel combustion waste. This site did not receive fossil fuel combustion waste and therefore is not applicable. 143

74. Gavin Impoundments 144

According to Ohio EPA representatives, the Gavi n Plant ash ponds are used for the disposal of

ash from the Ohio Power Gavin Plant. The fl y ash pond is no longer receiving ash, but has not yet been closed. The facility has not c onducted ground water monitoring, but has submitted a ground water monitoring plan and wi ll be required to monitor as pa rt of their closure activities for the fly ash pond. The bottom ash pond is still receiving wastes. There is no ground water monitoring for the bottom ash pond. The representa tives could not confirm the presence of any suspected impacts and the State has not undertaken any regulatory ac tion at the site. There is no evidence of damage at this site. Therefore, this site is categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to human health or the environment.

75. Kyger Creek Power Plant Impoundments 145

According to Ohio EPA representatives, the Kyger Creek Plant surface impoundments are used for the disposal of ash from the Ohio Valley El ectric Kyger Creek Power Plant. Bottom ash is disposed of in the bottom ash pond, although most of the facility’s bottom ash is used by Black Beauty, an on-site company which sells produc ts containing bottom ash. While there is no ground water monitoring around the bottom ash pond, Oh io EPA staff are unaware of any issues related to this pond.

76. Lake Erie, Ohio 146

Commenters provided a study of trace element con centrations in sediments, surface water, and biota in proximity to an ash di sposal basin along the shore of La ke Erie. The study noted that sediment concentrations in the proximity of th e basin had the potential for adverse effects on benthos ( oligochatetes ) and fish in early life stages. In addition, the study observed changes in fish behavior (e.g., possibly due to avoidance) near the basins. The study findings, however, do not conclusively implicate coal combustion wast e as the source of the observed behavioral changes. There is insufficient evidence to conf irm that fossil fuel combustion wastes are the

source of contamination in this case.

143 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

144 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Revised Identification of New Candidate Damage Cases,
December 7, 2001.

145 Ibid.

146 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

61Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

77. Muskingum River Power Plant Impoundments 147

According to Ohio EPA representatives, the Ohio Power Muskingum River Power Plant disposes of bottom ash in ponds located next to the plant. The representatives confirmed that there are no monitoring wells at the site. They indicated, however, that elevated levels of iron and manganese have been detected in facility produ ction wells. These observations have led the State’s hydrogeologists to suspect that there might be some imp acts from the bottom ash ponds. The representatives, however, stated that the le vels of iron and manganese detected are below the relevant secondary MCLs. Because there are no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs at this site, the evidence is not sufficient to cate gorize this case as a pr oven or potential damage case under EPA’s definitions. Therefore, this si te is categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to human health or the environment.

The fly ash pond originally consisted of two ponds in series. One of the ponds has recently been closed and capped, while the other continues to accept waste. At the time that the fly ash pond was closed, the facility inst alled ground water monitoring we lls around the perimeter of the entire fly ash disposal area and fi ve years of monitoring data now ar e available. According to the Ohio EPA representatives, monitoring has detected some statistically “out of range” values for iron, manganese, and TDS. These observations ha ve led the State’s hydrogeologists to suspect that there might be some impacts from the fly ash ponds. The representatives, however, stated

that the levels detected are below the rele vant secondary MCLs. Because there are no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs at this site, the evidence is not sufficient to categorize this case as a proven or potential da mage case under EPA’s definitions. Therefore, this site is categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to

human health or the environment.

78. Muskogee Environmental Fly As h Disposal Site, Oklahoma 148

Commenters provided a printout from the Superfund Archive identi fying this site as a Superfund site. The information provided, however, does no t identify the constituents of concern, the

reason for inclusion of this si te in the Superfund database, or otherwise indicate that any

contamination at this site is associated with fo ssil fuel combustion wastes. There is insufficient information available to identify the extent and nature of damages present and attribute them to

fossil fuel combustion wastes. 149

147 Ibid.

148 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council, et. al ., to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC, September
24, 1999.

149 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

62Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

79. Public Service Co Fly As h Disposal Site, Oklahoma 150

Commenters provided a printout from the Superfund Archive identi fying this site as a Superfund site. The information provided, however, does no t identify the constituents of concern, the

reason for inclusion of this si te in the Superfund database, or otherwise indicate that any

contamination at this site is associated with fo ssil fuel combustion wastes. There is insufficient information available to identify the extent and nature of damages present and attribute them to

fossil fuel combustion wastes. 151

80. Star Coal Company #6 Landfill 152

No information available

81. Star Coal Company #14 Landfill 153

No information available

82. Stuart Station Impoundments 154

According to Ohio EPA representa tives, the Stuart Station ash ponds are used for the disposal of ash from the Dayton Power & Light Stuart Stati on. The State has ground water monitoring data for wells near the ash ponds and older data from facility production wells. According to the State’s hydrogeologists, the faci lity relocated their production wellfield due to ground water quality impacts of “undetermined origin.” The m onitoring data also show a statistical increase over background concentrations. The specific constituents showing increases were not identified, but there are no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs at the site, according to the Ohio EPA representatives. The State’s hydr ogeologists also indica ted that the impacts observed may be either from the ash ponds or from coal piles located in th e area. Because there are no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs at this site, the eviden ce is not sufficient to categorize this case as a proven or potential da mage case under EPA’s definitions. Therefore, this site is categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to

human health or the environment.

150 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council, et. al ., to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC, September
24, 1999.

151 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

152 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Revised Identification of New Candidate Damage Cases,
December 7, 2001.

153 Ibid.

154 Ibid.

63Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

83. Thompson Landfill, Michigan 155

This site is an abandoned landfill. Comment ers cited a MDEQ study that allegedly shows arsenic greater than Michigan “cleanup criteria” attributable to the landfill. This document and quantitative data supporting the alleged damages we re not available. Recent information from the MDEQ, however, confirms that ground water contamination is pr esent and that the site is being remediated. There is no information on whet her wastes other than coal combustion wastes might be present that could contribute to the co ntamination. There is no information on whether the alleged contamination extends off-site. There is insufficient information available to identify the extent of ground water contamination, or to positively identify the source of the

contamination. 156

84. Turris Coal Company Elkhart Mine, Illinois 157

This site is an underground mine that disposes of coal processing waste and coal combustion waste in a diked surface lagoon. Commenters provi ded monitoring data showing exceedances of the secondary MCLs for sulfate, chloride, and total dissolved solid s in a single well at the site.

The data for this well also show an increase in these concentrations since the placement of coal combustion waste began. The other wells at the s ite do not show similar ex ceedances or trends. There is no quantitative data on the presence of other constituents at the site. There is insufficient data on hydrogeology at the site, the location of coal combustion waste placement at the site, or on activities other than coal combusti on waste placement at the site to conclude that the impacts identified are due to coal combus tion waste placement. Although there is some quantitative evidence of contamination, the avai lable data are limited to a small number of

constituents. There also is insufficient informati on to identify the extent of the contamination or

confirm the source of the contamination. 158

85. Western Farmers Electrical Fly Ash Site, Oklahoma 159

Commenters provided a printout from the Superfund Archive identi fying this site as a Superfund site. The information provided, however, does no t identify the constituents of concern, the

reason for inclusion of this si te in the Superfund database, or otherwise indicate that any

155 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council, et. al ., to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC, September
24, 1999.

156 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

157 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding CommenterIdentified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, April 20, 2000.

158 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

159 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council, et. al., to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC, September
24, 1999.

64Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007

contamination at this site is associated with fo ssil fuel combustion wastes. There is insufficient information available to identify the extent and nature of damages present and attribute them to

fossil fuel combustion wastes. 160

160 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases, March 5, 2003.

65