# Assessment of Previously Identified Proven

Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases

Prepared for

U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery



## EPA Contract No. EP

- W

- 07

- 003 Work Assignment No. 3

- 88

October 2010

ICF Intern ational 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031 USA ICF Reference Number 026418.3.388.02

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote i 

### Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1



## 1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1 1.2 Defining Proven Damage

................................ ................................ ............................ 2 1.3 Defining Potential Damage

................................ ................................ ......................... 2

2.0 Cases to Be Reviewed

................................ ................................ ................................ . 3



## 2.1 Previously Identified Proven Damage Cases

................................ .............................. 3 2.2 Recently Alleged Damage Cases

................................ ................................ ................ 3

3.0 Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4

4.0 Findings for Previously Identified Proven Damage Cases

................................ ........ 6

5.0 Findings for Recently Alleged Damage Cases

................................ ......................... 17

6.0 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 37
Appendix A: Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Cases

............. 38
Appendix B: Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases

........................... 39
Appendix C: Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases

.............................. 40

List of Figures


## Figure 1: Overview Map of Cases and Determinations

................................ ............................ 6

List of Tables


## Table 1:Elements of Proven Damage Criteria

................................ ................................ .......... 5 Table 2: Summary of Previously Ident ified 27 Proven Damage Case Assessments

................ 7 Table 3: Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Case s

................................ . 9 Table 4: Summary of February 2010 Alleged Damage Case Assessments

............................ 17 Table 5: Summary of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case Assessments

............................... 18 Table 6: Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases

................................ ............ 19 Table 7: Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases

................................ ............... 25

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 1 

## 1.0 Introduction

This report details the data co mpilation, review, and analysis of previously identified proven damage cases and recently alleged cases of damage to human health or the environment caused by coal combustion residuals (CCRs). The purpose of this report is to better define the extent of

ex isting damage cases in support of future federal regulations for the disposal of CCRs

. This work wa s performed under EPA Contract No. EP

- W

- 07

- 003 Work Assignment No. 3

- 88

, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). All activities were completed in accordance with the work plan submitted to EPA on August 5, 2010 and technical direction of the EPA Work Assignment Manager (WAM).

1.1 Background


## In October, 1980, Congress enacted amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (Public Law 96

- 482)

, known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA ). S ection 3001(b)(3)(A) of RCRA , known as the Bevill Amendment, exempt s certain “special wastes” including "fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels" from regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA (Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i)

. These materials, then referred to as Coal Combustion Wastes (CCW s), are now commonly referred to as CCRs. This exclusion from Subtitle C of RCRA required completion of a study

, Report to Congress, and determination by the EPA Administrator either to promulgate regulations under Subtitle C or to declare such regulations unwarranted. Under RCRA Section 8002(n) E PA is statutorily required to examine eight study factors in this decision making. T wo of the study factors the Agency was to examine are:

 

## Potential danger, if any, to human health and the environment from the di sposal of such materials ; and

 

## D ocumented cases in which danger to human health or the environment from surface runoff or leachate has been proved from the disposal of CCRs.

Complete evaluation of these factors led EPA to publish Regulatory Determinations (RDs) in 1993 and 2000 concluding that CCRs do not warrant regulation as hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C. In its May 2000 Regulatory Determination , EPA also stated that its findings would remain subjected to a continued review of among other factors “the extent to which [ CCRs] have caused damage to human health or the environment; and the adequacy of existing regulation of the wastes.” (See 65 FR 32218) In May 2010 , EPA proposed a CCR rule cit ing additional damage cases identified since the 2000 RD as one of the reasons for EPA’s decision to pursue federal regulation of CCR.

Upon review of its own assessment criteria for classifying alleged damage cases as proven or potential, it appears th at the third criterion applied towards a classification of proven damage case: “where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment” may have been previously misapplied. Apparently, when assessing alleged damage cases in the past, administrative ruling or court

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 2 

## decisions were erroneously classified as proven damage cases even though they were not associated with a specific finding of damage to human health or the environment.

This evaluation examines 27 sites pr eviously dete rmined by the EPA as proven damage cases, as well as 70, recently alleged damage cases brought to the attention of the EPA by citizens groups, to assess whether the facts of each case demonstrate proven or potential damage to human health or the environmen t.

1.2 Defining Proven Damage



## The criteria used in this evaluation to determine whether danger to human health and the environment has been proven are:

Proven damage case means those cases with (i) documented exceedances of primary maximum contaminant levels ( MCLs) or other health

- based standards measured in groundwater at sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituents have migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns, and/or (ii) where a scientific study provides 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 o r the environment.

In cases of co

- management of CCRs with other industrial waste types, CCRs must be clearly implicated in the reported damage.

1.3 Defining Potential Damage



## The criteri on used in this evaluation to identify potential damage cases is:

Pot ential damage case (Per the May 2000 Regulatory Determination, 65 FR 32 2 24) are those with (1) documented exceedances of primary MCLs or other health

- based standards only directly beneath or in very close proximity to the waste source, and/or (2) documente d exceedances of secondary MCLs or other health

- based standards on

- site or off

- site 1



## . For potential damage cases, while the association with CCRs has been established, the documented exceedances either were not demonstrated at a sufficient distance from th e waste management unit to indicate that waste constituents had migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns , or the exceedance involves constituents that are not known to cause a threat to human health and the environment

.

1 

### See also footnote #4 on page 3 of EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments

, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste July 9, 200 7

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 3 

## 2.0 Cases to Be Reviewed

This evaluation considers two primary categories of cases to be reviewed:

 

## Previously identified proven damage cases

 

## Recently alleged damage cases

Both categories use the same criteria and definitions for each category evaluated.

2.1 Previo usly Identified Proven Damage Cases


## With the 2007 Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and accompanying Damage Case Assessment 2 

## report EPA ha d compiled information on 135 alleged damage cases, 24 of which were determined by EPA to be proven damage cases, inc luding 14 proven damage cases from the May 2000 Regulatory Determination . In response to the NODA, two groups of stakeholders submitted comments addressing the issue of damage cases. Citizen groups submitted several comments, with a total of 21 “ new ” alleg ed damage cases. 3 

## . Industry submitted a rebuttal to some of tho se “ new ” alleged damage cases. 4 

## To verify the “ new ” alleged damage cases, EPA solicited feedback from nine state regulatory agencies as well as from EPA Region 9. In addition, b ased on the NOD A

- comments and on the newly reported incidents, EPA classified three of these recent incidents as proven damage cases, bringing the total number to 27 of proven damage cases reassessed in the current report

.
In December 2009, EPA received a new report fr om the Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI ) that addressed the 24 proven damage cases established in the 2007 NODA 5



## . This report challenge d EPA’s conclusions on many of the proven damage cases

, often noting that there was not significant off

- site cont amination involving primary MCLs , one of EPA’s requirements for a damage ca se to be classified as proven. I n addition, EPRI rejected several ecologic damage cases based on fish advisories in Texas on the ground s that the selenium toxicity criterion which

t riggered the fish advisories in the first place was modi f ied by the State at a later da t e and subsequently

, these advisories were rescinded.

. At the time of this writing, the Agency learned that these reports were finalized in 2010 and are available from EPRI. 6



### 2.2 Recently Alleged Damage Cases



## I n February 2010 a report authored by environmental and citizens group s identified 31 alleged damage cases. 7 

## O f the 31 alleged damage cases in the report , 19 were submitted for the first time,

2 

### EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments

, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste July 9, 2007

3 

### EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796. Documents 0070, 0347, 0424, 0443.1, 0443.3, 0443.6, and 0424.

4 

### I ndustry Reb uttal to Comments submitted by EarthJustice on EPA ‘s CCW Damage Case Asse ssment (EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446.3)

5 

### Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases (Volumes I and 2), Draft EPRI Report 1020553. November 2009. RCRA Docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0494 and EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0517.

6 

### http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001020553 and http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001020554

. 7 

### Out of Control: Mounting Damages From Coal Ash Waste Sites; Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste

. Environmental Int egrity Project and EarthJustice, accessible at: http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/Outof Control

- MountingDamagesfromCo alAshWasteSites.pdf

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 4 

## while the remaining 12 h ad been previously submitted by EarthJ ustice as NODA comments. Of these 12, five were listed in the 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments

. The previously reported cases were classified as follows: two cases (Clifty Creek and Brandywine )

were c lassified as indeterminate; two cases (Big Bend and Colstrip) w ere not assessed although listed in the summary table ; and one alleged case was classified as a Potential damage case ( Fern Valley/Elrama. ) . All cases were fully assessed for the current report

.

I n August 2010 another report authored by environmental and citizens groups identified 3 9 alleged damage cases. 8 

## Of the 39 alleged damage cases identified in this report eight cases were listed in the 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments

. The previously reported cases were classified as follows: four cases ( Muskingum River Plant, Clinch River Plant , Gavin Power Plant, and Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir) were rejected as damage cases; and four case s (Leland Olds Station , Hatfield ’s Ferry Power

, Columbia Energy Center , and Oak Creek Power Plant ) were classified as indeterminate. All cases were fully assessed for the current report.

3.0 Methodology

To assess these cases, ICF compiled available information in previous submittals, rebuttals, and relevan t NODA comments. ICF also conducted internet research focusing on state regulatory information pertaining to the sites in question. For selected states and sites, state regulators were contacted to verify claims and research. All information was then eval uated against the criteria above.

Affirmatively meeting any of the criteria in an assessment establishes a case as proven damage. However, each criterion is comprised of key elements that must be evaluated. Overall criteria were passed only when all elem ents were affirmatively present. Table 1 provides a description of the individual elements required for each criterion and the interpretations used in this report.

Determinations of potential damage cases are more focused and less complex. Only those cas es where exceedances in the groundwater of primary MCLs , secondary MCLs (SMCLs), or health based standards are documented without migration off site , or where exceedances of secondary MCLs have been documented either on site or offsite are classified as po tential damage. Based on this definition, sites may not be classified as potential damage cases using scientific studies or administrative rulings. Evaluations of potential damage also are limited in that they may not consider surface water media or enviro nmental damage.

8 

### In Harm’s Way: Lack Of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans And Their Environment, Thirty

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustic e and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010 , accessible at: http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/inharmsway_final3.pdf

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 5 Table 1: Elements of Proven Damage Criteria 

### Criteria Element Interpretations used in this evaluation Criterion i) Documented exceedances of primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or other health

- based standards measured in groundwat er at sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous

constituents have migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns,



### Documented exceedances of  Must be more than a single exceedance to indicate a possibl e pattern

 Exceedances must be documented and not anecdotal or from uncertain

sources Primary MCLs or other health based standards measured  Excludes secondary MCLs, criteria that are not entirely health based, and benchmark values that are of lesser import than standards

In groundwater  Groundwater excludes all surface water including surface water used for drinking water or spring/seep discharges

At sufficient distance from the waste management unit  Off

- site is considered sufficient distance from the was te management unit even if it is within state mandated zones

 On site is not considered sufficient distance regardless of size of the site

To indicate that hazardous constituents have migrated to the extent that they could cause human health

concerns  Excee dances must be hazardous constituents from the CCRs

, not native or

co

- managed waste materials mobilized by CCRs

 There must be an underlying human health concern from the migration; ecological or resource conservation concerns are not adequate to trigger

 C CRs must be clearly implicated in the reported damage

Criterion ii) where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage), and/or



### Scientific study provides  Scientifi c studies include any studies using the scientific method in general but not limited to peer review or technical publications

 May include regulatory studies

Documented evidence of another type of damage  The study must be documented

, not anecdotal, from a n uncertain source or underway without publication

 Such as ecologic damage in surface water

 Must provide evidence of actual damage

, not just potential to cause damage

 CCRs must be clearly implicated in the reported damage

To human health or environment  Ei ther human health or environmental damage

 Environmental damages include damage to mammals, amphibians, fish, benthic layer organisms and plants.

Criterion iii) where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment. 

### Administrative ruling or court decision  Any court decision or administrative ruling including settlements

, addressing offsite migration

With an explicit finding of specific damage  Must unambiguously sta te particular, actual damage

, not just potential to cause damage

 CCRs must be clearly implicated in the reported damage

To human health or the environment  Either human health or environmental damage

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 6 

## 4.0 Findings for Previously Identified Proven Damage Cas es

This evaluation verified that 13 of the 27 cases previously identified as proven damage cases met the criteria for proven damage cases. An additional 6 met the criteria for a potential damage case, while 8 did not meet the criteria for proven or potent ial damage cases. Figure 1 indicates the locations of all cases evaluated in this report along with the determination. A summary of the assessment for previously identified proven damage cases is provided in Table 2.

Figure 1 : O verview Map of Cases and Determinations

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 7 Table 2 : Summary of Previously Identified 27 Proven Damage Case Assessments



### Determination Number of

Cases Rationale Breakdown (No. of Cases)

Proven Damage 1 5 Offsite primary MCL exceedance /Health

- based standa rd only ( 3 )
Offsite primary MCL exceedance and Administrative order indicating damage (4) Proven Ecological damage only ( 2 )
Proven ecological damage and Administrative order indicating damage (5)
Offsite primary MCL exceedance, ecological damag e and Administrative order indicating damage (1) Potential Damage 6 Onsite primary MCL exceedances only (6)

Not a Damage Case 6 No exceedance of MCL only (1)

Co

- managed wastes without clear implication of CCR wastes in damage(2)

Co

- managed wastes, No exceedance of MCL, and Administrative order did not contain explicit finding of specific damage. (2)

Elevated selenium in fish not adequate evidence of damage to human health or environment and fish consumption advisories did not contain explicit fin dings of specific damage ( 2 )



## Key considerations that resulted in previously identified proven damage cases not being verified include:

 

## Administrative Orders : Several of the previously cited court rulings and administrative orders did not adequately estab lish explicit finding of specific damage. Twenty

- two of the previously identified cases were originally justified in part on administrative orders or court rulings. Of those, on review only ten were determined to provide explicit findings of specific dama ges. For example, several of the administrative orders required investigations to assess nature and extent of contamination of the sites due to potential damage or risk to human health or the environment. Others required remediation but made no claims as t o specific damages. Orders were frequently based on site samples exceeding state groundwater standards or NPDES discharge limits without any claim of damage.

 

## Co

- Management of Wastes: Two previously identified cases (Salem Acres, Vitale Fly Ash) were clear ly impacted by co

- managed wastes that were not distinguished from CCRs either as technical cause for damages or in administrative orders.

 

## Selenium in Fish : Three cases previously identified as proven damage cases were justified based on elevated selenium c oncentrations in fish exceeding the state’s technically accepted risk thresholds for human health along with Administrative orders for fish advisories. Re

- evaluation by the state of safe levels of selenium in fish resulted in no technical basis for evidenc e of damage as the fish no longer exceeded the benchmark thresholds. While elevated, the concentrations of selenium in fish were ultimately determined to be acceptable and pose minimal or no risk. Subsequent analysis of additional fish confirmed that selen ium concentrations were reduced from the previously elevated levels. The fish consumption advisories, which were rescinded, did not qualify as

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 8 

## administrative orders that establish explicit finding of specific damage. Note however that one of the cases (#2 2 Martin Creek Lake) did have documented evidence of ecological impact sufficient to justify proven damage.

 

## Improved location information: Improved location information on groundwater wells containing MCL exceedances indicated that in some cases wells previ ously considered offsite were actually onsite. Without demonstrated migration to the extent that waste constituents could cause human health concerns , classification s were changed to potential damage cases.

The EPRI report 9 

## provid es additional information and evaluation for the 24 proven damage cases established in the 2007 NODA. In their evaluation EPRI refuted several cases that were ultimately verified as proven damage cases or potential damage cases. EPRI’s rationale assessed whether through site remed iation or mitigation the chance for impact to human health or the environment was eliminated or reduced due to subsequently reduced levels of contaminants, control of offsite migration, or absence of potential receptors (because the contaminated groundwate r was not used for drinking water supplies or the remoteness of the location). However, the criteria established for the evaluation did not specify whether the damage or threat of damage needed to be ongoing. In several cases, remediation and mitigation ha d clearly minimized future risk of damage but the criteria seek to establish whether damage occurred. Another factor in EPRI’s analysis was whether the exceedances established a pattern that suggested damage to human health or the environment occurred or c ould occur again. For example, EPRI argues that exceedance of the MCL for lead in offsite groundwater at the Don Frame Trucking Fly Ash Landfill just twice in over 10 years of quarterly groundwater sampling with the exceedances more than seven years apart should not constitute a pattern likely to lead to

“ the extent that they could cause human health concerns”

.
Details on the individual cases are summarized in Table 3 below with additional details provided in Appendix A: Reassessment of Previously Identifi ed Proven Damage Cases.

9 

### Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases (Volumes I and 2), Draft EPRI Report 1020553. November 2009.

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 9 Table 3 : Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Case s No.

Name City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Previous Basis for Consideration Determination Rationale

1 Salem Acres Site Salem MA Landfill Fly ash d isposal occurred at this site

- a landfill , from at least 1952 to 1969

. The site contained a variety of wastes including fly ash, sewage sludge, tannery waste and materials from a landfill on the site. The site was assessed and remediated under the

NPL pro gram. Scientific: Arsenic and chromium exceeded (health

- based) primary MCLs; and Administrative: The site was placed on the NPL list, and EPA signed a Consent Order with the owner to clean up the lagoons. Not a Damage Case Co

- managed CCR

wastes without cle ar implication of CCR wastes in damage

2 Vitale Brothers Fly Ash Pit Beverly MA Sand and Gravel Pit An abandoned gravel and sand pit

that was used as an unpermitted landfill between the 1950s and the mid

- 1970s. The Vitale Brothers, the site owners until 1 980, accepted and disposed saltwater

- quenched fly ash from New England Power Company along with other wastes. Also, leaking, co

- located USTs with petroleum products Scientific: (i) Selenium and arsenic exceeded (health

- based) primary MCLs, and (ii) there is evidence of contamination of nearby wetlands and surface waters; and Administrative: the facility was the subject of several citations and the State has enforced

remedial actions. Not a Damage Case Co

- managed UST

wastes were focus of MADEP remediation; No indication of offsite migration in GW of CCR specific contaminants; No explicit finding of specific damage in Administrative orders

3 Don Frame Trucking, Inc. Fly Ash Landfill Pomfret NY Landfill This landfill has been used for disposal of fly ash,, bo ttom ash, and other material, including yard sweepings generated by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's Dunkirk Steam Station. The age of the facility

is unknown. Scientific: The lead levels found in down

- gradient wells exceed the primary MCL Action Lev el; Administrative: the State has required remedial action as a result of the contamination, and 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 th e facility no later than October 15,

1988. Proven Damage Offsite exceedance s

of MCL (lead)

4 Virginia Electric Power Co. (VEPCO) Possum Point Possum

Point VA Surface

Impoundment At this site, oil ash, pyrites, boiler

chemical cleaning wastes, coal fly ash , and coal bottom ash were co

managed in an unlined surface impoundment , with solids dredged to

a second pond. Damage case described in the 1999 RTC. Administrative: action pursued by the State based on evidence on exceedances of cadmium and nickel, by
req uiring the removal of the waste. Not a Damage Case Co

- Managed CCR

wastes without clear implication of CCR wastes in damage

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 10 Table 3 : Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Case s No.

Name City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Previous Basis for Consideration Determination Rationale

5 PEPCO Morgantown Generating Station Faulkner Off

site Disposal Facility Morgantown MD Landfill landfill s at this shallow groundwat er site managed fly ash, bottom ash, and pyrites from the Morgantown Generating Station starting in 1970. Unlined settling ponds also are used at the site to manage storm water runoff and leachate from the ash

disposal area. Scientific: Ground water contam ination migrated off site; and Administrative: the State required remedial action. Proven Damage Offsite exceedance s

of MCL ( cadmium )

6 Virginia Power Yorktown Power Station Chisman Creek Disposal Site Yorktown VA Sand and Gravel Pits Between 1957 and 19 74, abandoned

sand and gravel pits at the site received fly ash from the combustion of coal and petroleum coke at the Yorktown Power Station. Disposal at the site ended in 1974 when Virginia Power began burning oil at the Yorktown plant. In 1980, nearby sh allow residential wells became contaminated with vanadium and

selenium. Designated as a proven damage case in the 1999 RTC. Scientific: (i) Drinking water wells contained selenium above the (health

- based) primary MCL, and (ii) there is evidence of surface water and sediment contamination; and Administrative: the site was remediated under CERCLA. Proven Damage Offsite exceedance s

of MCL ( s e lenium )

7 Hyco Lake (Roxboro Steam Electric Plant) Roxboro NC Cooling Reservoir Hyco Lake was constructed in 1964

as a cooling water source for the 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 populat ions in the late

1970s and 1980s. Scientific: declines in fish populations were observed (1970s & 1980s). Administrative: the State concluded that the impacts were attributable to the ash ponds, and issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of the

con tamination. Proven Damage Ecological i mpact to

f ish populations documented from selenium concentrations; fish advisory

8 Georgia Power Company, Plant Bowen Cartersville GA Surface Impoundment This unlined surface impoundment

was put in service in 1968. On July 28, 2002, a sinkhole developed in the surface impoundment that ultimately reached four acres in area. An estimated 2.25 million gallons of ash/water mixture was released to a tributary of the Euharlee Creek, containing 281 tons of ash. Scientific: Un permitted discharge of water containing ash slurry into the Euharlee Creek resulting in a temporary degradation of public waters. Administrative: Georgia Department of Natural Resources issued a consent order requiring, among others, a fine and corrective action. Proven Damage Discharge in creek

and subsidence; State fine and consent order for corrective action to prevent releases

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 11 Table 3 : Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Case s No.

Name City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Previous Basis for Consideration Determination Rationale

9 DOE Oak Ridge Y

- 12 Plant Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 Oak Ridge TN Surface Impoundment The filled Coal Ash Pond (FCAP) is

a n ash retention surface impoundment used to dispose of coal ash slurry from the Y

- 12 steam plant. It was constructed in 1955 by building an earthen dam across a northern tributary of Upper McCoy Branch. After the surface impoundment was filled to capacity , the slurry was released directly into Upper McCoy Branch. Erosion of both the spillway and the ash itself resulted in releases of ash into Upper McCoy Branch. This case has been categorized as a proven ecological damage case based on scientific documenta tion of impacts to fish and other wildlife on

- site. Scientific: Exceedances of primary and secondary MCLs were detected in on

site monitoring locations. Administrative: Federal RCRA and the Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation (TDEC) require ments, including placement of the entire Oak Ridge Reservation on the

NPL. Proven Damage Ecological impacts to

biota through surface water included bioaccumulation, fish deformities, and biota population decline; Placed on NPL as separate OU

10 South Car olina Electric & Gas Canadys Plant Walterboro

, SC Surface Impoundment Ash from the Canadys power plant

was mixed with water and managed in a s urface i mpoundment . The facility operated an unlined, 80

- acre surface impoundment from 1974 to 1989 ; and a failed bentonite slurry

- lined s urface i mpoundment , in operation since

1989

. Scientific: There are exceedances of

the health

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

of MCL (arsenic) ; No offsite migration

11 Belews Lake Stokes,

Rockingham, Guilford & Forsyth Counties

, NC Cooling

Reservoir This lake was impounded in the early

1970s to se rve as a cooling reservoir for a large coal

- fired power plant. Fly ash was disposed in a settling basin, which released selenium

- laden effluent in return flows to the lake. Sixteen of the 20 fish species originally present in the reservoir were entirely el iminated. Scientific: Evidence of extensive impacts on fish populations due to direct discharge to a surface water body. Administrative: the State required changes in operating practices to mitigate the contamination. Proven Damage Ecological impact

from S elenium discharge on fish population

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 12 Table 3 : Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Case s No.

Name City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Previous Basis for Consideration Determination Rationale

12 DOE Savannah River Project Aiken,

Allendale & Barnwell Counties SC Surface

Impoundment A coal

- fired power plant sluices fly

ash to a series of open settling basins. A continuous flow of sluice water exits the basins , overflows, and enters a swamp that in turn discharges to Beaver Dam Creek. Bullfrog tadpoles inhabiting the site have oral deformities and impaired swimming and predator avoidance abilities, and there also is evidence of metabolic impacts on water snakes inhabiting the site. Scientific: Evidence of impacts on several species in a nearby wetland caused by releases from the ash

settling ponds. Proven Damage Ecological impact to

biota through surface water demonstrated in t echnical studies implicate CCRs

1 3 E.J. Stoneman Generating Station Ash Disposal Pond Cassville WI Surface Impoundment Unlined surface impoundment , on

permeable substrate, that managed ash, demineralizer regenerate, and sand filter backwash between the 1950s and 1987. Scientific: Cadmium and chromium exceeded (health

- based) primary MCLs, and contamination migrated to nearby, private drinking water wells; and Administrative: The State required closure of the facility. Potential Damage On site exceedances

of MCL s ( cadmium, chromium ); Offsite migration does not exceed health

- based risk standards; Order to close does not have explicit finding of specific damage

14 WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill Waukesha WI Sand and Gravel Pit Located in an old sand and gravel pit

that received fly ash and bottom as h between 1969 and 1978. At the north portion of the site, some of the ash was deposited below the water table. Scientific: Although the boron standard was not health

- based at the time of the exceedances, the boron levels reported for the facility would h ave 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 Administrative: As a result of the various PAL and ES exceedances, the State required a gro und water investigation. Proven Damage Exceedance of

WDNR ES (boron) ; Elevated offsite contaminants only partly related to CCR wastes; Regulatory action to investigate has no explicit finding of specific damage

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 13 Table 3 : Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Case s No.

Name City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Previous Basis for Consideration Determination Rationale

15 Nelson Dewey Ash Disposal Facility Cassvi lle WI Surface Impoundment , later converted into a Landfill The landfill was originally constructed

in the early 1960s as a series of settling basins for sluiced ash and permitted by the State in 1979. In 1996, it was converted into a landfill. Scientific: Although the boron standard was not health

- based at the time of the exceedances, the boron levels reported for the facility would have exceeded the State's recently promulgated health

based ES for boron; and Administrative: The State required a ground wat er investigation, and the facility took action to remediate ground water contamination and prevent further

contamination. Potential Damage Onsite exceedances

of MCL s ( arsenic, selenium )

16 WEPCO Cedar

- Sauk Landfill Cedarburg WI Sand and Gravel Pit An aban doned sand and gravel pit

that received CCW from the WEPCO Port Washington Power Plant from

1969 to 1979. Scientific: Selenium in ground water exceeded the (health

- based) primary MCL, and there was clear evidence of vegetative damage; and Administrative: T he State required

remedial action. Proven Damage Ecological impact

documented in s tudy of stressed wetland vegetation due to site contamination ( boron )

17 Port Washington Facility Port

Washington WI Sand and

Gravel Pit The power company placed 40

- to 60

-

f oot

- deep column of fly ash in a sand and gravel pit from 1948 to 1971. A well located ~ 250 ‘ south of the old quarry was impacted. Scientific: The off

- site exceedance of a health

- based standard for selenium. Not a Damage Case No exceedances of

MCL or health based criteria indicative of damage

18 North Lansing Landfill Lansing MI Gravel Pit The North Lansing Landfill (NLL), an unlined, former gravel quarry pit with an elevated ground water table, was licensed in 1974 for disposal of inert fill materials, inc luding soil, concrete, and brick. From 1980 to 1997, the NLL was used for disposal of coal ash from the Lansing Board of Water and Light electric and steam generating

plants. Scientific: Observation of off

- site exceedances of the State's health

based stand ard for lithium. Potential Damage Onsite exceedances

of MCL (lead, selenium); Exceeds State benchmark for lithium offsite; many contaminants with partial contribution from other adjacent sites (including former landfill, industrial waste disposal sites, an d a superfund site )

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 14 Table 3 : Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Case s No.

Name City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Previous Basis for Consideration Determination Rationale

19 Northern Indiana Public Service Corp. (NIPSCO) Yard 520 Landfill Site (Brown's Landfill) Township of

Pines, Porter County IN Landfill and

structural Fill NIPSCO's Bailly and Michigan City

power plants have deposited ~ 1 million tons of fly ash in the Town of Pines since 1983. Fly ash was buried in the landfill and used as construction fill in the town. The ash is pervasive on site, visible in roads

and driveways. Scientific: Evidence for boron, molybdenum, arsenic, and lead exceeding health

- based standards in water wells away from the Pines Yard 520 Landfill site; and Administrative: Orders of consent signed between EPA and IDEM with responsible parties for continued work at the site. Proven Damage Offsite e xceed ances

of MCL (arsenic, selenium)

20 Brandy Branch Reservoir Marshall TX Cooling Reservoir A power plant cooling reservoir built

in 1983 for Southwestern Electric Power company's Pirkey Power Plant. The cooling reservoir received discharges from Sis containing elevated levels o f selenium. Scientific: 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. Administrative: the State issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of the

contamination. Not a Damage Case No indicator of

damage due to elevated selenium in surface water and fish tissue

21 Southwestern Electric Power Company Welsh Reservoir Mount

Pleasant TX Cooling

Reservoir This lake was constructed in 1976 to

serve as a cooling reservoir for a power plant and receives discharges from an open surface impoundment

. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's monitoring documents elevated levels of selenium and other

metals in fish. Scientific: Selenium accumulati on in fish may be attributable to the ash settling ponds. Administrative: The State has issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of contamination. Not a Damage Case No indicator of

damage due to elevated selenium in surface water and fish tissue

22 Texas Utilities Electric Martin Lake Reservoir Tatum TX Cooling Reservoir 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 resulted in elevated levels of selenium in the water and

fish. Scientific: Evidence of adverse effects

on wildlife

-- impacts on fish populations were observed, and the State concluded that the impacts were
attr ibutable to the ash settling ponds. Administrative: The State has issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of

the contamination. Proven Damage Ecological impact on

f ish population and biomass reduction due to elevated selenium in fish tissue

23 W. J. Neal Station Surface Impoundment Velva ND Surface Impoundment An unlined, 44

- acre surface

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 h ulls), between the 1950s and the late 1980s. Scientific: Several constituents have exceeded their (health

- based) primary MCLs in down

- gradient ground water, and the site inspection found documentation of releases to ground water and surface water from the site; and Administrative: the State required

closure of the facility. Potential Damage Onsite exceedances

of MCLs ( arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead)

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 15 Table 3 : Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Case s No.

Name City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Previous Basis for Consideration Determination Rationale

24 Cooperative Power Association / United Power Coal Creek Station Surface Impoundments Underwood

(near) N D Evap. Pond &

Surface Impoundment This site includes a number of

evaporation ponds and surface impoundment s that were constructed in 1978 and 1979. Both the surface impoundment s and the evaporation ponds leaked significantly upon plant
start

- up. A ND DOH regulator was uncertain as to whether a liner was initially installed, "although the plant may have thought they were placing some sort of liner." The surficial soils were mostly sandy materials with a

high water table. Scientific: Arsenic and selenium

exc eeded (health

- based primary MCLs; and Administrative: The State required

remedial action. Potential Damage Onsite e xceedances

of MCL s (arsenic, selenium)

25 Martin's Creek Power Plant 2005 Release Mount

Bethel Township PA Surface

Impoundment In August 200 5, a dam confining a

40

- acre CCR surface impoundment failed. The dam failure, a violation of the State's solid waste disposal permit, resulted in the discharge of 0.5 million cu. yds of coal

- ash and contaminated water into the Oughoughton Creek and the Del aware River. Ground water monitoring found Se and Cr concentrations exceeding Pennsylvania's Statewide Health Standards and Federal primary drinking water standards, and there were also exceedances of the secondary MCL for iron. Scientific: Exceedances of primary and secondary MCLs in on

- site ground water, and exceedances of Federal water quality criteria in off

- site surface water; and Administrative: PA DEP issued a consent order for clean up. Proven Damage Offsite exceedances

of MCL; Ecological impact to river environment due to dam failure ; administrative order for remediation due to surface water impacts

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 16 Table 3 : Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage Case s No.

Name City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Previous Basis for Consideration Determination Rationale

26 TVA Kingston 2008 Release Kingston TN Surface Impoundment On December 22, 2008, the

northeastern dike of a surface impoundment failed. About 5.4 mil lion cubic yards of fly ash sludge was released over about a 300

- acre area and into a branch of the Emory River, disrupting power, rupturing a gas line, and destroying or damaging scores of homes. Sampling results for the contaminated residential soil show ed arsenic, cobalt, iron, and thallium levels above the residential Superfund soil screening levels. Administrative: On May 11, 2009, TVA agreed to clean up more than 5 million tons of spilled coal ash under an administrative order and agreement on
consent under CERCLA issued by the USEPA, and in early January 2009, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) issued a fish advisory stating that until further notice, fishing should be avoided in the lower section of the

Emory River. Proven Damage Ecologic al impact

from l arge scale failure impacted river environment; Administrative order included fish advisory due to risk from CCR contaminants

27 BBBS Sand and Gravel Quarries Gambrills MD Sand and Gravel Pits As of 1995, the defendants used fly

ash and bot tom ash from two Maryland power plants to fill excavated portions of two unlined sand and gravel quarries. GW samples collected in 1006/07 from residential drinking water wells near the site indicated contaminants at or above GW quality standards. Testing of private wells in 83 homes and businesses in areas around the disposal site revealed MCL exceedances in 34 wells, and SMCLs exceedances in 63 wells. Scientific: Documented exceedances of MCLs in numerous off

- site drinking water wells; Administrative: on October 1,2007, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) filed a consent order in Anne Arundel County, Maryland Circuit Court to settle an environmental enforcement action against the owner of a sand and gravel quarry and the owner of coal

- fired po wer plants for contamination of public drinking water wells in the vicinity of the sand and

gravel quarry. Proven Damage Offsite e xceedances

of MCL s ; Administrative order found contamination of offsite drinking water wells impacted public

## Assessment o f Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 17 

## 5.0 Findings for Recently Alleged Damage Cases

I n the February 2010 a report authored by environmental and citizens’ group s identified 31 alleged damage cases. 10 

## O f the 31 alleged damage cases in the report

, seven cases are determined to be proven damage cases and fiftee n are determined to be potential damage cases. The remainder are considered to be refuted or do not have adequate information to confirm or refute. A summary of the assessment for these recently alleged proven damage cases is provided in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of February 20 10 Alleged Damage Case Assessments



### Determination Number of

Cases Rationale Breakdown (No. of Cases)

Proven Damage 6 Offsite p rimary MCL exceedance only (2)
Administrative order indicating damage only (1)

Offsite MCL and a dmi nistrative order ( 1 )

Proven e cological damage (2)

Potential Damage 19 Onsite primary MCL exceedance (15) Onsite SMCL exceedance only (4)

Not a Damage Case 4 Significant non

- CCR/mining wastes (2)
Surface water exceedances of criteria, but no
docu mented study establishing damage(1)
Onsite SMCL exceedance of m anganese only from landfill does not implicate CCR specifically (1)
Inadequate Information 2 MCL exceeded inconsistent and limited with unresolved questions about data quality(2)



## I n the A ugust 2010 a report authored by environmental and citizens’ groups identified 3 9 alleged damage cases. 11 

## O f the 3 9 alleged damage cases in the repor t, three (3) cases are determined to be proven damage cases and thirty (30) cases are determined to be potent ia l damage cases. Three (3) cases are considered to be rejected and three (3) do not have adequate information to confirm or refute. A summary of the assessment for these recently alleged proven damage cases is provided in Table 5.

10 

### Out of Control: Mounting Damages From Coal Ash Waste Sites; Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste

. Environm ental Integrity Project and EarthJustice, accessible at: http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/Outof Control

MountingDama gesfromCoalAshWasteSites.pdf

11 

### In Harm’s Way: Lack Of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans An d Their Environment, Thirty

nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Ea rthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010 accessible at: http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/INHARMSWAY_FINAL.pdf

## Assessment o f Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 18 Table 5: Summary of Au gust 2010 Alleged Damage Case Assessments



### Determination Number of

Cases Rationale Breakdown (No. of Cases)

Proven Damage 3 Offsite p rimary MCL exceedance (1)

Proven e cological damage (2)

Potential Damage 30 Onsite primary MCL and SMCL exceedance (29 )

State health

- based standard exceedance only(1)

Not a Damage Case 3 Significant non

- CCR wastes (2)
Does not implicate CCR waste(1)

Inadequate Information 3 Insufficient number of date points /data quality issue ( 2 )
Pending review of ecological st udy ( 1 )



## One critical issue that impacts a number of determinations is establishing consistently what constitutes a health based standard. As states have become more sophisticated in addressing groundwater concerns many have implemented criteria more comp lex than a single set of standards. Most states have tiered groundwater quality systems that allow for lower comparative levels of contamination in residential or drinking water areas and higher levels in industrial areas. Deciding on which to apply can es tablish the classification of the assessed damage cases

. The current criteria are unclear as to which to apply. The higher, industrial concentration standards are more likely to apply to the areas of industrial CCR disposal and represent the maximum allowa ble level by the state. The lower residential standard however would be more protective of all scenarios. In other situation, States have implemented tiered standards for groundwater with lower levels indicating a potential threat and requiring some lower level of responsiveness with the higher level requiring more immediate action at least in assessing the nature and extent of contamination. For example

, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has established Preventative Action Levels at approxim ately 10% of the MCL levels based in part on health based criteria with the intent of being an early warning of potential threats to groundwater. Michigan also has established Enforceable Standards which are comparable to the MCL concentrations. A third si tuation occurs with states like North Carolina whose 2L standards have a component of health based standard but are set at the lowest of several criteria including human health consumption numbers but also ecological impacts, odor threshold,

appearance, re source protection, and other non

- health based factors.

Details on the individual cases alleged in the February 2010 report are summarized in Table 6 below with additional details provided in Appendix B: Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases

. De tails on the individual cases alleged in the August 2010 report are summarized in Table 7 below with additional details provided in Appendix C: Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases

.

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 19 Table 6 : Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

N o. Name Owner/ Operator City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Determination Rationale

1 Indian River Power Plant NRG Energy Millsboro DE Surface Impoundment and Landfill Between 1957 and 1980 coal ash from the Indian River

plan t was sluiced onto Burt o n Island. Coa l ash berms were built and about 144 acres were covered to 15 ft with coal ash before a new mainland landfill was built. In 2005, erosion of the a sh b erms into the river was

observed by a DNREC scientist. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exce edances ( arsenic, chromium, thallium )

2 Curtis Stanton Energy Center Orlando Utility

Commission Orlando FL Landfill and runoff ponds A CCR landfill (in which coal ash is initially hardened

with lime and bottom ash is dewatered), CCR and coal storage area runoff ponds, a recycled water pond, and a plant wastewater pond

– all of which are supposed to be lined, all operated by Curtis Stanton Energy Center. Site has repeatedly failed FDEP ground and surface water criteria and monitoring and operational

require ments. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance (gross alpha)

3 Seminole Generating Station Seminole Electric

Cooperative Palatka FL Landfill and runoff ponds Runoff Ponds and a Landfill for dewatered FGD sludge

stabilized with lime and fly ash (prior to 19 96, stabilized with process water high in TDS, chloride, and other

chemicals). Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance (lead, arsenic) near landfill and others SMCL near property line

4 Big Bend Station Tampa Electric

Company Apollo

Beach FL Landfill and

S urface impoundments Several CCR waste disposal areas at Big Bend Station

including FGD wastes, ash ponds and waste management ponds. Contamination migrated to an area offsite which was subsequently purchased by the

Tampa Electric Company. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance (arsenic and thallium); Consent order to repair

5 Rocky Acres Coal Combustion By

- Product Disposal Site Bunge Corporation Oakwood IL Structural Fill Around 380,000 tons of CCR mostly from the Bunge Milling company deposited in a rav ine near the Grays Siding neighborhood. In 2006 the IEPA determined the site was an illegal dump though site owners claimed it was a beneficial use site and that eventually a building would be constructed on the site. Site owner has since declared bankrupt cy and the Bunge corporation refuses liability for any damage caused by CCR disposal at this site. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedances (arsenic, barium, chromium, lead)

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 20 Table 6 : Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

N o. Name Owner/ Operator City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Determination Rationale

6 Gibson Generating Station Plant Duke Energy Princeton IN Surface Impoundments

, Cooling Pond and Landfill Duke Energy’s Gibson Generating Station contains the

generating station; five surface impoundments; a 3,490

- acre lake that supplies all of the plant’s cooling water; and a Type II restricted waste (CCW) landfill. CCW generated by the Gibson Generating Station is sluiced into on

- site impoundments. Excess water is discharged into the cooling pond, so the impoundments do not have National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. CCW is periodically dredged out of the i mpoundments and sent to an on

- site CCW landfill. Proven Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance ( arsenic ); Impact to biota/ surface water (selenium)

7 Clifty Creek Station Landfill Indiana Kentucky

Electric, Corp. Madison IN Landfill A type 3 restrict ed waste CCR l an dfill built on top of an old ash impoundment in 1992. Not a Damage Case Onsite SMCL

exceedance of Manganese only

8 Brandywine Coal Ash Landfill Mirant Mid

- Atlantic,

LLC Brandywine MD Landfill and Wastewater Ponds A Coal ash landfill operated by Mirant MD ash

Management, that receives fly and bottom ash from Chalk Point power plant. Most disposal pits are unlined

, and groundwater on the site is very shallow Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance ( cadmium ) and SMCL

9 Karn / Weadock Generating Facility Consum er Energy Saginaw MI Surface Impoundments/ Landfills Two la rge surface impoundments loc ated near the

Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay which are now regulated as Landfills. The sites were built in 1959 and 1961 and cover 174 acres with a capacity of 4,175,000 cubic yards. Ash was previously sluiced into the impoundments but one of the landfills is now transitioning to a dry ash system. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance ( arsenic )

10 Colstrip Power Plant PPL Montana Colstrip MT Temporary and Permanent CC R d isposal ponds Temporary and permanent CC R disposal ponds

serving the Colstrip Steam Electric Station surround the town of Colstrip, MT. Permanent disposal ponds located to the northwest of Colstrip include the “closed” Stage I Evaporation Pond and the acti ve 176

- acre Stage II Evaporation Pond, which opened in the late 1980s. The 367

- acre Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding Pond (EHP) is located approximately 3 miles to the southeast

of Colstrip and was opened in 1983. Proven Damage Administrative order

on Consent to remediate and settled lawsuit for previous damage to GW and environment

11 Sutton Steam Plant Progress Energy Wilmington NC Surface Impoundments The impoundment s consist of two ash ponds over 135 acres constructed in 1949. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

e xceedance ( arsenic )

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 21 Table 6 : Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

N o. Name Owner/ Operator City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Determination Rationale

12 Lee Steam Plant Progress Energy Goldsboro NC Surface Impoundment One active unlined ash impoundment covering 143

acres at the Progress Energy Lee Coal Fired Plant

constructed in 1951. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance ( arsenic, lead )

13 Cape Fear Steam Plant Progress Energy Moncure NC Surface Impoundments The Progress Energy Cape Fear Steam Plant was

constructed in 1923 and has 316 MW of coal fired capacity. The coal plant operates four unlined ash impoundments, one active and three inactive. The impoundments cover a total area of 153 acres. The one active impoundment has a capacity of 1764 acre

- feet Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance ( lead )

14 Swift Creek Structural Fill Site ReUse

Technology, Inc./Full Circle Solutions, I nc. Rocky

Mount NC Structural

Fill/Beneficial Use Fill A 25 acre beneficial use structural fill operating

between 1991 and 2001 accepted CC R from 6 different
power plants. Site contained mostly fly ash which was placed above a shallow water table and at ti mes placed

directly into an onsite wetland. Proven Damage Offsite MCL

Exceedances ( lead, arsenic )

15 Belews Creek Steam Station Duke Energy Belews Creek NC Surface

Impoundment and Landfill Belews Creek Power Plant operated by Duke Energy

has 3 landfills a nd a surface impoundment for CCR constructed in 1974. One landfill is currently closed, the other two remain active with one focusing on FGD Residue. The Impoundment is one of the state ’ s largest

ash ponds, covering 512 acres. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

e xceedance (arsenic, lead, and selenium)

16 Asheville Steam Electric Plant Progress Energy Arden NC Surface Impoundment s The Asheville Steam Electric Plant has two coal ash

ponds. One is actively being used for wet storage of coal combustion waste, while the other is being used to dry store material dredged from the other. The wet storage pond has a total capacity of 1,400 acre

- feet and as of March, 2009 it is estimated to be storing 1,260 acre

- feet of material. The dry storage pond has a total capacity of 1,380 acre

- feet and their actual

storage was unreported. Potential Damage Onsite SMCL

exceedance

17 Four Corners Power Plant Arizona Public

Service Fruitland NM Landfill and Surface Impoundment Six inactive impoundments, 1 active impoundment and

one acti ve landfill at the Four Corners Power plant used for CCR. The facility, built in 1963, is within the Navajo Nation and subject to Navajo EPA regulations. Not a Damage Case Co

- managed

CCR/ coal mining wastes does not specifically implicate CCRs as cause

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 22 Table 6 : Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

N o. Name Owner/ Operator City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Determination Rationale

18 Reid Gardner Generating Facility NV Energy Moapa NV Surface Impoundments (settling and evaporation ponds) Fly ash and flue gas desulfurization waste produced by

the Reid Gardner Generating Station was sluiced to one of three unlined surface impoundments. W astewater from the waste impoundments was discharged to one of five evaporation ponds. The operation is meant to be a closed system for recycling of the cooling water, and no surface water is

discharged from the site. Proven Damage Offsite MCL

Exceedances ( arsenic ); Administrative Order of Consent for halting GW migration and require remediation

19 Mitchell Power Station Allegheny Energy Courtney PA Landfill and Wastewater Lagoons/ Surface Impoundments Mitchell Power Plat operates a 70 acre landfill on the

power plant site as well as 2 wastewater treatment lagoons over about 1 acre of the site. The landfill is used for a mix of fly and bottom ash, while the surface impoundments are for waste process water and though also contain some bottom ash and sludge. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance ( arsenic )

20 Phillips Power Plant Duquesne Light,

Co. Crescent

Township PA Landfill and

S urface Impoundment The Phillips Power Plant has two ash ponds with

respective capacities of 13.5 and 9 million gallons as well as a 157 acre landfill of which 50 acres is CCR. These units were used beginning in 1969 and were decommissioned along with the plant in the late 1990's. Potential Damage Onsite SMCL

exceedance / TDS exceedance offsite

21 Seward Generating Station RRI En ergy, Inc. New Florence PA Ash Pit and

Closed Piles Since 1954 coal ash has been disposed of on this site

(for many years unpermitted) not contained in either landfills or impoundments. There are currently two closed disposal sites as well as a coal ash re fuse site on top of which the new Seward generating station was

built in 2004. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedances (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium)

22 Fern Valley Landfill Orion Power

Holdings, Inc. Elrama PA Landfill The Fern V alley landfill sits along the Monongahela River and accepted coal ash from Elrama Power Plant from 1989 to 2003. The Site is lined with a 3 foot thick layer of low permeability cementi t ous material. The

landfill was closed in 2007. Proven Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance ( arsenic ); Impact to benthic communities at outfall

23 Hunlock Power Station UGI Development

Company Hunlock

Creek PA Surface

Impoundment Hunlock Power Station is a small power plant along the

Susquehanna River. Onsite groundwater contaminatio n led the state to require assessment monitoring to delineate the source and scope of contamination. Since 1959, most of the CCRs have been shipped off

site for placement in PA coal mines. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance ( arsenic )

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 23 Table 6 : Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

N o. Name Owner/ Operator City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Determination Rationale

24 Portland Gene rating Station's Bangor Ash Quarry Disposal Site RRI Energy, Inc. Bangor PA Landfill The Portland Generating Station's Bangor Ash Disposal Site is a lined (60 mil LLDPE geomembrane over 6" fly ash sub base) landfill. Leachate from above the liner drains in to a pond where it is drained into Brushy Meadow Creek if it meets acceptable criteria after

analyses. Potential Damage Onsite SMCL

exceedance

25 Wateree Station South Carolina

Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) Eastover SC Surface Impoundment Wateree Station is an unlined 80

- acre coal ash

impoundment within the vicinity of the Wateree River. Contamination has been found in onsite groundwater

and surface water biota. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

exceedance (arsenic )

26 Urquhart Station South Carolina

Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) Beech

Island SC Landfill, settling

basins Urquhart Station coal ash is disposed in a landfill and

two settling basins along the Savannah River. Due to the sporadic nature of contaminants at the Site, no formal assessment or offsite in vestigation has occurred. Inadequate Information Onsite sporadic

MCL exceedances with some question as to well construction; ongoing
assessment

27 Grainger Generating Station South Carolina

Public Service Authority (SCPSA) Conway SC Surface Impoundment s G rainger Generating Station along the Waccamaw

River uses two fly ash ponds to dispose of CCRs. The nature and extent of contamination at the Site is now being studied

, ten years after arsenic was found in

groundwater near the River. Inadequate Information Single MCL onsite

exceedance in NPDES monitoring with ongoing study required to determine nature, extent and impacts due to ash ponds

28 John Sevier Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley

Authority Rogersville TN Surface Impoundment The John Sevier Fossil Plant c oal combustion waste

impoundment is a 90 acre unlined impoundment located along the Holston River. Site groundwater discharges to off

- site surface water. Groundwater monitoring wells are located between the impoundment

and the River. Potential Damage Onsit e MCLs

( cadmium )

29 Coal Combustion Waste Landfill Trans

- Ash, Inc. Camden TN Gravel Pit serving as a Landfill Since 2002, Trans

- Ash has used a former gravel mined

quarry in Camden, TN to dispose of coal ash from Johnsonville Fossil Plant. Due to past gra vel mining activities penetrating into groundwater, Trans

- Ash was required to install lining throughout the landfill and failed to do so, putting coal ash in direct contact with groundwater. Trans

- Ash was fined $160,000 for this. Proven Damage Offsite MCL

exceedance ( mercury )

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 24 Table 6 : Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

N o. Name Owner/ Operator City State Disposal Unit Type Brief Description Determination Rationale

30 John Amos Power Plant Appalachian Power Winfield WV Surface Impoundment The Little Scary Creek impoundment is an unlined 175

acre fly ash impoundment owned by Appalachian Power. Discharge from the impoundment has exceeded permit c riteria several times in the past, however the state granted variances for surface water criteria. Not a Damage Case Limited

exceedances in SW/Fish with no documented scientific study establishing HH/Env risk

31 Mitchell Generating Station Ohio Power

Comp any Moundsville WV Surface Impoundment Mitchell Generating Station is a 71 acre, unlined fly ash

impoundment along the Ohio river in West Virginia receiving ash and coal mining wastes from two plants. Discharge from the impoundment has exceeded permit

crit eria several times in the past. Not a Damage Case Co

- managed

CCR/mining wastes does not specifically implicate CCRs as

cause

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 25 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

1 Flint Creek Power Plant American

Electric Power d/b/a SWEPCO Gentry AR Landfill and Surface Impoundments The Flint Creek Power Plant site contains a 40

- acre landfill in

operation since 1978 and permitted in 1994. The current landfill permi t allows for disposal of dried fly ash and dredged bottom ash. It is unknown whether the landfill is lined. The site also contains a 30

- acre primary ash pond and a 3.2

- acre secondary ash pond located south of the plant operations area. The Arkansas Departm ent of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) required the facility to start monitoring in 2005 due to increases in selenium, sulfate, pH, and total dissolved solids

.

N o offsite groundwater data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium) and SMCL exceedance s

2 Independence Steam Station Entergy d/b/a

Arkansas Power and Light Newark AR Landfill and Wastewater Recycle and Surge Ponds The Independence Steam Station site contains a fly ash and

bottom ash landfill, two wast ewater recycle ponds, a surge pond and a coal storage pile with the landfill and surge pond. Landfill permit was issued in 2002 for the CCR landfill in operation since at least 1990. The new permit required establish ment of baseline water quality condition s. T he Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has noted proposed expansion will require a leachate collection system which will lead to the surge pond. Several wells are immediately adjacent to the plant property; however, no offsite

groundwat er monitoring data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic, cadmium, and lead) and SMCL exceedance s

3 Montville Generating Station NRG Energy /

Montville Power, LLC Montville CT Impoundments, Settling Ponds, Coal and Ash Storage Area Montville Generating Station is a power plant sitting on a 50

-

acre site on the Thames River that began service in 1919. The plant operated as a coal plant until 1971 when it converted to oil. During the 52 years of its operation, coal ash and slurry was placed thro ughout the site including into a number of settling ponds. The ash disposal sites have all been inactive since 1971 . US EPA investigations determined 14 Areas of Concern (AOCs), some primarily be

related to coal ash contamination. Potential Damage Onsit e MCL

(arsenic and beryllium) and SMCL exceedance s

4 C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant City of Lakeland Lakeland FL Landfills (One on top of a phosphate mine pit), Sludge Dewatering Area and Process Wastewater Ponds The C.D. McIntosh Jr. Power Plant became o perational in

1981 on the shore of Lake Parke r . Approximately The site contains two unlined CCR landfills, as well as a coal storage area, process wastewater ponds and a sludge dewatering area. The southern landfill was built on top of an abandoned phospha te mine pit which likely has some influence on groundwater flow under the site. The site has over 41 monitoring wells, however not all have available data

. No

offsite monitoring data are available. Potential Damage Onsite

MCL (arsenic, cadmium, lead, and se lenium) and SMCL exceedance s

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 26 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

5 George Neal Station North MidAmerican

Energy Sergeant

Bluff IA Landfill and

Surface Impoundments The station has placed CCRs into a monofill since 1978. The

landfill is unlined

, originally permitted in 1997

, and re

permitte d in 2001. The landfill has 2 sections; a 32

- acre west area which receives mostly fly ash, and a 50

- acre east area which receives other CCRs. Permits for expansion are currently under review. The site also contains three surface impoundments, covering a t otal of about 116 acres. The plant lies in a rural area next to the Missouri River. No offsite

monitoring data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic) and SMCL exceedance s

6 George Neal Station South MidAmerican

Energy Salix IA Landfill The s tation has placed CCRs into an onsite monofill since the early 1980s, but the landfill was permit ted in 2000. The landfill covers 30 acres and is at a generally higher elevation than the surrounding area. The plant lies in a rural area next to the Missour i River, south of Sioux City. Groundwater monitoring around the landfill began in 2000. No offsite

monitoring data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic) and SMCL exceedance s

7 Lansing Power Station Alliant Energy

d/b/a Interstate Power & L ight Lansing IA Landfill and Surface Impoundments The Lansing Power Station was first constructed in 1948, with

additional units added in 1957 and 1976. The site contains an ash landfill which first received CCRs around 1985, as well as a nearly 15

- acre ma in ash pond, and 0.2 acre lower ash pond. All the units are currently active; with groundwater monitoring is required for the landfill but not for the ponds. The plant is located in a rural area near the Mississippi River. N o offsite

monitoring data are av ailable. Inadequate Information Only a single

well showed exceedances (arsenic) ; quality of data are in question

8 Joliet 9 Generating Station Edison

International d/b/a Midwest Generations EME LLC Joliet IL Landfill (Former Quarry) and Impoundments Midwe st Generation operates the Joliet 9 and Joliet 29

generating stations which since 1962 have disposed of CCRs in the Lincoln Quarry landfill. The quarry operates under a landfill permit; however the site also includes two surface impoundments for the slurry water used to move CCR from the generating stations to the landfill. Both the landfill and surface impoundments are unlined and most of the site remains active. In 1996 the landfill became exempt from Illinois Class 1 Groundwater Protection standards

. Po tential Damage Onsite

MCL (arsenic, cadmium, and selenium) and SMCL exceedance s

9 Marion Plant Southern Illinois Power Cooperative Marion IL Landfill and Surface impoundments Southern Illinois Power Cooperative ( SI PC) has placed CCRs

from the Marion Power Plant into seven ponds and a just over 1.1 million cubic yard landfill on the plant site since 1963. Only one of the seven ponds, which are located all over the facility, is lined. The landfill, located between two forks of Saline Creek, is also unlined. The plant lies in a rural area. It began groundwater monitoring in 1994; however, no offsite

monitoring data are available. Potential Damage Onsite

MCL (cadmium) and SMCL exceedance s

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 27 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

10 Venice Power Station Ameren Energy

d/b/a/ AmerenUE Venice IL Surface impoundments Originally a 500

- MW coal burning plant

, it was converted to

oil in 1977

. A series of unlined ash ponds constructed in the 1950’s that received sluiced CCRs from the plant until conversion to oil and from wastewater until 2005

. A fire in 2003 closed the original building; however, 3 additional units came online in 2005. The ponds have been inactive since 2005. As part of its re

- permitting in 1995, the plant was required to investigate the groundwater impact of the ash ponds, and has installed 17 monitoring wells in and around the ash pond system. Area groundwater use is restricted because of industrial facilities in the area. Potential Damage Offsite MCL

(arsenic) exceedance not attribut able to CCRs; onsite exceedance s of MCL (arsenic and cadm ium), SMCL (manganese)

, and Illinois Class 1 GW standard (boron)

11 Mill Creek Station E.ON d/b/a

Louisville Gas & Electric Louisville KY Landfill and surface Impoundments The plant has disposed of CCRs in landfills since 1972. The

first two phases of the landfill were unlined since they were permitted as “inert” by the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM). In 2009, a third phase was constructed with a clay liner and the total area of the landfill reached 185 acres. Additionally, there is a 79 acre ash pond and four flue gas desulfurization (FGD) processing ponds located onsite. The landfill is located approximately 175 feet from the Ohio River. Onsite g roundwater has been monitored onsite since 1994 . N o offsite groundwater data are available

. Poten tial Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic) and SMCL

e xceedance s

12 Shawnee Fossil Plant Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA) Paducah KY Landfills and Surface Impoundments The plant has disposed of CCRs in two unlined landfills and

two unlined surface impoundments since the 1980s. Recently, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM) permitted the expansion of the landfills. The landfills and fly ash impoundments are located approximately 500

- 700 feet from the Ohio River, and groundwater from the site discharges to surface water via Little Bayou Creek located onsite. Groundwater was assessed in the 1980s, but consistent monitoring began in 2003. N o offsite groundwater

data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic and selenium) and SMCL

e xceedance s

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 28 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

13 Spu rlock Power Station East Kentucky

Power Cooperative Maysville KY Landfill and Surface impoundment The station has disposed of CCRs in a landfill since the

1970s. The landfill was permitted as an “inert landfill” in 1979 and a construction/operation permit was issued in 1982, and renewed in 1996. It is unknown if a liner is present at the original phases, however a 389 acre expansion in 1996 was lined with two feet of clay. A 57 acre bottom ash pond with a capacity of 1,750,000 cubic yards is also present at Spurlock Station. The site is located approximately one mile from the Ohio River. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic) and SMCL

e xceedance s

14 Big Cajun 2 Power Plant NRG Energy

d/b/a Louisiana Generating New Roads LA Surface impoundments; surge and
tr eatment ponds The plant has disposed of CCRs in ash ponds since 1980.

There are five ponds that span over one mile on the disposal site: a 175 acre fly ash pond, a 66 acre bottom ash pond, a surge pond, and two treatment ponds (25.4 acres and 7.1
acres, re spectively). As of 2009, the fly ash pond was 65 percent full and the bottom ash pond

- 54 percent full. The ash ponds are located approximately a mile from the Mississippi River, although groundwater may flow away from the river. Groundwater has been moni tored onsite since 1989

.

N o offsite assessment has been performed. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(selenium) and SMCL

e xceedance s

15 Dolet Hills Power Station Cleco Power Mansfield LA Landfill and Surface Impoundments The station has disposed of CCRs onsite since 1986. There

are ten disposal units onsite including one landfill, three bottom ash ponds, three surge ponds, a metal cleaning waste pond, a plant discharge collection pond, and a limestone runoff pond. Groundwater has been monitored onsite at 36 wel ls and piezometers at six of the disposal units. No offsite

groundwater data are available

. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic, lead, and selenium) and SMCL

e xceedance s

16 Rodemacher Power Station Cleco Power Lena LA Landfill; Surface Impoundments; coal pile The s tation has disposed of CCRs in landfills and ash ponds

since 1982. The site consists of a coal pile and several disposal units, including a 109 acre fly ash pond, a 36 acre bottom ash pond, a landfill, two metal cleaning waste ponds, a coal sedi mentation pond, a landfill leachate collection pond, and an unpermitted clarifier sludge sedimentation pond. The overall disposal area extends over about 3⁄4 of a mile. Surface water is present approximately fifty feet offsite at Lake Rodemacher and the Red River and Bayou de Jean nearby. Groundwater has been monitored onsite since 1983 . N o offsite groundwater data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic and lead) and SMCL

e xceedance s

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 29 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

17 J.R. Whiting Generating Plant CMS Energy

d/b/a Consumers En ergy Erie MI Impoundments The plant went online in 1952 and since then has constructed six impoundments to receive CCRs from the plant. These impoundments also receive liquid wastes under the plant’s NPDES permit (MIO001864). These wastes include low volum e plant wastes, treated boiler cleaning waste, and treated sewage waste from the plant’s sanitary sewage treatment facility. Impoundments 3, 4 and 5, received fly ash and wastewaters until 2008. Since 2008 they have only received fly ash and are the prim ary focus of the damage claims. Ponds 3 and 4 were built in 1959, while pond 5 was built in 1974, and the three cover a total of 82 acres. Final closure of the ponds was approved in 2005 and is still under way. In recent years, fly ash disposal at the pla nt has been minimal, with most being sold for reuse by cement manufacturers. EPA rejected this as a damage case in 2007 for lack of evidence that CCRs were the source of

contamination

. Inadequate Information Evidence is not

available to specifically implic ate CCRs in ecological damage

18 Dan River Steam Station Duke Energy Eden NC Landfill and Surface Impoundments O peration began in 1949 with the original CCR impoundment

built in 1956

. E mbankment walls were raised twice, in 1967 and 1977. A dike was al so built across the impoundment to divide it into the two units that still exist today. The two impoundments cover a total of 39 acres with a storage capacity of 664 acre feet and are both unlined. The impoundments are occasionally dredged, with the dredge d CCR stored in an unlined landfill north of the ponds. The landfill has been capped and is now inactive, and the rest of the plant is expected to be decommissioned soon. The plant began voluntary groundwater monitoring in 1993; however, no

offsite monitor ing data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(lead) and SMCL exceedance s

19 Antelope Valley Station Basic Electric

Power Cooperative Beulah ND Landfill

- Reclaimed Coal Mine The Antelope Valley Station, located in Beulah, North Dakota,

has disposed of CCRs from the Basin Electric Power Cooperative since 1984. The landfill (Solid Waste Permit #SP

02) is lined with clay and has been inactive since 1998. The site was constructed on a reclaimed coal mine. The Antelope Valley Station also contains an ac tive coal ash landfill and two ash ponds; however, these were not assessed in the EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite monitoring has been required. There are no surface water bodies nearby. Potential Dam age Onsite MCL

(arsenic) and SMCL

e xceedance s

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 30 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

20 Leland Olds Station Basic Electric

Power Cooperative Stanton ND Surface Impoundments CCRs disposal in clay

- lined ash ponds began in 1966, when

the first pond was commissioned. Ponds 2 and 3 followed in 197 5, pond 4 in 1985, and pond 5

- at an unspecified date. In 1996, ponds 4 and 5 were decommissioned and capped. Prior to closure, fly ash from ponds 1 and 2 was moved to ponds 4 and 5. The site holds two permits, SP

- 038 for onsite disposal, and SP

- 143 for o ffsite disposal at Glenharold Mine. The total permit area is 364.6 acres with a 2.7 million cubic yard capacity. P onds 3 and 5 are located approximately 250 feet from the Missouri River and Alderin Creek connects the disposal sites to the River. Groundwate r has been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite assessment has been required. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic and lead) and SMCL

e xceedance s

21 Sheldon Station Nebraska Public

Power District Hallam NE Landfill CCR disposal began in the early 1990s. After nine years of disposal, the landfill was closed in 1999 and is now in a post

closure groundwater monitoring phase. There are other active landfills onsite. The CCR landfill, Ash Pit #3, is clay

- lined and has a total capacity of 350,000 cubic yards. G roundwater has been monitored onsite since 1999; however, no offsite

assessment has been required. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(selenium) and SMCL

e xceedance s

22 Cayuga Generation Plant AES Lansing NY Landfill and CCR leachate pond Since the 1980s, CCRs have been disposed of in the landfill.

The landfill consists of two sections, Phase I and Phase II. Phase I was unlined and had a series of pipes to collect leachate in a pond, which was then discharge to Cayuga Lake. Phase II covers an area of 50 acres an d is currently active. The phase II landfill is lined with leachate collection and leak detection systems. Cayuga Lake, located next to the landfill, receives discharge from the CCR leachate pond via Outfall 013 under SPDES permit NY

- 000

- 1333. In 2008, the AES power plant disposed of 108,330 tons of fly ash at the landfill and discharged 19 million gallons of CCW leachate pond water from outfall 013. Groundwater has been monitored onsite as early as 2000. Additionally, groundwater ha d been monitored offsite in a former private residential well

which was acquired by AES. Potential Damage Onsite

MCL (arsenic, cadmium, and selenium) and SMCL

e xceedance s

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 31 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

23 Cardinal Plant American

Electric Power Brilliant OH Landfill; Surface Impoundments The Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir (FAR) 1 and 2 ash ponds, are

unlined

. I n 2000, FAR 1 was closed and ash was transferred to FAR 2. FAR 2 is still currently active and an FGD landfill was built on top of FAR 1. The site overlooks the Ohio River

. W ater is discharged via Outfall 0 19 into Block House Hollow under a NPDES permit.. Groundwater data indicates onsite exceedances and led to OH EPA requiring groundwater

monitoring programs. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic) and SMCL

e xceedance s

24 Gavin Power

Plant American

Electr ic Power d/b/a Ohio Power Company Cheshire OH Landfills; Surface Impoundment The p lant has disposed of CCRs in landfills since 1994. The

landfill is approximately 255 acres and is located along the Ohio River and its tributaries. The original landfills inc luded Phase A (80 acres), Phase B (50 acres), and Phase C (111 acres), which are now decommissioned. Currently, Phase D, Phase E, and Phase F are active and all inactive/active landfills are lined with one foot of clay and a 30

- mil geosynthetic liner. In a ddition, there is a 300 acre decommissioned ash pond located approximately 1500 feet northwest of the site. There are several NPDES permitted outfalls onsite discharging into surface water bodies including tributaries to the Ohio River. Groundwater has bee n monitored onsite and surface water from Outfalls and offsite

has been monitored as well. Potential Damage Onsite

MCL ( gross alpha, arsenic

, barium, and cadmium )

e xceedance s

25 Industrial Excess Landfill Hyman Budoff /

Merle & Charles Kittinger Uniontown OH Landfill

- Sand and Gravel Mine The Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site located in

Uniontown, Ohio, began receiving wastes in the early 1960s. The landfill area covers approximately 30 acres and was a sand and gravel mine prior to 1959. It i s estimated that one million tons of CCRs were disposed of in the landfill in the mid

- 1960s, and then in the late 1960s through the 1970s, approximately one million gallons of industrial organic chemical liquid wastes were dumped into an evaporation lagoon constructed onsite. In addition to the industrial wastes, hospital wastes, septic tank wastes, and general public wastes were disposed of in the landfill. Chemical wastes were no longer dumped after 1972 and the landfill was closed in 1980 and covered wit h sand and gravel. In 1986, the site was listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL) as a superfund site. Groundwater has been monitored both onsite and offsite. Not a Damage Case Large quantities

of non

- CCR
wastes

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 32 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

26 Muskingum River Plant American

Electric Power d/b/a Ohio Power Company Beverly OH Surface Impoundment The site consists of a fly ash reservoir along the Muskingum

River, which eventually discharges into the Ohio River. In its 2007 Damage Case Assessment Report, US EPA rejected the Musk ingum Plant as a damage case with no evidence of onsite or offsite groundwater exceedances available at the time. Since that time, OH EPA required monitoring. Groundwater and seepage water have been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite assessment has been required. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

( gross alpha and barium ) and SMCL

e xceedance s

27 Northeastern Station American

Electric Power d/b/a Public Service Company of Oklahoma Oologah OK Landfill and Surface Impoundment CCRs were disposed in a landfill sin ce 1978. There is also a

69 acre bottom ash impoundment onsite, but it has not been subject to groundwater monitoring. The landfill, located approximately 75 feet from the Verdigris River, is 65 acres, unlined, and operates under Oklahoma State Department of Health permit FA3566010. Although CCRs have been disposed of onsite since 1978, site monitoring did not begin until 2008. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite; however,

no offsite groundwater data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic , b arium, chromium, lead, selenium, and thallium ) and SMCL

e xceedance s

28 Boardman

Plant Portland

General Electric Boardman OR Landfill; Cooling Reservoir; Wastewater Ponds S ince the mid

- 1970s

, CCR s were disposed of in a lined 40

acre landfill, a 1,500 acre closed

- loop reservoir, and six industrial wastewater ponds, two of which are lined. The reservoir is approximately three miles long and also accepts liquid industrial wastes. Groundwater and surface water have been monitored onsite; however, no offsite ass essment has been required. The location of most exceedances are distant from the CCR areas including across the reservoir and presence of other wastes (on and off

- site) requires additional data to implicate CCRs in the reported exceedances. Inadequate Info rmation I nadequate

information to determine whether on

- site exceedances are site

- related, from offsite sources, or from

on

- site but non

CCR sources

29 Bruce Mansfield Power Station FirstEnergy Shippingport PA Surface Impoundment The stations disposes of a bout 1

- 3 million gallons/day of coal

ash slurry in the Little Blue Run surface impoundment via a 7.5 mile pipe. The impoundment is unlined, covers an area of approximately 900

- 1300 acres, and spans across both Pennsylvania and West Virginia, with an eart hen dam immediately across from Ohio. T he 400 foot high earthen dam is the largest of its kind east of the Mississippi. FirstEnergy holds various permits for the site, including NPDES discharge permits (PA0027260) for the outfalls, as well as a Pennsylvani a Clean Streams Law permit (PA0027481) and a Solid Waste permit (300558). Groundwater and surface water have been monitored both onsite and offsite. Many of the offsite wells have been acquired by FirstEnergy. Proven Damage Offsite and

onsite MCL (arsenic, barium, cadmium, fluoride, lead) and SMCL

e xceedance s

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 33 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

30 Hatfield's Ferry Power Station Allegheny

Energy Masontown PA Landfill, Surface Impoundment, and a minefill The plant began operation in 1969 and was issued a CCW

landfill permit in 1984

. The firs t landfill was a 40

- acre unlined area designated as Phase 1 and Phase 2 with a leachate collection system and under

- drain to collect groundwater in the coal ash. Until 2001, this leachate and wastewater were discharged to an earthen impoundment and then in to a tributary of Little Whitely Creek. In 2001, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protections ( PADEP ) determined this was in violation of its NPDES permit . T he operator implemented a passive wetland treatment system for the leachate includ ing a n equalization basin, four wetland cells, five rock drain cells, and a sedimentation pond. In 1998, the PADEP re

- permitted the site allowing expansion to 187

- acres. In 2009, PADEP approved a Phase 3 expansion for a 110 acre disposal site with a composite l iner. Groundwater monitoring is required on site, and surface water in the discharge tributary and a downstream site has been analyzed

. The Hartley strip mine, located on a neighboring property to the south, is also used for the disposal of CCRs. Potentia l Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic) and SMCL exceedance s

31 Big Stone Power Plant Otter Tail Power Big Stone SD Landfill, Surface impoundments, and Cooling and Evaporation ponds The plant has a CCR landfill, a bottom ash pond, and seven

other waste disposal pon ds on the site. The landfill, which receives mostly dry fly ash as well as some dredged CCR, also has an ash pond for storm water runoff and the entire system is unlined. This, along with two lined brine ponds, two unlined lime sludge water softener ponds, and an inert construction debris landfill are all under the plant's solid waste permit. The site also has a cooling pond, an evaporation pond, a holding pond, and a sluiced bottom ash settling pond. The brine ponds, cooling ponds, evaporation pond and hol ding pond form a closed loop of water, with the post treatment, not suitable for the boiler, water from the holding pond being disposed in the brine ponds, from which groundwater leachate is collected and discharged into the cooling pond. T he cooling and e vaporation ponds are each nearly a mile wide. Groundwater monitoring on the site consists of 25 wells, though the lime sludge ponds are not monitored, nor are the northern and eastern edges of the cooling or evaporation ponds. No offsite groundwater data a re available. Not a Damage Case Presence of

significant non

CCR wastes

, CCRs not directly implicated

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 34 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

32 Cumberland Steam Plant Tennessee

Valley Authority Cumberland

City TN Surface

Impoundments and Ash Stack The p lant has two coal

- fired generating units t hat began

operating in 1973. The plant has three CCR disposal/storage areas on site. A gypsum storage area, which covers about 170

- acres, was built in 1996 on top of the plant’s original ash pond from 1969. Another ash pond, covering about 50

- acres, was bu ilt in 1969, requiring the movement of Wells Creek. A dry ash stack that covers 110 acres was also started in 1969, has a maximum height of approximately 35 feet, and is being built over a sluiced ash disposal area. The plant is located in a rural area wi th approximately 440 houses within 3 miles, the majority of which use groundwater as a drinking source. TVA collects groundwater from a number of downgradient wells and a few upgradient sources; however, no offsite

groundwater data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic and selenium ) and SMCL exceedance s

33 Gallatin Fossil

Plant Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA) Gallatin TN Closed and Active Surface Impoundments The p lant opened in 1959. The plant has three CCR disposal

areas onsite. The first is an unlined bottom ash impoundment which covers about 248 acres. The second is a fly ash impoundment which covers about 167 acres and is also unlined. The third is an unlined ash impoundment which covers about 73 acres and was the first of the three sit es, opening in the late 1950s. CCRs were sluiced into this area until 1970 when the area was abandoned, and a closure plan was approved in 1997 with the work completed in 1998. Treated water from the Cumberland River is a common municipal water source in t he area, including for the Gallatin Water Department which is located just over a mile downstream from the impoundments. However, no offsite

monitoring data are available Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(cadmium and beryllium) and SMCL exceedance s

34 Johnsonv ille Fossil Plant Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA) New

Johnsonville TN Surface

Impoundments and Landfills The Johnsonville Fossil plant opened in 1952 and currently

has 10 coal generating units and four ash disposal areas. Three units, a 35

- acre former po nd for dredged ash, a 95

- acre former landfill and a 45

- acre unlined ash pond known as area A, have all been closed. The fourth area is an 87

- acre unlined CCR disposal area known as Areas 2 & 3, located on an island in the Tennessee River. Groundwater moni toring began at the site in 1990; however, not all wells were monitored each year. New Johnsonville and the City of Camden intake their municipal water from the Tennessee River near the Johnsonville’s plant outfalls. However, no offsite groundwater data ar e available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(arsenic

, cadmium, and lead ) and SMCL exceedance s

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 35 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

35 Fayette Power Project Lower Colorado

River Authority La Grange TX Landfill and Surface Impoundments The Fayette Power Project has four waste management units

ons ite which are currently active. The lined coal ash pond receives CCRs from units 1 and 2 since 1979 with storage capacity of 3.7 million cubic yards. Half the pond was closed down in 1988 and closure plans have been submitted and approved for the remainder of the pond. The site also has a reclaim pond, a coal ash landfill and a class 2 sanitary landfill. Some groundwater results (arsenic in a shallow aquifer) are associated with non

- CCR wastes on the west side of the facility. Other reported contaminants (e .g. selenium in a deeper groundwater aquifer) are associated with the reclaim pond and coal ash pond. The plant is located on Lake Fayette. Groundwater from the site generally discharges into Cedar Creek or Baylor Creek nearby; however, no offsite

groundwa ter data are available. Potential Damage Onsite MCL

(selenium) and SMCL exceedance s

36 Clinch River

Plant American

Electric Power d/b/a Appalachian Power Cleveland VA Landfill and Surface Impoundments The Clinch River plant has 2 ash ponds and a fly ash l andfill.

The two ash ponds were commissioned in 1964, with capacities of 1240 and 1332 acre

- feet, respectively. Pond Area 1 is currently active, as is the fly ash landfill. Pond Area 2 was closed in 1998. The plant lies in a rural area, on the Clinch River , to which effluent from the ponds is discharged. A dike failure on Pond Area 1 in June 1967 released about 400

acre

- feet of ash slurry into Dump’s Creek (which joins Clinch River a half mile downstream) in under an hour. The spill equaled raised the water level by several meters, forcing
waste s nearly a half mile upstream. Reports of fish kills and elimination of benthic macroinvertebrates in the area of the spill and longer term recovery processes are documented. Proven Damage Proven

Ecological Damage ; di ke failure led to

severe

eco logical damage downstream of the spill



## .

37 Glen Lyn

Plant American

Electric Power d/b/a Appalachian Power Glen Lyn VA Surface Impoundments The Glen Lyn Power Plant has two onsite ponds for

management of CCRs. One is a fly ash p ond, commissioned in 1965 and covering 7.6 acres, while the other is a multi

- unit bottom ash pond, commissioned in 1963 and covering 5.1 acres. Some other wastewaters are treated in contiguous units of the bottom ash pond. Effluent was discharged from thes e ponds into a receiving stream which then flowed into the New River, until discharges stopped in 1980. The ponds remain active. S tudies in the late 1970’s and 1980’s concluded that effluent discharge (both thermal discharge and CCR contaminants) may have impact ed the diversity of macroinvertebrate, mayfly, and bacterial populations. Not a Damage Case Studies

implicate thermal discharge which while related to coal power plants are not a constituent of CCRs

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 36 Table 7 : Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Case s

No. Name Owner/

Operator City State

Type Brief Description Determinat ion Rationale

38 Columbia Energy Center Alliant Energy

d/b/a Wis consin Power & Light Pardeeville WI Surface Impoundments The Columbia Power Station has three ash impoundments on

site, all officially commissioned in 1975, though plant operations and CCR storage and discharge began in 1974. The three ponds consist of an 8.5

- acre primary ash pond, a 16

- acre secondary ash pond, and a 1

- acre polishing pond, all of which are currently active. Since the plant’s opening in 1975, CCRs have been slurried into this series of impoundments and sulfuric acid added to reduce the alkal inity. The effluent was then discharged into a stream which subsequently flowed into Rocky Run Creek. Discharges are covered by Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits. S tudies undertaken in the late 1970s determined that effluent discharge from the CCR impoundments had an impact on downstream habitats and caused considerable damage to populations of

macroinvertebrates. Proven Damage Proven

Ecological Damage ; damage to biota specifically implicate CCR constituents

39 Oak Creek Powe r Plant (Caledonia) Wisconsin

Energy(WE Energies) d/b/a Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Oak Creek WI Landfills The Oak Creek Power plant has been in operation since the 1950s. It has onsite the active Caledonia landfill as well as two inactive landfills, Oak Creek North and South. Oak Creek North began operating in the mid 1960s and closed in the late 1970s. Oak Creek south opened in 1974 and was capped and closed with a gravity leachate collection drain in 1992. The active Caledonia landfill is approximately 45 acres with a clay liner and leachate collection system. Caledonia receives CCRs and wastewater treatment solids from five power plants

operated by Wisconsin Energy. Potential Damage Onsite

exceedances of WDNR Enforcement Standards (molybdenum)

## Assessment of Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 37 

## 6.0 R eferences

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste July 9, 2007 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015.

Comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s July 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessment, August 29, 2007, RCRA Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796, Submitted by Earthjustice, Clean Air Task Force et al

Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases (Volumes I and 2), Draft EPRI Report s 1020553 and 1020554 . November 2009.

In Harm’ s Way: Lack Of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans And Their Environment, Thirty

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2 010, accessible at: http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/inharmsway_final3.pdf

Industry Rebuttal to Comments submitted by EarthJusti ce on EPA ‘s CCW Damage Case Assessment (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446.3)

Memorandum on 

## Preliminary Review of Out of Control: Mounting Damages From Coal Ash Waste Sites; Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion W

a ste
, Alexander Livnat, US EPA, March 3, 2010.

Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 99, Monday, May 22, 2000, Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 261

Out of Control: M

ounting Damages From Coal Ash Waste Sites; Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste

. Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice, accessible at: http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/Outof Control

MountingDamagesfromCoalAshWasteSites.pdf

Relevant Docket Comments , EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796. Documents 0070, 0347, 0424, 0443. 1, 0443.3, 0443.6, and 0424.

Supplementary Information to Earthjustice Allegations of Additional CCW Damage Cases , Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0468, Utility Solid Waste Activity Group Submittal

Technical Background Document For The Report To Congr ess On Remaining Wastes From Fossil Fuel Combustion: Potential Damage Cases March 15, 1999Do Not Cite or Quote 

## Appendix A: Reassessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage CasesDo Not Cite or Quote 

## Appendix B: Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage CasesDo Not Cite or Quote 

## Appendix C: Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases