Alexander Livnat, Ph.D. 12/18/2014

This is the first out of five volumes describing EPA’s current state of knowledge of CCR damage cases. This volume comprises 40 damage case

- specific modules. Each module contains background information on the host power plant, type and design of the CCR management unit(s), their hydrogeologic setting and status of groundwater monitoring system, evidence for impact, regulatory actions pursued by the state and remedial measures taken, litigation, and rationale for the site’s current designation as a proven damage case in reference to pre

- existing sc reenings. Ample footnotes and a list of references provide links to sources of information

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

1 

# I. Coal Combustion Residuals Proven Damage Case

( Cases PR01 to PR40)I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

2 

## Table of Contents

PR01. Georgia Power Company, Plant Bowen, Cartersville, Bartow County, Georgia

.............................. 4 PR02. Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) Eagle Valley Plant, Martinsville, Morgan County, Indiana

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 7 PR03. Gibson Generating Station Plant, Duke Energy (Cinergy), Princeton (NW of Owensville), Gibson County, Indiana

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 11 PR04. Northern Indiana Public Service Corp. (NIPSCO) Yard 520 Landfill Site (Brown's Landfill), Township of Pines, Porter County, Indiana

................................ ................................ ................................ 17 PR05. Constellation Energy’s BBSS Sand and Gravel Quarries, Gambrills, Anne Arundel County, Maryland

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 PR06. PEPCO (Mirant, GenOn, NRG) Morgantown Generating Station Faulkner Off

- Site Disposal Facility, Morgantown, Charles County, Maryland

................................ ................................ ..................... 32 PR07. Detroit Edison Range Road Landfill, St. Clair, East China Township, St. Clair County, Michigan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 41 PR08. JR Whiting Generating Plant, CMS Energy

– Consumers Energy, Erie, Monroe County, Michigan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 43 PR09. North Lansing Landfill, Lansing Board of Water & Light (LBWL), Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 49 PR10. Colstrip Power Plant PPL Montana (Avista, PPL Montana LLC, Portland General Electric Company, PacifiCorp, NorthWestern Energy LLC, and Puget Sound Energy), Colstrip, Rosebud County,
Montana

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 51 PR11. Reid Gardner Generating Facility, Nevada Energy, Moapa, Clark County, Nevada

...................... 64 PR12. Cayuga Coal Ash Disposal Landfill

- AES, Lansing, Tompkins County, New York

.................... 68 PR13. Don Frame Trucking, Inc. Fly Ash Landfill, Pomfret, Chautauqua County, New York

................ 73 PR14. Belews Lake, Stokes, Rockingham, Guilford, and Forsyth Counties, North Carolina

................... 76

PR15. Dan River Steam Sta tion, Duke Energy, Eden, Rockingham County, North Carolina

.................. 79 PR16. Hyco Lake, Roxboro, Person County, North Carolina

................................ ................................ ... 83 PR17. Swift Creek Structural Fill Site ReUse Technology, Inc. /Full Circle Solutions, Inc., Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 88 PR18. Conesville Fixed FGD Sludge Landfill, American Electric Power (AEP), Ohio

........................... 91

PR19. B ruce Mansfield Power Station’s Little Blue Run Surface Impoundment, FirstEnergy, Shippingport, Greene Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania and Grant District, Hancock County, West Virginia

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 95 PR20. Fern Valley Landfill, Orion Power Holdings, Inc., Elrama, Jefferson Borough, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 107I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

3 PR21. Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station, Allegheny Energy Supply (AES) Company, Masontown, Fayette County, Pennsylvania

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 114 PR22. Martins Creek Power Plant 2005 Release, Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 123 PR23. South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Canadys Plant, Walterboro, Colleton County, South Carolina

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 129 PR24. DOE Savannah River Project, U.S. Department of Energy, Aiken, Allendale and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 133 PR25. Urquhart Station, SCANA, dba South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), Beech Island, Aiken County, South Carolina

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 136 PR26. TVA Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant, Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee

................................ ...... 140 PR27. DOE Oak Ridge Y

- 12 Plant Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2, Department of Energy, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 154
PR28. Coal Combustion Waste Landfill, Trans

- Ash, Inc., Camden, Benton County, Tennessee

............ 157

PR29. Brandy Branch Reservoir, Marshall, Harrison County, Texas

................................ ..................... 163
PR30. Martin Lake Reservoir, Texas Utilities Electric, Tatum, Rusk and Manola Counties, Texas

...... 166 PR31. Southwestern Electric Power Company Welsh Reservoir, Mount Pleasant, Titus County, Texas

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 170
PR32. Clinch River Plant, American Electric Power

– Appalachian Power Company, Cleveland, Russell County, Virginia

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 173 PR33. Appalachian Power Company, Glen Lyn, Giles County, Virginia

................................ ............... 177 PR34. Virginia Power Yorktown Power Station Chisman Creek Disposal Site, Yorktown, York County, Virginia

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 182 PR35. John E. Amos Power Plant, Appalachian Power, Winfield, Putnam County, West Virginia

....... 185

PR36. WEPCO Cedar

- Sauk Landfill, Cedarburg, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin

................................ ..... 191 PR37. Columbia Energy Center, Alliant Energy

– Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Pardeeville, Columbia County, Wisconsin

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 195 PR38. WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill, WE Energies, Waukesha, Waukesha County, Wisconsin

.......... 199 PR39. Oak Creek Power Plant, Wisconsin Energy (WE)

– Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Oak Creek, Racine County, Wisconsin

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 202 PR40. E.J. Stoneman Generating Station Ash Disposal Pond, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Cassville Ash Disposal Site, Grant County, Wisconsin

................................ ................................ ........................... 207I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

4 

### PR01. Georgia Power Company, 1 

### Plant Bowen, Cartersville, Bartow County, Georgia 2



### Type: Surface Impoundment Punctured by a Sinkhole; Failure of a Dry

- Ash Stockpile.



### Brief Description: The 250

- acre, originally unlined Plant Bowen Ash Pond was put in service in 1968. In 1992 and again in 2001, Georgia Power developed Ash Stacking Plans to expand the capacity of the facility and transition from wet process disposal to dr y disposal. 3 A cooling water impoundments contains water pumped from the Etowah River for use as cooling water in the Plant. Other, much smaller impoundments capture and control storm water runoff in the coal pile area and the waste gypsum coal combustion by

- product storage facility located to the east of the steam plant and cooling water pond. These impoundments store water intermittently and do not contain CCRs.

After completion of a 2003 slope stability study, the Plant converted to a dry stack operatio n, reducing the wet CCR processing area to two small dewatering cells, two gypsum settling ponds, and a water recycle pond. The company has taken steps to reduce potential sinkhole conditions although karst geology conditions underlying the surface impound ment remain. 4

Discharges from the Plant Bowen Ash Pond are under the jurisdiction of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (DNR/EPD). The Plant was issued by DNR/EPD Permit No. GA0001449 authorizing discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to the Euharlee Creek and Etowah River (Coosa River Basin). 5

The Plant Bowen Ash Pond lies within the Valley and Ridge physiographic providence about three to four miles north of the Cartersville Fault. The Cartersville Fault separates the late Precambrian

- aged metamorphic rocks to the east and south from the Cambrian

- aged sedimentary rocks to the north and west. The Ash Pond lies within an area mapped primarily as Knox Group undifferentiated. The Knox Group produces a characteristic orange to red clayey residuum, often cherty, that ranges in thickness from ten to a hundred feet or more. The carbonate rocks beneath the Plant Bowen Ash Pond are typical of the Knox Group which abounds in karst

- contro lling features such as lineaments and sinkholes. The soils underlying the Ash Pond and embankment are residual, formed from the in

- situ weathering of the underlying dolomite and limestone. The soils were noted as varying from a fine, sandy clayey silt to s ilty clay. Permeability of the material was reported as varying from about 1 x 10

- 6 to 1 x 10

- 8 cm/sec. Thickness was also found to vary from about 19 feet to 127 feet at the Plant Bowen site. 6



### Impact: 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. Approximate ly 80 tons of ash entered Euharlee Creek

1 Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of Southern Company.

2 Plant Bowen is l ocated in 317 Covered Bridge Rd., Cartersville, GA 30120, about 40 miles northw est of Atlanta. Plant Bowen has the largest generating capacity of any coal

- fired power plant in North America . The Plant ’s Nameplate Capacity is 3,499 MW, and it comprises four generation units (in

- service year in parenthesis): 806 MW (1971), 789 MW (1972), 952 MW (1974), and 952 MW (1975). Plant Bowen has been burning Bituminous coal from Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia mines. (EIA, 2009). At full operation, Plant Bowen bur ns over 26,000 tons of coal per day. The Plant uses a closed

- loop cooling system with cooling towers (Southern Company, no date, apparently 2007)

. 3 CHA (2009).

4 According to CHA (ibid), the areas containing liquid have been lined with geosynthetic clay liners (GCL) or HDPE liners, and/or clay soil liners.
5 According to CHA (2009), the permit was valid between November 9, 2007 and June 30, 2010.

6 CHA (ibid).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

5 through a stormwater drainage pipe, resulting in deposition of an ash blanket up to 8 inches deep over some 1,850 square feet of the stream bottom. 7

Following the delineation of the extent of the ash release four samples were collected within the ash footprint and two samples were collected downstream of the ash deposit. Samples collected within the ash footprint in the creek indicate that concentration of certain metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, m ercury, and nickel) exceeded EPA Region IV ecological sediment screening values (ESV'S) indicating a potential for ecological affects to aquatic life. Sediment concentrations of arsenic were measured at 14ppm dry weight, a level that is over five times the toxic threshold. Biological sampling indicated that benthic organisms in the tributary and ash deposition zone of Euharlee Creek were either killed by contaminants or physically smothered. The resident fish community, which consisted of at least 25 specie s, was displaced due to the irritation of high turbidity in the ash plume as it moved through during the spill event. One month after the spill, concentrations of selenium and cadmium were elevated in crayfish, clams, mollusks, and insects at a downstream site in Euharlee Creek. 8

, 9

An Ecological Impact

- Assessment prepared by a utility’s contractor shortly following the incident (September 27, 2002) states: 10 “it is likely that all but the most tolerant epifaunal (surface dwelling) and infaunal benthic orga nisms expired due to physical impact of settling ash ....It also predicted that t he potential impacts associated with removing the ash are few, relatively minor, and temporary.”

On S eptember 9 , 2008, ash was released from the Plant Bowen property during a heavy rain event (1.26” in less than a 45 minute period). The ash release was due to failure of the slope of a dry ash stockpile during the rain event. Storm water overwhelmed perimeter ditching in the ash pond and carried ash off of plant property to the north , to a storm water conveyance and across several adjacent properties where it was deposited in a sediment pond. From the sediment pond, some of the ash reached Euharlee Creek. Georgia Power Company estimated that 40 tons of ash was released with about two tons of ash reaching Euharlee Creek. Approximately 14 offsite properties in the neighborhood were affected by the release. The ash spill at Plant Bowen was cleaned up as a CERCLA removal action. 11

According to Lesley and Froelich (2003), ‘h istoric sam ples of surface waters receiving Plant Bowen ash effluent were among the most metalloid contaminated waters in the world. Since conversion of the plant to dry ash disposal the contamination has disappeared.’ 12

7 The Euharlee Creek is a tributary of the Etowah River: for additional information on the 2002 ash release, see Lesley and Froelich (2002), virtual pages 110

- 115.
8 Lemly (2010) and references therein. Lemly (ibid) estimated the monetized damage at $6.1 mi llion

9 The ash was removed from the creek by mid

- October, 2002

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

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0026

. 11 An undated Release Report, and Ash Sampling and Cleanup Report, Sept. 14, 2008. Attachments to an email from B. Cuthbertson to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER

, July 13, 2011.

12 For details, see Lesley and Froelich (2002). Sampling between May 2001 and June 2002, established and quanti fied the flux of the toxic metalloids arsenic, selenium, and antimony from the Bowen Plant’s ash ponds to local receiving waters. Calculation of metalloid escape efficiencies have shown that 4.1 tons of arsenic, 1.7 tons of selenium, and 0.9 tons of antimo ny were released to the environment in the dissolved reactive form during the year of the study. Detailed mass balance models of metalloid fate in the riverine environment revealed that there is also a metalloid flux from ash ponds in the form of solid ash material. These fluxes are 10.1 tons of arsenic, 1.4 tons of selenium, and 0.1 tons of antimony released on ash material during the year of the study. Over the course of 20 years the combined dissolved and solid releases have amounted to 284 tons of arsen ic, 62 tons of selenium, and 20 tons of antimony. Mass balance has shown that over the year of the study, 8.7 tons, 1.0 tons, and 0.5 tons of arsenic, selenium, and antimony, respectively, entered the biological system, which is the primary sink of metallo ids in contaminated rivers.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

6 

### Previous (2007) Basis for Consideration: Scient ific: Unpermitted 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.



### Resolution: In reference to the 2002 event, Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) alleged that an unpermitted discharge of wat er containing approximately 80 tons of ash slurry entered Euharlee Creek through a stormwater drainage pipe resulting in a temporary degradation of public waters. GDNR issued Consent Order to investigate impacts to surface waters, perform engineering asses sment, and enact necessary corrective actions based on studies. Remedies included suction dredging of ash from creek, and grouting and filling of sink hole. As of 2005, some coal ash from the Bowen Plant was being disposed in a landfill.

For the 2008 spi ll, GPC paid a $35,000 in penalty, and completed all the requirements of a Georgia Environmental Protection Division consent order by March 2009, 13 including the removal of ash from residential properties within 30 days. However, ash was never removed from Euharlee Creek. 14



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage. The 2002 spill involved <limited release of coal ash reported to effect adjacent surface waters requiring removal of sediments. No long term ongoing risk. Administrative action does not have explicit finding of specific damage but requires investigation and
assessment.> The 2008 spill, while involving a limited release of coal ash into adjacent surface water, also carried coal combustion ash unto some 14 off

- site private properties.


### References ICF (20 10): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, ICF, 10/2010, Appendix A, Case #8.

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

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640, December 15, 2010. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/20 12/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

- CCW.pdf

CHA (2009): Assessment of Dam Safety Coal Combustion Surface Impoundments, Redacted Draft Final Report, Georgia Power Company Plant Bowen, Cartersville, Georgia, September 14, 2009. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm#G

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #8, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Lesley a nd Froelich (2003): Arsenic, Selenium, and Antimony: from Coal Fired Power Plants to the Chattahoochee River, M. Patrick Lesley and Philip N. Froelich. Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conference , held April 23

- 24, 2003, at the University of Georgia. Accessed Online September 2014. from coal fired power plants to the chattahoochee river

13 EPA surveys Plant Bowen coal ash pond as part of national study

, September 12, 2009, Rome News

- Tribune : http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/rome/news/epa

- surveys

- plant

- bowen

- coal

- ash

- pond

- as

- part

of/ar ticle_0a28775f

- 770a

- 5e72

- aa76

- 689f40fc5ea7.html

14 Lemly (2010).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

7 Geosyntec Consultants (2002): Ecological Assessment of Ash Deposition and Removal, Euharlee Creek, Georgia Power Bowen Plant, September 2002, Geosyntec Consultants, EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0026. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0026

Lesley and Fr oelich (2002): The Fluxes and Fates of Arsenic, Selenium, and Antimony from Coal Fired Power Plants to Rivers, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Michael Patrick Lesley and Philip N. Froelich, Jr., a report sponsored by Georgia Water Resources Institute and The U.S. Geological Survey, October 2002. Accessed Online September 2014. Progress/Completion Report PDF

- Water Resources of the ...

Southern Company (no date, apparently 2007): Georgia Power’s Plant Bow en Environmental Management System, Southern Company, a Power Point Presentation. Accessed Online August 2014. GA Power's Plant Bowen EMS.pdf

- cscaweb.org



### PR02. Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) Eagle Valley Plant, 15 

### Martinsville, Morgan County, Indiana

Type: Dam Failure

, Surface I mpoundments

. 

### Background and Description: Eagle Valley (EV) Generating Station , located five miles north of Martinsville, Indiana, 16 comprises five unlined surface impoundments

. 17 The EV Station has experienced

15 According to Earthjustice et al., comment to the proposed CCR rule docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6314 ( Analysis of EPA and EIP/Earthjustice Damage Cases: The Extent of Damage from CCR Dispo sal is Significant, Pervasive and Growing / J. Russell Boulding, Attachment B: Additional Documented and Potential Damage Cases ), this power plant was formerly called the H.T. Pritchard Station

. 16 The EV Generating Station ( 4040 Blue Bluff Rd, Martinsville, IN 46151; 344 MW Name Plate Capacity) began operation about February 1949. There are four generating units: Unit 3 (on line since 1949, 50 MW), Units 4 and 5 (on line since 1953, 69 MW each), and Unit 6 (online since 1956, 114 MW). Approximately 1,900 ton s of coal is burned daily producing approximately 190 tons of CCR . According to the Reporter Time (2007), 990,000 of the company’s 1.4 million

- ton 2005 ash production was “beneficially reused” as a component of concrete or as a raw building material. Accor ding to SourceWatch (2013) and Media Release (2014), in May 2013 IPL announced that the EV Station will be retired, with a 650 MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) to be constructed at the same site by 2017. According to Indiana Public Media (2014), the g round

- breaking for the new plant took place in September 2014.
17 CDM (2010), Appendix A. The impoundments at the EV Generating Station currently are used as settling ponds for CC R and associated plant wastes. According to CDM (ibid), t he west impoundments consists of Pond A, Pond B, and Pond C. Pond A, Pond B, and Pond C are approximately 19, 13, and 8 acres in size, respectively. Pond B is used as a secondary pond for finer material to settle out. Pond B is connected to Pond C, which is used as a final

se ttling pond (‘polishing’) before water is discharged into the discharge canal at Outfall 103. Water from Pond B and Pond E is conveyed to Pond C. The east impoundments consist of Pond D and Pond E. Pond D and Pond E are approximately 16 and 4 acres in si ze, respectively. At the time of CDM’s April 2010 survey, Ponds D and E were dry and undergoing repairs following the 2007 and 2008 dike failures

. The repair plans indicated that the compacted ash will be covered with a 12

- inch

- thick layer of compacted cla y and a 4

- inch

- thick topsoil layer. A conduit consisting of 30

- inch

- diameter HDPE pipe with 8

- foot

- square anti

- seep collars at 50

- feet on center was to be constructed through the compacted ash in Pond E to the existing inlet structure in the northwest corn er of the pond. Water from Pond D will be diverted through the conduit to the outlet structure and into Pond C. IPL Pond D was anticipated to be used on an “emergency” basis or when Pond A and Pond B need to be taken offline for maintenance

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

8 two breaches of the levee system (in 2007 and 2008) allowing unpermitted discharges to surface waters of the United States (the West Fork of the White River).

The IPL EV Generating Station was issued a permit (No. IN0004693) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authorizing discharge to the White River in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in the permit. The station’s most recent permit expired December 31, 2011. 18

The site is located south of the White River. The area north of the discharge canal and the west impoundments are located within the 100

- year floodplain. The site is located within a glacial valley created by the erosion of the bedrock hills and the deposition of sand and gravel by glaciers and by the White River and Indian Creek. The immediate subsurface generally comprises 1 to 14 feet of lean clay underlain by deposit of sand and gravel with variable amounts of clay down to bedrock. The bedrock in the vicini ty of the site consists of soft shale at anticipated depths of approximately 100 to 120 feet below natural grade. 19



### Impact and Damage Claims: On February 14, 2007, EV Generating Station released approximately 30 million gallons of ash sluice water to the IPL discharge canal which then entered the White River as an unpermitted release. Following the failure, Ponds D and E were repaired and brough t back in service by December 2007. O n January 30, 2008, the internal divider embankment failed again in a similar manner to the first failure causing the embankment of Pond E to overtop , releasing again approximately 30 million gallons of ash sluice water to the IPL discharge canal which then entered the White River as an unpermitted release. 20 In both incidents IPL believes that both an internal and then an external levee breached at the EV Generating Station prompting the release. 21

Sampl ing conducted by an independent lab for IDEM detected trace metals in the White River after the incident. Contaminant levels were elevated downstream from the spill. 22 The roughly 30 million gallons

The original CCR impoundment was commissioned in 1949, in the vicinity of the footprint of current Ponds A, B and C to the west of the Indiana Southern Railroad tracks. In 1956, an impoundment was commissioned east of the railroad in the current footprint of Ponds D and E. Both groups of impoundments have been since reconfigured and/or had their dikes raised. In about 1991, the west impoundments were reconfigured to create the current footprint of Ponds A, B and C. In about 1979/1980, the west pond was esta blished within the existing footprint of the impoundment. From about 1981 to 1982, the east impoundment (Ponds D and E) was unofficially capped and regarded. In about 1991, the current configuration of Ponds A, B, and C was commissioned. In 2000, the
east impoundment (Pond D) was reactivated. The embankment around the pond was regarded. In 2003, Pond D was reconfigured to form Ponds D and E by creating an internal divider embankment ( using compacted ash ) that runs east to west. In 2005, the embankment aroun d the perimeter of Pond D was raised using compacted ash

. For additional information on the impoundments, see CDM (ibid) and Indianapolis Power & Light (2009).
18 CDM, ibid.
19 CDM, ibid.
20 Indianapolis Power & Light , ibid.

21 CDM, ibid. T he internal divider embankment between Ponds D and E failed causing the north embankment of Pond E to overtop. A Causal Analysis report prepared by BT SQUARED attributed the February 2007 failure of divider embankment D/E to slope instability combined with piping erosion of the flyash at the north toe of divider embankment D/E

. BT SQUARED attributed the January 2008 failure to the repair designed by Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott, and May Engineers (FMSM) in that they overestimated the shear strength of the flyash. BT SQUARED

conc luded the redesigned embankment cross

- section by FMSM was inadequate to support the loading conditions in Pond D and Pond E.

22 According to Earthjustice et al., comment to the proposed CCR rule docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6314, limited sampling within twelve hours of the spill found all metals except zinc upstream from the spill below the detection limit, whereas elevated levels of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc were noted in the canal down from the spill before it reached the White R iver. Approximately 36 hours later the canal down from the spillI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

9 of water mixed with metals that spilled into the White River in February 20 07 was deemed to not be a health hazard by both Indiana Department of Natural Resources and Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 23



### Resolution: Following both dike failures and slurry spill incidents, none of the released material was recovered. Timely reports were made to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), National Response Center (NRC), and the Morgan County Local Emergency Planning Commission. 24 Both IDEM and IDNR representa tives were on

- site after the breach occurred to observe IPL response action steps and provide regulatory direction. Following the February 2007 spill, the external levee was plugged within 30 hours after the initial failure occurred. The remedial action un dertaken was the repair of the levee.

Following the January 2008 spill, the external levee was plugged within 12.5 hours after the initial failure occurred. On December 30, 2008, IPL submitted a root causal analysis associated with the second levee breach and levee repair recommendations to IDEM. 25 In addition, IPL initiated external qualified professional inspections of all of its levees in June 2008. IPL continues to conduct the external levee inspections on all of its levees on a semi

- annual basis.

As a result of the two dike breaches, IPL entered into an Agreed Order with IDEM on April 22, 2008. 26 IDEM assessed IPL a $23,800 civil penalty. It also required IP L to study the site, submit its findings to IDEM, implement repairs, and follow up with regular inspections. Failure to comply with IDEM’s timeline would subject IPL to $500

- per

- week penalties. As part of the Agreed Order requirements, IPL submitted a detai led study of the levee breaches, performed by BT SQUARED

, Inc., and associated recommendations to IDEM December 19, 2008. 27

On January 29, 2010, IPL filed a federal suit against FMSM

, 28 to assign responsibility and liability for the second spill to the engineering consultant. 29 IPL seeks compensatory damages, as well as the costs and fines it incurred responding to the second effluent spill. IPL alleges it hired FMSM to examine the breech

, supervise its repair, and improve E V ’s dike system to avoid future accidents. But on Jan uary 30, 2008, E V ’s dike system failed again

. IDEM investigated both incidents, and found the second levee breech

still had elevated levels of zinc, and TCLP leach tests of a sediment sample at boat ramp in the White River below the spill had zinc at 0.18 mg/L, exceeding the EPA water quality criteria of 0.012 mg/L for chronic exposure to microorganisms.
23 Nuvo (2010). A citizens ’ group representative suggested, however, that ash did impact downstream water quality to levels adverse to fish and other aquatic life, and that more testing should have been re quired by the state

. 24 According to the Reporter Time (2007), the February 2007 incident was determined not to be a violation because IPL followed procedure by notifying IDEM and DNR of the spill. Because the levee breach was accidental and proper action w as taken, no violation was recorded and no fines have been issued.
25 BT SQUARED provided the second remedial design in 2008. The remedial design by BT SQUARED includes the installation of a 30

- inch

- diameter HDPE pipe with 8

- foot square HDPE anti

- seep collars at 50

- feet on center through the compacted ash in Pond E. The construction was ongoing at the time of the site visit in late April 2010

. Construction wa s anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2010

. 26 IDE M (2008): Commissioner of Department o f Environmental Management v. Indianapolis Power and Light Co., Agreed Order, Case No. 2007

- 16780

- W, 2008

- 17693

- W, April 18, 2008

. 27 Feasibility Analysis for Use of D

- Pond for Future Processing of Ash Slurry Indianapolis Power & Light

- Eagle Valley Plant Martinsville, Indiana. Letter from David M. Hendron, P.E., Senior Manager, BT SQUARE to Mr. Rick Jacobs, Indianapolis Power & Light Company , December 18, 2008

. Comments from Facility on Eagle Valley Generating Station

. 28 FMSM was acquired in 2008 by Alberta, Canada

- based Santec Inc.
29 Courthouse News Service (2010) and IBJ (2010).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

10 occurred in the same location as the first.



### Rationale for a Proven Damage Case: IPL released twice within one year large amounts of CCR slurry into the White River. Whereas no specific water quality data is available and there is no record of an immediate ecologic impact (e.g., fish kill), the relea se violated the conditions of EV’s NPDES Permit.


### References Indiana Public Media (2014): IPL Breaks Ground On Natural Gas Plant in Martinsville. Indiana Public Media News, S ept ember 4, 2014. Accessed Online September 2014. http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/ipl

- breaks

- ground

- natural

- gas

- plant

- martinsville

- 71466/

Media Release (2014): IPL’s Plans to Build State

- of

- the

- Art Natural Gas Plant Move Ahead. Media Release, May 14, 2014. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/728391/000072839114000011/exh991.htm

SourceWatch (2013): Eagle V alley Station, last modified on 9 May 2013. Accessed Online September 2014 http://ftp.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eagle_Valley_Station#cite_note

- 1

CDM (20 10): Assessment of Dam Safety of Coal Combustion, Surface Impoundments, Indianapolis Power & Light

– Eagle Valley Generating Station, Martinsville, Indiana, Final Report, Prepared for: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., November 15, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm#I

Courthouse News Service (2010): Utility Blames Engineers for Giant Ash Spi ll. Courthouse News Service, February 2, 2010. Accessed Online October 201 4

. http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/02/24288.htm

IBJ (2010): IPL sues engineering consultant over Eagle Valley discharge, Indianapolis Business Journal, February 6, 2010 . Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.ibj.com/ipl

- sues

- engineering

- consultant

- over

- eagle

- valley

- discharge

- /PARAMS/article/16222

Nuvo (2010): Waste in our water: The coal ash problem. March 31, 2010. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/waste

- in

- our

- water

- the

- coal

- ash

- problem/Content?oid=1333657

Indianapolis Power & Light (2009): Response to U.S. EPA 1 04(e) Information Request to Indianapolis Power & Light Company ("IPL")

- Eagle Valley Generating Station, May 13, 2009. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/index.htm

IDE M (2008): Agreed Order, State of Indiana, County of Marion, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Management, Complainant, v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., Respondent , Case No. 2007

- 16780

- W, 2008

- 17693

- W. http://www.state.in.us/idem/oe/cause/AO/17693

- W.htm

Reporter Times (2007): Breach raises monitoring issues, Groups split on effects of fly ash o n water system. Reporter Times, Martinsville and Morgan County, Indiana, February 18, 2007. Accessed Online September 2014. http://ww.reporter

- times.com//stories/2007/02/18/news.39236.sto?code=384cc136

- 48dc

- 11e4

- 8c2f

1bfe2ea5c944I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

11 

### PR03. Gibson Generating Station Plant, Duke Energy (Cinergy), Princeton (NW of Owensville), Gibson County, Indiana

Type: Surface Impoundments, Coo ling Pond, and Landfills.



### Background and Description: Gibson Generating Station 30 comprises six unlined surface impoundments (four ash ponds and two settling/decant basins), occupying jointly 423 acres; 31 a 3,490

- acre cooling lake; 32 and a Type II restricted waste (CCR) landfill. The Type II Restricted Waste landfill consists of a (i) 94

- acre older portion built in the late 1970s which is unlined, and (ii) a 43

- acre portion for Fixated Scrubber Sludge built in 2002, which is sited ove r a portion of the North Ash Pond (‘overfill’) and is contiguous with the old landfill. This new landfill extension has a composite liner and leachate collection system. Finally, the 400 acres South landfill, permitted late in 2005, also has a composite li ner and leachate collection system.

Bottom ash, boiler slag, flue gas emission control residuals and other waste (e.g., landfill leachate, water treatment, boiler blow down, storm water runoff, and mill rejects) from all the Plant’s five generating units , as well as fly ash from generating units 1

- 3 are wet sluiced to North Ash Pond (where primary settling occurs) and into East Ash Ponds #1, #2, and #3. CCRs are periodically scooped out of the impoundments and sent to the two on

- site CCR landfills. Fly ash from generating units 4 and 5 is collected dry and managed in onsite landfills. All process water generated at the power plant is managed in a closed

- loop pond system ( excess water is discharged into the cooling lake). Hence, the impoundments do not h ave National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits

. 33 IDEM considers the surface impoundments as temporary CCR storage areas that are exempt from solid waste regulations.

The site is located in the Wabash Lowland Physiographic Unit. Glacial outwash sediments consisting of sands and gravels exist in the Wabash River Valley. These unconsolidated sediments vary in thickness from 50 to 150 feet in this area. Windblown soils and river alluvium sediments cover the glacial deposits. The glac ial deposits are underlain by Pennsylvanian age shales and sandstones. 34

The unlined landfill is separated from the local aquifer (90 feet of sand and gravel) by 5

- 8 feet

- thick, local clay soil. The impoundments are about one mile east of the Wabash River. Natural groundwater flow is

30 Gibson Generating Station is the third largest power plant in the world with 3,145 MW of generating capacity. It is a five

- unit facility that was built between 1976 and 1982. Unit 5 is co

- owned by Wabash Valley Power Association and Indiana Municipal Power Agency. All five units have sulfur dio xide scrubbers

. ( Duke Energy: Gibson Station: http://www.duke

- energy.com/power

- plants/coal

- fired/gibson.asp )

. 31 GEI (2010). The North Ash Pond, North Settling Basin, East Ash Ponds #1, #2, and #3, and the East Settling Basin . In addition, GEI (2010, Section 1.1) makes a brief reference to “the South Ash Pond and Basin, which have been closed under Indiana Beneficial Use Statut e IC

- 13

- 19

- 3

- 3.” The following information, derived from Duke (2009), provides the commissioning year, surface area, total storage volume, and available capacity as of January 2009 for each of the Gibson Plant’s six surface impoundments: North Ash Pond: 1974, 25 acres, 350 acre/feet, 50 percent; North Settling Basin:1974, 10 acres, 150 acre/feet, 70 percent; East Ash Pond #1: 1991, 105 acres, 1733 acre/feet, 5 percent; East Ash Pond #2: 1995, 105 acres, 1733 acre/feet, 50 percent; East Ash Pond #3: 1999, 133 acres, 3325 acre/feet, 5 percent; and East Ash Pond Settling Basin: 1991, 45 acres, 743 acre/feet, 80 percent.
32 A man

- made lake constructed in 1972, ponded by a soil dike.
33 Once operations cease, however, the power plant is required to follow the so lid waste land disposal rules for closure.
34 GEI (ibid, Section 6.0).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

12 generally to the west, towards the river

. 35 Groundwater monitoring is required at both landfills. The Type II (‘Old’) landfill has 17 monitoring wells, two designated as up

- gradient and 15 designated as down

gradient. However, I DEM has conceded that the current wells designated as up

- gradient are too close to the landfill to be reliably considered up

- gradient. In contrast, groundwater monitoring at the unlined impoundments is limited to only one peizometer located near the impoun dments, and results from this are not reported to the state.

Sizeable wetland habitats are adjacent to the site. Gibson Lake and wetlands are part of a designated Important Bird Area (IBA) and are vital habitat and migration grounds for numerous bird sp ecies, including the largest nesting colony of the endangered interior least tern east of the Mississippi River. Over 380 species of wildlife have been observed on the refuge. 36



### Impact and Damage Claims : The Gibson Power Station is implicated in impacts t o groundwater, surface water and the ecology, as well as being a source of uncontrolled fugitive dust.

Groundwater : Wells down

- gradient from the Old Landfill have high levels of arsenic, boron, iron, and manganese. 37 Twelve wells in the hamlet of East Mount Carmel, Indiana, that supply drinking water to a bait shop, a church, and 10 trailer homes have been contaminated with boron, manganese, iron, sulfate, sodium, and TDS

. 38 Drinking water contamination from boron, iron, and manganese has been documente d in at least nine off

- site private residential wells sampled in the fall of 2007 by Duke Energy and the fall of 2008 by the Natural Resources Defense Council

. 39 Test results in the second round of sampling (2008) found very high levels of sodium: t he avera ge concentration was 139 mg/ L . The peak concentration of sodium in a semipublic well used by a church was 347 mg/ L , 17 times the Drinking Water Advisory for healthy levels of sodium in water. 40

Surface water/ecological impacts : EIP ( 2010 ) noted elevated le vels of metals (particularly selenium, arsenic, and boron) 41 first detected in water samples from the East Ash Impoundment System and the

35 However, a man

- made induced flow direction is invoked by Critique of EPRI CCW Risk Evaluation , Norris, Charles, H. & Hutson, Mark A., Geo

- Hydro, Inc., Nov. 5, 2010, EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6313, virtual page 54

. 36 Amos Butler Audubon Central Indiana/Important Bird Areas. http://www.amosbutleraudubon.org/Conservation/important

- bird

- areas 37 A rsenic: Between 17

- 71 μg/ L ; boron: 1.2

- 19 mg/ L ; iron 3.1

- 45 mg/ L , and manganese: 1.2

- 5.2 mg/ L . See also monitoring well data, Gibson Generating Station, in EarthJustice et al. , Comments on the U.S. EPA’s Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessment (July 2007): EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446

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

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0464

. 38 According to EIP (2010) and E arth J ustice ’s comment to the docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6315

. 39 Reaching concentrations of 5.7 mg/ L for boron, almost twice the Child Health Advisory ; 6.95 mg/ L for iron

, 23 times the SMCL ; and 1.73 mg/ L for manganese, 34 times the SMCL

. 40 According to the Citizens Coal Council and the Wabash Riverkeeper comment to the August 2013 NODA (EPA

HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0099), the contaminated private residential wells are about 0.5 miles to the north of the site, 1

- 2 miles east of Gibson on State Rd. 64. This gives evidence that, at least locally, groundwater flow is in a northerly direction, possibly due to pressure “mounding” caused by the elevation of the ash ponds or flow pattern distortions related to other significant water withdrawals. A similar view is expressed in EarthJustice comment to the proposed CCR rule docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6313, virtual page 54: Critique of EPRI CCW Risk Evaluation , ibid.

41 Monitoring at the cooling lake also shows signs of contamination from CCR due to elevated levels of arsenic (23 μg/L

- 57 μg/L ), boron (6.1 mg/L

- 8.4 mg/L), and selenium (6.8 μg/L

- 18 μg/L). The levels of selenium exceeded EPA’s recommended selenium Crite rion Continued Concentration in water

- below 5 ppb

- to protect aquatic life. The standard is not enforceable at power plants, however, since it applies to lakes and streams, not to discharge (See Coefield, 2009).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

13 cooling lake in 2003. The cooling lake had formerly been used by the public for fishing, but it was closed to the publi c due to concerns about the high levels of selenium.

From 2003

- 2008, t he cooling lake also discharged into the Cane Ridge Wildlife Management A rea, a 463

- acre section of the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, contaminating the water, soil and biota wi th selenium levels that posed a high hazard to wildlife

. 42

, 43 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reported that least tern eggs gathered at the site in 1996 and 2004 contained 3.53

- 5.48 mg/kg selenium and rising selenium levels over time, and hatchling mortality was high. Aquatic invertebrates sampled in Cane Ridge had whole body selenium levels of 8

- 50 mg/kg, while fish whole body selenium levels in the wildlife area were 9

- 30 mg/kg

. 44

, 45 By 1997, fish populations were severely reduced and at l east eight selenium

- sensitive species had disappeared from the reservoir

. 46 Fishery biologists with the Indiana DNR attributed this loss to increased water temperature associated with heated water discharges from Gibson Generating Station. However, the ther mal tolerance limit of these species (e.g., 38 0 C for largemouth bass and crappie, 42 0 C for bluegill) was not attained in ambient areas of the reservoir and no other potential causes were examined. Metals and other pollutants in coal ash effluent are known to reduce lethal temperatures for fish and also modify their behavior in a way that w ould make them less

42 Environmental Health News (2009) and US FWS (2012). Selenium concentrations in water coming into the tern unit on Cane Ridge from Gibson Lake ranged from 11 to 14 ppb (recommended water quality concentration to protect fish and wildlife is less than 2 ppb).
43 Gibson Lake/Cane Ridge IBA provides critical wetland habitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, and gulls. The introduction of warm water discharge created from coal

- fired power generation allows the lake to stay open in the winter, offering habitat for thousands of geese and ducks when other local wetlands are frozen. Indiana Audubon/Cane Ridge/Gibson Lake Birding Guide: http://www.indianaaudubon.org/Birds/Bir dingSites/CaneRidgeGibsonLake/tabid/161/Default.aspx

44 Selenium was measured at 11

- 14 μg/L in samples of this discharge collected in the fall of 2007: SFWS, Briefing Statement: Duke Energy's Gibson Selenium Contamination

- Ramifications for Cane Ridge and Interior Least Terns (May 28, 2008). Also, Lemly (2010).
45 According to Lemly (1993), the safe dietary level of selenium for wildlife is 3.0 mg/kg.
46 Largemouth bass, bluegill, pumpkinseed, warmouth, longear sunfish, white crappie, black crappie, and white bass.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

14 likely to avoid lethal temperature zones in a heated reservoir. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that coal ash pollution, in combination with elevated water temperature, eliminated the fish

. 47

In 2007, after tests showed elevated selenium levels in fish, Duke Energy banned fishing in Gibson Lake

. 48 The USFWS also stopped receiving water from Gibson cooling pond after having determined that eating the selenium

– contaminated fish might be harmful to egg development in birds, and it to ok steps to discourage endangered least terns and other migratory birds from nesting there. In 2008, the USFWS took further action to protect wildlife by draining the Crane Ridge ponds, removing the fish and, in addition, plowing the pond bottoms to redist ribute and bury the selenium in the soil. 49



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 50

47 Lemly (2010) monetized the value of damage at $166.4 million

48 Duke Energy (2007). The duration of closing was pending the results of an env ironmental study of the lake's ecology and water quality, including selenium levels that have been detected in the lake's fish. This decision was made, among others, in consultation with the IDNR. Preliminary data indicated that selenium levels in Gibson Lake fish were below the EPA's recommended guidelines for recreational fishers, but above the levels recommended for people who rely on fish for subsistence, or a primary part of their regular diet. According to Stripers247.com (2007), Duke’s representativ e indicated that Duke Energy has issued a fish consumption advisory. According to a May 1, 2013 Indiana DNR

- Division of Fish and Wildlife Bulletin, ‘Removes Gibson Lake from the locations where channel catfish can be taken without regard to bag limit. Gibson Lake in Gibson County was closed to public fishing by Duke Energy in 2007 based on selenium levels in the fish, and it doesn’t appear it will reopen to public fishing.’ ( Indiana DNR

- Division of Fish and Wildlife, May 1, 2013. New rule changes that s tarted in 2012 now in effect: http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw

- Rule_Changes_May_2013.pdf

. 49 US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System/Selenium Thre at Averted: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/mediatipsheet/June_2009/03.html
50 ICF (2010).
51 Fish populations were severely reduced and at least eight selenium

- sensitive species had disappeared from the reservoir; and elevated hatching mortality occurred of endangered Least Tern. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1: 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  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCLs for arsenic.

 Onsite groundwater data ex ceeded secondary MCLs for iron and manganese, and was above the EPA Child Health Advisory for boron.

 Offsite groundwater in residential wells had boron above the EPA Child Health Advisory, as well as manganese above its secondary MCL.

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  Elevated levels of selenium in surface water samples from the cooling lake led to closure of the lake to the public.

 A U SFWS report indicated that cooling lake discharges into Cane Ridge Wildlife Area impacted the surface water quality and the biota because of selenium contamination. 51

Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an expl icit finding of specific  Duke Energy voluntarily agreed to supply bottled drinking water to homes with affected wells. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is satisfied with the voluntary action ta ken by Duke Energy and has not taken anyI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

15 

### Resolution: The unlined landfill cell was closed and replaced by a composite

- liner landfill cell in 2002. In 2008, Duke Energy decided to switch from wet handling and disposal of fly ash to a dry handling process, to be completed in 2013

. 52 As part of the conversion, IDEM approved, in March 2009, Duke Energy’s closure and post

- closure plans for the East Ash Pond System; East Ash Pond #3 b egan closure in 2009. This closure plan is scheduled to be completed by 2020.
“IDEM has not taken any enforcement action (against Duke Energy) because the facility came in voluntarily with a closure and remediation plan. IDEM approved the closure plan and the ground water remediation plan. The bottled water was an interim measure: affected residents (in East Mt. Carmel) are now hooked up to city water.” 53 The ash pond system’s groundwater monitoring system was completed in fall 2009. 54

In response to the adverse ecological impacts to the Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area adjacent to Gibson Station’s cooling pond, Duke Energy carried out voluntarily the following: (i) Co

- funded the construction for two nesting islands in Cane Ridge, designed to facilitate the breeding of the interior least terns (2005). (ii) Voluntarily constructed (2009) an alternative water supply

- from the Wabash River

- for the wildlife area. (iii) Stocked fathead minnows into the Cane Ridge ponds (tern pool) to lure back migratory birds and provide a less contaminated source of food for the nesting least terns, and (iv) in cooperation with other entities

, 55 secured a $1 million grant to purchase and create 193 acres of moist soil units and a 60

- acre nesting pool for the endangered least interior tern

. 56 The results of these efforts include a 30 percent reduction i n selenium residues in forage fish, 38 percent in invertebrates, and 71 percent in sediments of the tern pool management unit in the USFWS 2010 samples

. 57


### Fugitive Dust: Residents of the 10 trailers in East Mt. Carmel are also blanketed regularly with coal ash dust blowing from the near full ash ponds in the summer. 58 IDEM has not responded to EPA’s follow up inquiry as to whether the state has addressed this issue.


### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage. <A USFWS report indicated that selenium from cooling la ke discharge has impacted water quality and biota in the Cane Ridge Wildlife Area. The cooling lake has been closed to the public due to concerns with elevated selenium levels. Ground water exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found ons ite. Groundwater exceedances of the EPA Child

52 Fly ash is to be disposed of “in a 377

- acre landfill with a synth etic lining over an additional layer of clay and sand to capture any liquid waste that might seep out.” (Courierpress.com, 2010).

53 Daniela Klesmith, IDEM communication with Julie Gevrenov, EPA Region 5, August 2011. According to the IDEM comment to the Oc tober 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0269, in fall 2009, Duke completed an 8

- mile water supply line to the affected residents.
54 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0269.
55 The refuge, Ducks Unlimited, Duke Energy (Cinergy's Habitat Conservation Program), Natur al Resource Conservation Service, Indiana DNR, and other partners

. 56 US Fish and Wildlife Service / Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/patokariver/ ; Ducks Unlimited/

Cane R idge Wildlife Area: http://www.ducks.org/indiana/indiana

- projects/cane

- ridge

- wildlife

- area ; Audubon/

Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area and Gibson Lake : http://netapp.audubon.org/iba/Reports/2147

. 57 US Fish and Wildlife Service Journal: Cane Ridge Selenium Concentrations Dropping. April 17, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/FWSJournal/regmap.cfm?arskey=29326

. According to USFWS (2012), selenium concentrations have significantly declined and are nearing or below concern levels.
58 EarthJustice comment to the docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6315

, and citizen complaints at the Louisville, K entucky ( September 28

, 2010) and Knoxville, T ennessee ( October 27

, 2010) CCR proposed rule public hearings. damage to human health or the environment official action with regard to the contamination of drinking water wells.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

16 Health Advisory benchmark for boron have been found in offsite residential wells. Duke Energy is voluntarily supplying bottled drinking water to homes with affected wells, but it is not being driven by an offic ial action by IDEM, an administrative ruling, or a court decision.>



### Industry’s R esponse: Duke Energy and USWAG claim 59 that (i) EIP Report’s allegations are insufficient to establish a proven damage case concerning human health concerns, because off

- site impacts to groundwater only exceed certain health advisory levels. Moreover, municipal water service has been supplied to all residents that might be affected by any alleged off

- site impacts to groundwater . (ii) EIP (2010) cites no specific scientific study that concludes that there has been any off

- site actual ecological damage caused by CCR impacts from Gibson Station’s operations; and (iii) IDEM has not taken any enforcement action related to any alleged CCR impacts. 60 Thus, there has been no administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment.



### Postscri pt: Fish populations in Gibson Lake were severely reduced by 1997. Selenium levels in fish were elevated and remained above a toxic threshold in 2010. Whereas no detailed biological effects studies of fish tissue pathology or reproductive failure have been con ducted, Duke E nergy has closed the lake to recreational fishing. This case is analogous to other cases where selenium toxicity associated with power plant effluents proved fatal to fish. 61


### References USFWS (2012): 50 Years after Silent Spring: Lessons L earned at Indiana’s Cane Ridge. US Fish and Wildlife Service News Release, September 21, 2012. Accessed Online December 2013. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/news/584.html

Courierpress.com (2010): New co al ash rules could affect Gibson Generating Station, Courierpress.com, September 7, 2010. Accessed Online May 2014. http://www.courierpress.com/new s/2010/sep/07/new

- coal

- ash

- rules

- could

- affect

- gibson/?print=1

EIP (2010): Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, c ase #6. Environmental Integ rity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

GEI (2010): Specific Assessment for CCW Impoundments at Duke Energy Indiana (DEI) Gibson Generating Station, Owensville, Indiana. GEI Consultants, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/duke

- gibson

- final.pdf

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix B, Case #6. ICF, 10/2010.

59 Duke Energy comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0215

, and USWAG Comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211.
60 According to IDEM ( E PA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0269) , the Agency “ has not taken any enforcement action as there were no specific rules being violated and since Duke was taking appropriate actions to protect the citizens.”

61 On the status of the Federal selenium

- in

- fish regulation, see comment to the proposed rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 2930, Attachment.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

17 Lemly (201 0): A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal Combustion Waste: The Cost of Poisoned Fish and Wildlife, A. Dennis Lemly, EPA Docket comment EPA

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640

- 6313, Appendix I, December 15, 2010; accessed Online July 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

- CCW.pdf

Coefield (2009): EPA Set to regulate wastewater from Coal

- fired power plants: High Se levels in power

plant wastewater may pose a risk to people and wildlife . Sarah Coefield, Scientific American, December 4, 2009; accessed Online July 2012. http://www.gewater.com/images/abmet/EPA%20Set%20to%20Regulate%20Wastewater%20from%20Co al

- Fired%20Power%20Plants_%20Scientific%20American.pdf

Duke (200 9): Response to EPA’s Request for Information, under Section 104(e) of CERCLA, 42 USC § 9604(e). Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/indust rial/special/fossil/surveys/duke

- gibson.pdf

Environmental Health News (2009): Selenium from Power Plants Poses Ecologic Risks, Spurs EPA Review. December 4, 2009; accessed Online July 2012. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/selenium

- from

- power

- plants

EarthJustice et al ., (2008): Comments on the U.S. EPA’s Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessment (July 2007): EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0464; accessed O nline July 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446

Duke Energy (2007): Gibson Lake Will Not Reopen for Fishing April 1. Duke Energy News website, March 27, 2007. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.duke

- energy.com/news/releases/ 2007032701.asp

Stripers247.com (2007): Indiana Gibson Lake Closed to Anglers. Mark Crowley, March 27, 2007. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.stripers247.com/phpBB2/showthrea d.php?t=7958

Lemly (1993): Guidelines for Evaluating Selenium Data from Aquatic Monitoring and Assessment Studies, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (28): 83

- 100; accessed Online July 2012. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258502377_Guidelines_for_evaluating_selenium_data_from_aq uatic_mo nitoring_and_assessment_studies

.



### PR04. Northern Indiana Public Service Corp. (NIPSCO) Yard 520 Landfill Site (Brown's Landfill), Township of Pines, Porter County, Indiana
Type: Landfill and Structural Fill.



### Brief Description: NIPSCO's (currently NiSource) Bailly and Michigan City power plants have deposited about one million tons of fly ash in the Town of Pines since 1966. 62 Fly ash was buried in the

62 The Pines Groundwater Site is located about four miles west of Michigan City and about one mile south of Lake Michigan in Porter County, Indiana (for the Site’s investigation area, see Figures 2 and 3 in AECOM, 2012). Yard 520 consists of two areas: the northern portion (commissioned in 1966) which was permitted for Type II wastes , and is referred to as the Type II (North) Area; and the southern portion (commissioned in 1983) which was permitted for Type III wastes, and is referred to as the Type III (South) Area. The landfill was used for ash disposal through 2001. Yard 520 is loc ated at the terminus of County Road 520 (from which it received its name), confined by US

- 20 to theI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

18 landfill 63 and used as construction fill in the town. 64 The landfill is only part ially lined by a clay liner. 65 The northwestern edge of the 1,460 acre size site borders the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (IDNL). 66

CCR disposal has been a local source of ground

- and surface

- water contamination in the Town of Pines. A single sample of surface water collected in 1984 from Brown Ditch downstream from the Yard 520 landfill contained concentrations of boron (3,300 μg/L) and ammonia (2.2 mg/L as N) that were large in comparison to background samples (Hardy, 1984). 67

The ash is pervasive on s ite, visible in roads and driveways. Resident complaints lead to discovery of contaminated groundwater, a 2001 Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation, and ultimately recommendation by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) for add ition of the site to the EPA NPL as a Superfund Alternative Site

. 68 Site investigations implicated the Pines Yard 520 Landfill site as the likely source of contamination of residential water wells by heavy metals (manganese, boron, molybdenum, arsenic, lead) and ionizing radiation from fly ash at concentrations above human

health risk

- based comparison levels. 69 Elevated levels of contaminants not associated with coal ash, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and MTBE, indicate additional sources of contamination. 70

north, the railroad’s right of way to the south, Birch street to the west, and the southern projection of Liberty street to the east. EPRI (2010) suggests t here is a discrepancy in the record in that EPA (2007) states that CCR disposal began in 1983 while the R emedial I nvestigation (RI) report for the site indicates that CCR disposal began in the 1960s. EPRI (2010) suggests it is possible that the Damage Case Assessment refers to the S outh A rea, which began receiving CCRs in the 1980s.
63 According to ENSR Corporation (2005, Appendix D), the 45

- acre Yard 520 fill consists principally of originally slurried fly ash material with an estimated 5% of the total fill material consisting of construction/demolition debris (concrete, bricks, lumber, steel, and site clearing overburden, trees and brush). Steel waste was also received and hauled offsite to a scrap metal recycler. Based on the borings conducted during the R emedial Investigation, the thickness of fill material at the North Yard 520 Landfill Area ranges from 30.5 to 36.5 feet (AECON, 2010).
64 CCRs (presumably, mostly bottom ash and/or boiler slag) were used for road sub

- base to fill in low

- lying areas beneath roadways and utility trenches and by individual property owners for fill and for driveway surfacing. The application of CCRs started in approximately 1972 and was discontinued before 1980. For a comprehensive list of application sites in Town, see ENSR Corporation (2005, Appendix F); for areas of suspected CCR distribution, see Figures 4 and 25 in AECOM (2012).
65 According to EPRI (2010) , t here is a clay liner beneath the southern portion of the landfill. No liner is present beneath the northern portion. According to AECON (2010), compacted clay walls were installed on the eastern, southern, and western sides of the Landfill’s South Area. The design hydraulic conductivity for these three sides was less than 1x10

- 6 cm/sec, and the design thickness

- at least 3 feet.

66 ENSR Corporation (2005, Appendix G), virtual pages 51

- 52. The boundaries of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (establishe d 1973) are irregular and discontinuous because the parklands are interspersed with industrial areas and residential communities.

67 Cited from Buszka et al., (2007).

68 A Superfund alternative (SA) site is not listed on the NPL although it qualifies for suc h listing. The SA approach uses the same investigation and cleanup process and standards that are used for sites listed on the NPL, while it can potentially save the time and resources associated with listing a site on the NPL. As long as a PRP enters into an SA approach agreement with EPA, there is no need for EPA to list the site on the NPL.

69 AECOM (2010). The highest levels of boron (42.4 mg/L), molybdenum (>0.18 mg/L), and other contaminants such as arsenic (1.10 mg/L) were found in monitoring wells s urrounding the Yard 520 Landfill and in several private wells to the north of the landfill within its contaminant plume where these contaminants exceeded health based standards in several instances by many times.

70 According to KellerLynn (2010), p rior to the landfill, groundwater flow was southerly and away from the Town of Pines’ domestic water wells (private supplies), but the topographically elevated landfill, in conjunction with a hydraulic barrier to flow constructed in association with a newer adjace nt landfill on the south portion of Yard 520 ( S outh C ell), caused a reversal of groundwater flow (see ENSR, 2005, Appendix C, virtual pages 27

- 30). ThisI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

19 The depth to bedrock in the vicinity of the Pine Site ranges between over 120 feet below land surface and up to 250 feet. 71 Beneath the Area of Investigation, the bedrock dips mildly to the north. It consists of the Antrim Shale, a brownish

- black, non

- calcareous marine shale of Devonian age.

The unconsolidat ed materials above the bedrock consist of 100 feet or more of glacially

- derived materials such as tills, glacio

- fluvial deposits, and lacustrine deposits associated with Glacial Lake Chicago. These Pleistocene deposits are overlain by Holocene (post

- glacia l) deposits associated with the Lake Michigan shoreline. These Holocene deposits include dune

- beach complexes alternating with low

- lying marsh and wetland areas. 72 In the vicinity of the Site, there are three dune

- beach complexes which represent the
current and previous locations of the Lake Michigan shoreline: the Lakeshore/Tolleston Dune

- Beach Complex forming the current shore of Lake Michigan, the Calumet Dune

- Beach Complex on which the Town of Pines was developed, and the Glenwood Dune

- Beach Complex, whi ch is located to the south of the Town of Pines. The geology of the dune

- beach complexes consists of wind

- blown sands and beach sands with small lenses of silts and clays or peat representing small, intra

- dunal wetlands. 73

Between the higher

- elevation dun e

- beach complexes are low

- lying swamps or marshes. To the north of the Town of Pines, the Great Marsh, located within the IDNL, is one of these lowlands. Within the Town of Pines another low

- lying marsh area is drained by Brown Ditch. The geology of these marsh areas consists of peat and muck at the surface which overlie sands of the dune

- beach complexes.

Beneath these Holocene deposits are lacustrine silts and clays deposited by Glacial Lake Chicago and glacial tills. The thickness of the dune complexes overlying the lower permeability silts, clays and tills

change in flow direction negatively impacted domestic wells. Whereas The RI Report leaves open the ques tion of whether smaller amounts of CCR used in road sub

- base could have been the sole culprit contaminating private well water, in their comment to the August 2013 NODA docket (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0092), Citizens Coal Council and Labadie Environmental Or ganization claim that in a number of locations in the eastern portion of Pines and other locations beyond the contaminant plumes of the Yard 520 coal ash landfill (compare Figures 2

- 12 and 3

- 8(b) of the Remedial Investigation, AECOM, 2010), it was unregula ted CCR fills that contaminated shallow groundwater with levels of boron and other CCR constituents clearly exceeding background concentrations. Specific examples cited are wells MW

- 106, MW

- 108, MW

- 111, and MW

- 115. In MW

- 111, located in a wetland about 3,5 00 feet east of Yard 520 landfill, five of eight samples exceeded the Child One

- and Ten

- day Health Advisories for boron of 3.0 mg/L. Arsenic measured at 0.0114 mg/L, exceeding the MCL in one sample and equaling it in a duplicate sample. Sulfate, at 554 mg /L, exceeded the health based Drinking Water Advisory of 500 mg/L in one sample, and at 409 mg/L, exceeded the Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 250 mg/L in another sample. According to Figure 16 in AECOM (2012), MW

- 111 comprises the only well removed f rom the Yard 520 landfill where “cumulative risk screening results for the drinking water pathway is above USEPA target risk level of 10

- 4 (for arsenic).” The well log for MW

- 111 indicates the top five feet of ground traversed by the well are “suspected CC B.” According to Figure 27 in AECOM (2012), MW

- 111 “is in area of suspected CCBs extending substantially beyond roadways.” AECOM (2010, page 6

- 9), essentially concurs with the presumable source of exceedances in MW

- 111. MW

- 106 is located even further away from Yard 520 landfill (about a mile to the ENE). According to data compiled in EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0092, MW

- 106 had average boron in RI samples of 1.40 mg/L, well over EPA’s Removal Action Level in Superfund of 0.900 mg/L and human health risk

- based co mparison level of 0.730 mg/L in the Pines cleanup. Average molybdenum was 0.129 mg/L, far exceeding the human health risk

- based comparison level and more than three times the federal Lifetime Health Advisory for molybdenum of 0.040 mg/L. Average selenium a t MW

- 106 was 0.060, exceeding the MCL (note, though, that AECOM (2010, page 4

- 35) concluded that “the data collected during the RI indicate that selenium in groundwater is not related to CCBs in the Area of Investigation”). The well’s drill log documents a 10.8 inch layer of “suspected CCBs,” and there are anecdotal reports of as much as 11

- 12 feet of CCR below Columbia Avenue near MW

- 106 (See also Figure 27 in AECOM, 2012).
71 The following section about the Site’s Quaternary/Holocene geology is slightly mo dified from AECOM (2010).
72 Shedlock, et al., 1994.
73 Shedlock, et al., ibid.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

20 ranges from more than 100 feet beneath the dunes of the current Lake Michigan, to approximately 2 to 25 feet in the area of Brown Ditch. To the south, there are no dune sands present, and the silts/cl ays and/or tills are present at the ground surface. 74

The Calumet Aquifer System (also: the Surficial Aquifer ; see Buszka et al., 2007) consists of 5

– 35 feet thick fine

- to medium

- grained sand with dispersed lenses of beach gravel. 75 While mostly unconfined aquifer, beds of intermittent silt and clay, and deposits of peat and muck confine the aquifer in small areas across the region. The underlying, confined Lacustrine Plain Aquifer System 76 consists of up to 80 feet of fine

- to medium

- grained glacio

- lacustrine and coastal sands capped by either lacustrine clays or till. The thickness of individual aquifer units averages 24 feet. The Quaternary aquifers system is underlain by the Devonian Antrim marine Shale (bedrock) aquifer system. 77 T he Yard 520 landfill is located on the contact between the Calumet Aquifer System to the North and the underlying Lacustrine Plain Aquifer System to the south. 78

Geohydrologic studies conducted in the eastern part of the IDNL 79 and as part of the Remedial I nvestigation in the Town of Pines 80 have demonstrated that in some instances groundwater from the surficial aquifer can be characterized by and distinguished from groundwater from the underlying confined aquifers by its generally lower specific conductivity /TDS values and slightly acidic pH values, younger water age (i.e., higher values of Tritium Units) as well as by its higher oxidation potential and total organic carbon. In contrast, the water quality in the basal aquifer (the first aquifer overlying the bedrock aquifer) is affected by upward leakage from the Antrim Shale, leading to elevated concentrations of constituents such as sodium, chloride, fluoride, and boron. However, this upward leakage frequently also affects and modifies the composition of gro undwater in the surficial aquifer. For instance, some boron levels that exceed the RAL values constitute the natural fingerprint of the basal aquifer and are not always attributable to leaching from CCRs. 81



### Resolution: 82 In September 1995, following an Admi nistrative Order between Brown and IDEM, a clay barrier, starting from 3 to 4 feet below the top of the existing clay liner for the southern landfill area, was

74 Shedlock, et al., ibid.
75 The geohydrologic description is after the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (1994). The Calumet Aquifer has not been developed significantly be cause of its proximity to Lake Michigan, an abundant surface

- water source. Expected high

- capacity yield ranges from 20 to 100 gallons per minute (gpm), but up to 150 gpm are obtained in some areas. The aquifer is highly susceptible to surface contamination because there is no clay

- rich cap across most of the aquifer and there is a lack or scarcity of clay separator beds.

76 The Lacustrine Plain Aquifer is analogous to the Subtill Aquifer and the Basal Sand Aquifer of previous studies: see Table 1 in Shedlock et al., (1994) and Table 1 in Buszka et al., (2007). Expected high capacity yields range from 50 to 150 gpm, but yields up to 500 gpm are reported in some areas. The System’s susceptibility to contamination ranges from low to high, depending on the thickn ess of the surficial lacustrine clays and till.

77 For the geohydrology of Porter and LaPorte counties, see the above cited studies and Rosenshein and Hunn (1968). The bedrock aquifer is characterized by very low yield (less than 10 gpm), and it forms a con fining unit.
78 According to the Remedial Investigation (AECOM, 2010, Figures, virtual page 26), the excavated bottom of the southern landfill coincides with the top of the clay confining unit of the Lacustrine Plain Aquifer.
79 Shedlock et al., (1994); Buzska et al., (2007).
80 AECOM (2010).
81 The boron concentrations in the basal sand aquifer range from 0.656 to 1.8 mg/L, and the median boron composition is 0.730 mg/L. However, these background levels in the surficial aquifer ar e generally below risk

- based comparison levels, and so elevated levels of boron in shallow groundwater cannot be completely attributed to background or as being contributed from the deeper groundwater.
82 This section is based on documents provided in USEPA Region 5 (2013) website ( Pines Groundwater Plume Site : http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/pines/ )I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

21 constructed between the southern and northern sides of the landfill. 83 Closure of the North Area Landfill occurred in 1986/87, and the landfill closed permanently in 2001. 84 Uncapped fly ash materials were identified beyond the historical waste boundary for the Type II (North) Area in 2001. The fly ash materials were located along the east, north and w est boundaries of the Type II (North) Area. To address these materials, a Supplemental Closure Plan was submitted to IDEM in October 2003, and the plan was approved by IDEM in August 2005. This Supplemental Closure was completed in 2006

- 2007. 85 EPA and the Primary Responsible Parties (PRPs) signed an Administrative Order of Consent (AOC I) effective January 2003 to cover costs of connecting the affected areas to Michigan City’s water system, and between 2003 and 2005, approximately 340 Town

- of

- Pines homes l ocated along US Highway 12 were provided with Michigan City municipal water, replacing private drinking water wells. In April 2004, EPA and IDEM negotiated an Administrative Order of Consent with the PRPs (AOC II) for continued work at the site. 86 The 2004 EPA sampling and analytical results led also to an emergency provision of bottled

83 The purpose of the barrier wall was to provide a low permeable separator between the northern landfill area and southern landfill area. The barrier was to be 10 feet thick and 17 feet high, directly connected to the existing liner for the southern area, e xtend to the ground surface, and tie in at the surface to a 2

- feet clay cover for the northern area. The barrier was designed to have permeability no greater than 10

- 6 cm/sec (ENSR Corporation, 2005, Appendix D, virtual pages 35

- 36). According to AECOM (20 10), the hydraulic conductivity of the clay barrier wall was measured at 7 x 10

- 8 cm/sec or 2 x 10

- 4 feet/day. This represents more than a five

- order of magnitude decrease over the hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer (geometric mean of 15 feet/ day).
84 NiSource comment to the 2011 NODA docket (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0225). However, AECOM (2010) cites a different closing date: “The Type III (South) Area was closed in 2004 and the closure was approved by IDEM in August 2005.”
85 AECOM (2010), pages 1

- 2 to 1

- 3.

86 USEPA Region 5 (2014). Specifically, i n January 2003, NIPSCO, Brown, Inc., Ddalt Corp., and Bulk Transport, the PRPs for the Site, signed an AOC with EPA to provide municipal water to approximately 130 homes in and near the Town of Pines. Further testing by Pines ’ residents and EPA revealed more contaminated wells. On April 5, 2004, the PRPs signed an amendment to the original order to provide an additional 140 homes with municipal water. About 70 additional homes would receive bottled water pending the results of an investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination and the potential long

- term risks to local residents and the environme nt. The investigation and related work was outlined in a second AOC between EPA and the PRPs signed on April 5, 2004. The investigation was conducted from 2004 to 2007. Twenty

- two new monitoring wells were installed along with 12 piezometers. Over 150 gro undwater samples, 92 surface water samples, 84 soil samples, and 27 sediment samples were collected. Samples were analyzed predominantly for CCR

- related metals, but some were also collected for radionuclides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and d ioxins. A Remedial Investigation Report was generated by the PRPs and approved, with some modification, by EPA on May 28, 2010. Groundwater flow reversals were caused by the construction above grade of the Yard 520 fly ash landfill. Domestic water supply w ells that historically were hydraulically up gradient of the North Landfill cell were shown to be down gra dient after water level monitoring established the existence of a groundwater high under the fly ash mound and a radial flow pattern away from the si te. Due to groundwater flow reversals in the Town of Pines area, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and the Grand Marsh are now down gradient of the Yard 520 fly ash landfill. In the absence of domestic well capture, however, there is now the potential for u ninterrupted plume migration of boron

- rich groundwater to the Great Marsh, the largest interdunal wetland on the Lake Michigan shoreline (Penoyer, 2009). Cowles Bog, with its unique ecology, comprises part of the Great Marsh. According to KellerLynn (2010)

, t he general stratigraphy of the Great Marsh is, in descending order: peat, sand, and calcareous sand/clayey marl. The Great Marsh is situated between the beach

- dune complex of the Calumet shoreline and the modern Tolleston shoreline. The Great Marsh bega n to form when lake level fell about 3,500 years ago (Thompson, 1987, and Thompson, 1994). Starting in the late 19 th Century, ditching for drainage purposes and the construction of roads, levees, factories, and houses segmented the marsh. Drainage and segm entation have resulted in changes in hydrology and loss of habitat. These changes also have made the marsh drier, resulting in an altered plant community and the invasion of nonnative species. Restoring the Great Marsh, by restoring the hydrologic regime t o its natural condition has been a major goal of the National Park Service. Restoration includes filling in ditches, plugging culverts, and constructing spillways and levees so surface water can flow without restriction.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

22 drinking water to Beverly Shores residents whose wells produced water with boron or molybdenum concentrations higher than a RAL. 87

, 88

In 2006/2007, both portions of the landf ill were capped with two feet of clay covered by topsoil, in accordance with IDEM requirements. A storm water management impoundment was also closed. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted at Yard 520 since at least the early 1980s. Some of the existing Yard 520 monitoring locations were used to collect data as part of the remedial field investigation. Groundwater monitoring is ongoing to evaluate concentration trends. 89

Human health and ecological risk assessments have been completed. The risk assessments identified contaminants above acceptable levels for potential future exposures and exceeding drinking water standards (MCLs) making a feasibility study necessary. The d raft feasibility study under review by EPA and IDEM includes alternatives to remediate the contaminants and proposes additional sampling to

87 However, the study conducted by B uszka et al., (2007) to identify the source(s) of the elevated boron in Beverly Shores’ residential wells, about one mile WNW of the town of Pines (ibid, Figure 2) established that with one possible exception, the source of boron was either natural (the c onfined aquifer) and/or detergents associated with septic tanks.
88 According to Buszka et al., (2007), in March 2004, sampling and analysis of ground water by the USEPA identi

fied boron concentrations greater than 900 μg/L in water from three domestic wel ls and from one well at a National Park Service facility near Beverly Shores. A separate 2004 USEPA sampling of water from a well at a local elementary school about 0.75 mi west of the Town of Pines identified boron at a concentration of 424 μg/L and molyb denum at a concentration of 10.8 μg/L. Concentrations established as removal action levels (RALs) by the USEPA are 900 μg/L for boron and 10 μg/L for molybdenum (USEPA, 1998). However, a lack of information to define the screened depth of many wells that p roduced water with concentrations exceeding a RAL precluded a determination of whether the groundwater source for those wells was the surficial aquifer or one or more of the confined aquifers. Buszka et al., (2007) characterized chemically and isotopically (δ 11 B, δ 87 Sr, and tritium) four subsets of well water collected from 15 different wells between the Yard 520 CCR landfill in the east and areas up to about 1.5 miles to the west, in the Beverly Shores area. Those representative sources are (i) CCR

- affected water from the surficial aquifer (four wells on the periphery of Yard 520 Landfill); (ii) domestic

- wastewater

- affected water from the surficial aquifer (three wells); (iii) water from parts of a surficial aquifer distant from human

- affected bo ron sources (surficial aquifer) (four wells); and (iv) water from a deep, confined aquifer (the basal sand aquifer) representing natural boron sources (four wells). In addition, they sampled and analyzed water from another 11 wells, some of which had boron exceeding the RAL, where the source aquifer was not known. The purpose of their study was to distinguish between boron

- containing water which registers CCR leachate impact vs. natural and other anthropogenic source terms. In water samples from two domesti c wells where the groundwater source was unknown, boron concentrations were less than the RAL; boron isotope ratios and tritium concentrations were similar to domestic

- wastewater

- affected surface aquifer water. The boron concentrations in the basal sand aq uifer was found to range from 0.656 to 1.8 mg/L, whereas groundwater impacted by septic discharges contained boron concentrations of up to about 0.390 mg/L. Using the calibrated boron isotope values combined with other geochemical attributes they concluded that the boron isotope ratio for a sample from one domestic well (Well 13U, between S. Belleview and W. Broadway in Beverly Shores, about one mile WNW from the Yard 520 Landfill) was similar to those of CCR

- affected surface aquifer water and domestic sewa ge (detergent

- controlled) compositions; the boron concentration of that sample, however, was less than the RAL. Conversely, groundwater with boron concentrations greater than the USEPA RAL of 900 μg/L for drinking water from wells where the groundwater

sou rce was unknown had boron isotope ratios and tritium concentrations that indicate a source of boron that is natural (i.e., the age of the analyzed water preceded the outset of CCR placement at the Yard 520 landfill and the Town of Pines).
89 AECOM (2010), E PRI (2010).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

23 reduce the level of uncertainty in the risk assessments. 90 EPA intends for a final cleanup decision to be made by la te 2015, after all of the public comments are considered. 91



### Previous Basis for Consideration: 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. 92



### Other Considerations:

 EPA order of consent requiring remediation, and correcting of contaminated offsite water supplies

 Boron, molybden um, arsenic and lead were detected in offsite wells above unspecified health based standards

 A 2009 Gamma Ray count survey 93 indicates exceedances of EPA’s soil cleanup radiation standards (5 pCi/g). However, an EPA Region 5 review of the survey concluded that the report has significant weaknesses in instrumentation, survey methodology and interpretation, and conclusions and recommendations. According to EPA Region 5, the possible interpretations of the results range from no detectable concentrations of rad ionuclides of interest above background levels to low concentrations of the radionuclides of interest slightly above the concentrations of those radionuclides at the background sites. 94 To resolve this issue, a preliminary soil testing in about 45 yards in the spring of 2014 was done to confirm the amount of coal ash in yards and rights of way as well as to see if elevated radiation levels are present. A follow

- up testing in August 2014 intended to take more precise soil samples at approximately nine differe nt private properties, focusing on specific radioactive compounds as well as other “contaminants of concern” such as boron and arsenic.



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage . <Offsite groundwater exceeds MCLs for arsenic and selenium. Administrative Consent Orders were for site assessment and delineation of nature and extent but did not contain explicit findings of specific damages.>



### References: USEPA Region 5 (2014): Pines Ground Water Plume Site, Region 5 Cleanup Sites. Accessed Online September 20 14. http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/pines/

AECOM (2012): Human Health Risk Assessment Pines Area of Investigation, AOC II Docket No. V

- W

- ’04

- C

- 784. AECOM Environment, July 2012. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/pines/pdfs/pines

- hhra

- 201207.pdf Figures: http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/pines/pdfs/pines

- hhra

- figures

- 201207.pdf

90 According to USEPA Region 5 (201 4 ), after the feasibility study is approved EPA will select its preferred alternative and present that preferred alternative to IDEM and the public for their review and comment. After EPA considers comments a Record of Decision (ROD) would be generated by EPA that outlines the steps needed to reduce risks to acceptable levels. EPA would then provide the PRPs with the opportunity to perform the remedy outlined in the ROD.
91 Pines Groundwater Plume Site : http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/pines/index.htm

, July 2014 site update.
92 USEPA Region 5 ( 2014).
93 PINES (2009)

. 94 Ohl (2012).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

24 Ohl (2012): Response to Comments on Review of Pines Radiation Survey, Enclosure 1. Pi nes Si te , Pi nes , Porter County, I ndiana, Administ ra tive Order on Conse nt Docket No

. V

- W

- 04

- C

- 784. Letter to Pa ul Kysel, P resident, PIN ES Group, from Matthew J

. Ohl, EPA Region 5 Rem edial P roject Mana ger, February 29, 2012. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/pines/pdfs/pines_rsra.pdf

AECOM (2010): Remedial Investigation Report, Pines Area of Investigation, AOC II Docket No. V

- W

- ’04

- C

- 784, AECOM, March 5, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/pines/pdfs/pines_ri_201003_report.pdf Figures: http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/pines/pdfs/pines_ri_201003_figures.pdf

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Case Summaries. 1020554, EPRI Final Report, September 2010. Acc essed Online June 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%2 0Damage%20Cases

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #19. ICF, 10/2010.

KellerLynn (2010): Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana, Katie KellerLynn, Geologic Resources Divisi on, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, November 30, 2010. Accessed Online January 2013. http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/inventory/publications/reports/INDU_GRI_scoping_summary_2010

- 1130.pdf

Penoyer (2009): Landfill Effects on Groundwater Flow Town of Pines Superfund Site and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Pete Penoyer. Page 19, in Water Resources Division S ummary of FY08 A ccomplishments. Natural Resource P rogram Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed Online September 2014. FY2008

- Explore Nature

- National Park Service

PINES (2009): Gamma Count Rate Survey in Pines, Indiana, Conducted October 10

– 15, 2009 PINES (People in Need of Environmental Safety), October 27, 2009. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.pineswater.org/RadSurveyPINES.htm

Buszka et al., (2007): Evaluation of Ground

- Water and Boron Sources by Use of Boron Stable

- Isotope Ratios, Tritium, and Selected Water

- Chemistry Const ituents near Beverly Shores, Northwestern Indiana, 2004. Paul M. Buszka, John Fitzpatrick, Lee R. Watson, and Robert T. Kay, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2007

– 5166, p repared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Accessed Online September 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5166/pdf/sir2007

- 5166_web.pdf

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #19, doc ket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ENSR Corporation (2005): Site Management Strategy, Pines Area of Investigation, Volume II, Appendices, Document No. 01776

- 020

- 111, AOC II, Docket No. V

- W

- ’04

- C

- 784, January 2005. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.epa.gov/Region5/cleanup/pines/pdfs/pines_sms_200501_vol2_appendices.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

25 EPA (1998): Retransmittal of the latest Superfund Removal Action Levels. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. November 10, 1998.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (1994): Water Resources Availability in the Lake Michigan Region, Indiana, Beaty, J. E., Gosine, R., and Smith, M.A., edts., Water Resources Assessment 94

- 4 (Summary). Accessed Online January 201 3. http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/lakemich_basinsums.pdf

Shedlock et al., (1994): Hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of dunes and wetlands along the southern shore of Lake Michigan, Indiana. Shedlock, R.J., Cohen, D.A., Imbrigiotta, T.E., and Thompson, T.A., U.S. Geological Survey Open

- File Report 92

- 139, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1994. Accessed Online September 2013. http://pu bs.usgs.gov/of/1992/0139/report.pdf

Thompson (1994): History and Architecture of Wetland Development in the Indiana Dunes, Todd A. Thompson, Indiana Geological Survey/Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 1994, Volume 103 (3

- 4) p. 167

- 176. Accessed Online September 2013. http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ias/article/download/7363/7358

Thompson (1987): Sedimentology, inter nal architecture and depositional history of the Indiana Dunes Natinal Lakeshore and State Park. Thompson, T.A., Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 129 pp. (Unpubl.)

Hardy (1984): Chemical and biological quality of streams at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 1978

- 80. Hardy, M.A., U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 83

- 4208, 1984.

Rosenshein and Hunn (1968): Geohydrology and Ground

- Water Potential of Porter and LaPorte Counties, Indiana, Rosenshein, J.S. and Hunn, J.D., Division of Water Resources Bulletin 32, Geological Survey, US Department of the Interior, in Cooperation with Indiana Department of Conservation, , 1968. Accessed Online January 2013. ht tp://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/529_all.pdf



### PR05. Constellation Energy’s BBSS Sand and Gravel Quarries, Gambrills, Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Type: Sand and Gravel Pits.



### Brief Description : Two unlined sand and gravel pits (Turner and Waugh Chapel, 115 acres and 78 acres, respectively ), operated under surface Mining permits, have been subjected to reclamation. 95

95 According to an Earthjustice comment to the 2007 NODA docket ( EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0464 ) , i n the mid

1990s, the sand and gravel mining operations were drawing to a close as the pits were dug deep enough to intersect the groundwater table. The original mining permit issued to BBSS required reclamation of the pits aft er operations ceased. According to Siegel (2011), this happened in the wake of the Anne Arundel County legislature’s passing bill 60

- 94 (1994) that encourages the use of coal ash for beneficial use in sand and gravel pit reclamation. The facility’s ‘liner’ consisted of compressed fly ash.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

26 Between 1995 and 2007, the pits were filled with 4.6 million tons 96 of fly ash and bottom ash from Constellation Energy’s Brandon Shores and W agner power plants. 97 C onstellation Energy 98 claims that the reclamation was practiced in compliance with Maryland’s pollution prevention requirements. 99

Private drinking water wells are located about a quarter of a mile down

- gradient from the Waugh Chapel Pit (WCT) and between about half a mile and a mile down

- gradient from the Turner Pit (TP). The area is underlain by four major sand/gravel aquifer units of Cretaceous age that dip towards the southeast. They are separated by clay

- silt aquitards with grad ational boundaries. The potentiometric surfaces of these aquifers indicate southeastern flow directions. 100 The minimal separation between the base of the ash and groundwater table at the Turner Pit was less than 2 feet. 101

96 Siegel (2011 ). According to Versar (2007), since 1995, Constellation Energy Group has provided Reliable Contracting Co., Inc., the site’s operator, with approximately 200,000 to 400,000 tons per year of CCRs, primarily Class F fly ash
97 According to The Baltimore Sun: Constellation coal plants face an uncertain future, November 26, 2011, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011

- 11

- 26/business/bs

- bz

- hancock

- constellation

- coal

- 20111126_1_exelon

merger

- constellation

- and

- exelon

- coal

- plants

, and to Wikepedia’s Brandon Shores Generating Station : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Shores_Generating_Station

, Brandon Shores and H.A. Wagner were built by Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) and transferred to Constellation, BGE ’s parent, as a result of deregulation. Brandon Shores, in Pasadena, Anne Arundel County, consists of two Babcock and Wilcox coal

- fired boilers and two General Electric steam turbines with a combined nominal generating capacity of 1370 MWe . Unit 1 went into operation in May 1984 and Unit 2

- in May 1991. In 2010, the Plant was equipped with scrubbers. The station shares a 483

- acre site adjacent to the Patapsco River with the Herbert A. Wagner Generating Station

, opened in 1956. The Wagner Plant uses coal/oil/gas as fuel and has 976 MW of generating capacity. Both genera ting stations consume approximately 4.8 million tons of coal annually. Coal for both stations is delivered by barge. On August 9, 2012, Exelon announced that it had reached an agreement, subject t o regulatory approvals, for the sale of the Brandon Shores, Herbert A. Wagner and Charles P. Crane Generating Stations to Raven Power Holdings LLC, a newly formed portfolio company of Riverstone Holdings LLC , as condition for regulatory approval of its merger with Constellation Energy to alleviate c oncerns regarding potential market power in the regional wholesale electricity market. The sale was completed on November 30, 2012.
98 Constellation Energy’s comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket: http://www.uswag.org/pdf/2010/CCR%20Comments/Constellation11192010.pdf , Pp. 11

- 12 and Appendix A (pp. 14

- 21)

. 99 Namely, four

- feet separation of the ash from groundwater, installing a base drainage layer for a moisture break, compaction of the ash in lifts to a permeability of 10

- 5 cm/sec, covering each completed ash cell with low permeability cap, continuous monito ring of the ash to confirm its non

- hazardous composition, and regular groundwater and surface water monitoring. According to Versar (2007), the site did not have a leachate collection system in place, but rather relied on the underlying geology to limit i mpacts to the regional ground water system. The underlying Magothy formation contains the uppermost water bearing sands and supplies potable ground water to local residents. The basal clay unit forms a confining layer between the Magothy and underlying Pat apsco formation, which supplies potable water to the downgradient residential communities of Crofton.
100 According to Andreasen (2007), the Patapsco Formation, Arundel Clay, and Patuxent Formation (in descending order) form the Lower

- Cretaceous Potomac Grou p. The Patuxent aquifer, deepest of the Coastal Plain aquifers, is confined at its base by consolidated rock of Triassic, Lower Paleozoic, and/or Precambrian age. The Arundel Clay, an effective confining bed, separates the Patuxent and Lower Patapsco aquif ers. Clays within the Patapsco Formation divide it into an upper and lower aquifer. The Upper

- cretaceous Magothy aquifer overlies the Upper Patapsco aquifer. Sediment of the Potomac Group was deposited in a fluvio

- deltaic environment by meandering or braid ed river systems. This form of deposition resulted in a complex array of lenticular and inter

- fingering layers of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Aquifers formed by these sediments consist of multiple sand and gravel layers inter bedded with silt and clay. T he Magothy aquifer consists of light gray to white sand, inter

- bedded with layers of black and gray lignitic clay. Pyrite is a common accessory mineral. Massive beds of well

- sorted, coarse

- grained sands characterize the Magothy aquifer.
101 At the southeaste rn area of the TP, around well B

- 21: NRT (2010, Appendix C).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

27 

### Impact: In July 1998, Baltimore Ga s and Electric 102 found elevated sulfate levels beyond the edge of the Turner Pit. However, based upon the company’s projections, MDE issues a series of permits for expanded infilling at the TP and later, at the nearby WCP. 103 Subsequently, elevated cadmium an d arsenic, and exceedances of thallium were found in local groundwater. In May 2004, in an attempt to remove the contaminants from the groundwater, BGE installed a “Pump and Treat” groundwater recovery system in the TP. From 2004 until 2006, the groundwate r remediation efforts resulted in decreasing sulfate concentrations in the areas close to the pits, but the sulfate concentrations were increasing at the more distant locations, in proximity to homeowner wells.

Groundwater samples first collected in October 2006 and in three subsequent sampling campaigns in 2007 from residential drinking water wells near the site (along Summerfield Road) 104 indicated contaminants at or above groundwater quality standards. Testing of private wells in 83 homes and busines ses around the disposal site revealed MCL exceedances in 34 wells and SMCLs exceedances

- in 63 wells. Exceedances in one or more wells included arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, thallium , nickel, aluminum, manganese, and sulfate. 105 R esidents were provide d with piped water (October 2007) and a proposed remediation plan was prepared in May 2008 106 and revised in September 2010. 107

Constellation Energy (CE) claims that baseline sulfate (between about 200

- 300ppm) and acidic Groundwater (pH values as low as 2.2) probably have contributed metals leached from soils and household plumbing. A report prepared for MD DENR 108 concedes that pyritic “black” soils present at the site contain significant amounts of iron and sulfate; when removed from their natural environmen t coupled with oxidation and exposure to strong acids, these soils will leach heavy metals including antimony and cadmium. However, the report found no indication that these black soils leach at significant concentrations when left in place or disturbed du ring mining operations.

CE claims that a 2007 fact sheet prepared by the County 109 served as EPA’s basis for designating the site as a proven damage case in its June 2010 proposed rule. The 2007 fact sheet shows MCL exceedances in only 4 drinking water well s, and the extent to which background or the mining conditions contributed to these concentrations is scientifically unconfirmed. CE claims that EPA should consider the (minor) degree to which an MCL was exceeded, as well as the short duration of any poten tial exposure, both of which mitigated any potential for damage: except for a single 0.002ppm cadmium exceedance, the four

102 Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) is the predecessor of Constellation Energy.
103 Elevated sulfate levels were detected at perimeter monitoring wells W7, W13, W20, W21, and W22. BGE conducted studies that predicted that even though sulfate concentrations were now found outside of the gravel pits, the concentrations would never exceed the permitted limit of 500 mg/L, and would only reach 245 mg/L after 32 years, to about 2027. As a result, in Oc tober 1998, MDE approved expansion of the ash filling operations at the Turner pit. MDE also authorized BGE to initiate filling activities in the W CP , which BGE commenced in September 2000.
104 Anne Arundel (2007)

. 105 MDE (2007) and Phillips (2007): One well with arsenic at a range of 3

- 25ppb (up to x 2.5 the MCL), one well with beryllium at a range of 1

- 5ppb (up to x 1.25 the MCL), six wells with cadmium at a range of 4.4

- 16 ppb (up to x 3.2 the MCL), 20 wells with lead at a range of 5

- 160ppb (up to x 11 .7 the MCL), six wells with thallium at a range of 1

- 6ppb (up to x 3 the MCL), 43 wells with aluminum at a range of 100

- 55,800 ppb, 14 wells with manganese at a range of 60

- 2,370ppb (up to x 47.4 of the SMCL), and five wells with sulfate at a range of 10

- 1 ,190ppm (up to x 4.7 of the SMCL).
106 NRT (2008)

. 107 NRT (2010)

. 108 Versar (2007)

. 109 MDE, ibid.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

28 wells met drinking water standards when re

- sampled in 2007. 110 An annual trend analysis submitted by CE to MDE incorporating monitoring well data collected through the first quarter of 2011, shows an overall decreasing temporal trend in the concentration of thallium and sulfate in MW7 111 and MW13, 112 just down

- gradient from the recovery wells below the TP, and in wells MW21 113 and MW22, 114 within about 100 feet down

- gradient from the WCP. However, arsenic in MW7 (0.05 mg/L in 2003) remained in exceedance (0.06 mg/L) in the first quarter of 2011.

A synthesis of 2009

- 2010 groundwater data analyses, based on the sets of groundwater monitoring well s CE installed in May2004 and August 2010, concludes that: (i) the direction of groundwater flow in the Magothy aquifer at the Turner Pit is south/southeast; 115 (ii) the average background groundwater sulfate level is 15 mg/L (maximum: 50 mg/L); while the mo nitoring data for wells MW

- 7 and MW

- 13 prior to the pump

- and

- treat system are several thousand mg/L . (iii) At MW

- 13, located externally and down

gradient from the recovery wells, data indicate that elevated sulfate , chloride, lithium, cadmium, and thalliu m leachate and acidic pH have migrated beyond the effective line of the recovery wells. Contaminants continue to move down

- gradient and offsite as evidenced also by the monitoring data for MW

- 27 and MW

- 28. 116

A recent study 117 modelled the potential for verti cal migration of contaminated groundwater at the Turner Pit to the underlying, confined aquifers. It challenges MDE’s assertion that for the confined aquifers underlying the two gravel pits “ There is little or no risk from surficial contamination” from fly

- ash leachate in the overlying Magothy aquifer. 118 The study predicts that the plume might reach the Upper Patapasco aquifer within 15 years from the inception of migration, and the Lower Patapasco aquifer

- within 50 years. However, there are cur rently no monitoring wells that penetrate those aquifers.

In December, 2007, the impacts of re

- suspended CCRs on a Maryland residential community adjacent to the Gambrills mine reclamation site were documented in a study 119 that showed that CCR fugitive dus t, emanating from the disposal site, were present in all the samples collected throughout the community.



### Resolution: On October first, 2007, MDE filed a consent order in Anne Arundel County, Maryland Circuit Court to settle an environmental enforcement a ction against BBSS Ltd., the owner of the sand and

110 Lead exceeded of the federal MCL (0.015ppm) by 0.008ppm in one well is interpreted by Constellation Energy as ‘probably related to household plumbing

. ’

111 Thalliu m: from ~ 0.010 mg/L in 2005 to below the MCL (<0.002 mg/L) in the first quarter of 2011; sulfate: from ~3,600 mg/L in 2002 to ~200 mg/L in the first quarter of 2011.

112 Thallium: from ~ 0.013 mg/L in 2005 to 0.004 mg/L in the first quarter of 2011; sulfate : from ~2,100 mg/L in 2008 to ~350mg/L in the first quarter of 2011
113 Sulfate: from ~2,500 mg/L in 2007 to ~1250mg/L in the first quarter of 2011.

114 Thallium: from ~ 0.011 mg/L in 2007 to 0.003 mg/L in the first quarter of 2011; sulfate: from ~1,200 mg/L i n 2007 to ~400mg/L in the first quarter of 2011.
115 Bouwer (2010): based on seven down

- grade monitoring wells (MW

- 7, MW

- 8, MW

- 9, MW

- 10, MW

- 13, MW

- 16, and MW

- 26) and five recovery wells (at the Pit’s southeast corner) in the Magothy Aquifer at the Turner Pit site installed in 2004.
116 Bouwer (2010): seven n ew monitoring wells were installed in August 2010 to monitor groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the Turner Pit, and one new recovery well. Four of these new monitoring wells (Wells MW

- 27, MW

- 28, MW

- 33, and MW

- 34) are located in the median strip o f Maryland Route 3, to the south/southeast of the Turner Pit. Samples collected from MW

- 27 and MW

- 28 in September 2010 showed sulfate concentrations of 81 and 99 mg/L, respectively, above the background groundwater concentrations.

117 Garven (2010)
118 As s tated in their February 23, 2010 email to the author.
119 Environment Maryland comment to the CCR proposed rule docket ( EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 4041 )

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

29 gravel quarry, and CE, the owner of the coal fired power plants, for contamination of public drinking water wells in the vicinity of the sand and gravel quarry; a $1 million fine was imposed on CE. 120 On October 1, 2007, Anne Arundel County passed legislation banning the disposal of CCRs in the County for one year, compelling CE to haul the CCRs from its two Maryland power plants to a landfill in Virginia, some 200 miles away

. On February 5, 2009, a $54 million settlement was finalized between 84 property owners and CE. 121 The settlement calls for CE to pay to convert 84 homes from well water to public water; 122 set up two trust funds to compensate impacted property owners and to enhance the neighborhoo d; remediate and restore the former quarry site; and cease future deliveries of new coal ash to the quarry. The site has been inactive since September 2007.

A groundwater extraction and treatment system has been operational since February 2012. The system revolves around a capture zone at the downgradient end of the WCP

- TP hydrogeological system; Exelon (the current corporate owner) claim that the startup of recovery well RW

- 6 is making any migration of ash

- constituents downgradient of TP unlikely. 123 Based on the potentiometric surface in the vicinity of the six recovery wells and the capture zone assessment, as of September 2013 hydraulic capture is being successfully maintained at the downgradient end of the Turner Pit.

The data developed since the trends summary report prepared in 2012 show a generally continuing improvement in the groundwater quality in wells downgradient to the WCP and TP for nearly all analyzed parameters, including data that is at or below the Consen t Decree Appendix A remedial goals in the

120 120 The Consent Decree includes requirements for re

- sampling the residential wells, replacement of five impact ed wells and connection of all the other impacted wells to the County’s public water system; installation of additional; monitoring and Pump and Treat recovery well(s), and measures for source and plume control. The defendants are required to (i) cease dis posing of CCRs in the pits, unless subject to a pollution prevention plan approved by MDE, including laying a composite liner in an active cell (6”

- thick clay with permeability of 1x10

- 7 cm/sec covered by a 60

- mil synthetic liner or an equivalent) and a l eachate collection system. (ii) Cap the site with a 12” thick clay cap with permeability of 1x10

- 7 cm/sec or an equivalent; and (iii) continue groundwater monitoring even after the mining permits for the two pits expire, with a quarterly reporting and an a nnual, long

- term trend analysis and a summary of the status/effectiveness of the treatment systems in meeting the remediation goals. The 2008

- 2013 reports can be viewed at Constellation Energy (2013). On September 17, 2010, CE provided to MDE a revised re mediation proposal, (supplementing its May, 2008, proposal) that would include the following elements (Constellation Energy (2013), and Constellation Energy Community Ash Update/Summary of Most Recent Developments, 2013: http://www.communityashupdate.com/qa_summary.html ): The development cap would be installed as proposed at TP; an enhanced cap for WCP, consisting of (from top down) 6 inches of topsoil; a 24

‐ inch rooting layer; a geocomposite or 6

‐ inch sand drainage layer; and a clay, GCL, and/or synthetic barrier layer; the existing cap at WCP to be extended to limit vertical infiltration in swales outside the focused source control area; focused source control to reduce lateral infiltration into WCP (being implemented by relocation of the existing sediment pond); institutional controls for the ash fill areas and continued groundwater monitoring; add two additional extraction wells, RW

‐ 7 and RW

‐ 8, along Route 3 northeast of the current Brickhe ad Road and the existing line of extraction wells RW

‐ 1 through RW

‐ 6; and add two additional extraction wells, RW

‐ 9, RW

‐ 10, along the east side of WCP in the vicinity of monitoring well MW

‐ 21.
121 Baltimore Business Journal (2008) and Constellation Energy ( 20 13)

. 122 According to Constellation Energy (2013), completion of the water line installation project was anticipated by the end of 2013.
123 The system includes eight recovery wells and a pump house building located near the shopping center entrance off Evergr een Road. The extraction wells (listed from south to north, in parallel to Route 3) are RW

- 06, RW

- 01R, RW

- 02R, RW

- 03R, RW

- 04R, RW

- 05R, RW

- 07, and RW

- 08. The extraction system reconfigured the potentiometric surface from its original southeastern slope to a southern slope, with two large depression cones around the extraction wells at the southern edge of the WCP (The third quarter 2013 report, Fig. 8).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

30 established compliance wells. According to Constellation Energy (2013), this is a testimony to the effectiveness of the extraction well system as well as to the effectiveness of the ash pit capping system in elimin ating potential sources of surface water infiltration into the ash. The third quarter 2013 groundwater monitoring results 124 show that the exceedances of arsenic (0.02 to 0.04 mg/L) and cadmium (0.005 to 0.006 mg/L) are confined to well MW

- 24, which is monit oring the characteristics of the leachate in the center of the WCP. 125 However, notable exceedances downgradient include thallium (maximum of 0.007 mg/L) in multiple wells (five of which are capture wells at the southern boundary of the TP), sulfate

- in mul tiple wells (maximum of 3,300 mg/L), boron (up to 7.2 mg/L), lithium (up to 5 mg/L) and nickel (0.14 mg/L). 126

Recently, a mixed

- use commercial project

- Village South at Waugh Chapel

– has been completed adjacent to the T P

. 127 This development is at odds wit h an environmental engineering evaluation suggesting that the construction of the project above the Turner Pit’s impact area is not recommended until the remediation system is modified to better capture the contaminant plume and a more effective monitoring plan is implemented, including a possible future need to excavate “hot spots” of contamination in the TP. 128



### Previous Basis for Consideration: 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 power pla nts for contamination of public drinking water wells in the vicinity of the sand and gravel quarry.


### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage . <Offsite MCLs exceedances were reported. Administrative order found contamination of offsite drinking water wells impacted public.>



### Postscript: In EPA’s 2007 report, this site (‘Constellation Energy, Crofton’) was listed as Indeterminate. 129 However, subsequent monitoring well data, state administrative action, and court settlement between residents with impacted wells and Constellation Energy, all support the designation of this site as a proven damage case.



### References EPA (2014): Regional Screening Level (RSL) Soil to Groundwater Supporting Table (TR=1E

- 6, HQ=1)/ Mid

- Atlantic Risk Assessment, May 2014. Accessed Onl ine September 2014. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb

- concentration_table/Generic_Tables/index.htm

124 There, Table 1

– Total Metals in Groundwater, and Fig. 8: Potentiometric Map.
125 In the 2013 July and August samplings, this well had also the following concentrations: Chloride: 3,200 mg/L; Sulfate: 3,300 mg/L; TDS: 10,000 mg/L; Boron: 28 mg/L; and Lithium: 24 mg/L.

126 Some increases observed in some monitoring parameters at Turner P it (i.e., monitoring wells MW 7 and MW

- 13) are attributed by Exelon to locally changed groundwater flow patterns that resulted from the relocation of particular wells. For additional information on the site’s status of remediation, see the site’s quarterly reports and the Annual Trend Analysis

– 2013, April 24, 2013, all accessible at Constellation Energy (2013). Concerning lithium, for reference: the oral PPRTV for lithium is 2.0E

- 03 mg/kg

- day (EPA, 2014); Michigan’s drinking water clean

- up standard for lithium is 0.17 mg/L; and the EPA regional screening level (RSL) and PADEP medium

- specific concentration (MSC) of lithium is 73 μg/L (ATSDR, 2013).

127 Siegel (2011). The Project was planned to include over 500,000 square feet of retail, 427,000 square feet of residential, and 130,000 square feet of office space.
128 Bouwer (2010).
129 EPA (2007), Table 2.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

31 ATSDR (2013): Health Consultation: Chesapeake ATGAS 2H Well Site Leroy Hill Road, Leroy, Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, October 29, 2013. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Community Health Investigations Atlanta , Georgia. Accessed Online September 2014.

www. atsdr .cdc.go

Constellation Energy (2013): Community Ash Update/Filings and Documents, 2013. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.communityashupdate.com/documents.html

Siegel (2011): “Development Cap” at Coal Ash Landfill: Village South at Waugh Chapel, Gambrills, Maryland. Lenny Siegel, December, 2011. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.cpeo.org/pubs/WaughChapel.pdf

Bouwer (2010): Assessment of Contamination at the Fly Ash Disposal Site, Gambrills, Maryland. Edward Bouwer, Dept. Geography and Environmental Engineering, Joh ns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, December 10, 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.aacounty.org/News/Resources/20101010_Bouwer_Report_Gambrills.pdf

Fed eral Register

/Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010/ Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities ( CCR Proposed Rule). http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 0352

Garven (2010): A Hydrogeologic Analysis of Fly

- Ash Contamination of Regional Aquifers in the Gambrills

- Waugh Chapel Area, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Grant Garven, Dept. Geology and Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, December 6, 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.croftonfirst.org/documents/Garven

- report

- Dec6

- 2010.pdf

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #27. ICF, 10/2010.

NRT (2010): BBSS Remediation Alternatives Analysis; Supplemental Submittal, BBSS Site, September 17, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.communityashupdate.com/pdf/BBSS

- Remediation

- Alternatives

- Supplemental

- Submittal

- 9

- 17

- 2010.pdf

Baltimore Business Journal (2008): Constellation reaches $54M settlement on fly ash lawsuit, 12/31/2008. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2008/12/29/daily26.html

NRT (2008): Alternatives Analysis and Proposed Remediation Report, BBSS Site, Millersville, Ma ryland, Project No. 1892, Natural Resource Technology, Inc. May 5, 2008. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.communityashupda te.com/pdf/BBSS%20Alternatives%20Analysis%20and%20Proposed%20 Remediation%20Report.pdf

Andreasen (2007): Optimization of Ground

- Water Withdrawals in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, from the Upper Patapsco, Lower Patapsco, and Patuxent Aquifers Projected thr ough 2044, David C. Andreasen, June 2007, Department of Natural Resources, Resource Assessment Service, Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigations No. 77. Accessed Online September 2014.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

32 www .mgs.md.gov/ report s/RI_77.pdf

Anne Arundel (2007): Well Water Testing Area: Anne Arundel County Department of Health, January 16, 2007. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.aahealth.org/pdf/summerfield

- area

- map

- round

- 4.pdf

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Table 2, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

MDE (2007): Fact Sheet

– Coal Fly Ash and Its Health Risks. Anne Arundel County & Maryland Department of Health, November 2007. http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/AA_Fly_Ash_QA.pdf

Phillips (2007): Impacts of Fly Ash on Groundwater in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Frances B. Phillips, Maryland Association of County Health Officers Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, October 11, 2007. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.aahealth.org/gambri lls_101107_files/frame.htm

Versar (2007): Assessment of Water Quality Impacts Associated with Use of Coal Combustion Products as Structural Fill at the BBSS Site, Maryland Power Plant Research Program Report 142; DNR 12

- 6182007

- 221, June 2007. Accessed Online July 2012. http://esm.versar.com/pprp/bibliography/PPRP_142/PPRP

- 142.pdf



### PR06. PEPCO (Mirant, GenOn, NRG) 130 

### Morgantown Generating Station Faulkner Off

Site Disposal Faci lity, Morgantown, Charles County, Maryland 131



### Type: Landfills, Settling and Leachate P onds, Artificial Wetland

. 

### Description: Landfills at this shallow groundwater site have managed fly ash, bottom ash, and mill reject pyrites from the Morgantown Generating Station starting in 1970 until their recent closure. 132 Located about six miles north of the power station, a score of unlined settling and leachate collection

130 On December 3, 2010, Mirant merged with RRI Energy, Inc., forming GenOn Energy, Inc. GenOn was purchased, in turn, by NRG Energy in December 2012.
131 For the 2008, 2010, and 2011 volumes and compositions of CCRs, see Annual Generator Report (2008), Annual Generator Report (2010), and Annual Generator Report (2011), respectively

. 132 Of the site’s 800 acres, 180 acres have been utilized for the disposal of CCRs: D isposal Pit 1 (also known as Phases I and II) operated from 1970 through1979; Disposal Pit 2 (also known as Phases III and IV) operated from 1979 through1989. Disposal Pits 1 and 2 comprise jointly 132 acres. The Curtis Disposal Pit (49 acres) began operat ion in 1989 and is slated for closure once GenOn submits a plan for closure and capping that is approved by MDE (MDE, 2011). For the location of the different disposal pits, see Figure 2

- 1 in Price and Keating (1991) and Figures 1 and 2 in PPRP (2006)

. As of the end of 2010, more than 5.5 million cubic yards, or 8,434,800 tons, of CCR s have been deposited at the Disposal Site. The Morgantown Generating Station occupies a 427

- acre site on the Potomac River, just south of Rt. 301 at the Harry W. Nice Bridge near the town of Newburg, southern Charles County, Maryland. The Morgantown Station was commissioned in 1970 by the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) and has been in continuous operation since that time. "The generating facility presently on the Morga ntown site consists, among others, of two baseloaded, 620

- MW coal and residual oil

- fired boilers.” F or additional information on the Faulkner Off

- Site Disposal Facility, see EPRI (1999), pp. 3

- 38 to 3

- 60 (“Case Study FA”).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

33 ponds are used at the site to manage storm water runoff and leachate from the fly ash d isposal area. 133

, 134

, 135 Until 1989, mill rejects were co

- managed with CCRs comprising acidic ash from bituminous coal in the Phase I/II fill. A series of six collection and treatment ponds is located at the eastern end of Phase I/II ash fill. One large storm water/leachate management pond, collecting effluents of the drain system of Phase III/IV ash fill is located at the eastern end of that fill, and a similar leachate management pond is located at the eastern end of the Curtis Phase ash fill. 136 Surface water and groundwater monitoring have been conducted on and adjacent to the site since the early 1970s. 137 This site was cited as proven damage in the March 1999 Report to Congress 138 and in EPA’s 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments Report. 139

The Faul kner Site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The site’s natural topography slopes towards the east with elevations ranging from about 160 feet above sea level ( AMSL ) at the western end to about 25 feet AMSL at the eastern end, close to the Zekiah Swamp Run. 140 The site is located in Pleistocene

- age alluvial terrace deposits (up to 50 feet

- thick undifferentiated sands, clays and gravels). These deposits are underlain by the Miocene

- age Calvert Formation (30 to 170 feet

- thick sandy or silty clays to fine silty to clayey sands). The uppermost water

- bearing zone is usually under unconfined conditions while the successively deeper aquifers tend to be under confined conditions. The groundwater table in the terrace de posits can fluctuate three to eight feet; groundwater flows generally west to east, towards the Zekiah Swamp Run and/or its tributaries (Bowling Creek, the South Stream and the North Stream). The hydraulic conductivity in the alluvial aquifer is significan tly higher (from 32.9 to 100.8 ft/day) as compared to that of the Calvert Formation (0.004 to 0.2 ft/day). 141

On February 1, 1997, MDE issued an NPDES Discharge Permit to PEPCO, 142 authorizing the discharge of certain pollutants from Outfalls 001 and 002. 143 Th e Discharge Permit was based on an application submitted by PEPCO on June 8, 1993. While the permit application identified arsenic, cadmium, copper,

133 Fly ash is handled in the Morgantown Station dry and transported to the disposal facilities by truck. Additional disposal sites used by the Morgantown Station include the Brandywine Ash Site (some 29 mil es north) in Prince Georges County, and Maryland and the Waste Management King George Landfill (some 23 miles south) in Virginia.
134 According to DNR (2008) and Annual Generator Report s ( 2010 and 2011), FGD gypsum, generated in the Morgantown Station since the installation of wet scrubber in 2009, is conveyed to a storage dome and then sent via barge to Buchannan, New York, to a wallboard plant. Sub

- spec gypsum is either sold for agricultural use or transported for disposal to Waste Management’s Amelia Landf ill in Jetersville, Virginia.
135 According to Annual Generator Report (2008), bottom ash is conveyed out of the bottom of the Morgantown Generating Station’s boiler via a drag chain conveyor. The bottom ash is then prepared for sale, used on site or sent
to the Faulkner Ash Site where it was often used in the construction of fly ash disposal cells.
136 EPRI, ibid, and Figure 1 in PPRP (2006).
137 Monitoring has been conducted by both the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) and PEPCO. Having a cquired PEPCO’s generation assets in December 2000, Mirant Mid

- Atlantic, Inc. continued the water quality monitoring initiated by PEPCO. The Disposal Site is monitored by 23 groundwater wells as described in the Discharge Permit (for well locations, see Fi gure 2 in PPRP, 2006). Water quality of Bowling Creek and South Stream are sampled from four surface water locations that border the Disposal Site, and water quality of the treatment cells and discharges are sampled from Outfalls A, C and F.
138 Technical Ba ckground Document (1999).
139 EPA (2007).
140 The Zekiah Swamp Run, which drains into the Wicomico River, is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

141 EPRI, ibid. For additional information on groundwater levels, their seasonal fluctuations and interaction with surface water in the Zekiah Swamp Run Basin area, see Hopkins et al., (1986).

142 Permit No. MD

- 005 6928 (State Discharge Permit No. 93

- DP

- 1623).
143 This discharge permit was later transferred from PEPCO to Mirant Ash, the new site owner as of December 22, 2 000.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

34 lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc as" present," the pollutant concentrations disclosed were very low and not at levels that would cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards. Consequently, the Discharge Permit did not include effluent limitations for these pollutants. 144



### Impact: Two biologic studies conducted in the early 1980s identified elevated levels of metals in the alluvial aquifer and in surface water of the intermittent tributaries of the Zekiah Swamp Run, but did not identify any associated adverse impacts on flora and aquatic fauna. 145 In 1991, the state of Maryland found that water quality in a nearby stream and creek was degraded by landfill leachate, with effects including orange staining from iron precipitation and low pH (2.65 to 4). 146 Groundwater quality results indicated that a plume of elevated sulfate, calcium, TDS , iron, nickel and zinc extends as far as some 1,500 feet down

- gradient (east) from the sedimentation ponds in the alluvial aquifer. Initially, the acidic leachate was believed to have resulted from pyrite (coal mill rejects) oxidation. 147 However, all the

r emedial measures taken at the site during the 1990s onwards failed to prevent polluted leachate from impacting groundwater and surface water.

The utility conducted a comprehensive monitoring program from March 1995 to August 1997 to (i) evaluate the overall impact of the site activities on water quality and biota in the intermittent streams draining the site and in the Zekiah Swamp Run, and (ii) evaluate changes in South Stream adjacent to the area where the mitigation measures were implemented. This program revealed that there was a substantial extension, in 1996

- 97, of the area of leachate influence from what was observed in 1988. North Stream, tributary of the Zekiah Swamp Run and Mud Creek, which were unaffected in 1988 have since been impacted. 148 A statistical analysis of six chemical parameters of quarterly groundwater monitoring data (from 1989 through January 1999) from the Faulkner ash disposal site indicates that while the Calvert Formation aquifer (wells FN

- 4 and FN

- 2D) have not been affected by the ash disposal operations, the alluvial aquifer down

- gradient (wells FN

- 1, FN

- 2S, and FN

- 3) shows an increasing temporal trend in sulfate, chloride, total iron, total manganese, and TDS, implying that disposal Phases I

- IV have impacted the groundwater quality down

- gradient of the ash disposal area. 149 Finally, five recent quarterly discharge

144 MDE (2011). On June 11, 2001, Mirant Ash submitted to DEM an application for renewal of the Discharge Permit. In this application, Mirant Ash reported, counter to its own protracted monitoring records, that most of the pollutants identified as "believed present" in the 1993 application (i.e., aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and tin) were "believed absent.” In addition, Mirant Ash failed to identify sodium and chlo ride as being present in the discharge.
145 Simek et al., (1983) and Klose and Potera (1984).
146 Price and Keating (1991) and EPRI, ibid. The chemical analyses of surface water samples from the South Stream showed also elevated levels of sulfate and chloride, high TDS and high specific conduct ivity , all corresponding to the Pond 2 chemical characteri zation data, indicating the probable source.

147 Technical Background Document (ibid).
148 EPRI, ibid, Appendix C. The utility postulates that the effects on these two streams are related to the site expansion for ash storage. According to MDE (2011), discharg es of pollutants from Outfalls A, C and F are not authorized in any concentrations because these outfalls are not identified as discharge points in the Discharge Permit. Samplings of discharges from Outfalls A, C and F, however, show concentrations of cadm ium, copper, lead, and selenium exceeding water quality standards and Total Suspended Solids exceeding 30 mg/L. Surface water sample results reported by Mirant Ash show cadmium above numerical chronic ambient water quality criteria at all four surface wate r sampling locations within Bowling Creek and South Stream.
149 Similar time series for groundwater wells FC

- 2 and FC

- 3, which are screened in the alluvial aquifer down

gradient of the new Curtis Phase ash fill show elevated concentrations of sulfate, TDS, a nd chloride with a highly acidic pH (EPRI, ibid, Fig. 3

- 30). Overall, fifteen monitoring wells have shown results above the 250 mg/L SMCL for sulfates with the highest concentration of 2,800 mg/L occurring in monitoring well FC

- 3. Nine wells reported TDS l evels higher than the 500 mg/L SMCL with FN

- 3 having the highest concentration at 3,400 mg/L (EPRI, ibid, Table 3

- 10, and Appendix C: Time

- Series Plots for Selected Wells at FA Site ). At least seven of the wells reported manganese levels 50 to 60 times gre ater than the SMCL. Dissolved cadmium levels have exceeded the MCL in approximately nine wells. Several wells showed significant levels of aluminum and chlorides in excess of theI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

35 monitoring reports (from the first quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2010) show exceedances of MCLs in all of the groundwater monitoring wells subject to the D ischarge Permit. 150 Because the settling ponds were not adequately lined, heavy metals that sink to the bottom of the ponds continue to leach into the alluvial aquifer, which is hydro

- geologically connected to tributaries of Zekiah Swamp Run. 151



### Resolution: F ollowing MDE’s 1991 findings about the degradation of water quality in a nearby stream and creek, a battery of remedial measures was taken at the site: installation of liners in newer units (1993), installation of a cement

- bentonite slurry wall around the pond system at the east end of Phase I/II ash fill to prevent ground water migration (1994

- 95), rehabilitation of a portion of a stream (1995), closure and clay

- bentonite capping of older units to reduce the overall volume of leachate generation (1997), 152 d iscontinuing mill reject co

- management at the facility, constructing a leachate collection and treatment system at the South Stream and down

- gradient of Phases I through IV and the Curtis Phase landfills (1994) (pumps, subsurface drains, wells, liners, and six settling ponds; with wastewater aerated and treated with soda ash before discharge via Outfall 001), as well as installation of an artificial wetlands (2002).

In July 1995, PEPCO agreed to pay $975,000 in fines to make amends for violations of enviro nmental law at the Site, whereby a corporate supervisor and others he directed had been bypassing the company's wastewater treatment system and dumping the contents of some holding ponds into Zekiah Swamp. The pumping usually was done overnight or on weeke nds between 1990 and 1993. 153

In January 2001, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Water Resources Administration (WRA) issued a Consent Order requiring Mirant to address the nature and extent of the ground water impacts and to implement correc tive action to mitigate the m

.

SMCL, and eight wells showed sulfate levels that are 5 to 8 times the SMCL (M DE, 2011). Since the utility has indicated that no mill rejects containing pyrites have ever been placed in the Curtis Phase, the observed impacts in the alluvial aquifer down

- gradient of Phases I through IV and the Curtis Phase ash fill must have been all caused by the acidic fly ash leachate (EPRI, ibid). This conclusion is supported by the similarity of the available chemical composition data for the various leachates from the Faulkner landfill to those of the groundwater data in the five analyzed wells.
150 MDE (2011). Outfall, surface water, and groundwater samples collected on October 5, 2010 revealed excessive amounts of selenium and chloride that exceed water quality standards. A sample from Outfall 001 revealed a selenium concentration of 7.0μg/L. A surface water sample taken from a sampling station in Upper Bowling Creek revealed a selenium concentration of 5.7μg/L. Both of those test results constitute exceedances of the Maryland numerical water quality criteria and the national recommended water qu ality criteria established by the EPA of 5.0μg/L for selenium. A sample from Outfall 001 revealed a chloride concentration of 724 mg/L. A surface water sample taken from monitoring well F

- 8 revealed a chloride concentration of 610 mg/L. Thus, both of those test results constitute exceedances of the chronic national non

- priority pollutant water quality standard of 230 mg/L for chloride. Groundwater exceedances of cadmium, iron, manganese, aluminum, sulfate, chloride, TDS and pH were recorded in up to ten gro undwater monitoring wells sampled between the first quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010 (MDE, 2011a).
151 MDE (2011).
152 However, according to MDE (2011), “Disposal Pits 1 and 2 were covered with soil but not with an impermeable cap.”
153 The Baltimor e Sun (1995).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

36 In December 2002, Mirant completed installation of three passive water treatment systems (artificial wetland) to treat the acidity, metals, and sulfate in the leachate

- impacted groundwater. 154 These systems supplemented the leachate collection systems installed in 1994. 155

A recent study 156 indicated that ground water quality down

- gradient of the CCR fill areas is in a relatively steady

- state condition with little improvement of sulfate concentrations likely to occur over an ext ended period of time. However, improvement to surface water quality is likely to occur with respect to metals and acidity as a result of the constructed treatment systems’ ability to attenuate these parameters in effluent discharged to the on

- site streams. Upstream portions of the tributaries to Zekiah Swamp Run have shown significant water quality improvements (decreases in sulfate, acidity and metals ) . Ground water and surface water modeling indicates that the concentrations of sulfate in on

- site tributar ies to Zekiah Swamp Run are not expected to increase beyond their current levels. Although concentrations of sulfate in surface waters are not expected to decrease to pre

- 1970 levels within the next 40 to 50 years, the concentration of sulfate in the unnam ed tributary to Zekiah Swamp Run is expected to decrease by approximately 60 percent by the year 2050. Finally, additional improvements in surface water and ground water quality are expected to occur, specifically with respect to dissolved metals and pH. 157

In May 2008, MDE filed a lawsuit in state court against the Faulkner site. 158 Early in January 2011, MDE withdrew this lawsuit in order to file notices of intent to sue Mirant Mid

- Atlantic LLC and its subsidiary, Mirant Maryland Ash Management, in feder al court for alleged water pollution violations. 159 The notice alleges violations at Mirant's Faulkner disposal site, in and around the ecologically sensitive Zekiah Swamp and tributaries of the Wicomico River, part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 160

The Fa ulkner site closed in 2010, and Mirant temporarily dispose d of the Morgantown Station’s fly ash at the Brandywine facility while developing a CCR thermal treatment system ( Staged Turbulent Air

154 T he Passive Water Treatment System comprises Systems A and C (three treatment ponds each) in Upper Bowling Creek, between Pits 1 and 2, and System F (six treatment ponds) next to North Stream and down slope from the Curtis Phase fill (Figur es 1 and 2 in PPRP, 2006, MDE, 2011, and Figures 2 to 4 in PPRP FFAS

- 06

- 1, 2006).
155 According to PPRP (2006), the leachate collection systems consist of a series of interconnected drains designed to capture about 85 percent of the groundwater at the site. The captured water is directed to the passive treatment systems

- a series of wetlands, limestone beds, and organic

- rich reactive cells. The limestone neutralizes acidity: as pH increases, iron and aluminum precipitate as hydroxides. The removal of iron an d aluminum also helps to prevent the generation of acidity and low pH conditions once the treated water leaves the system. Dissolved iron and aluminum are positively charged ions that may interact strongly with negatively charged soil surfaces. These inter actions often displace hydrogen ions, which are held more weakly by the soils. This displacement results in lowered groundwater pH values as well as increased acidity. Metals are also removed through ion exchange, adsorption, and absorption to the organic media in the reactive cells and wetlands. In addition, the organic material promotes anaerobic conditions allowing sulfate to be converted to sulfide which can react with dissolved metals to precipitate as sulfide minerals. As the treated water flows to im pacted areas downstream, elevated total dissolved solids concentrations in groundwater which discharges to the streams should be reduced and acidic soil conditions that have built up over the years due to ion exchange reactions should be neutralized.
156 PPR P, ibid.
157 The Study concludes that based on these results, an evaluation of the technical and cost feasibility of innovative in

- situ treatment techniques that will enhance microbially

- mediated sulfate reduction within the aquifer down

gradient of the CCR fill areas is a reasonable next step.
158 Maryland Department of the Environment v. Mirant Maryland Ash Management LLC, Md. Cir. Ct., No. C

- 08

- 1255, May 30, 2008.
159 MDE (2011) and MDE (2011a).
160 MDE (2011) and MDE (2011a). According to MDE’s lawsuit, pollutants discharged from the disposal sites “include, but not limited to, aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chloride, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, pH, selenium, sulfate, TSS, and zinc”; also, The Baltimore Sun (20 11).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

37 Reactor, STAR) that will permit it to "process and beneficially use all of the fly ash produced by Morgantown and Chalk Point.” The STAR started operating in January 2012. 161

According to the utility, in May 2011, the MDE filed a complaint against GenOn in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland a lleging violations of the Clean Water Act and Maryland's Water Pollution Control Law at Faulkner. 162 In June 2011, MDE agreed to stay the litigation related to Faulkner and Brandywine while GenOn pursues settlement of allegations related to the three Marylan d ash facilities. 163 As a condition to obtaining the stay, GenOn agreed in principle to pay a civil penalty of $1.9 million to the MDE if the Utility were to reach a comprehensive settlement regarding all of the allegations related to the three Maryland ash facilities. 164

A coalition of citizens groups intervened in the January 2011 MDE lawsuit. 165 In a joint motion filed January 2, 2013 the MDE and GenOn asked the court to enter the proposed consent decree. GenOn Energy Inc. agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1.9 million and to perf orm remedial actions to prevent future surface water and groundwater contamination from the Site’s leachate ponds under a proposed consent agreement announced January 14, 20 13. 166 Under the proposed consent decree filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, 167 Gen O n Maryland Ash Management (GMAM) would cap and seal all closed cells in the landfill and install liner systems in all leachate and stormwater collection ponds, and perform a study to characterize the levels of contamination at the Site. GenOn also would develop and implement a plan to control fugitive coal dust, which can be released from the ponds.

161 According to PPRP

- CEIR 16 (2012), i n 2010, Mirant Mid

- Atlantic, LLC (now GenOn Mid

- Atlantic, LLC) submitted an application to the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) to authorize the modification of the Morgantown Generating Station to install a fly ash beneficiation facility to thermally process fly ash into a low

carbon material suitable for beneficial reuse. Under the proposal, fly ash that was transported from Morgantown and Chalk Point to the Faulkner Landfill in Charles County and the Bran dywine Landfill in Prince George’s County would be processed at the Morgantown Generating Station in a proprietary technology called a Staged Turbulent Air Reactor (STAR) and then transported in bulk via truck to markets. Processed fly ash would be sold as a supplementary cementing material (SCM) for the manufacture of concrete. Installation of the STAR facility will minimize or eliminate the disposal of fly ash in landfills by converting the fly ash into a beneficial mineral admixture product. Specifically , Mirant predicts that the STAR system will result in reduction in landfill material of 360,000 tons per year, and result in the production of 7,265 tons of gypsum per year. The Application was approved by the PSC on January 14, 2011, and on January 3, 201 2, GenOn began the operation of the STAR facility.
162 GenOn (Annual 2012). The MDE contends that (a) certain of Faulkner’s water discharges are not authorized by its existing NPDES permit and (b) operation of the Faulkner facility has resulted in discharges of pollutants that violate water quality criteria. The complaint asks the court to, among other things, (a) enjoin further disposal of coal ash; (b) enjoin discharges that are not authorized by the existing permit; (c) require numerous technical studies; (d) impose civil penalties and (e) award MDE attorneys' fees. GenOn disputes the allegations.
163 GenOn (Quarterly 2011). The third ash disposal facility is Westland, Dickerson Station’s landfill in Montgomery County.
164 Accordingly, GenOn also developed a te chnical solution, which included installing synthetic caps on portions of each of the ash facilities. During the three months ended June 30, 2011, GenOn accrued $28 million for the estimated cost of the technical solution. In October 2011, the MDE informed GenOn that its proposed technical solution was not adequate.
165 Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Patuxent Riverkeeper, and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network

. 166 State of Maryland v. GenOn Ash (2013)

. 167 State of Maryland v. GenOn Ash (2012). The Consent Decree also applies to the Brandywine Ash Management Facility in Prince George's County and to the Dickerson power plant’s Westland Ash Management Facility in Montgomery County.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

38 

### Previous Basis for Consideration : Scientific: Ground water contamination migrated off site; and Administrative: the State required remedial action; and submitted a lawsuit alleging violations at Mirant's Faulkner disposal site that impacting the Chesapeake Bay watershed.



### Other Considerations :

 In offsite groundwater cadmium exceeded MCL and iron and pH exceeded SMCL s

 Onsite groundwater exceeded SMCLs for aluminum, chloride, manganese, iron, and sulfate

 Local, shallow aquifer impacted by site may not impact deeper aquifer used as water supply

 Biological impact reports from the early 1980s identified other potential s ources including up

gradient cadmium and no biological impacts from CCRs

 State required remedial action, based on migration of contaminants in groundwater, charged with unpermitted discharge to surface water; State administrative action for vegetative dama ges, iron staining, and low pH.



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage. <Offsite groundwater exceeded MCLs for cadmium in shallow aquifer. State required remediation based on groundwater migration but no explicit finding of specific damage from CCRs.>



### Posts cript: Off

- site impacts to groundwater, surface water and the ecology (vegetation damage) and a recent Consent Order.


### References State of Maryland v. GenOn Ash (2013): State of Maryland, Department of the Environment, Plaintiff, v. GenOn MD Ash Management, LLC, et al . Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 8:11

- CV

- 01209

- PJM 8:10

- CV

00826

- PJM 8:12

- CV: J oint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree, filed January 2, 2013. Accessed Online October 2014. http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/id/aada

- 93xsu7/$File/Entry%20Consent.pdf

GenOn (Annual 2012): GenOn Energy, Inc., Form 10

- K (Annual Report), filed 2/29/12 for period ending 12/31/11. Accessed Online October 2012. http://idc.api.edgar

- online.com/efx_dll/e dgarpro.dll?FetchFilingConvPDF1?SessionID=5cvrFocpOu

KoIS&ID=8447354

PPRP

- CEIR 16 (2012): Maryland Power Plants and the Environment: a review of the impacts of power plants and transmission lines on Maryland's natural resources. PPRP

- CEIR

- 16 ( Cumulative E nvironmental Impact Report , DNR Publication No. 12

- 1242012

- 546, January 26, 2012. Accessed Online June 2012. http://esm.versar.com/pprp/ceir16/CEIR

- 16_Full_Document_Final.pdf

State of Maryland v. GenOn Ash (2012): State of Maryland, Department of the Environment, Plaintiff, v. GenOn MD Ash Management, LLC, et al . Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 8:11

- CV

- 01209

- PJM 8:10

- CV

00826

- PJM 8:12

- CV: Consent Decree, filed December 21, 2012. Accessed Online October 2014. http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/id/aada

- 93xrhl/$File/Maryland%20Coal%20Ash%20Final.pdf

Annual Generator Report (20 11 ): Coal Comb ustion Byproduct (CCB) Annual Generator Tonnage Report, Calendar Year 20 11 , submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment, August 13 , 20 12

. Accessed Online October 201 4

. www.mde.state. md .us/.../ CoalCombustionByproducts /.../2011%20CCB%

...I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

39 GeonOn (Quarterly 2011): GenOn Mid

- Atlantic, LLC. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Form Q

- 1 0: Quarterly Report for the Quarter Period Ended September 30, 2011. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.knowledgemosaic.com/Gateway/SECData/P DFCache/11/0001193125

- 11

- 303255/kmcomposite.pdf

MDE (2011): Department of the Environment Files Notice of Intent to Sue Mirant for Coal Combustion Byproducts Pollution. Maryland Department of the Environment Press Release, January 3, 2011. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/PressRoom/Pages/010311b.aspx

MDE (2011 a ): Notice of Intent to File Citizen Suit for Violations of the Clean Water Act at the Mirant Faulkner Coal Combustion Waste Disposal Site in Charles County, Maryland. Maryland Department of the Environment, January 3, 2011. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/PressRoom/Documents/MDE_Faulkner_NOI_03Jan10.pdf

Public Service Commission of Maryland (2011): In the Matter of the Application of Mirant Mid

- Atlantic, LLC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Ne cessity Authorizing the Modification of the Morgantown Generating Station in Charles County, Maryland. Before the Public Service Commission of Maryland, Case No. 9229, January 14, 2011.

The Baltimore Sun (2011): MD threatens lawsuits over coal ash polluti on, January 4, 2011. Accessed Online October 2012. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2011/01/md_threatens_lawsuits_over_coa.html

Annual Generator Report (2010): Coal Combustion Byproduct (CCB) Annual Generator Tonnage Report, Calendar Year 2010, submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment, February 25, 2011. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Land/SolidWaste/CoalCombustionByproducts/Documents/2010% 20CCB% 20Generator%20Reports/Morgantown%20Generating%20Station%202010%20CCBC%20Repo rt.pdf

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #5. ICF, 10/2010.

Annual Generator Report (2008): Coal Combustion Byproduct (CCB) Annual Generator Tonnage Report, Calendar Year 2008, submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment, March 3, 2009. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Land/SolidWaste/CoalCombustionByproducts/Documents/www.m de.state.md.us/assets/document/MCCULLOUGH_MIRRANT_MID_ATLAN TIC_LLC.pdf

DNR (2008): Environmental Review of the Air Pollution Control Project at the Morgantown Generating Station, June 2008, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Publication No. 12

- 6132008

- 318. Accessed Online October 2012. http://esm.versar.com/pprp/bibliography/PPSE

- M

- 02/PPSE

- M

- 02_Chpts1

- 3.pdf

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #5, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

PPRP (2006): Evaluation of Long

- Term Surface Water and Ground Water Quality at the Faulkner Fly Ash Storage Site Charles County, Maryland, M. Erbe, R. Gwynn, and R. Keating, EnvironmentalI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

40 Resources Management, Inc. FFAS

- 06

- 2, June 1, 2006, submitted to MD DNR Power Plant Researc h Program (PPRP). Accessed Online June 2012. http://esm.versar.com/pprp/bibliography/FFAS_06_2/FFAS_06_2.pdf

PPRP FFAS

- 06

- 1 (2006): Evaluation of the Efficiency of the Passive Water Treatment Systems at the Faulkner Fly ash Storage Site, Charles County, Maryland, M. Erbe, R. Gwynn, and R. Keating, Environmental Resources Management, Inc. FFAS

- 06

- 1, June 1, 2006, submitted to MD DNR Power Plant Research Program (PPRP). Accessed Online April 2013. http://esm.versar.com/pprp/bibliography/FFAS_06_1/FFAS_06_1.pdf

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

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

- 108994. Accessed Online April 2013. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=TR

- 108994 &Mode=download

Technical Background Document (1999): Technical Background Document f or the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Potential Damage Cases, March 15, 1999. A ccessed Online April 2013. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonha z/industrial/special/fossil/ffc2_397.pdf

The Baltimore Sun (1995): Potomac Electric pays fine to settle fly ash violation: The Baltimore Sun, July 4, 1995. Accessed Online May 2014. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995

- 07

- 04/news/1995185014_1_pepco

- fly

- ash

- potomac

- electric

. Price and Keating (1991): Assessment of Water Quality Impacts from the Faulkner Fly Ash Facility, W. Keating, ERM, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland, prepared for the Maryland Power Plant and Environmental Reviews Division (PPER), January 1991. Accessed Online April 2013. http://web.vims.edu/G reyLit/MDNR/pper

- mp

- 59?svr=www

Hopkins et al., (1986): Reconnaissance of the Ground

- Water, Surface

- Water System in the Zekiah Swamp Run Basin, Charles and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland, Hopkins, H.T., G.T. Fisher, and L.J. McGreevy. U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 86

- 4097. Accessed Online April 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1986/4097/report.pdf

Klose and Potera (1984): Biological Impacts Studies of the Faulkner Fly Ash Site, Klose, P.N. and G.T. Potera. Prepared by ERM, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland, for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Power Plant Siting Program, Annapolis, Maryland, August 1984. PPSP

- MP

- 56. Accessed Online April 2013. http://esm.versar.com/pprp/bibliography/PPSP

- MP

- 56/PPSP

- MP

- 56.pdf

Simek et al., (1983): Environmental aspects of the Faulkner Ash Site, Simek, E.M., M.A. Hewitt, and G.T. Potera. Pre pared by ERM, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania, for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Power Plant Siting Program, Annapolis, Maryland, 1983. PPSP

- MP

- 43. Accessed Online April 2013. http://esm.versar.com/pprp/bibliography/PPSP

- MP

- 43/PPSP

- MP

- 43.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

41 

### PR07. Detroit Edison 168 

### Range Road Landfill, St. Clair, East China Township, St. Clair County, Michigan 169



### Type: Offsite Landfill.



### Description: This unlined, Type III Low Hazard industrial landfill 170 has been operating since the early 1950s. The licensed landfill area covers about 514 acres. 171 The landfill accepted coal ash from three Detroit Edison Power Plants: Belle River (1,395 MW); 172 Harbor Beach (121 MW), 173 and Marysville (150 MW), 174 in addition to a small amount from the Cargill Salt Company’s captive Power Plant (two MW). 175 In 2011, the landfill accepted close to 350,000 cubic yards of coal ash.

The Range Road Landfill is divided into nine sections. 176 The current procedu re for filling the land is to remove the top soil, which is clay, and set that material aside. The dry ash is hauled to the landfill and dumped (DTE Energy, 2009, Fig. 4

- 1). Areas G and E, which total 221 acres, still have much of their native topsoil and cover, and are designated for future development.

The landfill is located less than one mile west of the St. Clair River and the co

- located U.S./ Canadian border. 177 It is separated from the ‘deep bedrock aquifer’ by at least 70 feet

- thick, low permeability Glacio

- lacustrine clay. In 1995, a near surface, 2

- 18 feet thick silty

- sand layer was discovered on the eastern side of the landfill that renders the separation between the upper, shallow aquifer and the deep bedrock aquifer ineffective. Leachate was dete rmined to be migrating off

- site in groundwater and also reaching two small ponds.

168 Now: DTE Energy Electric Company.
169 Michigan DNR’s comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6815, Attachment 5.
170 RCRA Permit #9207, issued April 6, 2009. For the current Operation License, issued June 26, 2014, see Michigan DEQ (2014) and Michigan DEQ (20 14a). For a site plan of the landfill, see page 9 of the site’s 2014

- issued Operational License.

171 According to the 2009 Operational License (Michigan DEQ, 2009), 275 acres of which are closed, 53 acres are inactive but still not capped; and 118 acres are active (the total area comes closer to the 456.5 acres cited by St. Clair County, No date). The remainder is designated for future development. According to the 2014 Operational License, 227 acres are authorized to receive waste and included in the calcula tion of financial assurance but still unconstructed; while 194 acres are not authorized to receive waste on account of having their final cap been certified closed and accepted by MDEQ (and see page 9 of the 2014 Operational License for a Site Phasing Lege nd).

172 Belle River Power Plant is a major coal

- and natural gas

- fired power plant (name

- plate capacity: 1,664 MW), that is located in St. Clair County, Michigan , on the peninsula formed by the St. Clair and Belle rivers. Coal

- fired unit 1 of the Belle River plant was completed in 1984, follow ed by a similar unit 2 in 1985. Burning subbituminous coal, the two units have 697.5 MW capacity each. They were preceded (1981) by five oil

- fueled internal combustio n generators with the total output 13.75 MW, and followed (in 1999) by three peaker natural

- gas fired with the total

name

- plate capacity of 256 MW (Wikipedia, 2013).
173 In 2012, DTE Energy announced that the Harbor Beach Power Plant no longer will operate as a coal

- fired plant after April 2015, though the shut

- down could occur as early as August 2013. The trigger for retirement are the new upcoming (April 2015) environmental regulations

- the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule ( Huron Daily tribune, 2012).

174 The Marysvale Power Plant has been shut down since 2001, and as of the end of 2013 was scheduled for demolition ( Electric Light & Power, 2013).
175 For additional information on the three coal

- fueled power plants, see DTE Energy (2009).
176 See landfill site plan on page 9 of DEQ (2014).

177 3600 Range Road, Saint Clair, Michigan 48079. Latitude: 42.79831, Longitude:

- 82.49372.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

42 

### Impact: While no drinking water sources are affected, the site has off

- site exceedances of the State’s health

- based standards for lithium, 178 boron, and manganese

. 179



### Resolution: Sections A, B, B1, D1, D2, and 50 percent of F have been capped with 2 feet of clay (the other half of the F area is currently being landfilled). A slurry wall was recently installed around the entire landfill approximately 2 feet below the lev el of clay. 180 Based on the 2009 O perational L icense, the site has installed leachate collection and storage; a RI/FS for offsite groundwater (revised April 2003); a Landfill Perimeter Subsurface Investigation (December 2006); a n RI/FS Plan for the Northwest ern Section Off

- Site Groundwater (May 2008); a Remedial Action Plan for Off

- Site Groundwater (approved February 2009)

, and a Hydrology Monitoring Plan (April 2009). 181

, 182

Groundwater monitoring for the ‘deep bedrock aquifer’ was waived in May 1997. The landfill is currently unmonitorable with respect to the shallow, discontinuous, saturated sand that exists below the southeast, east, north, and northwest areas of the landfill. Because of the limited presence of this shallow, saturated sand in the vicinit y of the currently active Area F and the unconstructed Area G, the uppermost aquifer in these areas is currently considered to be the bedrock aquifer.



### Evaluate against Proven Damage Criteria: Scientific : Observation of off

- site exceedances of the State's health

- based standard for lithium, boron, and manganese. Administrative: the State required a n RI/FS and a remedial action plan.



### References Michigan DEQ (2014): Waste and Hazardous Materials Division S olid Waste Disposal Area Operational License, Detroit Edison Company, Range Road Ash Disposal Landfill. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DNRE

- WHMD

- SW

DETROIT_EDISON_RANGE_ROAD_OpLicense_320053_7.pdf

Michigan DEQ (2014a): Ran ge Road Landfill, Michigan DEQ. Accessed Online July 2012

. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7

- 135

- 3312_4123

- 213287

-- ,00.html

Wikipedia (2013): Belle River Power Plant. Wikipedia, last modified on 30 August 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_River_Power_Plant

178 Michigan’s clean

- up standards for l ithium are: 170 ppb in drinking water, and 9 6 ppb for the groundwater

- surface water interface

. 179 DNR (2010).
180 DTE Energy, ibid. The slurry wall is anchored 2 feet into the underlying clay layer (plans submitted in April 2002 and May 2008; a construction report submitted in February 2009).

181 Additional documents submitted after the 2009 License was granted include three Off

- Site Groundwater Capture and Discharge System addressing specific areas of the License area (June

- July 2009 and May 2010), Southwest Ditch Slope Mitigation (June 2010), and Stormwater Circulation Plan (April 2012).

182 According to DTE Energy (2009), if the site was to close down ‘today’, the disturbed area (approximately 10 acres) would be covered with clay, seeded, and mulched. After closure, the following post

- closure activities must be supported during the statutory post

- closure period of 30 years: testing of 30 odd monitoring wells; maintenance of three low head groundwater dewatering pumps, intended to recover a contaminated groundwater plume; occasional erosion repair along the 20,000 linear feet of 30 foot high pe rimeter berms; pumping of contaminated seepage water from the toe of the above berm; and build a leachate collection system when the site becomes saturated with water.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

43 Electric Light & Power (2013): DTE Energy sells Marysville Power Plant to developer. Electric Light & Power, 12/13/2013. http://www.elp.com/articles/2013/12/dte

- energy

- sells

- marysville

- power

- plant

- to

- developer.html

Huron Daily tribune (2012): DTE to close Harbor Beach Power Plant. Huron Daily tribune, July 12, 2012. http://www.michigansthumb.com/news/local/article_e021f9f6

- ea6c

- 52e1

- b498

- 8140d6d01134.html

Michigan DEQ (2012): Report of Solid Waste Landfills in Mic higan, October 1, 2010

– September 30, 2011. Michigan DEQ Resource Management Division, February 13, 2012. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.mi chigan.gov/documents/deq/DEQ

- RMD

- SWLAS

- SolidWasteAnnualReport_FY11_377392_7.pdf

DNR (2010): Michigan DNR’s comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6815, Attachment 5. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6815

DTE Energy (2009): Demolition Study, Black & Veatch Ltd. of Michigan, B&V Project 164806, October 19, 2009. Accessed Online October 2014. ( The study provides cost estimates for the demolition of eleven DTE Energy fossil fired generating facilities and their associated ash disposal sites). http://efil e.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/16117/0044.pdf

Michigan DEQ (2009): Waste and Hazardous Materials Division Solid Waste Disposal Area Operational License, Detroit Edison Company, Range Road Ash Disposal Landfill. Accessed Online July 2012

. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DNRE

- WHMD

- SW

DETROIT_EDISON_RANGE_ROAD_OpLicense_320053_7.pdf (No longer accessible)

St. Clair County (No date): Solid Waste Plan/ Data Base (including a location map and capacity data as of the late 1990s) . A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.cis.stclaircounty.org/downloads/04_sw_ plan_ii_1_through_30.pdf



### PR08. JR Whiting Generating Plant, CMS Energy

– Consumers Energy, 183 

### Erie, Monroe County, Michigan

Type: Surface Impoundments.

183 Consumer Energy is a subsidiary of CMS Energy.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

44 

### Background and Description: The JR Whiting Plant, 184 owned by Consumers Energy, went online in 1952/53 and since then has constructed six unlined impoundments 185 close to and on the shore of Lake Erie to receive CCRs from the plant. 186 These impoundments also receive co

- disposed liquid wastes. 187 These wastes in clude low volume 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 that year they have only received fly as h and are the primary 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. 188 Final closure of the ponds was approved in 2005 189 and is nearing completion. In recent years, fly a sh disposal at the plant has been minimal, with most being sold for reuse by cement manufacturers. The J.R. Whiting Plant was studied for the effects of Impingement and Entrainment of fish at its cooling water intake structure. 190



### Impact and Damage Claims: EIP (2010a) indicates that effluent discharges from the impoundments caused ecological damage to aquatic life. The report cites a study undertaken in the early 1980s

, 191 which looked at discharges from impoundments 3, 4, and 5 into Lake Erie. The study examined toxic elements in sediment, fish, and invertebrates near the impoundments and made comparisons to references points nearly two miles away. The study found arsenic, cobalt, selenium, and nickel to be elevated in sediments near the outfall; however, they were not above Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

184 J.R. Whiting ( 4525 E. Erie Road, Er ie, MI 48133 ) is a 346 MW power plant currently operates three (bituminous) coal

- fired steam

- electric units that use cooling water withdrawn from Lake Erie (Units 1

- 3), and one oil

- fired gas turbine (Unit 4). The facility is located at Luna Pier, Michigan, on the Woodtick Peninsula, 10 miles north of Toledo, Ohio, and 35 miles south of Detroit, Michigan. ( http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/phase2/uplo ad/chh1.pdf )

. Early in December 2011, Consumers Energy announced that in response to existing and pending federal and state environmental regulations and ong oing market conditions, the company decided to suspend in 2015 the of operation of the three coal

- fueled units at the J.R. Whiting Generating Complex, in addition to suspending four additional smaller units elsewhere in Michigan (a total capacity of 950 MW ; Power Engineering, 2011). Then, in late September, 2013, Consumers Energy received approval to delay the retirement of the three coal

- fueled units at J.R. Whiting Generating Complex because of increased power demand in the state and concerns about power supply reliability. The approval gives Consumers the option of continuing operation at the Whiting Plant until April 2016 (Power Engineering, 2013). In February 2014, Consumers Energy selected AMEC to represent the company as the owner’s engineer for the d ecommissioning program for the planned retirement of the utility’s three coal

- fueled generating units in J.R. Whiting (Consumers Energy, 2014).
185 O’Brien & Gere (2011), Appendix A. In addition, there were at least two other waste units (Borrow Pit #1, 5.4 acre; and Borrow Pit #2, 11.9 acre), which closed at the end of 1989 (Michigan DEQ, 2009).
186 According to O’Brien & Gere (ibid), JR Whiting plant currently operates three impoundments (Ponds 1, 2 & 6) for storing and/or settling of CCR. Additionally, anoth er three impoundments (Ponds 3, 4 & 5) were recently closed (closure has occurred sometime between August 2009, the date of the most recent Operational License which still characterizes these ponds as active

– Michigan DEQ, 2009

- and September 2010, when the site dam assessment visit

- O’Brien & Gere, 2011

- has taken place) and are in the process of being filled and capped. For a site location map and a photomap identifying the six impoundments, see O’Brien & Gere (2011) Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The system of Ponds 1 & 2, commissioned in the late 1950s and occupying 15 acres (23.8 acres according to Michigan DEQ, 2009), is currently the primary location for settling of bottom ash. Pond 6, commissioned around 1980 and occupying 32 acres (55.5 acres acc ording to Michigan DEQ, 2009), is the primary location for wet

- storage of fly ash. The State of Michigan most recently licensed Ponds 1 through 6 as Type III industrial Solid Waste Disposal Areas (SWDA) under its Part 115 rules on August 26, 2009, Michigan DEQ, 2009). Under this license, the facility (as a whole) carries facility identification number 397664 and license number 9224.
187 Regulated by the plant’s NPDES permit (MIO001864)

188 According to Michigan DEQ (2009), the combined area of ash ponds 3, 4, and 5 is 49.8 acre.
189 The partial closure of portions of ponds 3, 4, and 5 was certified on Dec. 28, 2006, July 16, 2008, and April 1, 2009, respectively. Michigan DEQ (2009).
190 USEPA (2002).
191 Hatcher et al., (1992).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

45 criteria for soil cleanup. 192 The study found that arsenic, selenium, and bromine were found at eleva ted concentrations in oligochaetes (freshwater worms) near the coal ash basin. The study also found that there were consistently less dense populations of the oligochaetes near the outfall compared to the reference sites suggesting that such organisms may be incapable of sustaining high population densities in the face of these trace coal ash elements. Selenium, bromine, cobalt, nickel, and chromium were also found at elevated concentrations in some fish types, particularly younger fish, near the outfall.

Concentrations of selenium in fish food organisms were above a chronic dietary toxic level (3 ppm, dry weight). Concentrations of selenium in fish tissues reached 14 ppm (whole

- body, dry weight), which is three and one

- half times a toxic threshold (4 ppm )

. 193 Numbers of benthic invertebrates and fish were reduced in the area near the discharge. The study reportedly determined that discharges from impoundments to the environment lead to the elevated contaminant levels in the sediments and aquatic biota. It de termined that chronic exposure to these concentrations could undermine the population fitness for various biota particularly those with limited mobility such as freshwater worms or fish in the early stages of life. 194 The final determination of the study was that placing coal ash impoundments near the shoreline and use of CCRs as a constituent for the artificial reef creating blocks should be reevaluated.


### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 195

192 See also Michigan’s DNRE comment EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6815.

193 On the status of the Federal selenium

- in

- fish regulation, see comment to the proposed rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 2930, Attachment.
194 Lemly (2010) a nd references therein. Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized value of the damage at $1.5 million

195 ICF (2010). Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1: 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 c oncerns  None

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  Study (Hatcher et al., 1992) determined that discharges from the impoundment had lead to elevated levels of contaminants within the sediment and some aquatic biota. It concluded that chronic exposure to higher concentrations of these contaminants could und ermine population fitness particularly for organisms with restricted mobility. Multiple instances of excessive selenium discharges in the ten years preceding closure of the implicated impoundments lend support to the study’s findings.
Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of  NoneI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

46 

### Other Considerations :

 EPA (2007) rejected this as a damage 196 ( reported as Case #76, Lake Erie, Ohio ) because evide nce did not confirm CCRs as the source of contamination, though EIP (2010a) counters that the study was designed to specifically evaluate the effects of discharges from the CCR impoundments and that transport of CCR did lead to the elevated concentrations within biota and in sediments.

 Maximum concentrations in sediment outfalls for target elements (arsenic, cobalt, nickel, selenium) were below Michigan Department of Environmental Quality criteria for soil cleanup.

 NPDES operating records show eight exceedances of the monthly average standard for selenium over the last ten years (1999

- 2008) from former Outfall 002 from ash ponds 3, 4, and 5. Outfall 002 was closed in 2008 as part of the process to close these ash ponds as a landfill. 197

 Consumers Energy is critical of the Hatcher et al., (1992) study 198 based on arguments pertaining, among others, to selenium being a vital metal component in aquatic organisms, 199 and the study’s failure to adequately assess the role of other sources of anthropogenic contamination or the contribution of background metals in native sediments. Specifically, Consumers Energy claims that the high silt and clay content sediments produce d by Bay Creek close to the Power Plant would naturally contain more arsenic than the more sandy sediments in the control sites at the Woodtick Peninsula, because fine grained sediments adsorb more metals than sandy sediments; and soils in the Huron

- Erie G lacial Lobe tend to be high in metals, especially arsenic, relative to the statewide average. However, the applicability of latter argument calls for a site

- specific study. 200



### Resolution: The electric utility company began to landfill coal ash in 2002. Cons equently, release of ash pond effluent was reduced. Final closure of the ponds was approved in 2005 201 and is nearing completion. 202 Consequently, the facility has ceased discharging fly ash to surface water. However, EPA’s

196 EPA (2007), based on Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combust ion Waste Damage Cases , April 20, 2000.
197 Consumer s Energy (2009).
198 Consumer Energy’s comment to the October 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0212.
199 See also: Sackett et al., (2010) and Spencer et al., (2009).

200 The Michigan Background Soil Survey (2005) and Thomas (2003) studied the distribution of arsenic in the Huron

- Erie Glacial Lobe (the 2005 study compared the levels of arsenic in the Huron

- Erie Glacial Lobe’s topsoils, sandy deposits and clay deposits to those in Michigan; whereas the 2003 study studied compared, among others, the Glacial Lobe’s levels of arsenic in shallow groundwater drinking wells). Unfortunately, though, none of these studies has collected any samples in Monroe County, where the J. R. Whiting Plant is located.
201 A ccording to Black & Vetach (2008), in May 1996, Consumers Energy proposed a final closure for ash ponds 3, 4, and 5. The final cover in this 1996 design consisted of 18 inches of soil. At a later date, MDEQ requested to adjust the cover design so as to com ply with current regulations (Rule R299.4304/Part 115). For a Type III landfill cover design, these regulations require the use of a flexible membrane liner (FML) protected by at least 24 inches of soil and overlain by a minimum of 6 inches of soil for veg etation establishments. Black & Vetach (ibid) conducted a dike stability analysis of both the 1996 plan and also of the newly required 30 inches of soil cover. The stability analysis conducted for the modified soil cover indicates that the factors of safet y against slope failure are adequate for long

- term stability.
202 According to O’Brien & Gere (2011), wet sluicing of ash to Ponds 3, 4 & 5 ceased operation in 2008. Fly ash that was normally sent to Pond 6 is being diverted to Ponds 3, 4 & 5 to expedite fin al closure of these ponds. The diversion operation consists of the dry fly ash being mixed with water and loaded into trucks to transport the damp/wet ash to Ponds 3, 4 & 5.In accordance with a closure plan submitted to the State of Michigan, in September specific damage to human health or the environmentI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

47 Toxics Release Inventory reported th at substantial discharges of contaminants, including mercury and vanadium (selenium not reported), to surface waters from the J. R. Whiting Plant continued through 2009, which was the latest reporting year available. 203

Michigan’s DNRE claims 204 that consider ing that the Hatcher et al., (1992) study reports elevated levels of arsenic, cobalt, selenium, and nickel in lake sediments that were below Michigan's cleanup standards for sediments, a follow

- up investigation will not be required. Furthermore, the impoun dments were first permitted only in 1979, following the 1978 enactment of Michigan’s Solid Waste Management Act. 205 Groundwater and surface water discharge monitoring since then have shown the facility to be in compliance. In recent years, fly ash disposal a t the plant has been minimal, with most being sold for reuse by cement manufacturers.



### ICF (2010 a ) Rationale: Inadequate Information, Pending Access to the Original Report (Hatcher, 1992). < While scientific studies did indicate elevated levels of contaminants in sediment and aquatic biota and reduced population densities of biota near the site outfalls relative to reference location, specific data linking the damage to CCR contamination is not currently available.>



### Postscript: Hatcher (1992) demon strated that concentrations of selenium in fish food organisms close to the JR Whiting’s power plant in Lake Erie were above a chronic dietary toxic level (3 ppm, dry weight). Concentrations of selenium in fish tissues reached 14 ppm (whole

- body, dry weigh t), which is three and

one

- half times a toxic threshold (4 ppm). Numbers of benthic invertebrates and fish were reduced in the area near the discharge. Discharges from impoundments to the environment at the JR Whiting Plant lead to the elevated contaminant levels in the sediments and aquatic biota.


### References Consumers Energy (2014): Consumers Energy Awards Contract to Decommission Oldest Coal Plants. Consumers Energy News Release, February 13, 2014. http://www.consumersenergy.com/News.aspx?id=7038&year=2014

Power Engineering (2013): Consumers Energy receives approval to delay retiring coal fired units, Power Engineering, Septemb er 25, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.power

- eng.com/articles/2013/09/consumers

- energy

- receives

- approval

- to

- d elay

- retiring

- coal

fired

- units.html

O’Brien & Gere (2011): Dam Safety Assessment of CCW Impoundments, J.R. Whiting Plant, Final Report. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency by O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., June 27, 2011. Accessed Online Augu st 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm#C

2010 Consumers Energy was completing final dewatered ash fill placement and constructing the final cover. At that time, the final dewatered ash fill placement and cover construction was complete over approximately 1/2 to 2/3 of the area. The final cover an d grade is currently under construction in the center of the former impoundment complex area. Additionally, a runoff diversion berm and engineered run

- off let down areas have been completed around the perimeter of the covered area and at various locations on the slopes, respectively. Anticipated completion of the final cover over the full area of this unit was 2011

– 2012, but a ‘site visit’ via Google Maps (October 8, 2014) revealed that a strip of capping in the middle of the otherwise capped impoundments was still incomplete.
203 Lemly (2010).
204 Comment on the CCR proposed rule: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6815.
205 MDEQ’s Comment to the 2011 NODA docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0191.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

48 Power Engineering (2011): Consumers Energy cancels clean coal power plant project. Power Engineering, December 2, 2011. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.power

- eng.com/articles/2011/12/consumers

- energy

- cancels

- cean

- coal

- power

- plant

project.html

EIP (2010a): In Harm’s Way: Lack o f Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans a nd Their Environment, Thirty

- N ine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #17. The Environmental Integrity Project, EarthJustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010. http://www.environme ntalintegrity.org/news_reports/08_26_10.php

ICF (2010a): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases. Appendix C, Case #17. ICF, 10/2010.

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

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640, December 15, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal

... Sackett et al., (2010): Does proximity to coal

- fired power plants influence fish tissue mercury? Dana K. Sackett, D. Derek Aday, James A. Rice, W. Gregory Cope, and David Buchwalter. Ecotoxicology, Published online 17 September, 2010. Accessed Online October 2014. Does p roximity to coal

- fired power plants influence fish

... Consumers Energy (2009): Consumers Energy’s response to EPA’s Section 104(e) of CERCLA Request for Information Concerning Surface Impoundments, March 26, 2009. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industr ial/special/fossil/surveys/cec.pdf

Michigan DEQ (2009): J R Whiting Solid Waste Disposal Area Operational License (WM ID # 397664; License # 9224, issued August 12, 2009). Accessed October 2014. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7

- 135

- 3312_4123

- 213281

-- ,00.html

Spencer et al., (2009): Selenium and Mercury Interactions with Emphasis on Fish Tissue: Spencer A. Peters on, Nicholas V.C. Ralston, Philip D. Whanger, James E. Oldfield, and Wayne D. Mosher. Env ironmental Bioindicators, 4:318

- 334, 2009. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.environmentalindicatorsjournal.net/Journal/DisplayArticle/tabid/57/Arti cleId/122/Selenium

and

- Mercury

- Interactions

- with

- Emphasis

- on

- Fish

- Tissue.aspx

Black & Vetach (2008): Consumers Energy Company J. R. Whiting Plant. Final Cover System Report for Ash Ponds 3, 4, and 5. B&V Project 149386, March 2008. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0068

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste, Damage Case Assessment. U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, July 9 2007, Case # 76, Lake Erie, Ohio . Docket Number EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015. http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Michigan Background Soil Survey (2005): Hazardous Waste Technical Support Unit, Hazardous Waste Section Waste and Hazardous Materials Division, Michigan DEQ. Accessed Onli ne June 2012. http://michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq

- whm

- hwp

- Michigan

- Background

- Soil

revJuly2005_248097_7.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

49 Thomas (2003): Arsenic in Midwest ern Glacial Deposits

– Occurrence and Relation to Selected Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Factors. Mary Ann Thomas. U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 03

- 4228, 2003. Accessed Online June 2012. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034228/pdf/wri034228.pdf

USEPA (2002): Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule

. USEPA Report EPA

- 821

- R

- 02

- 002; February 28, 2002, Part H: J. R. Whitin g. Accessed Online October 2014. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20002S0V.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2 000+Thru+2005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime= &SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocE ntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQ uery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C00thru05%5CTxt%5C00000005%5C20002S0V.t xt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C

- & MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p %7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&Ma ximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL

Hatcher et al., (1992): Hatcher, C. O., R. E. Ogawa, T.P. Poe and J. R. P. French, III. 1992. Trace Elements in Lake Sediment, Macrozoobenthos, and Fish Near a Coal Ash Disposal Basin, J. Freshwater Ecol. 7:257

- 269 (1992). Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02705060.1992.9664694#preview



### PR09. North Lansing Landfill, Lansing Board of Water & Light (LBWL), 206 

### Lansing, Ingham Coun ty, Michigan

Type: Gravel Pit.



### Brief Description /Impact: The North Lansing Landfill (NLL) is a

- 27 acre unlined landfill located in a former gravel quarry pit with an elevated ground water table. 207 It was licensed in 1974 for disposal of inert fill materials, including soil, concrete, and brick. From 1980 to 1997, the NLL was used for disposal of approximately 1 million cubic yards of coal ash from the Lansing Board of Water and Light electric and s team generating plants

. 208 Onsite groundwater exceeded MCLs for lead and selenium, state standards for lithium, and SMCLs for manganese, boron, and sulfate. 209 The site is located about 5,000 feet from the Grand River, and wetlands are about 1,000 feet away at Bancroft Park and Groesbeck Golf Course. 210

206 The Lansing Board of Water and Light is a publicly owned , municipal utility (with a current electric generating capacity of 510 MW in tw o power plants, and until 1992

– in four power plants) that provides electricity and water to the residents of the cities of Lansing and East Lansing

, Michigan , and the surrounding townships of Delta

, Delhi

, Meridian and DeWitt . LBWL also provides steam and chilled water services within the City of Lansing

. 207 Based on City Pulse (2010) and Lansing Online News (2010) and Clean Water Fund (2013), there were additional unlined coal ash landfills located in abandoned sand and gravel pits within the City’s confines (e.g., the Comfort Street Site), going back at least as far as 1964, that leached metals into groundwater and necessitated the ash fill’s removal. According to Clean Water Fund (2013), d ue to the fact that these sites were never regulated storage areas, and because contamination is present, they are considered to be “Part 201” or Brownfield sites.

208 Erickson (154.7 MW) and Eckert (375 MW) Stations, Lansing: Clean Water Fund (ibid), Table 1.
209 A Memorandum from SAI C to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases , March 5, 2003.
210 Clean Water Fund (ibid), page 28.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

50 This site was addressed in EPA (2007) and reported by the State of Michigan in its comment to the docket of the proposed CCR rule. 211

The RI Report, published in May 1999 and revised in December 1999, established t hat t here are two aquifers underneath the site: the highly permeable upper aquifer is not used for drinking water; the lower, Saginaw aquifer supplies the City of Lansing with drinking water. Groundwater mounding has immersed the CCRs into the upper aquifer, vi olating the State’s requirement for a 4

- feet separation and resulting in exceedances of several contaminants. Based on statistical analysis and consideration of site

- specific factors, the following seem to be conclusively linked to the NLL: lithium (concen trations above health

based standards off

- site) ; 212 manganese (concentrations are above non

- health based

- standards on

- site); and selenium (concentrations are above health

- based standards on

- site).



### Other Considerations :

 Consent order and remediation order s igned with state for contamination in on

- site wells.

 The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) administrative action for monitoring and assessment of on

- site well contamination.

 The site is located alongside a former landfill, industrial wast e disposal sites, and a Superfund site; these are responsible for other elevated contaminants, including volatile organics and ammonia.



### Resolution: MDEQ confirmed in writing that ground water contamination had occurred at this historic landfill, which was constructed before current State regulations were in place. The site was eventually closed because the inadequate control of contamination violated current regulatory requirements.

Following detection by the hydrogeological monitoring systems required un der Michigan’s Solid Waste Management act, a Consent Order from 1998 required the facility to institute corrective action measures, including a response action plan, an RI/FS to determine the extent of contamination, and the development of a Remedial actio n Plan, to address the release. A soil

- bentonite slurry wall was constructed around the perimeter of the facility in 2008, and a gradient control system was scheduled for implementation in 2009

- 10. 213



### Previous Basis for Consideration : Scientific : Observation of off

- site exceedances of the State's health

based standard for lithium.



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Potential Damage . <Onsite groundwater exceeds MCLs for lead and selenium and SMCLs for manganese, boron, and sulfate. Lithium exceeds state risk sc reening standard for lithium offsite, but complex background and potential sources suggest partial contribution from other waste sites.>



### Postscript: ICF (2010) downgraded this case from a proven to a potential damage case; however, MI DNRE confirmed that this site is a proven damage case. 214


### References Clean Water Fund (2013): Toxic Trash Exposed: Toxic Coal Ash Pollution in Michigan, Clean Water Fund, November 2013. Accessed Online August 2014.

211 Michigan DNRE (2010): EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6815, Attachment 5.

212 Michigan’s clean

- up standards for lithium are: 170 ppb in drinking water, and 96 ppb for the groundwater

- surface water interface.
213 Michigan DNRE (2010).

214 Ibid.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

51 http://www.cleanwaterfund.org/files/publications/Toxic%20Trash%20Exposed%20

- %20Coal%20Ash%20Polluton%20in%20Mich igan%20

- %20November%202013.pdf

City Pulse (2010): Legacy of dumping: How the Lansing Board of Water and Light is making good on nearly 15 years of careless dumping of coal burning byproducts. City Pulse, September 8, 2010. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article

- 4752

- legacy

- of

- dumping.html

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Case Summaries

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

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #18. ICF, 10/2010.

Lansing Online News (2010): Coal Ash Removal: BWL attacks a legacy of pollution . May 3, 2010. Accessed Online August 2014. http://lansingonlinenews.com/news/coal

- ash

- removal

- bwl

- attacks

- a

- legacy

- of

- pollution/

Michigan DNRE (2010): Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment ( DNRE) comment
to the proposed CCR Rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6815, Attachment 5: Table of Michigan’s Proven Damage Cases. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.regula tions.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6815

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #18, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015



### PR10. Colstrip Power Plant PPL 215 

### Montana (Avista, PPL Montana LLC, Portland General Electric Company, PacifiCorp, NorthWestern Energy LLC, and Puget Sound Energy), Colstrip, Rosebud County, Montana

Type: Multiple S urface I mpoundments

. 

### Background and Description: The ‘mine mouth’ Colstrip Steam Electric Station (CSES) in Colstrip, Montana, is sit ed between two active mining areas of the Rosebud coal strip mine. 216 Sub

- bituminous coal is delivered to the power plant by a combination of hauling and conveyor systems. The second largest power plant west of the Mississippi, CSES has a net generating capacity of 2,094 MW. Generating Units 1 and 2 (each with 307 MW net capacity) were commissioned in 197 5 , and generating Units 3 and 4 (each

215 The original owner of the Colstrip Plant was Montana Power Company. Since 1999, ownership switched to a consortium comprising PPL Montana LLC, which operates the plant, as well as Puget Sound Energy Inc., Portland General Electric Company, Avista Corporat ion, PacifiCorp, and NorthWestern Energy LLC.
216 See Rosebud Mine (2007). According to Barkey and Polzin (2010), approximately 89 percent of the output of the Western Energy Company’s coal mine goes to Colstrip; the plant consumes approximately 10.1 million tons of coal
per year.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

52 with 740 MW net capacity)

- in the mid

- 1980s

. 217 The n orthwestern portion of the CSES (Stage I and II Evaporation Ponds, SOEP and STEP) is located in the watershed of the East Fork Armells Creek, while the southeastern portion of the CSES (Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding Pond, EHP) is located in the watershed of the Rosebud Creek. 218 Both creeks are tributaries of the Yellowstone River, which drains the northwestern portion of the Powder River Basin.

The Colstrip region’s bedrock is part of the Paleocene Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation. The Tongue River Member is composed of claystone, shale, siltstone, and sandstone with deposits of lignite, coal, and clinker

. 219 This unit generally dip less than a few degrees to the south

southeast. At least one fault with slight displacement, exceeding 6 miles in length, is present in the Colstrip area. 220 The bedrock is overlain by 1 to 35 feet thick clayey silt and gravel overburden (alluvium, colluvium, and mining spoil). 221 Aquifer test results for alluvium and for Fort Union Formation aquifers in southeastern Mont ana indicate that the alluvium, sandstone and coal are all potential aquifers. 222 Potentiometric maps of the key hydrostratigraphic units underlying and surrounding the Units 3 &4 EHP impoundments indicate that the drainage of the shallow Rosebud and alluvia l units, as well as that of the underlying Mckay and sub

- Mckay units 223 is to the north, east and south. 224

The CSES was designed as a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) facility, by managing large volumes of storm water and waste water in impoundments and allowing for its evaporation or reuse within the power

-

217 For additional information on the Plant’s history, power generation and ownership, as of May 2013, see Puget Sound Energy’s (PSE) Integrated Resources Plan (IRP), May 30, 2013, Appendix J, Colstrip : http://pse.com/aboutpse/EnergySupply/Documents/IRP_2013_AppJ.pdf

. 218 For a location aerial photo map of the expansive CSES waste ponds, generation area and adjacent open

- pit coal mines, see Fig. 1 in the App endices volume of Hydrometrics (2013a).
219 Clinker is a baked and highly fractured shale, a product of naturally

- burned coal. It is also known, when vitrified, as porcelanite. As the coal burned, its volume decreased resulting in collapse of the overburden into the void left by the burned coal, forming, in turn, a highly fractured interval of metamorphosed sedimentary rock. In the 3 & 4 EHP area, the hydraulic conductivity of clinker was calculated to be 2,500 feet per day. This high value reflects the clink er’s coarse grain size, interconnected pore space, and parallel orientation of rock fragments and gravels.

220 Roberts et al., 1999.

221 Spoil comprises silt, clay, sandstone, coal fragments, and formerly overburden units that have been used to backfill areas where the Rosebud Coal was mined. For a geologic cross

- section of the CSES’ Main Plant area, see Fig. 3

- 1 in Hydrometrics (2012a); for geo logic cross

- sections of the SOEP/STEP area, see Figs. 3

- 1, 3

- 2, and 3

- 3 in Hydrometrics (2013a); and for geologic cross

- sections of the 3 & 4 EHP area, see Figs. 3

- 1, 3

- 2, and 3

- 3 in Hydrometrics (2013b)

222 Wheaton and Metesh, 2002. According to Plant Site Groundwater Model Redesign and Calibration, Colstrip Steam Electric Station, AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Dec. 2012 ( in Hydrometrics, 2012a, Appendices), “hydraulic conductivity estimates for alluvial wells west of Pond A and east of Eas t Fork Armells Creek range from 12 to 316 feet/day. Hydraulic conductivity estimates for Sub

- Mckay wells west of Pond A and east of East Fork Armells Creek range from 0.1 to 76 feet/day. Hydraulic conductivity estimates for spoils wells just west of the Un its 3 and 4 Bottom Ash Ponds range from 10 to 622 feet/day.” According to Section 2.2.6 in Hydrometrics (2013a), an assessment of lithology beneath the STEP determined that soil types range from sand to claystone. The permeability of undisturbed clays rang ed from 5 x 10

- 7 cm/sec to 1 x 10

- 4 cm/sec (hydraulic conductivity of 0.0014 to 0.28 feet/day). Native materials that were remolded or amended with bentonite exhibited permeabilities as low as 4 x 10

- 8 cm/sec (hydraulic conductivity of 1.13 x 10

- 4 feet/day )
223 The McKay and sub

- McKay units comprise inter

- bedded claystone, siltstone, fine sandstones, and thin to thick coal seams. Channel sands are not uncommon.

224 Evaluation of 2010 Hydrologic Monitoring Data from Colstrip Units 1 through 4 Process Pond System CSES, Colstrip, Montana , Figs. 8

- 1, 8

- 2, and 8

- 3. Hydrometrics, Inc., Billings, Montana. The natural groundwater flow directions were affected by the large number of capture wells, which have formed extensive depression cones and shifted groundwater flow divides towards the capture

- system wells. For a calibrated hydrogeological model of the 3 & 4 EHP ponds area, see NewFields (2013).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

53 plant’s operations. 225 The original permit (1976) for the CSES stated "that the sludge pond or ponds shall be completely sealed", 226 but a 1983 district court decision reinterpreted the permit by stating that the ponds "may leak in small amounts." 227 Starting in the late 1980s, once it became evident that many of the ponds

- none of which was originally lined

- we re leaking, they have been either retrofitted 228 or closed, 229 and in 2004 the CSES switched to a low

- water, paste slurry system. 230

, 231

The CSES produces annually approximately 675,000 tons of mixed fly ash and FGD gypsum and approximately 280,000 tons of bot tom ash. 232 The CSES has currently 14 active ponds, 5 inactive ponds, and 2 ponds that are capped and/or reclaimed. 233 The 160

- acre Castle Rock Lake, also known as a surge pond, provides fresh water drawn from the Yellowstone River some 29 miles away, to the plant, coal mine, and the town of Colstrip. 234

The impoundments are clustered in three areas: (1) the generating Units 3 & 4 EHP system is located about three miles southeast of the plant, in the Rosebud Creek’s watershed, at the head of the Cow Creek drainage. Prior to the construction of the paste plant in 2004, it received fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, FGD residuals, and mill residuals as ‘low

- density’ slurry. Since 2004, the EHP has been receiving fly ash/FGD as ‘high

- density’ slurry, in paste f orm. Additionally, PPL has begun to use forced evaporators to speed the rate at which standing water in the 3 & 4 pond is eliminated, reducing water inventory at the 3 & 4 EHP by 500 million gallons.

(2) A second cluster of impoundments is located at the Main Plant area, on the southeast edge of the town of Colstrip. 235 It comprises two pairs of primary ponds: (a) Generation Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond and (b) Units 1 & 2 Fly ash A and B Ponds. The east cell of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond is designated for temporary storage of bottom ash and boiler slag at various stages of clarification; the water remaining after the ash settles out is transferred to a clay

- lined clearwell cell. The bottom ash and slag are ultimately placed in the EHP system ponds.

(3) A third cluster of impoundments is located approximately two miles northwest of the SCES and town, in the East Fork Armells Creek’s watershed. 236 It comprises the unlined and now inactive Stage I

225 Avista Corporation, comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6863

. 226 Colstrip MFSA 3 & 4 Certifica te of Compatibility (July 22, 1976)

. 227 1983 Olson Decision , June 29, 1983: http://deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/default.mcpx
228 I.e., generating Units 1 & 2 Fly Ash B Pond (established 1975; in 2004, upgraded by a 45

- mil RFP double liner and a leachate collection system). See photos in Colstrip (2011).
229 I.e., the unlined generating Units 1 & 2 Fly Ash A Pond (closed 2005; now used as a water storm runoff st orage pond); and the unlined Stage I Evaporation Pond (SOEP, closed 1997).
230 Parker and Criswell (2002). The scrubber slurry from the venturi scrubber has an initial percentage of solid of about 12% and the paste plant treats the scrubber slurry and produc es a paste that is about 65% solids. According to GEI (2009), occasional disposal of fly ash and Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) slurry may occur if the paste plant is out of service for maintenance.
231 According to Montana DEQ (2012), since 2000, CSES spent $23.8 million to reline ponds and $64.3 million to address and mitigate the site’s impacts. By token of the operator’s acknowledgement of the environmental issues and his pursuit of proactive measures to address leakage from the ponds, DEQ refrained from imposing, under the Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA), the maximum daily fine of $10,000.

232 Parker and Criswell (2002)
233 MDEQ (2010) and GEI (2009); for a comprehensive list of the CSES’ waste water process ponds, their functions and design, see Hydrometri cs (2012a), Table 2

- 1.
234 Designed originally to hold approximately 2,800 acre

- feet of water.
235 For location of ponds, a summary of their properties, and data on their water quality, see Fig. 1

- 1, Table 2

- 1, and Table 2

- 2, respectively, in Hydrometrics (20 12a).
236 For location of SOEP and STEP ponds, see Fig. 1

- 1 in Hydrometrics (2013a).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

54 Evaporation Pond (SOEP) 237 and the active Stage II Evaporation Pond (STEP ), 238 both the recipients of ash slurry from the wet scrubbers of generating Units 1 & 2. The slurry is piped five miles to the STEP where ash settles out, and the 'clean' water is recycled back to the plant for reuse in the scrubber. The STEP was established to both treat and store fly ash and FGD solids. The remaining fly ash/FGD slurry solidified as evaporation occurred. Since a recent completion of a paste plant at the STEP, all of the fly ash/FGD slurry has been disposed as paste in the STEP. 239



### Impact and Damage Claims: PPL indicates that “s everal years after the first slurry was placed into the stage one pond for Units 1 & 2 some of the monitoring wells began to show increases in groundwater constituents, such as dissolved salts, which could i ndicate that some of the ash constituents were migrating through the clay lining... In the late 1990s, pond seepage was identified off plant property for the first time in a shallow groundwater well at the Colstrip Moose Lodge. The MDEQ was notified, a meeti ng was held with residents and businesses near the Moose Lodge to discuss the issue, and the plant provided a replacement well at a much great depth .” 240

Stakeholders allege, and MDEQ concedes

, that both watersheds on which the CSES impoundments are located have been impacted. 241 EIP (2010) claims that contaminated groundwater affected shallow groundwater in a residential area offsite where wells were used for drinking water. Particularly, four areas adjacent to the Stage I and Stage II evaporation ponds had e xtremely high average concentrations of TDS (14,600 mg/L to 22,700 mg/L), sulfate (10,100 mg/L to 21,700 mg/L), and boron (68.5 mg/L to 122 mg/L). Selenium concentrations were 2 to 3 times the primary MCL (0.103 mg/L to 0.174 mg/L), and the levels of molybdenum (0.121mg/L) exceeded the World Health Organization MCL for drinking water (0.07 mg/L). Groundwater monitoring data from 2008 revealed individual instances of actionable

237 Operated between 1975 and 1997, the SOEP was designed to store 10 years of fly ash. Construction included a partial liner consisting of natural clay. With partial clay

- lin ing, seepage was estimated between 85 and 115 gallons per minute (gpm), assuming a full pond, saturated conditions, limited fractures in bedrock, and steady state conditions (Hydrometrics, 2013a, Section 2.1.1). However, in Section 2.2, Hydrometrics (2013a ) cites even a higher seepage rate estimate

– 130 gpm

- based on some simplified assumptions by Bechtel (1976). The SOEP is now closed and capped: the SOEP evapotranspiration cap layers vary in thickness throughout the site, consisting on average of 20 cm of topsoil, 50 cm of subsoil, and 26 cm of porcelanite (clinker); groundwater is present at a depth of about 25 to 30 feet below ground surface.
238 STEP, constructed directly down the drainage from the SOEP, opened in 1992. It has a total surface area of 1 76

- acre and a total storage capacity of 4,370 acre

- feet. STEP is divided into five cells. With the exception of Cell “B”, which (since 2006) has a double, 45 mil reinforced polyethylene (RFP) liner with leak detection and leachate collection systems, all t he other cells have a single high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner, with a permeability of 1 x 10

- 9 cm/sec. The cumulative estimate of seepage from all STEP cells is approximately 21.5 gpm. Cell A, located at the toe of the Units 1 & 2 Stage I Main Dam, is essentially full and no longer receives fly ash scrubber slurry. Cell E is currently the active cell. Fly ash slurry from Units 1 & 2 is routed to a paste plant that was constructed directly south of Cell A in 2008 and began operations in 2009. Paste fr om the plant is then piped to Cell E. Cell B was constructed in 2006 to provide additional space to store process water. In 2001, Cell B was equipped with pumps and converted to the New Clearwell. The Old Clearwell, located adjacent to the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam is now used for water storage and will be filled with paste. Cell D was constructed in 2011. Cell C is a future cell, planned for construction north of Cell E.
239 Based on a statement in GEI (2009) that the STEP paste plant was scheduled for compl etion in 2009.
240 PSE IRP, Appendix J (ibid).

241 Armells Creek and the Rosebud drainage: Northern Plains Resource Council, undated (2010?) letter to Tom Ring, MDEQ, Comment on the Administrative Order on Consent . However, in Montana DEQ (2012), the Agency claims that a 2010 Battelle Hydrologic/Water Quality Study concludes that in the Cow Creek and the South Fork Cow Creek of the Rosebud watershed, there are no definitive impact s on groundwater quality from the operation of the effluent

- holding ponds.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

55 selenium and arsenic levels (up to 0.164 mg/L and 0.013 mg/L, res pectively) in town site drinking water wells. 242

At the Plant Site ponds area, baseline levels of several key monitored constituents have all been exceeded; 243 and in areas on the fringe of town (i.e., west of the East Fork Armells Creek) levels of several c onstituents as measured in 2011 and 2012 samplings exceed baseline data (e.g., specific conductivity: up to 15, 520 μmohs/cm in well OT

- 7; chloride, up to 351 mg/L in well OT

- 7; and sulfate, 5,280 mg/L in well CA

- 19A). For a recent summary of the site’s gr oundwater quality and seepage volumes, see Figs. 3

- 2 through 3

- 7 in Hydrometrics (2012a).

EIP (2010) notes one well at the Moose Lodge which was contaminated with boron above the EPA Child Health Advisory. The Moose Lodge well also had sulfate above EPA ’s Drinking Water Advisory and EPA SMCL, as well as TDS above the EPA SMCL. 244 EIP (2010) notes that following these findings, and after members of Moose Lodge had been made ill by drinking the contaminated water

, the Moose Lodge well was replaced in 1998

. Uncontrolled seepage that has been active for a long period was observed during the assessments on the Units 1 & 2 downstream slope of the Bottom Ash Pond. 245 Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam had seepage problems at various locations where springs formed in the f oundation rock several hundred feet downstream of the EHP dam in 1999, 2004 and 2005. 246 Surface seepage was first observed downstream of the Saddle Dam following a rise in the impoundment level in the cell adjacent to the Saddle Dam in December 1999. This seepage was addressed by an interception trench which routed seepage to a sump, from where the seepage is pumped back to the EHP.

The surface seepage was caused by water from the EHP moving through defects in the slurry cutoff wall and/or clay core of the dam and following the base of the Rosebud Clinker out to the outcrop. According to a 1999 settlement and stability analysis, the surface cracks observed in the Saddle Dam were caused by hydro

- consolidation of foundation materials on the upstream side of the cutoff wall due to wetting of the clinker and local deposits of colluvial soil, resulting in differential settlement of about 1

- 2 feet. As a precaution, the water level behind the dam has been restricted to a maximum elevation of 3,237 feet

242 USKH (2010)

. 243 At the Plant site pons area, baseline spring 2012 monitoring well data indicate that specific conductance in the alluvium and spoil (5,300 μmohs/cm and 5,090 μmoh s/cm, respectively), shows levels higher by up to x 4.2 and x 5.4, respectively; boron (baseline in alluvium, spoil, and bedrock of 1.3 mg/L, 1.3 mg/L, and 1.3 mg/L, respectively), shows levels as high as x 20, x 25, and x 27, respectively; chloride (basel ine levels in alluvium and spoil

- 213 mg/l and 73 mg/L, respectively), shows levels as high as x 2.4 and x 23.7, respectively; and sulfate (baseline levels in alluvium, spoil, and bedrock

- 3,400 mg/L, 5,000 mg/L, and 2,310 mg/L, respectively), shows leve ls as high as x 3.9, x 4.3, and x 3.4, respectively. Most of the exceedance areas are associated with three Units 1 & 2 pond complexes (namely, A and B Fly Ash ponds, Brine Waste Disposal Ponds D

- 1 through D

- 4, and Cooling Tower Blowdown Pond), that are ei ther still underlain by a natural clay substrate or have had such a substrate during most of their service life. Brine Pond D

- 4 was removed from service in 2005 due to a leaking liner. See Figs. 3

- 2, 3

- 5, and 3

- 6 in Hydrometrics (2012b), and Figs. B

- 5 thro ugh B

- 8 in Hydrometrics (2012b), Appendices.

244 This contaminant plume, attributed to the presently

- closed Stage I Evaporation Pond to the northwest of the Town, is alleged to have affected multiple private water wells , i ncluding the well for a local Moose Lodge, 1,000 feet away. This well had concentrations of boron at 20 mg/L, over x6 the EPA Child HA, sulfate at 6,000 mg/L, and TDS at 9,500 mg/L.
245 The seepage appears to originate from an out

- of

- service box culvert that penetrates the east embankment ne ar the
crest.
246 After the 1999 incident, the water level behind the Saddle Dam was lowered, and the seepage ceased.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

56 ( AMSL ) since December 1999. A plan was implemented to deposit paste within the EHP to control seepage through the saddle dam and reduce the head of ‘clear’ water standing within the EHP. 247

The EHP has caused contamination far greater than expected in every direction. In 2004, a leak of polluted water was discovered on private property about one mile to the south. 248 The CSES purchased the impacted property from the railroad, and terminated the long

- standing grazing leases held by neighboring ranching families. 249 Surface and groundwater contamination from the EHP also extended far to the west of that pond. The ranchers who own these lands filed a lawsuit in 200 7

. 250 A recent consultants’ report states that PPL's monitoring data is insufficient or nonexistent for n itrate/nitrite, molybdenum, cobalt, arsenic, and cadmium. 251

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 252 concedes that groundwater monitoring and spills indicate that the surface impoundments are out

- of

- compliance; and that groundwater is being adversely affected by the release of process water with, among others, elevated TDS and specific electrical conduct ivity , boron, selenium, and sulfate. 253 Specifically, MDEQ reports that the high density

247 The total pond seepage from all 14 active ponds is estimated at 60 gpm (Section 2.3, Hydrometrics, 2012a). A list of 1977

- 2005 incident s at the Plant Site area ponds that resulted in confirmed releases, that were suspected in causing releases, or that potentially resulted in a release but information gathered after the observation did not confirm a release is provided in Section 3.1, Hydr ometrics 2012a. A similar list for the STEP ponds (1989

- 2012 incidents) cites 12 releases (Table 3

- 1, Hydrometrics, 2013a), and the list for the 3 & 4 EHP pond (1987 to Sept. 2013), cites about 150 releases (Table 3

- 1, Hydrometrics 2013b).
248 Earthjustice comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6315.
249 Clint McRae (2010) testified about lethal toxicity level threat to his cow/calf operation caused by seeps with 8,100 ppm sulfate from the EHP. In an April 14, 2012 lette r to Kendra Morrison, EPA Region 8, Mr. McRae reported Ponderosa Pine deaths in the vicinity of approximately 26 atomizers installed on the north side of and down

- gradient from the 3 & 4 EHP. These atomizers spray fine droplets of seepage water into the air to enhance their evaporation. According to Montana DEQ (2012), PPLM’s sampling of these evaporators for particulates (PM 10 ) indicated that in about 12.5% of the samples the total particulate concentration was 1.3% of the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), and the remaining samples had non

- detectable concentrations; nor have heavy metals (including mercury) been detected.
250 The plaintiffs’ claims included damages for shallow groundwater contamination associated with livestock watering well PSW

- 4, the n, by PSW

- 4A, its replacement, that overflew to a livestock pond (up to 4,000 mg/L sulfate, exceeding the recommended threshold for cattle of 2,000 mg/L; 6,000 μmhos/cm electrical conductivity, and 2.7 mg/L boron), groundwater depletion due to capture well and trench systems employed by the power companies to attempt to collect the leakage from the 3 & 4 EHP, remediation, emotional distress, and punitive damages.
251 Spot US (2011).
252 MDEQ’s rebuttal to the 2007 CCW NODA, In Alleged DC NODA Comments Overview RV1 10_7_08 , a draft EPA document based on state and industry rebuttals to Earthjustice’s alleged damage cases. However, in its comment to the 2011 NODA docket (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0242), MDEQ retracts some of the Department’s earlier assertions: MDEQ st ates that while one private well was found to contain elevated constituents (boron, sulfate, and TDS) related to plant operations, none of the constituents exceeded a state or federal health

- based drinking water standard. Claims of negative impacts to mult iple private wells are unsubstantiated, as are claims that residents became ill after drinking water from the one specific private well. The Owner/Operator of this private well had stated that the well at issue was not used for drinking water in the time t hat it contained elevated ‘CCR constituents’. PPL claims ( PPL comment, in USWAG’s comment to the 2007 NODA, July 30, 2008: EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0468, Attachment 2, and PPL comment to the 2011 NODA docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0242) that while monitoring w ells around the CCR impoundments have shown increased levels of sulfate and boron, no residential drinking water wells have been impacted. None of the impacts show exceedances of primary drinking water standards. Drinking water wells are located in deeper aquifers in which monitoring data does not indicate impacts from CCRs. One shallow well located just down

- gradient of the Stage II pond at the Moose Lodge that was not used for drinking was impacted by CCR. Colstrip replaced this well with a deeper well th at is not impacted.
253 Sample 06F

- 230, from a monitoring well located close to CSES’ Units 1 & 2, has yielded 10.8 ppm boron (EPA's proposed health reference level is 1.4 mg/L), 3,730 ppm sulfate, and 6,140 ppm TDS. In some of the ponds,I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

57 polyethylene (HDPE) lined (and underlain by nati ve clay) Colstrip’s Stage II pond, which contains scrubber sludge, is leaking water at the rate of 15 gallons per minute (gpm); and that the similarly unlined Castle Rock cooling lake (likewise underlain by native clay), which provides storage for a 50

- day supply of water to run the plant is leaking another 100

- 112 gpm. 254 Because the clean water from the Yellowstone River in Castle Rock Lake is being contaminated by leakage from the Stage I waste pond, 255 Montana’s Fish, Wildlife & Parks has issued an advisor y that recommends limiting the consumption of certain fish from the Lake because of mercury contamination. 256 In addition to contaminating groundwater, the high losses from the Castle Rock Lake have elevated the groundwater level down

gradient, resulting in differential subsidence and structural damages in two subdivisions in town.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 257

repeated evaporative losses of the recycled water generate boron concentrations as high as 130

- 140 mg/L, sulfate

- 18,500 mg/L (HRL is 250 mg/L), TDS of 27,100 mg/L , and selenium

- 0.057 mg/L (MCL is 0.05 mg/L)

. For maps displaying the distribution of groundwater f ield

- conductivity, as well as concentrations of boron, sulfate, and chloride in several hydrogeologic units at CSES’ Plant Site area, see Hydrometrics (2012a) Appendices, Figs. B1through B12; for the same parameters in the SOEP and STEP area, see Hydrometr ics (2013a) Appendices, Figs. 7a to 10b; and for the distribution of groundwater’s specific conductivity, dissolved boron, and chloride in the 3 & 4 EHP area, see Fig. 3

- 5 through Fig. 3

- 13 in Hydrometrics (2013b). Note that all Appendices are accessible a t http://deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/default.mcpx
254 PPL claims that the leakage rates for the synthetically lined Stage II pond and the Castle Rock Lake that is ‘lined with native clay’ are at the design specifications. However, there is a record of multiple liner failures due to installation that failed to account for the site’s extreme winter temperatures.

255 Alleged DC NODA Comments Overview RV1 10_7_08 , a draft EPA document based on state and industry rebuttals to Earthjustice’s alleged damage cases.

256 Spot US (2011). In turn PPL, while conceding that while monitoring wells and one, non

- drinking water well were impacted by pond seepage, disputes that any re sidential drinking water wells and the Castle Rock Lake have been impacted by seepage.
257 ICF (2010). Criteria Evaluation Criterion 1: D ocumented 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  Offsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Child Health Advisory for boron.

 Waters in the CCR disposal areas exceeded the primary EPA MCL for selenium, but the EIP (2010) Report does not confirm that these “waters” are in fact groundwater.

Criterion 2: W

here a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  None

Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  Montana DEQ issued an Administrative Order on Consent that requires investigation and remediation of seepage of wastewater into groundwater and soil in a number of areas.

 A lawsuit filed by Colstrip reside nts claiming damages for groundwater contamination, subsurface subsidence, and remediation damages was settled in 2008 for $25 million.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

58 

### Resolution : MDEQ stated that the CSES falls short of its commitment as a Zero Liquid Discharge facility. 258 MDEQ issued two NOVs to the plant in 1998 in response to the confirmed elevated levels of operation related constituents in a private well. Both of the NOVs related to MDEQ’s concerns regarding seepage from the plant’s impoundments, and one specifically r equired evaluating the cause of declining water quality in the one private well. MDEQ required that the CSES implement a more robust system of identifying and remediating seepage in the area of the plant’s impoundments. In response, the CSES designed and i mplemented seepage collection trenches, a monitoring and remediation system of over 800 monitoring wells, 259 including (as of 2008) 154 ‘pump

- back’ wells that capture and re

- inject groundwater; 260 installation of a deeper replacement

- well for the one private well at issue to be used as a

non

- drinking water well; the supply of c ity water to residences and businesses east of the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam to limit the potential exposure, 261 lining, as w ell as composite

- lining the more recently installed ponds with rubber

- like (Hypalon) liners and with a leachate collection system, 262 reduction of the hydraulic head above liners by induced evaporation, utilization of paste and diverted precipitation runoff, and installation of an engineered cap during reclamation of the SOEP.

Elevated specific conductivity as well as concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfate, boron, and selenium are present in process water liquids/solids within the EHP pon d. These parameters or ratios of parameters are used as indicators for process water impacts outside of the ponds. 263 For data on the composition of the Bottom Ash and EHP pond waste water, see Montana DEQ (2004). 264

258 Montana DEQ (2008). Seepage down

- gradient of the EHP’s Saddle Dam alone is monitored by a system of more than 65 monitoring and recovery wells and trench es (An April 18, 2012 e mail from Judy Hanson, Administrator of the Permitting and Compliance Division, MDEQ, to Clint McRae, forwarded to Kendra Morrison, EPA Region 8)

. Following a slurry pipe leak, in March 2000 DEQ imposed a $3,700 fine for violation of the CWA.
259 And committed to provide semi

- annual water quality data reports, which are available as public information.
260 USKH (2010): The total estimated amount of water pumped from these wells increased from about 284 million gallons in 2005 to over 495 million gallons in 2008. In 2010, the number of the capture wells increased to around 200 (Montana DEQ, 2012). A group of livestock and grain producers has recently approached Montana DNRC complaining that these large withdrawals (in 2012: over 566 million gallons) violate Montana’s Water Use Act: Testimony of Mike Scott, Sierra Club re: PSE IRP and Colstrip, http://www.wutc.wa.gov/rms2.nsf/0/1B04F55B5422BA8C88257C00007BE42F/$file/UE

120767%2BScott%2BComment.pdf

. According to Plant Site Groundwater Model Re design and Calibration, Colstrip Steam Electric Station, AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Dec. 2012 ( in Hydrometrics, 2012a, Appendices), while capture analysis indicates that the current capture system is intercepting the majority of groundwater impac ted by process pond water, several areas of groundwater exceeding baseline levels are potentially not being captured.
261 Section 3.5.3, Hydrometrics (2013a).
262 Table 3

- 1 in Hydrometrics (2012a) lists over 100 investigative works conducted to assess instance s of permit violation, pond water releases, and groundwater quality analyses that took place at the CSES’ Main Plant site ponds between 1977 and 2012. Similarly, Table 3

- 2 in Hydrometrics (2013a) lists over 110 investigative works conducted to assess insta nces of permit violation, pond water releases, and groundwater quality analyses that took place at the CSES’ SOEP and STEP pond areas, and Table 3

- 2 in Hydrometrics (2013b), lists investigative works conducted in the 3 &4 EHP area.
263 Hydrometrics (2013b), Executive Summary.
264 Very high average values are reported (page 24) for specific conductivity (average in EHP Clearwell: 16.4 mmhos/cm), as well as (all values in mg/L) TDS (24,923), sulfate (17,573), boron (98.7), manganese (14.88) , nickel (0.11), selenium (0.239), and vanadium (0.19). Arsenic is not reported. The specific conductivity values exceed the tolerance of common herbaceous crops, which range between 1.5

- 7.5 mmhos/cm.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

59 After having discussed an AOC with the CSE S since 2005, 265 in February 2010 MDEQ proposed an AOC 266 and issued it on August 3, 2012. 267 T he AOC 268 requires investigation and remediation (subject to specific clean

- up criteria and risk assessment findings) of seepage of wastewater into groundwater and soil at the main plant site, the Stage I and II ponds, the Units 3 & 4 EHP and any leaks or spills in the attendant pipelines between these units; financial assurance; 269 a closure plan; institutional controls (restrictions on the use of real property that mitig ates the risk posed to public health, safety, and welfare and the environment); and public participation throughout. 270 Initial Proposed Facility Closure Plans shall be prepared and submitted by July 2017, and updated at least every five years, sooner if major changes or modifications are made to the facility. However, compliance boundaries and timeframes for compliance wi th remediation objectives were not established. 271 Charging that the State’s generous compliance schedules, paired with multiple avenues of appeal, allow the facility owners to postpone cleaning up indefinitely without financial penalties, a coalition of cit izen groups filed a petition asking Montana’s Environmental Review Board to declare that the AOC is not a valid enforcement of the Montana Water Quality Act and MFSA, and vacate and remand the AOC to DEQ for preparation of a lawful enforcement action. 272

A lawsuit filed by Colstrip residents in 2003 claimed damages for groundwater contamination, subsurface subsidence, and remediation damages

. 273 As the court stroke down some of the defendants' key motions

265 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6315

. 266 MDEQ (2010); and a lin k, in Spot US (2011).
267 MEIC et al., (2012). The key documents associated with the AOC are Hydrometrics (2012a), Hydrometrics (2013a), and Hydrometrics (2013b), all accessible at Montana Department of Environmental Quality website: Colstrip Steam Electri c Station Colstrip Units (1

- 4)

, http://deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/default.mcpx

. Additional information

- on future monitoring and remediation

- is under Interi m Response Plans

, http://deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/interimresponseplan.mcpx
268 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6315

. 269 According to http://deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/colstripfaq.mcpx#contamination

, DEQ does not have bonding authority under the Major Facility Siting Act. PPL Montana, however, voluntarily agreed to post bonds at certain phases of the AOC process. PPL Montana’s submission of the bonds was made a requirement of the AOC. PPL Montana has submitted an irrevocable letter of credit for $7.5 million to ensure the continuing operation of current actions that are taking place to address the groundwater contamination. PPL Montana will also be required to submit additional bonds when remedial actions are identified and when final closure plans are approved under the AO C.
270 Specifically, the AOC requires PPL Montana to prepare Site Reports for the Plant Site, Stage I Evaporation Pond (SOEP) and Stage II Evaporation Pond (STEP), and Units 3&4 EHP areas. Minimum requirements of the AOC Site Reports are: Identification of r eleases, if any, for each area and the source of the releases; a description of the investigations performed to date, including a list of reports resulting from the investigations and summary of the findings and results from the investigations; groundwater models and results of modeling; a description of completed and ongoing remedial actions (including the sampling parameters and frequency of any ongoing monitoring), and an effectiveness assessment of the remedial actions. For each area that contains a pon d, a description of the construction of the ponds and of pond contents through time; for each pond, an estimate of seepage to groundwater beneath the pond; identification of data gaps, if any; and recommendations for additional site characterization, if an y. Links to the three reports and their appendices are provided under this module’s references , as Hydrometrics (2012a), Hydrometrics (2013a), and Hydrometrics (2013b).
271 In Montana DEQ (2012), DEQ states that the proposed AOC is not an administrative orde r being issued as the result of an enforcement action initiated under the Montana Water Quality Act, because the provisions of the Montana WQA do not expressly apply to drainage or seepage from the ponds at Colstrip [exclusions are set forth in Section 75

- 5

- 401 (5), MCA. Subsection (k) of that provision excludes projects reviewed under the provisions of the Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA)].

272 Petition filed on September 4, 2012. For details, see Inside EPA (2012) and MEIC et al., (2012).
273 PPL claims that “ due to naturally occurring ash deposits (apparently, in reference to the Rosebud Clinker), some of the soil in the area is susceptible to collapse when initially saturated with groundwater, such as when Castle LakeI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

60 seeking summary judgment and other relief on various i ssues , in May 2008 PPL reached a $25 million settlement with the plaintiffs. 274 Several businesses have closed, 275 and the plaintiffs have been connected to the municipal water system at a cost to PPL of $900,000. 276

To ensure sufficient capacity of the EHP to handle the amount of ash expected over the life of the project, the dams will be raised and liners installed over ash deposits which, it is hoped, should help to control future seepage. MDEQ claims that the additional capacity afforded by the current dam raise is consistent with Paragraph 92 of the Certificate and the design plans developed in 1982 under the Certificate of Compliance and does not require a new authorization. 277 The current dam raise modifies the 1982 design by adding a synthetic liner over ash deposits in those cells which do not already have synthetic liners and uses material from inside the pond to raise the dams. 278



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven damage . <The Montana DEQ proposed an Administrative Order on Consent which requires the investi gation and remediation of releases from the Colstrip Power Plant. Additionally, a lawsuit filed by Colstrip residents was settled for previous damages to groundwater and the environment. Offsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Child Health Advisory for b oron, but not primary EPA MCLs. Waters in the CCR disposal areas exceeded the primary EPA MCL for selenium, but there is no information presented that these “waters” are in fact groundwater.>



### Postscript: USWAG claims 279 that this case does not meet the criteria for a damage case because the allegations do not contain any documented evidence of off

‐ site groundwater monitoring data or off

‐ site groundwater monitoring data showing exceedances of an MCL, other health

‐ based standard or state groundwater standa rd. However, this case qualifies as a proven damage case based on the following: Scientific/ Human Health: Selenium concentrations were several times the primary MCL and arsenic levels exceeded MCL in several town site drinking water wells. Administrative : Two NOV and an AOC, and requirement for extensive corrective action to address massive leakage of contaminants from several impoundments. PPL purchased grazing ground from ranchers due to soil contamination, and provided water hookup/replacement wells to replace impacted residential drinking water wells.



### References: Clint McRae (undated): Coal Ash Contaminates Big Sky Country, Clint McRae, Physicians for Social Responsibility Environmental Health Policy Institute website. Accessed Online March 2012. http://www.psr.org/environment

- and

- health/environmental

- health

- policy

- institute/responses/coal

- ash

contaminat es

- big

- sky

- country.html

was filled to serve as the facility’s w ater reservoir and town’s drinking water supply. These 2003 claims were repeat claims of earlier lawsuits in the 1990s that also addressed construction methods (although the collapse potential was known, it was alleged that houses were not constructed with appropriate foundations, etc.).”

274 “A PPL Montana spokesman... said his company has acknowledged contamination in portions of Colstrip's aquifers close to the surface but not in the vicinity of deeper residential wells“ ( $25 million settlement reached in Colstrip lawsuit

, http://helenair.com/news/state

- and

- regional/million

- settlement

- reached

- in

- colstri p

lawsuit/article_d4c969b7

- a6a5

- 5eab

- 9be8

- 8e2d8c7fa09d.html

. 275 Avista (2008); US Water Use online (2008); Clint McRae (undated)

. 276 Trial Court Results/

Ankney v. PPL Montana : http://www.becklawyers.com/CM/Custom/Verdicts

Settlements.asp

. 277 And, for that

- matter, nor is pubic meeting required. An April 18, 2012 email from Judy Hanson, Administrator of the Permitting and Compliance Division, MDEQ, to Clint McRae, forwarded to Kendra Morrison, EPA Region 8.
278 For a review of the effectiveness of remediation measures in the STEP and SOEP areas, data gaps, and further site characterization needs, see Sections 3.6, 5.0 and 6.0, respectively, in Hydrometrics (2013a).
279 Comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

61 Montana DEQ website (undated): Colstrip Steam Electric Station, with link to background documents. Accessed Online November 201 4

. http://deq.mt.gov/mfs /ColstripSteamElectricStation/default.mcpx

Hydrometrics (2013a): PPL Montana, LLC, Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Administrative Order on Consent Units 1 & 2 Stage I and II Evaporation Ponds Site Report, Hydrometrics, Inc., 5602 Hesper Road, Billings, M ontana 59106, May 2013. Accessed online May 2014. http://deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/default.mcpx

Hydrometrics (2013b): PPL Montana, LLC, Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Administrative Order on Consent Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding Pond (EHP) Site Report, Hydrometrics, Inc., 5602 Hesper Road, Billings, Montana 59106, May 2013. Accessed online May 2014. http://deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/default.mcpx

NewFields (2013): Numerical Groundwater Model Development and Calibration, Units 3 and 4 EHP Area, Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Co lstrip, Montana. NewFields Companies, LLC, 1120 Cedar Street Missoula, Montana, October 2013. Accessed Online May 2014. http://deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/defa ult.mcpx

Hydrometrics (2012a): PPL Montana, LLC, Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Administrative Order on Consent Plant Site Report, Hydrometrics, Inc., 5602 Hesper Road, Billings, Montana 59106, December 2012. Accessed online May 2014. http://deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/default.mcpx

Hydrometrics ( 2012b): Evaluation of 2011 Hydrologic Monitoring Data from Colstrip Units 1 through 4 Process Pond System, Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Colstrip, Montana. Prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, by Hydrometrics, Inc., June 2012.

Inside EPA (2012): Activists Say Montana Coal Ash Suit Highlights Need for EPA Oversight. September 7, 2012. Accessed Online September 2012. http://insideepa.com/201209072409498/EPA

- Daily

- News/Daily

- News/activists

- say

- montana

- coal

- ash

suit

- highlights

- need

- for

- epa

- oversight/menu

- id

- 95.html?s=dn

MEIC et al., (2012): Affidavit of Montana Environmental Information Center, Si erra Club, and National Wildlife Federation before the Board of Environmental Review of the State of Montana, in the Matter of Administrative Order on Consent Regarding Impacts Related to Wastewater Facilities Comprising the Closed

- Loop System at Colstrip Stem (Stet) Electric Station, Colstrip, Montana, submitted by Jenny K. Harbine, Earthjustice, Bozeman, Montana, September 4, 2012. Accessed Online September 2012. http://insi deepa.com/iwpfile.html?file=sep2012%2Fepa2012_1691.pdf

Montana DEQ (2012): DEQ’s Responses to Comments Received for the Proposed AOC for Colstrip Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 (April 19, 2012, a letter from MDEQ to Kendra Morrison, EPA Region 8).

Battelle (2011): 2010 Hydrological Water Quality Study of Cow and Pony Creek Drainages, Rosebud County, Montana. CJ Thompson, KB Olsen, PD Thorne, PJ Chamberlain, SR Jennings, and PS Blicker, Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, PNWD

- 4261. Prepared for PPL Montana LLC, Billings, Montana, May 2011. Executive

- Summary on pages 13

- 15, in the Montana Board of Environmental Review’s July 22, 2011 Teleconference package. A ccessed Online March 2012. http://deq. mt .gov/ber/2011Agendas/072211Packet.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

62 Colstrip (2011): Colstrip Public Meeting, 11/7/2011. Accessed Online March 2012. http://www.pplmontana.com/NR/rdonlyres/4285C85E

- 8ABC

- 4211

- 8322

- BE2C2CF0D524/0/Environmental_ColstripPublicMeeting_Nov2011.pdf

Northern Plains (2011): Northern plains members and rancher testifies about effects of leaking coal ash ponds. Northern Plains Resource Council, December 6, 2011 . A ccessed Online July 2012. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www. northernplains.org/northern

- plains

- member

- and

- rancher

- testifies

- about

effects

- of

- leaking

- coal

- ash

- ponds/

Spot US (2011): The Power of Coal: Why People in Colstrip, MT Can’t Drink the Water. Accessed Online July 2012. http://spot.us/pitches/697

- the

- power

- of

- coal

- why

- people

- in

- colstrip

- mt

- can

- t

- drink

the

- water/story , Dec. 1, 2011.

Barkey and Polzin (2010): The Economic Contribution of Colstrip Steam Electric Station Units 1

- 4, Final Report Prepared for: The Colstrip Steam Electric Station Owners, Patrick M. Barkey and Paul E. Polzin, November 2010. Accessed Online March 2012. http://www.colstripeconomicreport.com/NR/rdonlyres/C8C0D431

- 61E2

- 4E30

- 89B6

- 2E04ADF13C47/0/TheEconomicContributionofColstripSteamElectricStationUnits14.pdf

Clint McRae (2010): USEPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Transcript of Public hearing on EPA's proposed rule on hazardous and solid waste management system; identification and listing of specia l wastes; disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities. Denver, Colorado. September 2, 2010, pages 177

- 180. Accessed Online March 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/transcripts/transcript

- denver

- co.pdf

Earthjustice (2010): Coal Ash Disposal and Reuse in Montana. Accessed Online July 2012. http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/mt

- coal

- ash

- factsheet.pdf

EIP (2010): Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #10. The Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice. February 24, 2010. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/ news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix B, Case #10. ICF, 10/2010.

MDEQ (2010): Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Final Administrative Order on Consent (August 2012). Accessed Online September 2012. http://www.deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteamElectricStation/default.mcpx

. USKH (2 010): Research Observations and Comments for Administrative Order on Consent Regarding Impacts Related to Wastewater Facilities Comprising the Closed

- Loop System at Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Colstrip, Montana. USKH, April 8, 2010. Accessed Online Ma rch 2012. http://meic.org/energy/power_plants/colstrip/Final%20USKH%20Report%20

- %20AOC%20for%20Colstrip.pdf

GEI (2009): Coal Ash Impoundment

- Specific Site Assessment Report, PPL Montana: Colstrip Power Plant. GEI Consultants, September 2009. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/ nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/ppl

- colstrip

- final.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

63 Avista (2008): Avista Corporation request for deferral of Colstrip Lawsuit Settlement Payment, 5/21/2008. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/elec/AVU/AVUE0803/20080522APPLICATION.PDF

Montana DEQ (2008): Report to the Montana Environmental Quality Council, Env ironmental Enforcement and Compliance, FY 2006

- FY 2007, April 30, 2008. Accessed Online July 2012. http:// deq

. mt .gov/enf/Reports/EQC/EQC_FY06_07.pdf

US Water Use online (2008): $25 Million settlement reached in Colstrip lawsuit. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcrights/8millsett5.html

Rosebud Mine (2007): Rosebud Mine, Western Energy Company, a Westmorland Mining LLC Company, Tour fact Sheet

– 2007. Accessed Online March 2012. http://leg.mt.gov/con tent/committees/interim/2007_2008/energy_telecom/meeting_documents/ETICWest ernEnergypresent.pdf

Montana DEQ (2004): A Request to Use PPL Montana Units 1&2 and 3&4 Bottom Ash for On and Off

Site Construction Projects. Draft Environmental A, Montana DEQ, En vironmental Management Bureau, July 22, 2004. Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1055329/Colstrip

- Bottom

- Ash

- Amendment

--- Major

- Facility

- Siting

Parker and Criswell (2002): Colstrip Steam Electric Station Coal Combustion By

- Product Disposal. James M Parker and Gordon D Criswell, pages 115

- 122 in Proceedings of Coal Combustion By

- Products and Western Coal Mines: A Technical Interactive Forum

, Golden, Colorado, April 16

- 18, 2002. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/MCR/Resources/ccb/PDF/CCB_and_Western_Coal_Mines.pdf

Wheaton and Metesh (2002): Potential Ground

- Water Drawdown and Recovery from Coalbed Methane Development in the Powder River Basin, Montana, Project Completion Report to th e U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Open

- File Report MBMG 458. John Wheaton and John Metesh, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Montana Tech of the University of Montana, May, 2002. Accessed Online March 2012. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/mt/field_offices/miles_city/og_eis/techdocs.Par.26011.File. tmp/CBM3DGWRepor t.pdf

Roberts et al (1999): Colstrip Coalfield, Powder River Basin, Montana: Geology, Coal Quality, and Coal Resources; S. B. Roberts et al, in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625

- a, 1999. Accessed Online March 2012. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625a/Chapters/PC.pdf

Colstrip 3 & 4 Certificate (1976): The Montana Power Company “Agreement to Comply” letter, submitted to Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, August 2 5, 1976. Accessed Online March 2012. http://deq.mt.gov/MFS/ColstripSteamElectricStation/Colstrip/AgreementToComplyCertificateColstrip %2 03&4.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

64 

### PR11. Reid Gardner Generating Facility, Nevada Energy, Moapa, Clark County, Nevada

Type: Surface Impoundments (settling and evaporation ponds) and Fugitive Dust

. 

### Background and Description: The Reid Gardner Station (RGS) is a four

- generation unit, 557 MW nominal combined capacity facility located on 480 acres in Moapa Valley, Nevada. 280 It is located on private property bordering on BLM land (the Navajo Mine) and about half

- a

- mile from the Moapa Paiute Indian Reservation. There a re three surface impoundments, five evaporation ponds, and a 91

- acre, unlined onsite permitted solid waste disposal landfill for coal ash, solids cleaned from the ash water settling and evaporation ponds, and various other facility wastes

. The RGS became c ommercially operational in 1965 and the evaporation ponds were constructed in 1976 for treatment of scrubber blow down wastewater with the addition of SO 2 scrubbers on Units 1, 2, and 3. The RGS obtains its water supply from a combination of offsite groundwater wells and offsite surface water withdrawals from the Muddy River.

Fly ash and flue gas desulfurization waste produced at the site is sluiced into o ne of three, originally unlined settling ponds. Subsequently, the impoundments were either closed or had double liners installed in accordance with a closure plan. The decanted wastewater is then discharged directly to one of five active, and originally un lined evaporation ponds (Ponds B

- 1 and B

- 2 are currently out of service for relining) for final wastewater disposal. The operation is designed to be a closed, zero

- discharge system for recycling of the cooling water. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite and offsite.



### Impact and Damage Claims: EIP (2010) indicates that arsenic exceeded the primary EPA MCL in offsite groundwater, and levels of arsenic, chromium, nitrate, and selenium exceeded primary EPA MCLs in onsite groundwater.

Groundwater contamination from coal ash surface impoundments at the RGS has exceeded Nevada action levels and drinking water standards often by many times. The groundwater monitoring first quarter 2007 report shows that the arsenic action level (0.16 mg/L) was exceed ed in 14 wells (up to a maximum of 0.73 mg/L), and selenium’s action level (0.05 mg/L) was exceeded in 12 wells (up to a maximum of 0.150 mg/L). Nitrate levels of 13 mg/L exceeded the federal primary MCL of 10 mg/L. Chromium levels of 110 μg/L exceeded the federal primary MCL of 100 μg/L. The state has documented off

- site contamination in Hogan Wash, and properties to the north, east, and south of the RGS: arsenic as high as 0.31 mg/L (x31 the federal MCL) was detected in IWM

- 16S, an off

- site well. The hydr ologic connection between the shallow groundwater aquifer and the Muddy River causes contamination of the River downstream of the RGS, including excessive TDS, arsenic, aluminum, barium, boron, chloride, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, and sulfate. 281

The second quarter 2011 groundwater monitoring and corrective action report indicates continued exceedances of arsenic, selenium, and several SMCLs. 282 Environmental Contaminants identified at the

280 Units 1

- 3, of 100 MW generating capacity each, are owned by Nevada Energy and came online between 1965 and 1976; Unit 4, of 257 MW nominal generating capacity, came online in 1983 and is owned jointly by Nevada Energy and the California Department of Water Resources. Nevad a Energy operates the whole facility. According to NV Energy presents plan to close coal

- fired plant: http://www.power

- eng.com/articles/2013/0 4/nv

energy

- presents

- plan

- to

- close

- coal

- fired

- plants.html , On April 3, 2013, NV Energy presented a plan to Nevada lawmakers, which concludes that closing Reid Gardner could cost ratepayers nearly 4 percent more over the next 20 years. NV Energy officials s aid the closures, which have been requested by the Moapa Paiute Tribe, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others, would involve closing of three of the four units of the Plant (Units 1

- 3) by the end of 2014, with the fourth unit (Unit 4) remaining operational until 2017.
281 NOV and Intention to Sue (2013).
282 NDEP (2011).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

65 facility include, but are not limited to, elevated concent rations of total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfate, chloride, dissolved metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and petroleum hydrocarbons. Releases of Environmental Contaminants from the station onto adjacent property occur in areas of Hogan Wash, proper ty north of Pond 4A, property east of the power generation units, property north and east of waste management unit

- 4 (WMU

- 4 Mesa Landfill), and property south of WMU

- 4. 283

According to NOV and Intention to Sue (2013), examination of only a portion of the m onitoring well data reveals over 7,000 exceedances reported to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection between 2008 and 2012, including chloride, sulfate, TDS, arsenic, boron, chromium, manganese, magnesium, molybdenum, selenium, and sodium. 284 Furth ermore, by employing reporting limits that routinely exceed
state

- set action levels for at least arsenic, boron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and sulfate, groundwater

- monitoring reports submitted by NV Energy to the Nevada Division of Environmental Pro tection for the RGS systematically under

- report the number of exceedances of state

- set action levels for constituents deemed by the State as COCs.

According to NOV and Intention to Sue (2013), the generous application of water to control fugitive dust in the unlined landfill 285 results in the formation of significant leachate. Groundwater monitoring wells that are up

- gradient from the wastewater ponds but down

- gradient from the landfill d etect contamination only from the landfill. 286

Fugitive Dust impact on the Moapa Paiute Band has been an unresolved issue for many years 287 and one of the key drivers behind a recently submitted lawsuit against State authorities

. 288


### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 289

283 For a comprehensive record of alleged violations, see NOV and Intention to Sue (2013).
284 The following concentrations have been reported recently in monitoring wells adjacent to th e wastewater ponds:

a rsenic: up to 1.4 mg/L (about nine times higher than the state action level and 140 times the federal SDWA standard); boron: up to 820 mg/L (585 times higher than the state action level standard). The following concentrations have been reported recently in monitoring wells adjacent to the landfill: chromium: 0.11 mg/L (approximately 2.2 times the federal drinking water MCL). The following concentrations have been reported recently in monitoring wells with no reference to a particular wa ste unit(s): manganese: 7.8 mg/L (approximately 29 times the state action level standard); molybdenum: 18.0 mg/L (600 times the state action level); selenium: 3.5 mg/L (70 times the state action level and 350 times the federal drinking water MCL); sulfate: up to 100,000 mg/L (103 times the state action level and 440 times the federal drinking water MCL); and TDS: 208,000 mg/L (81 times the state action level and 416 times the federal drinking water MCL).
285 Over 20 million gallons per year.
286 For instance, w ells LMW

- 2, LMW

- 4R, LMW

- 3, LMW

- 5R, LMW

- 6R, LMW

- 8R, KMW

- 12, and KMW

- 16, all show levels of groundwater quality parameters that substantially exceed state

- action level concentrations for boron, molybdenum, sodium, sulfate, TDS, and/or vanadium.
287 EarthJust ice (2012).
288 Las Vegas Review

- Journal (2011): The lawsuit targets the Southern Nevada Health District and its board of directors, which signed off in September 2011 on a final permit clearing Nevada Energy to expand.
289 ICF (2010). Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1: D ocumented exceedances of primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or other health

- based standards measured in groundwater at sufficient  Onsite groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, chromium, nitrate, and selenium.

 Offsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

66 

### Resolution: In 1997, NDEP issued an Administrative Order of Consent (AOC) requiring the Power Plant to halt the migration of contaminants into groundwater. Nevada Energy developed a plan to close or install double liners for all the site‘s surface impoundments by 2010. As of September 2010, three impoundments have been closed and eight have installed liners, thus completing the requirements of the 1997 AOC.

Nevada Energy and the NDEP entered into an AOC for the Site in February 2008. The AOC calls for Nevada Energy to continue with environmental contaminant characterization activities and for the identification of corrective actions and/or clean

- up measures for the soil and groundwater at the Site. Additionally, the AOC calls for the implementation and long

- term operation and maintenance of NDEP

approved clean

- up measures for the Site. 290

, 291

The recently issued discharge permit ( NEV91022) 292 allows discharge to: eight existing on

- site double

lined evaporation ponds equipped with a leak detection/collect ion system (Ponds F, B

- 1, B

- 2, B

- 3, C

- 1, C

- 2, E

- 1and E

- 2), and eventually, to nine, yet

- to

- be constructed double

- lined evaporation ponds in the Mesa area (Ponds M

- 1 through M

- 9), 293 to meet Nevada standards of performance for zero

- discharge facilities. 294 No d ischarge is allowed to surface water, specifically the Muddy River. To ensure that water quality is not degraded

, RGS is required to monitor both groundwater and the Muddy River for a suite of parameters.

On February 8, 2013, citizen groups filed an inten t to sue against the RGS owners for their contribution to the endangerment of health or the environment, seeking injunctive relief, statutory penalties and more due to GRS’ waste management practices, which caused groundwater and surface water contaminatio n at levels that exceed state and federal standards that are set to protect human health and water quality. 295

290 NDEP (2008)

. 291 NV Energy Reid Gardner G enerating Station (2010)

. 292 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Authorization to Discharge, NV Energy, Reid Gardner Station (June 24, 2010 ). The Authorization was immediately challenged in court by citizens groups.
293 All of the currently active ponds are individually lined with two geomembrane liners, a 60

- mil HDPE primary liner and 40

- mil HDPE secondary liner with an interstitial leak detection and collection system. All of the proposed Mesa ponds will be individually lined with two geomembrane liners, an 80

- mil HDPE primary liner and a 60

- mil HDPE secondary liner with an interstitial leak detection and collection system.
294 NDEP Authorization to Discharge (2010).
295 NOV and Intention to Sue, ibid. distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituents have migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns

Criteri on 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  None

Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  In 1997, the NDEP issued an Administrative Order of Consent to repair, line, or replace evaporation ponds impacting groundwater. Corrective actions have been completed and approved by NDEP.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

67 On August 8, 2013, The Sierra Club and the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians filed a citizen suit in federal court against Nevada Energy, seeking cleanup of contaminated lands and waters surrounding the Reid Gardner plant. The lawsuit also names as a defendant the California Department of Water Resources, which co

- owns one of the Reid Gardner generating units. 296 The plaintiffs want NV Energy to conduct the cleanup efforts adjacent to the tribal reserva tion.

The Sierra Club said the tribe has concerns about air pollution and coal ash dust contamination from the plant. The citizen lawsuit said groundwater and surface water contamination levels downstream from Reid Gardner have contaminant levels that ex ceed safe limits established under state and federal laws. The lawsuit claims the power plant has violated RCRA and CWA, and it seeks proper removal and disposal of toxic soils, sludge, coal dust, and contaminated groundwater. The action comes after Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval signed legislation (S.B. 123) on June 11, 2013, putting the Reid Gardner plant on a path toward closure by 2017. 297

Fugitive Dust: On September 26, 2012, EPA Region 9 conducted a site visit to Reid Gardner to address fugitive dust and o dor complaints. The findings indicated that Nevada Energy has put in place work practices in the recent two years to address both the odor and fugitive dust issues associated with the Plant’s operations and no enforcement deemed necessary. 298



### ICF (2010) Rat ionale : Proven damage . <Offsite groundwater exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, and onsite groundwater exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, chromium, nitrate, and selenium. The NDEP issued an Administrative Order of Consent to repair and update evaporation ponds to prevent groundwater impact but with no explicit finding of specific damages.>


### References BNA (2013) Daily Environmental Report, August 13, 2013. Moapa Band of Paiute Indians v. Nevada Power Co., D. Nev., No. 2:13

- cv

- 01417, 8/8/13. Accessed Online November 2014. http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/sites/content.sierraclub.org.coal/files/docs/Doc%2301%20Co mplaint%2 08

- 8

- 13_0.pdf

NOV and Intention to Sue (2013): Notice of Violation and Intention to Sue Pursuant to U.S.C. § 6972 and 33 U.S.C. § 1365; the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians and the Sierra Club, submitted by the Law Offices of Charles M. Tebbutt, P.C. , Eugene, Oregon, to NV Energy and the California Department of Water Resources, February 8, 2013. EPA Correspondence Management Control Number AX

- 13

- 000

- 2093; File

296 BNA (2013). The suit states that NV Energy reported “over 7,000 exceedances of state action levels for contaminants of concern” to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection since 2008, covering several pollutants including chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, arse nic, boron, chromium, manganese, magnesium, molybdenum, selenium, and sodium. “Groundwater monitoring data also indicates that, in the period 2008

- 2012, there were additional exceedances of federal standards for toxic contaminants beyond those identified a s exceedances of the less restrictive state action levels.” http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/sites/content.sierraclub.org .coal/files/docs/Doc%2301%20Complaint%208

- 8

- 13_0.pdf
297 The new law represents a major overhaul of the state's energy policy, effectively removing Nevada from the coal

fired electricity generation business ( 109 DEN A

- 14, 6/6/13 ). The new law directs NV Energy to eliminate 800 megawatts of coal

- fired generation from its portfolio by December 31, 2019. The law also mandates development of 350 megawatts of renewable energy and requires NV Energy to build or acquire a 550

- MW power plant. http://news.bna.com/deln/DE LNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=31932272&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0d9e1q0z1 &split=0
298 Based on a recent feedback from J. Schofield, EPA R9, E

- mail to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER, Nov. 12, 2013).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

68 Code 401_127_a General Correspondence Files Record copy (E

- mail attachment from P. Raack to A. Livnat, EPA/ OSWER

, April 29, 2013).

EarthJustice (2012): EarthJustice’s video: An Ill Wind. Accessed Online June 2012. http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/an

- ill

- wind

- blows

Las Vegas Review

- Journal (2011): Lawsuit aims to block expansion of NV Energy landfill. Las Vegas Review

- Journal, October 10, 2011. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.lvrj.com/news/lawsuit

- aims

to

- block

- expansion

- of

- nv

- energy

- landfill

- 131491113.html

NDEP (2011): Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Corrective Actions: Nevada Energy

– Reid Gardner Power Station, 11/9/2011. Accessed Online June 2012. http://ndep.nv.gov/bca/reid_gardner.htm

EIP (2010): Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sit es, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #18. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix B, Case #18. ICF, 10/2010.

NDEP (2010): Notice of Decision, Permit Number Nev91022, NV Energy, Inc. Reid Gardner Station, June 24, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://ndep.nv.gov/docs_10/nod_nev91022_p10.pdf

NDEP Authorizatio n to Discharge (2010): Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Authorization to Discharge, Permit No. NEV91022, June 24, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.sec.nv.gov/appea l_docs/permit_nev91022.pdf

NV Energy Reid Gardner G enerating Station (2010): Fact Sheet, Vo. 1, Issue 1, September 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://ndep.nv.gov/BCA/file/rei d_gardner2010_fact_sheet.pdf

NDEP (2008): Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

, 2008, Reid Gardner Station Closure Plan. Accessed Online June 2012. http://ndep.nv.gov/BCA/file/ reid_final_closure_plan.pdf



### PR12. Cayuga Coal Ash Disposal Landfill

- AES, Lansing, Tompkins County, New York

Type: Landfills and CCR Leachate Pond.



### Background and Description: The Cayuga Coal Ash Disposal Landfill serves the two

- unit, 305

- MW generating capacity Cayuga Generation Power Plant. 299 The plant is located about 15 miles northwest of

299 Previously, New York State Electric and Gas’ Milliken Station

. Generation Units No. 1 and 2 were commissioned in 1955 and 1958 , respectively

. The plant uses annually around 900,000 tons of rail

- delivered, Northern Appalachian bituminous coal each year (Peter and Maher, 2008). Lately, AES Eastern Energy went bankrupt a nd didn’t sell electricity from March to November 2012 because natural

- gas fired plants were undercutting its prices. The power plant was bought by Upstate New York Power Producers and its name was changed to Cayuga Power Plant. Since June 2012, it has bee n operated by Cayuga Operating Company, LLC. On July 20, 2012, the new owner requested the NY State Public Service Commission to mothball the Plant; after thisI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

69 Ithaca, New York, on the down

- slope of a ridge which is bordered on the west by the deep, glacially gouged valley presently occupied by Cayuga Lake.

The landfill consists of two sections, Phase I (16.5 acre) and Phase II (50 acre) . The Phase I landfill, inactive since the early 1980s, is unlined. It had a series of pipes to suppress gro undwater level and collect leachate in a pond, which was then discharged to Cayuga Lake. The Phase II, currently active landfill, is lined with a composite liner (soil and a synthetic liner) with leachate collection and leak detection systems. The waste in cludes fly ash, FGD byproducts, pyrites and other wastes from AES Cayuga Plant, and smaller amount of fly ash from a Cornell University, Ithaca heating plant.

The site geology comprises a thick sequence of shale and siltstone bedrock with thin limestone i nterbeds of Middle to Late Devonian age, overlain by a veneer of unconsolidated, glacially

- derived Pleistocene till. The glacial till consists of gravel, sand, silt and clay. Groundwater flow occurs in both overburden and bedrock. Bedrock groundwater movem ent is controlled by horizontal fractures along bedding plane partings, and vertical fractures characterizing the regional bedrock fracture set. The dominant groundwater flow direction in bedrock and glacial overburden is to the west

- southwest, toward Cayu ga Lake.

Cayuga Lake, one of New York’s Finger Lakes, a major destination for fishing and water recreation, 300 receives discharge from the CCR leachate pond via Outfall 013. 301 In 2008, the Plant disposed of 108,330 tons of fly ash at the landfill and discha rged 19 million gallons of CCR leachate pond water from Outfall 013. Groundwater has been monitored onsite as early as 2000. Additionally, groundwater has been monitored offsite in a former private residential well, since acquired by AES. Although discharg e to Cayuga Lake has been evaluated, the lake’s water quality itself has not.

AES Cayuga maintains a network of 35 groundwater monitoring wells at various depths and locations around its CCR landfill. EIP (2010a) claims that despite the general groundwat er flow towards Cayuga Lake, there are several wells labeled “up

- gradient” that appear to be influenced by the landfill as a result of groundwater mounding. 302



### Impact and Damage Claims: EIP (2010a) indicates that levels of arsenic, cadmium, and selenium

e xceed ing primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) were detected in onsite groundwater. Additionally, aluminum, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs); arsenic and selenium exceeded New York groundwater standards; and aluminum, arsenic, boron, cadmium, manganese, selenium, sulfate, and TDS exceeded federal groundwater standards. Furthermore, EIP (2010a) indicates that levels of iron, lead, manganese, selenium, and TDS

request was rejected due to power supply reliability concerns, the owner/operator has considered retrofitting the plant to fueling with natural gas, to be supplied by a new natural gas pipe (Politics on the Hudson, 2012; Ithaca Journal , 2013; and Ithaca Times, 2013).
300 NYDEC (2009): Cayuga Lake in the area of the Power Station is designated a class AA(T) water. The best usage of Class AA waters are: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food process ing purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. The waters shall be suitable for fish (including trout), shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival. The lake is well noted for fine trout and salmon fishing.
301 Under SPDES permit NY

- 000

- 1333.
302 According to EIP (2010a), an assessment by USGS of naturally occurring and anthropogenic arsenic in groundwater did not identify any locations in the state of New York with naturally high background levels or areas with arsenic in groundwater associated w ith the use, production, or disposal of arsenical pesticides. Furthermore, the locations of these “up

- gradient” monitoring wells are either adjacent to, or within 150 feet of, the edge of the landfill (most are within 50 feet of the landfill) and likely i nfluenced by groundwater flow direction reversals related to mounding. New York State Regulators have questioned whether some wells, such as MAGUXX

- 7712, are truly “up

- gradient” from the landfill.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

70 exceeded state and/or federal ground water standards 303 in a well (MAGDWS

- XXO1) located down

gradient, southwest and offsite of the landfill, which was acquired by AES and is now under their ownership.

EIP (2010a) also indicates that discharge water via Outfall 013 to Cayuga Lake exceeded federal water quality criteria. Specifically, arsenic exceeded the standard for protection of human health from surface water ingestion and fish consumption, cadmium exceeded the acute toxicity standard for aquatic life, and selenium exceeded the chronic t oxicity standard for aquatic life. However, the SPDES permit for Outfall 013 does not have limits for these parameters, and Cayuga Lake is not monitored for possible water quality standard violations resulting from these discharges. It is important to not e, however, that these exceedances are in the discharge water and do not account for dilution in Cayuga Lake. 304

Recent monitoring results associated with the CCR landfill on site 305 from numerous groundwater monitoring wells installed downslope of the landf ill revealed sulfates, barium, selenium, boron, ammonia, and sodium at levels above potable water standards for groundwater. In addition, according to AMEC’s November 12, 2010 report, leachate from an on

- site retention pond was found to be leaking into the soil adjacent to and underneath the pond. While this leak was repaired in 2010, the report indicated that the adjacent groundwater monitoring well test results during 2009 and 2010 included calcium, potassium, magnesium, sodium, sulfate and TDS “outside o f historical ranges.” The report suggests that these elevated measures may persist. Additionally, at two surface water sediment sampling points along a stream which discharges to Cayuga Lake downslope of and to the south of the landfill, 2010 test results by AMEC indicated elevated levels of chromium and zinc. 306



### Resolution : NYSDEC issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) on February 2, 2009 in response to the facility’s permit violations for volume of coal ash disposed. Cayuga has submitted to the NYSDEC a landf ill Liner Demonstration Report, establishing that the landfill has adequate engineering integrity to support the additional coal ash and there is no inherent environmental threat. On May 14, 2010, NYSDEC accepted these findings and approved a permit modifi cation, which allows for the closure of this 10

- acre portion of the landfill. The construction, in accordance with the approved permit modification, was completed in November 2010, and the certification report for this construction project was to be submit ted to the NYSDEC in the second quarter of 2011. 307

Although there are several homes and farms with drinking water wells within 0.03

- 0.1 miles from the landfill and many homes along the lake, the State has not undertaken testing of nearby residential wells or sampling of the Cayuga Lake for impacts from the CCR leachate pond. It has taken no enforcement action over water pollution at this site or required AES to take corrective actions, limit its discharge to Cayuga Lake, or determine the full impacts of its CCR disposal on the nearby community, lake, or groundwater quality. 308

303 Namely: lead (0.027 mg/L), selenium (10 μg/L), iron (3.7 9 mg/L), manganese (0.103 mg/L), TDS (687 mg/L), and zinc (11.9 mg/L).
304 In its comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0201, USWAG states that while t he EIP (2010a) Report claims that discharges from the CCW leachate pond exceed federal su rface water quality criteria, samples were collected directly from the leachate collection system or from the outfall effluent, which is regulated by an NPDES permit.
305 Cayuga Lake Watershed Network (2013) makes a reference to Conceptual Closure Plan, Cayu ga Ash Disposal Facility , Fagan Engineers, September 2002; and Groundwater Contingency Monitoring Results as reported to AES Cayuga by AMEC on dates including November 12, 2010.
306 AES Cayuga Contingency Monitoring Summary 2010, 3rd quarter, cited by Cayuga Lake Watershed Network (ibid).
307 AES (2010).
308 EIP (2010a).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

71 

### Evaluation against Damage Criteria 309



### ICF (2010a) Rationale: Potential damage. < Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found onsite. Additionally, groundwater exceedances of state and/or federal criteria have been found both onsite and offsite; however, the offsite data was gathered from a former private residential well now owned by AES. Although discharge water into Cayuga Lake via Ou tfall 013 exceeded various federal water criteria, it did not exceed any SPDES permit criteria and there is no scientific study available that explicitly documents evidence of damage to human health or the environment. Additionally, no assessment of the ac tual lake water has occurred. The New York Department of Conservation issued a NOV to AES for exceeded permit requirements regarding the quantity of coal ash disposed. However, this Order did not have an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment. There are no other regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the landfill.>


### Postscript: Contaminated leachate and runoff from a CCR landfill that exceed several federal water criteria (though not disallowed by State permit) discharge directly from a leachate pond into Cayuga Lake via Outfall 013, and contaminated groundwater from a partially unlined CCR landfill. Damage caused to groundwater on

‐ site and to a former private residential w ell off

- site.


### References

309 ICF (2010). Criteria Evaluation Criterion 1: 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  Onsite groundwater exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, cadmium, and seleniu m.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded EPA SMCLs for aluminum, manganese, sulfate, and TDS.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded federal and/or state standards for aluminum, arsenic, boron, cadmium, manganese, selenium, sulfate, and TDS.

 Groundwater in a well previously o ffsite, but acquired by AES, exceeded federal and/or state standards for iron, lead, manganese, selenium, and TDS.
Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  Discharge into Cayuga Lake via Outfall 013 exceeded various federal water criteria for arsenic, cadmium, and selenium, including the standard for protection of human health from surface water ingestion and fish consumption, the acute sta ndard for aquatic life, and the chronic toxicity standard for aquatic life.
Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  In 2009, the New York D epartment of Conservation issued a NOV in response to the facility’s permit violations for volume of coal ash disposed.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

72 Cayuga Lake Watershed Network (2013): Cayuga Lake Watershed Network (CLWN) PSC comments re proposed Cayuga Power Plant project to Hon. Jeffrey C. Cohen, Acting Secretary, Department of Public Service, Three Empire State Plaza, Alb any, New York

, August 16, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.cayugalake.org/cayuga

- aes

- power

- plant.html

Ithaca Journal (2013): Converting to gas? Cayuga plant retrofitting may come with new pipeline, Ithaca Journal, April 4, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.ithacajournal.com/article/20130404/NEWS01/304040078/Converting

- gas

- Cayuga

- plant

retrofitting

- may

- come

- new

- pipeline

Ithaca Times (2013): New York State steers Cayuga power plant toward natural gas

- fired future. Ithaca Times, October 16, 2013, Updated Oct 25, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.ithaca.com/news/new

- york

- state

- steers

- cayuga

- power

- plant

- toward

- natural

gas/article_144dc350

- 35e8

- 11e3

- 9c12

- 0019bb2963f4.html

Politics on the Hudson (2012): Owners Could Mothball Tompkins County Coal Plant (UPDATED), Politics on the Hudson, 20 July 2012. Accessed Online August 2014. http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2012/07/20/owners

- to

- mothball

- tompkins

- county

- coal

- plant/

AES (2010): The AES Corporation Fiscal Year 2010 Form 10

- K (Annual Report), page 104. Accessed Online September 201 3

. http://phx.corporate

ir.net/External.File?i tem=UGFyZW50SUQ9ODk1MzF8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

EIP (2010a): In Harm’s Way: Lack o f Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans a nd Their Environment, Thirty

- N ine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #22. The Environmental Integrity Project, EarthJustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010

. Accessed Online November 2014. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/ 08_26_10.php

ICF (2010a): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix C, Case #22. ICF, 10/2010.

NYDEC (2009): Biological Fact Sheet

- Cooling Water Intake Structure, AES Cayuga LLC. NY Department of Environmental Conservation, August 2009. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/cayugabiofs.pdf

Peter and Mahr (2008): A New Coal Blending System for AES Cayuga. Jacob A. Peter and Daniel Mahr, Power Engineering, 07/01/2008. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.power

- eng.com/articles/print/volume

- 112/issue

- 7/features/a

- new

- coal

- blending

- system

- for

aes

- cayuga.htmlI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

73 

### PR13. Don Frame Trucking, Inc. Fly Ash Landfill, Pomfret, Chautauqua County, New York
Type: Offsite Landfill with Preceding, Adjacent Structural Fill.



### Brief Description/Impact: This unlined landfill 310 has been used for disposal of about 700,000 cubic yards 311 of fly ash, bottom ash, and other material, including yard sweepings generated by the Niagara Moha wk Power Corporation's Dunkirk Steam Station since 1971

. 312 Quarterly water quality analysis and various miscellaneous data collected at the facility from March 1989 through September 1998 show down

- gradient levels of lead greater than the primary MCL Action Level, exceedances that occurred in 1989 and 1996. The d ata also document elevations from background of sulfate, total dissolved solids (TDS), and manganese, including levels of manganese in a water supply well greater than the secondary MCL. 313

, 314

The site is located within the Erie

- Ontario Plain physiographic province. The overburden underlying the site consists of Quaternary

- age lacustrine silt and clay deposits deposited by the Wisconsin glaciation 315 and is underlain by bedrock consisting of Upper Devonian (Dunkirk) shale belonging to the Canadaway

310 Facility’s address is 5485 Route 5, Pomfret, NY 14063. The Landfill’s boundaries are delineated by Lamberton Road to the west, Van Buren Road (NY Route 73) to the north, and the C onrail Dunkirk

- Erie railway line to the southeast.
311 Charlotte CCR Proposed Rule Public Hearing, September 14, 2010, pp. 37

- 43, 385

- 388: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/transcripts/transcript

- charlotte

- nc.pdf

. According to Wood (1 978), the landfill was supplied annually with about 153,000 metric tons of fly ash, 31,000 metric tons of bottom ash, and 3,800 metric tons of pyrite. Prior to the landfill’s operation, CCRs were used in 1965 as a structural fill material across a local cr eek (Van Buren Bay Creek) to extend two airport runways.
312 The Dunkirk Steam S tation sits on the shore of Lake Erie, 55 miles southwest of Buffalo, in Dunkirk, New York. It comprises four generation units: two (96 MW generating capacity each) came on line in 1950 and two others (200 MW each)

, in 1959 . In the mid

- late 1970s, the plant was fueled by eastern coal. NRG purchased the Dunkirk and the Huntley stations in 1999 from Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. In March 2012, NRG Energy Inc., declared that because of a lower demand for electricity, cheaper natural gas prices and higher price for coal, the demand for power from the plant has diminished and the Station is being mothballed : Speaking up in ‘huge’ issue

, http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/569593/Speaking

- up

in

-- huge

-- issue.html?nav=5007

. 313 According to Cherry et al., (2000) , four constituents in down

- gradient monitoring wells surpassed federal limits at this site : s ulfate (3,156 mg/L), TDS (5,046 mg/L), manganese (2.12 mg/L), and iron (64.2 mg/L).
314 A 1975/76 analysis for 17 parameters (no analyses were conducted for lead; Wood, ibid) of wells onsite and at the landfill’s peri phery yielded exceedances of arsenic (average: 83 ppb, range 33

- 191 ppb) in a set of wells characterized by alkaline pH values, selenium averaging at 10.2 ppb, and sulfate: 1,798 ppm. Seven domestic wells in the landfills vicinity have recorded only elevat ed iron (697 ppb), but in these wells, sulfate was not measured. Note, however, that in the absence of individual well data, the shallow sample collection depths (< 6 meters) and the location of most wells on the landfill itself, it is not evident which of the results are actually CCR leach data, and which ones represent shallow, contaminated groundwater. Ponds at the landfill were high in calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and sulfate compared to control ponds. A stream adjacent to the site contained greater manganese (207 μg/L) and sulfate (229 ppm) than control streams. Average iron concentrations in the biota were tripled, and manganese concentrations doubled in biota affected by the coal ash landfill; however, effects of the disposal area on the di stribution of the biota, if any, were masked by the variability of other (non

- CCR) environmental factors.
315 The lacustrine deposits were deposited in the former Lakes Whittlesey and Warren during Late Wisconsin glaciation. They are classified as silt loam or silty clay loam with thicknesses varying from 1 to 6 meters. They are underlain by a gray till containing fragments of the shale bedrock on which it lays. Ranging in thickness from 1.5 to 7.3 meters, the till is predominantly a silty gravel or gravelly silt with varying amounts of sand and clay (Wood, ibid, and references therein).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

74 Group. 316 Be drock exposures along the Lake Erie shore near the study area exhibit two sets of well

defined, vertical to sub

- vertical joints, striking N73°E and N56°W with 0.3

- 1 meter spacing. 317 No sizable groundwater aquifers exist in the immediate area; the groundwate r in the bedrock is confined to joints and fractures. 318

Wood (1978) documents instances where the landfill operation, which has not involved compacting or periodic cover, resulted in extensive erosion of the landfill and dispersion of the CCRs by the Van B uren Bay Creek, which in turn necessitated several instances of rechanneling of the creek. Modern practices were only introduced in 1973, whereby ash has been laid down in lifts 3

- meter thick, and protective soil dikes were built around the perimeter of th e fill during the landfill’s expansion to prevent uncontrolled erosion of the ash and contamination of the surrounding areas. 319 On the east side of the landfill, groundwater used to emerge as seeps or springs where the water table intersected the ground sur face. Infiltration into the landfill used to emerge from the ash deposits all along the open western face, to stand in shallow ephemeral ponds along the margin. None of this surface water was believed to leave the site as there was a low berm west of the p onds capable of containing any runoff. 320



### Resolution: As a result of the contamination, Don Frame Trucking recommended to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) that the affected water supply well should immediately be connecte d to a public water supply. On September 16, 1988, Don Frame Trucking, Inc. was directed by the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Chautauqua, to cease receiving the aforementioned wastes at the facility no later than October 15, 1988, in accordance with the standards contained in 6 NYCRR Part 360 , 321 then close and cap the landfill. 322 Post

- closure ground water and surface water monitoring and maintenance were also expected to continue for 30 years after final closure of the entire facility.



### Previous Basis for Consideration : Scientific : The lead levels found in down

- gradient wells exceed the primary MCL Action Level; Administrative: the State has required remedial action as a result of the contamination, and t he owner was directed, by the Stat e of New York, to cease receiving the aforementioned wastes at the facility.



### ICF (2010) Rationale : Proven Damage. < Groundwater exceeded MCLs for lead and SMCLs for sulfate, TDS, iron, and manganese in downgradient wells. Administrative orders did not contain explicit finding of specific damages from CCRs.>

316 The bedrock directly beneath but not outcropping at the landfill site is the South Wales Shale Member of the Canadaway Formation. This member varies in thickness from 18 to 24 meters and consists of medium light gray to medium dark gray shale, with some inter

- bedded dark gray shale and light gray siltstone. Wood (ibid, and references therein), and TVGA Consultants (2009). On the properties of the Dunkirk Shale/Canadaway Grou p, see Hill et al., (undated) and Lash (undated).
317 Wood, ibid, and reference therein.
318 Wood, ibid.
319 Apparently, these measures were inadequate and at times occasional breaching of the dikes or erosion of the thin cover material (often only 5 cm. thick) kept occurring that allowed piping and undermining of the ash.
320 According to Wood (ibid), eight ponds have been constructed at the edge of the landfill to serve as runoff catchment basins. These varied from 28 to 6,950 square meters in area, from 0.1 to 3 .3 meters in depth, and from 10 to 14,000 cubic meters in volume.
321 Application of Don Frame Trucking, Inc. Petitioner for a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Respondent; Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Chautauqua (July 22, 1988). Order G11278.
322 For technical details concerning capping the site, see EPA (2007). Don Frame Trucking was required, as soon as remediation was completed, to submit certification by a l icensed professional engineer that the facility was closed in accordance with the rules and regulations as stipulated by the NYSDEC by October 21, 1988.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

75 

### References Hill et al., (undated): Fractured Shale Gas Potentia l in New York. D. G. Hill, T.E. Lombardi and J.P. Martin, TICORA Geosciences, Inc., Arvada, Colorado, USA. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.tiogagaslease.org/images /fracturedshalegaspotentialinny.pdf

Lash (undated): Dunkirk Shale (Upper Devonian) as an Ancient Fluid Seal. Gary Lash , Department of Geosciences, SUNY Fredonia. Fredonia, NY 14063. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.fredonia.edu/department/geosciences/Lash/fractures/CapSeal/CapSeal.htm

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #3. ICF, 10/2010.

TVGA Consultants (2009): Final Remedial Investigation (RI) Report, Former Edgewood Warehouse Site (NYSDEC No. E907032), 320 South Roberts Road, City of Dunkirk, Chautauqua County, New York,
p repared for: Chautauqua County Department of Public Facilities, by: TVGA Consultants, May 2009. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/edgerireport.pdf

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #3, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Cherry et al., (2000): Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combu stion Wastes, Final Report, Donald S. Cherry, Rebecca J. Currie, and David J. Soucek, prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online June 2012. http://citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/04/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS. htm

Wood (1978): Environmental Impact of Coal Ash on Tributary Streams and Nearshore Water of Lake Erie, Final Report, Kenneth G. Wood, State University College, Fredonia, New York 14063, August 1978. Prepared for The U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration Under Contract No. E (l l

- l) 2726

- 2. Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/6277419I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

76 

### PR14. Belews Lake, Stokes, Rockingham, Guilford, and Forsyth Counti es, North Carolina 323



### Type: An unlined cooling lake receiving discharge from a surface impoundment

. 324



### Brief Description/Impact: The 3,863

- acre Belews Lake 325 was impounded in 1972 to serve as a cooling reservoir for the coal

- fired Belews Creek power plant. 326 Fly ash was disposed in a settling basin, which released selenium

- laden (150 to 200 μg/L) effluent in return flows to the lake. Concentrations of selenium in the lake water averaged 10 μg/L (selenium values in the impacted portions of the reservoir ranged between 8 μg/L and 22 μg/L), but selenium accumulated from 519 times (periphyton) to 3,975 times (visceral tissue of fish) in the biota. Sediment selenium concentrations ranged mostly from about 4 to near 30 mg/kg dry weight (dw), with a few samples havin g concentrations considerably greater, up to 100 mg/kg. During the contamination episode, the entire lake was affected with the selenium

- laden effluents except for a small remote headwater region of the reservoir, where selenium concentrations were <1 μg/L

. The pattern of selenium contamination from the plant and fish impacts persisted from 1974 to 1985, when the primary selenium source was terminated with the installation of a dry fly ash collection system at the power plant, and the rerouting of the NPDES

- permitted ash basin effluent to the nearby Dan River. Due to the selenium contamination, “the most extensively documented case of selenium poisoning in freshwater fish ,” 327 16 of the 20 fish species originally present in the reservoir were entirely eliminated, including all the primary sport fish. 328 The rates of teratogenic fish amounted to 10

- 70 percent , vs. a normal baseline of 1

- 3 percent

. 329

323 The power plant is owned by the merged ( July 2012) Duke Power and Progress Energy. This Module is limited to the proven damage case associated with the Belews Creek Steam Station. For additional information on the Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County, North Carolina, and its waste management system, see Technical Support Document un der Potential Damage Cases (Module PTb33) in the final rule’s docket.

324 EPRI (2010)

. 325 According to Belews Lake : http://www.duke

- energy.com/lakes/facts

- and

- maps/belews

- lake.asp

, Belews Lake has a shoreline of approximately 88 miles. It is impounded across Belews Creek by a rolled earth fill dam with a concrete spillway.
326 According to Young et al., (2010, Fig. A2), monitoring conducted in 1973 showed that Belews Lake supported a diverse warm

- water fishery typical of the ecoregion. The lake’s fish community included several trophic levels, including typical warm

- water reservoir fish such as shad ( Dorosoma spp.; Clupeidae) and blueback herring ( Alosa aestivalis; Clupeidae), common carp ( Cyprinus carpio; Cyprinidae) and minnows (Cyprinidae), largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides; Centrarchidae), crappie ( Pomoxis spp.; Centrarchidae), and a variety of sunfish (Centrarchidae) as well as several catfish (Ictaluridae)

. 327 Dennis Lemly (1 997), (1999), (2002)

, and Young et al ibid) and references therein. Waterborne selenium concentrations in the lake never reached the then

- applicable USEPA chronic selenium criterion for the protection of aquatic life (35 μg/L selenium as selenite, dissolve d exposure only), yet the fish community was decimated as a result of food web selenium bio

- accumulation. Consequently, “ i nformation from the field studies of selenium toxicity in Belews Lake was instrumental in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to lower the U.S. national water quality criterion for selenium, from 35

- μg/L to 5

- μg/L ( EPA

- 440/5

- 87

– 006, 1987).”

328 According to Young et al., (ibid), when maximal selenium inputs occurred, selenium concentrations ranged from 41 to 97 mg/kg dry weight (dw) in zooplankton and phytoplankton; 15 to 57 mg/kg dw in benthic macro

invertebrates; and 40 to 159 mg/kg dw in fish egg/ovary tissue. According to Young et al., (ibid, Fig. A1), out of as many as 29 resident species documented prior to contamina tion, by 1977 only common carp, catfish, and fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas ) were found in the remaining downlake fish community. Piscivore and insectivore species were virtually absent from the downlake area.
329 Skorupa (1998)

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

77 Lemly 330 concluded that s elenium poisoning was still evident in 1996, some 21 years after first being detected, and 10 years after selenium inputs to Belews Lake were markedly reduced due to change in the power plant’s waste management practices. Concentrations of selenium in fish tissues remained above a toxic threshold (4mg/kg whole

- body, dw 331 ) some 31 years after selenium impacts first began, due to movement of the element from contaminated sediments into benthic food chains. 332



### Previous Basis for Consideration : 333 Scientific : Evid ence 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.



### Resolution: In 1984, under mandates from the State, the power company introduced dry ash handling and disposal, and ash

- basin decant water (which continued to receive minor selenium contributions from power plant bottom ash) was rerouted to the nearby Dan River. 334 A fi sh advisory

, issued for selenium in 1993

, was rescinded December 31, 2000. 335


### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage . <Selenium discharge impacted fish population.>


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

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #11. ICF, 10/2010

. Lemly (2010): A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal Combustion Waste: The Cost of Poisoned Fish and Wildlife, A. Dennis Lemly, EPA Docket comment EPA

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640

- 6313, Appendix I, December 15, 2010. A ccessed Online June 2012.

330 Comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6313, pp. 21

- 23. Lemly estimated the monetized value of damage at over $527 million (in $2010)

. 331 See also Hamilton (2003). “Recent studies continue to support the dietary selenium threshold of 3μg/g a nd the whole

- body selenium threshold of 4μg/g for fish.” However, EPA (2004) proposes a higher threshold: “ The draft freshwater chronic criterion is expressed as a concentration in whole

- body fish tissue of 7.91μg/g, dry weight, and says if fish tissue sam ples exceed 5.85μg/g during summer or fall, fish should be monitored during the winter to determine if selenium exceeds 7.91μg/g.” On the status of the Federal selenium

- in

- fish regulation, see comment to the proposed rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 29 30, Attachment.
332 According to Young et al., (ibid), as the lake

- wide selenium contamination diminished into the late 1980s, populations of the more sensitive fish species migrating from the upper watershed gradually became reestablished in Belews Lake. As the fish community was reestablished, green sunfish ( Lepomis cyanellus ) were notable among centrarchids in their apparent relative tolerance to higher environmental selenium exposures, and in their slightly lower propensity to bioaccumulate selenium. By t he mid

- 1990s, the Belews Lake fishery once again represented a diverse warm water community, including sensitive fish species, although marginally elevated rates of deformities in larval fish were reported as late as 1996.
333 EPA (2007).
334 Young et al., (ib id).
335 In an August 23, 2005 letter from J. Roewer, USWAG, to R. Kinch, EPA/ OSWER, USWAG request ed that EPA identify the Belews Lake in the docket (RCRA

- 2003

- 0003) as a site where the previously identified “proven damage” has been resolved to the satisfact ion of the State through implementation of corrective measures ( USWAG

, 2007).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

78 http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

- CCW.pdf

Young et al., (2010) : Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment; Belews Lake, North Carolina. Appendix A. Selected Case Studies of Ecosystem Contamination by Selenium, Terry F. Young et al., Edited by Peter M. Chapman et al., CRC Press, 2010, Pages 259

– 262. Accessed Online November 2014. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selenium/Library_articles/chapman_etal_2010_appendixA.pdf

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #11, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail ;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

USWAG (2007): Comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432, Appendix C, F ebruary 11, 2008. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432

EPA (2004): Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for selenium

– 2004. USEPA Office of Water, EPA

- 822

- D

- 04

- 001, November 2004. Accessed Online July 2012. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2008_10_27_criteria_seleniums_maintext.pdf

Hamilton (2003): Commentary: Review of residue

- based selenium toxicity thresholds for freshwater fish. Hamilton, S. J., Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 56 (2003) 201

– 210. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.seleniumtaskforce.org/images/Hamilton_2003.pdf

Lemly, D. (2002): Symptoms and Implications of Selenium Toxicity in Fish: the Belews Lake Case Example. Aquatic Toxicology 57, 39

- 49. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_lemly013.pdf

Lemly, D. (1999): Selenium Impacts on Fish: An lnsidious Time Bomb. A. Dennis Lemly, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 1139

– 11 51 (1999). Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.trout.forprod.vt.edu/fishpubs/lemly1999_04.pdf

Skorupa (1998): Selenium poisoning in fish and wildlife in nature: lessons from twelv e real

- world examples

, Joseph P. Skorupa, USFWS, Sacramento, California

, in : Environmental Chemistry of Selenium, William T. Frankenberger Jr. and Richard A . E rgberg , E dit ors , Mercel Dekker, Inc., 1998. Accessed Online June 2012. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selenium/Library_articles/SePoisoning.pdf

Lemly, D. (1997): Ecosystem Recovery Following Selenium Contamination in Freshwater Reservoir. Ecotoxicol. Environ Saf, 36 (3): 275

- 281. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9143456?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4

Lemly, D. (1993): Teratogenic Effects of Selenium in Natural Populations of Freshwater Fish

, in Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Selenium, EPA

- 822

- D

- 04

- 001, November 2004. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/selenium/pdfs/complete.pdf

Gillespie and Baum an (1986): Effects of High Tissue Concentrations on Reproduction by Bluegills. Gillespie, R.B. and P.C. Baumann, 1986. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115:208

- 213. Summary in Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Selenium, EPA

- 822

- D

- 04

- 001, November 2004. Ac cessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/selenium/pdfs/complete.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

79 

### PR15. Dan River Steam Station, Duke Energy, 336 

### Eden, Rockingham County, North Carolina

Type: Storm Sewer Line Failure underneath a Surface Impoundments and a Slurry Release. 337



### Background and Description: The Dan River Steam Station, a coal fired power plant located on the north bank of the Dan River in Eden, Rockingham County, North Carolina, began operation in 1949. 338 The original coal combustion residual (CCR) impoundment was built in 1956 immediately next to the Dan River and had its embankment walls raised twice, in 1968/69 and 1976/77. 339 In 1976/77, a dike was also built across the impoundment to divide it into the two units (Primary and Secondary ponds) that still exist today. 340 The two unlined impoundments covered a total of 39 acres with a storage capacity of 664 acre feet. 341 Prior to th e Plant’s retirement in 2012, the impoundments were occasionally dredged with the dredged CCR stored in an 8

- acre, unlined landfill north of the ponds. The landfill was capped and has been inactive since 2005.

In August 1976, the DWQ issued to Progress Energy for the Dan River Plant an NPDES Permit (No. NC0003468), subsequently renewed. The current Permit was re

- issued on January 31, 2013 and is valid to April 30, 2017. This Permit regulates the Plant’s discharge of treated wastewater into the Dan River through several outfalls (with the Ash Basin effluent discharged at Outfall 002). 342



### Impact and Damage Claims: On February 2, 2014, an estimated 30,000

- 39,000 tons of coal ash and up to 27 million gallons of water were released from one of the retired Plant ’s ponds into the Dan River. 343 The nearest municipality that draws water from the river, Danville, is six miles downstream. Both Duke Energy and NC DENR took water samples from the river, with greater exceedances for

336 In July 2012, Duke Power and Progress Energy merged into Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
337 For a summary and analysis of the Dan River’s potential damage case, see a separate module in the Damage Case Technical Support Document in the final rule’s docket.

338 The Dan River Steam Station, with a combined generation capacity of 380 MW, had three co al units: The first unit came online in 1949, the second in 1950, and the third in 1955. Eden officials try to escape coal ash spill’s dark cloud: http://www2 .rockinghamnow.com/news/2012/mar/31/out

- old

- more

- efficient

- ar

- 1809111/

. According to Duke Energy’s Dan River website ( http://www.duke

- energy.com/power

- plants/coal

- fired/dan

- river.asp

, visited August 21, 2013), the three coal

- fueled generation units were retired on April 1, 2012. In December 2012, Duke Energy launched the commercial operation of the new 620

- MW Dan River Combined

- Cycle, natural gas

- fueled Station ( Three new state

- of

- the

- art power plants improve efficiency, reduce emissions) . According to Duke Energy (2014), in mid

- 2014 the Pl ant has been demolished and would be next subject to boilers’ implosion.

339 According to Paul Rizzo Associates (2009), from 1968 to 1969, the original pond was extended to the east along the Dan River by some 1,200 feet and raised.
340 The ponds received sl uiced fly and bottom ash, boiler slug, flue gas emission control residuals, as well as water treatment effluents, boiler blow down, coal pile runoff, storm water runoff, and mill rejects.
341 Paul Rizzo Associates (ibid).
342 Complaint and Motion for Injunctiv e Relief (2013a). The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for discharges from Outfall 002 require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Oil and Grease, Total Suspended Solids, pH, Total Iron, Total Phosphorous, Sulfates, Acute Toxicity, Nitrate/Nitrate Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen,* and Total Nitrogen. * Note: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen is the sum of organic nitrogen

, ammonia (NH 3 ), and ammonium (NH 4 + ) in the chemical analysis of the wastewater.
343 The pond has a surface area of 27 acres and liquid capacity of 155 million gallons, but was at a lower level due to the Dan River’s Plant retirement in 2012. The initial release estimate by Duke Energy was 50,000 to 82,000 tons of coal ash.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

80 several constituents noted downstream. 344 The spill was caused by the failure of a 48

- inch diameter, metal storm sewer line that runs under the ash pond. Liquefied ash flowed from the inactive pond into the failed section of the line, and then into the Dan River. Coal ash was visible on the banks of the Dan River on February 3 rd , and the water was tinted gray. No immediate fish kills or other impacts to wildlife have been reported. 345 In a February 9, 2014 update, US EPA Region 4 said its sampling indicates that local drinking water met federal stan dards at that time. The agency said it was still evaluating potential ecological impacts and considering long

- term cleanup options. 346



### Resolution: In wake of the February 2, 2014 spill of liquefied coal ash into the Dan River, a Unified Command was set up. 347 Duke Energy managed to install a permanent plug in the breached sewer pipe which stopped the ash slurry’s flow into the Dan River about six days following the incident. Following the spill, NC DENR moved to scuttle a previously proposed settlement with th e company over pollution leaking from waste ponds elsewhere in the State, 348 and Duke mobilized to first dredge some 2,500 ton of coal ash deposited on the upstream side of the Schoolfield Dam. 349 While the removal of fly ash accumulations from the Dan River n ext to Danville’s water treatment plant in May 2014 was about to be launched, the City of Danville was contemplating collecting damages from Duke Energy. 350 In mid

- July 2014, Duke Energy tentatively completed the cleanup of the Dan River. 351

344 According to NC DENR web bulletins: DENR releases remain ing test results from water quality sampling near coal ash spill: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/journal/view_article_content?groupId=4711509&articleId=18 618621 and State regulators clarify reports on arsenic test results near coal ash spill: http://www.ncdenr.gov/c/journal/view_article_content?groupId=47 11509&articleId=18649005

, sampling results from February 7 show exceedances of regulated surface water standards for copper, iron and aluminum upstream and downstream of the spill, but those exceedances were far greater downstream than upstream. Also, samples collected on February 3 rd and 4 th revealed that arsenic levels exceeded a state standard for surface water quality. Levels of arsenic decreased at the two downstream sampling points between February 3 rd and 4 th 2014: The arsenic concentrations coll ected on February 3 below the spill site were 40 μg/L at the site closest to the spill (Draper Landing), and 13 μg/L at the Virginia state line. On February 4, the concentrations had decreased to 6.3 μg/L at the Draper Landing site, and 10 μg/L at the Virg inia state line. North Carolina’s arsenic state human health standard is 10 μg/L.
345 Charlotteobserver (2014).
346 Bloomberg BNA (2014).
347 The Unified Command consists of EPA Region 4, Duke Energy, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resou rces (NC DENR), The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
348 ABC News (2014). Under the scuttled deal, Duke would have paid fines of $99,111 for pollution that leaked from two coal ponds at its pow er plants near Asheville and Charlotte.
349 Danville Register & Bee (2014).
350 Charlotteobserver (2014a).
351 Duke dredged up about 2,500 tons of ash and contaminated sediment that settled against a dam in Danville, Virginia, a 20

- by

- 350

- yard section of the river. An additional 500 tons was recovered from other pockets in the river and settling tanks at two municipal water treatment plants in Virginia. Flow patterns in the river dispersed much of the spill along the first 20 miles downstream from the Eden pla nt, but they left substantial deposits at only three spots in the open river: near the plant where the spill occurred, about two miles downstream at Town Creek in Rockingham County, and just upstream from Schoolfield Dam in Danville (Winston

- Salem Journal, 2014). The EPA said recent testing of both the river water and bottom sediment has shown concentrations o f toxic metals below federal limits and close to what was most likely present before the spill (NY Times, 2014 and Roanoke, 2014). According to Roanoke (2014), over the next two years, t he Virginia Department of Environmental Quality will test the water and fish in the river as well as river s ediments, as will VDEQ’s counterpart in North Carolina, Duke Energy, and federal agencies. In addition, two water protection groups

- the Roanoke River Basin Association and the Dan River Basin Association

- fearful that coal ash will continue to be churne d up from the river bottom during floods or storms

- are teaming up to continue monitoring the Dan River in North Carolina and Virginia. NC DHHS officials said that “contaminants associated with the coal ash spill are at levels that should not pose a healt h risk during recreational use of the river;” however, NC DHHS is leaving in place the advisory against eating fish andI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

81 On February 28, 2014, NC DENR issued two notices of violation (NOVs) relating to violations of wastewater and stormwater regulations at Dan River Plant; and on March 5, NC DENR issued five NOVs to Duke Energy for failure to obtain NPDES permits at five facilities. 352

In a March 12, 2014 letter to North Carolina’s Governor and the State’s Secretary of DENR, Duke Energy committed to clean

- close the plant’s inactive ash ponds by removing their contents to a lined structural landfill or a lined landfill. 353



### Proven Damage Case Ra tionale: Sewer line failure underneath an inactive but still not closed CCR impoundment impacted river environment; two NOVs issued in response to violations of wastewater and stormwater control regulations.


### References ABC News (2014): Duke Plans to Dredg e River as Coal Ash Deal Dumped; ABC News, February 11, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak

- nc

- delays

- coal

- as

h

- deal

- duke

- 22455403

Bloomberg BNA (2014): Duke Energy Stops Coal Ash Leak, Plans Long

- Term Cleanup of River. Bloomberg BNA Daily Environmental Report, Feb. 10, 2014. Accessed Online October 2014. http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=41535930&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0 e6k1e4c5&split=0

Charlotteobserver (20 14): Duke Energy Plant Reports Coal

- Ash Spill: The Charlotteobserver, February 4, 2014. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2 014/02/03/4661193/duke

- energy

- plant

- reports

- coal.html#

Charlotteobserver (2014a): Duke Energy begins coal

- ash dredging in Dan River, Charlotteobserver.com, May 12, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/12/4905751/coal

- ash

- dredging

- starts

- in

- dan.html

Danville Register & Bee (2014): Duke Energy to take coal ash to N.C. landfill. John R. Crane, Danville Register & Bee, April 14, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www .roanoke.com/news/local/duke

- energy

- to

- take

- coal

- ash

- to

- n

- c

- landfill/article_0b2a1826

- c442

- 11e3

- 938a

- 0017a43b2370.html

Duke Energy (2014): Coal Plant Decommissioning Program, Duke Energy’s website. Accessed Online July 2014. http://www.duke

- energy.com/about

- us/decommissioning

- program.asp

shellfish collected from the Dan River downstream of the Duke Power

- Eden spill site (Winston

- Salem Journal, 2014a). For further informat ion on the February 2014 spill, see NC DENR’S Dan River Coal Ash Spill website and Duke Energy (2014a, 2014b).
352 In March of 2014, NC DENR invited the U.S. EPA to partner with them in a potential enforcement action against Duke Energy for Clean Water Act (CWA) violations at all 14 coal ash facilities. EPA agreed and the partnership has since worked to assess the ext ent of Duke’s non

- compliance with the CWA (NC DENR, 2014).
353 ‘March 12 letter from Duke CEO Lynn Good to Gov. McCrory and Sec. Skvarla ’ : http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/dan

- river

- documents . According to Duke (2014a), clean closure of the ash ponds on the river’s bank would be completed within 24 to 30 months once t he destination for the ash is determined and the necessary permits secured.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

82 Duke Energy (2014a): Dan River Response, Duke Energy’s website. Accessed Online July 2014. http://www.duke

- energy.com/dan

- river/

Duke Energy (2014b): Ash Management, Duke Energy’s website. Accessed Online July 2014. http://www.duke

- ene rgy.com/ash

- management/

NC DENR (2014): North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Resources Quarterly Report to the Environmental Review Commission on Operations, Activities, Programs and Progress Relating to Coal Co mbustion Residuals Surface Impoundments, October 1, 2014. Accessed Online October 2014. Dan River Plant/Coal Ash Facility Documents/ Legislative Reports

- Coal Ash/ Quarterly Report on Operations, Activities, Programs and Progress Relating to Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundments

- Oct. 2014

. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/dan

- river

- documents

NY Times (2014): North Carolina: Coal Ash Cleanup Ends, NY Times, July 17, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/us/north

- carolina

- coa l

- ash

- cleanup

ends.html?mabReward=RI%3A8&action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=Footer&mo dule=Recommendation&src=recg&pgtype=article

Roanoke (2014): NC, Va. groups to monitor coal ash in Dan River, Ranoke.com, July 21, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.roanoke.com/ap/state/nc

- va

- groups

- to

- monitor

- coal

- ash

- in

- dan

- river/article_1c717af8

- 8568

- 5f4c

- 87c1

- 49b8328359b9.html )

Winston

- Salem Journal (2014): Officials suspend removal efforts on Dan River. July 16, 2014. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/officials

- suspend

- removal

- efforts

- on

- dan

- river/article_0c0865e7

- e8d5

- 5ad7

- 8166

- 5df6b320108a.html

Winston

- Salem Journal, (2014a). Local officials say it is OK to use Dan River. July 22, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/officials

- say

- it

- s

- ok

- to

- u se

- dan

- river/article_e6a6b8d8

- 121b

11e4

- 80ac

- 001a4bcf6878.html

Complaint and Motion for Injunctive Relief (2013a): State of North Carolina v. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC, N.C. Supreme Ct. (Mecklenburg). Docket number unavailable, August 16, 2013. Accessed Online August 2013. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/hot

- topics/duke_energy_aug2013injunctions

Dan River Power Stat ion (2009): Dan River Power Station

– Response to Request for Information under Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.9604(e), March 25, 2009. Accessed Online May 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/duke

- dan

- river.pdf

Paul C. Rizzo Associates (2009): CCW Impoundments Inspection Report, Dan River Steam Station, Rockingham County, North Carolina, Final Report, Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., September 2009. Accessed Online May 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/in dustrial/special/fossil/surveys2/dan

- river

- final.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

83 

### PR16. Hyco Lake, Roxboro, Person County, North Carolina 354



### Type: An Unlined Cooling Lake Receiving Discharge from Two Surface Impoundments. 355



### Brief Description: The 3,750 acre Hyco Lake was constructed in 1964 as a cooling water source for the Carolina Power and Light ( CP&L) Roxboro Steam Electric Plant 356 and to receive waters for coal

- ash leachate

- effluents. 357 The lake received discharges from the plant's ash

- settling ponds containing high levels of selenium. 358 The selenium accumulated in the fish in the lake, affecting reproduction and causing declines in fish populations in the late 1970s and 1980s. Consequent ly, in 1988 the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) issued a consumption restriction advisory for selenium contamination in fish from the Lake. 359



### Impact: According to Young et al., (2010), selenium was predominantly in the sol uble selenite form as it entered Hyco Lake. The degree of selenium contamination varied within the lake, with head

- water areas and portions of the lake most distant from the effluent outfall being less impacted, as compared to areas closer to the ash pond discharge. Water

- column selenium concentrations in areas near the effluent source were as high as 7 to 14μg/L, to near 1μg/L or less elsewhere. Sediment concentrations ranged over an order of magnitude, from 3.6 to 35 mg/kg dry weight (dw), depending on pr oximity to the effluent source. Selenium concentrations in phytoplankton during the height of the contamination ranged from about 5 to slightly above 60 mg/kg dw. Selenium concentrations in benthic invertebrates ranged from 30 mg/kg dw to a maximum of 88 m g/kg dw. Fish tissue concentrations were monitored in bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) and largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ) during the maximal selenium inputs into the reservoir. Bluegill muscle concentrations at the peak of the contamination episode ranged between 22 and 68 mg/kg dw, and liver concentrations ranged between 27 and 239 mg/kg dw. Largemouth bass tissues, sampled after the power plant introduced dry fly ash collection methods and curtailed effluent selenium loading to the reservoir, were lower, in part reflecting lower lake

- wide environmental concentrations of selenium. Largemouth bass muscle selenium ranged from 7 to 24 mg/kg dw, with liver concentrations ranging between approximately 10 and 35 mg/kg dw.

354 At the time of the damage case, owned by Carolina Power and Light (now: Progress Energy). Progress Energy merged on July 2, 2012 with the former owner, Duke Energy.
355 EPRI (2010)

. 356 The four

- unit, 2,422

- MW coal

- fired Plant is one of the largest power plants in the United States. It is located in Semora, N.C. and began operation in 1966, with additions in 1973 and 1980. The plant uses coal mined mostly in West Virginia that is delivered by rail. The plant burns anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000 tons of coal daily ( Roxboro Steam Plant : http://www.duke

- energy.com/power

- plants/coal

- fired/roxboro.asp and Hyc o Lake, North Carolina : http://www.hycolake.com/plant.htm )

. At some point in time, t he power plant switched to a closed

- cycle cooling system, which uses only the lake for make

- up water and cooling ( Hyco Lak e, North Carolina : http://www.hycolake.com/facts.htm

. 357 Crutchfield (2000). The reservoir is classified as oligotrophic to mesotrophic in biological productivity, is dendritic in morphology, and has four major tributaries: Cane Creek Complex, Cobb’s Creek, North Hyco River, and South Hyco River. Thermal and ash pond effluents enter the reservoir at the confluence of the North Hyco and South Hyco Rivers. The Hyco Reservoir has a surface area of 1760 ha (17. 6 km 2 ), a volume of 9.62 × 10 7 m 3 , a drainage area of 471 km 2 , a mean depth of 6.1 m, an average inflow of 5.7 m 3 /sec, and a mean hydraulic residence time of approximately six to nine months.
358 According to Skorupa (1998), water entering the reservoir from fly ash settling basins contained between 50 and 200μg/L selenium.
359 Since its establishment, t he Lake has been the area's main destination for fishing, boating, and water recreation. The elevated selenium issue was first brought to EPA’s attention in a l etter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center as a comment to the Coal Combustion Waste May 2000 Regulatory Determination, September 19, 2000 docket.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

84 According to L emly, 360 three species of sport fish 361 were virtually eliminated and severe reductions occurred in twelve other major taxa. Extensive population and community

- level impacts caused local extinction of species and shifts in dominance of other species. 362 Selenium toxicity was associated with fish larval mortality. 363 Levels of selenium in fish tissues remained above a toxic threshold (4mg/kg whole

- body, dw 364 ) in 2005, 31 years after depressed fish populations were first noted and fifteen years after selenium inputs to the Lake we re markedly reduced. This is attributed to the movement of selenium from contaminated sediments into benthic food chains. 365

In 1990, a dry ash handling system was implemented resulting in lower selenium discharge. As a result, mean selenium concentrations in reservoir waters at the power plant discharge declined from 8.8 μg/L to 3.2 μg/L within one year of the system ’s operation. 366 Subsequently, based on the results of fish tissue sampling, the fish consumption advisory was r escinded in stages starting in 1 994, until completely rescinded in August, 2001. 367



### Other Considerations: “A preliminary investigation of the water quality of Hyco Lake, which receives about 1000 MGD of CCR effluents, has revealed high levels of boron (up to 1,200 ppb) in the lake water.” 368



### Resolution: Corrective Action Taken: t he electric utility company presumably switched to dry disposal of fly ash in 1990. 369 T o determine the effectiveness of the new, dry handling system, the Department of Water Quality is requiring long

- term monitoring of the lake. 370

360 Comment to the CCR proposed rule docket: Case 2: Roxboro Electr ic steam Plant, EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6313.
361 Namely, Largemouth bass, striped bass, and chain pickerel.
362 Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized damage at the site as close to $877 million ($2010).

363 Gillespie and Baumann (1986).
364 See also Hamilton (2003): “Recent studies continue to support the dietary selenium threshold of 3μg/g and the whole

- body selenium threshold of 4μg/g for fish.” However, EPA (2004) proposes a higher threshold: “ The draft freshwater chronic criterion is exp ressed as a concentration in whole

- body fish tissue of 7.91μg/g, dry weight, and says if fish tissue samples exceed 5.85μg/g during summer or fall, fish should be monitored during the winter to determine if selenium exceeds 7.91μg/g.” On the status of the Federal selenium

- in

- fish regulation, see comment to the proposed rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 2930, Attachment.
365 See also Hamilton (2003).
366 Crutchfield (2000)

. 367 Selenium Posting on Hyco Lake Rescinded, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS), August 2001.
368 A

. Vengosh, Duke U niversity, 2010 Comment submitted to the proposed CCR rule Docket: EPA

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640

- 7785. According to Ruhl et al., (2012, Fig. 4), the outfall water discharged into the Lake contains up to 1,500 ppb of boron and 4.5 ppb of selenium.
369 EPRI (2010). This statement is, however, at a logger head with extensive evidence supporting the continuation of sluiced CCR to onsite storage or treatment ponds (West Ash Pond, FGD Settling Pond, and FGD Flush Pond, subject to NPDES Permit NC

- 0003425: Rizzo Associates, 2009) and continued CCR effluent discharge into Hyco Lake (Ruhl et al., 2012). According to Rizzo Associates (ibid), the wastewater treatment system was constructed and made operative between 200 7 and 2009.
370 According to SETAC Pellston Workshop (2010), it is difficult to generalize about recovery rates of systems when selenium contamination is reduced or removed. Recovery is a function of the ecosystem and the ability to totally eliminate mass lo ading to the system. Experience at Hyco Lake (an d Belews Lake) shows that once the source is removed, aquatic communities (although not always comprised of the same species) can return within a few years; however, selenium in sediments can contribute to lo ng (decadal) recovery times of tissue residues and potentially to associated adverse effects in consumers.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

85 The consumption restriction advisory for selenium contamination in fish from the Reservoir issued by the NC DHHS in 1988 was rescinded in 2001. 371

Based on monitoring data from this site 372 showing some constituents exceeded state water standards, 373 on October 10, 2012, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) filed a complaint with the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on behalf of several citizens’ groups requesti ng the following rulings:

a) Operators of coal ash lagoons with NPDES permits first issued on or before December 30, 1983, must take corrective action pursuant to 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(c) when their activity results in an increase in the concentra tion of a substance in excess of groundwater quality standards, whether or not groundwater quality standards have been exceeded at or beyond a compliance boundary around the CCR ponds;

b) Operators of CCR ponds with NPDES permits first issued on or before December 30, 1983, must take immediate action to eliminate sources of contamination that cause a concentration of a substance in excess of groundwater quality standards, in advance of their separate obligation to propose and implement a corrective action plan for the restoration of groundwater quality contaminated by those sources; and

c) Operators of closed and inactive CCR ponds must implement corrective action as unpermitted activities pursuant to 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(c).

On December 3, 2012, the North Carolina EMC upheld state regulators' interpretation of groundwater protection requirements for coal ash ponds: in taking that action, the EMC rejected a request by environmental advocacy groups for an order that would require the cleanup of gro undwater at fourteen coal

- fired facilities in North Carolina. The commission found that the Division of Water Quality correctly interpreted state law and regulations and that pre

- 1984 ponds at issue had compliance boundaries even though, for corrective act ion purposes, they were deemed “non

- permitted.” 374

In response to EMC’s decision, on January 8, 2013, SELC filed a complaint in the Wake County Superior Court on behalf of several conservation groups 375 ‘to protect North Carolina communities and groundwater f

rom toxic coal ash contamination at 14 coal

- fired power plants across the state.’ The lawsuit would require cleanup of groundwater contamination around unlined coal ash ponds, including those of Roxboro’s Steam Plant. 376

371 In an August 23, 2005 letter from J. Roewer, USWAG, to R. Kinch, EPA / OSWER, USWAG requested that EPA identify the Hyco Lake in the docket (RCRA

- 200 3

- 0003) as a site where the previously identified “proven damage” has been resolved to the satisfaction of the State through implementation of corrective measures; USWAG’s comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432, Appendix C.
372 The data cover the period of January 2010 to July 2012.
373 Cape Fear River Watch and Others (2012). NC DE N R h a s do c ument a t i o n of e x cee d a n c es of g r o u ndw a ter stan d a rds inside the c omp l ian c e bound a ri e s o f f ourt ee n c o a l

- fi re d po w e r pl a nts i n No r th C a rol i na with co a l ash i m poundments pe r m i t t e d p r ior to 1984, without mode r n c onstr u c t i on te c hniques a nd p e rmit t ing stand a rd s . Similarly to the other thirteen f acilities, groundwater ins i de the c omp l ian c e b o und a ry of the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant

e x cee ds stand a rds for multiple contaminants.
374 https://essential.bna.co m/login/signin?msg=deny&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bna.com%2Fdeln%2Fdisplay%2Fl ink_res.adp%3Ffedfid%3D28835414%26fname%3Da0d4y8f2r4%26vname%3Ddennotallissues&authenDec=

- 203
375 The Cape Fear River Watch, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, and Western North Caroli na Alliance

. 376 Southern Environmental Law Center Press Release, January 8, 2013 : http://www.southernenvironment.org/newsroom/press_releases/groups_in_court_to_stop_groundwater_contaminati on_from_toxic_coal_ash_waste/I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

86 A recent study 377 demonstrated that effluents released through Hyco Lake’s outfall show exceedance of boron’s Health Advisory standard in Hyco Lake’s water and elevated boron concentrations in pore water of the Lake’s bottom sediments as compared to the Hyco Lake upstream samples. 378 In additi on, 2009 dam integrity inspections of the 2007

- constructed FGD settling pond and the 1986

- constructed West Ash Pond noted significant seepage from both ponds into Hyco Lake. 379 Finally, on March 3, 2014, NC DNER issued to the Roxboro Steam Plant a Notice of Violation for failing to secure a storm water permit. 380



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



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage. < Impact to Fish populations reported from selenium concentrations; State concluded impacts attributable to ash ponds and issued fish consumption advisory.>


### References Newsobserver (2014): Regulators Frustrated at Slow Pace of Duke Coal Ash Stormwater Controls. Newsobserver.com, April 3, 2014. Accessed Onsite August 2014. http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/03/3670322/denr

- accuses

- five

- more

- duke

- plants .html

Thinkprogress (2014): Five More Duke energy Power Plants Cited for Storing Coal Waste Improperly. Thinkprogress, March 4, 2014. Accessed Onsite August 2014. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/04/3359261/stormwater

- violations

- duke

- energy/

Cape Fear River Watch and Others (2012): Request for Declaratory Ruling to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (“EMC”) for a ruling clarif ying application of the EMC’s groundwater protection rule to coal ash lagoons1 that contaminate groundwater in excess of water quality standards. Cape Fear River Watch, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, and Western North Carolina Alliance, Petitioners. Oc tober 10, 2012. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/fck/2012%2010

- 10%20Pet' r%20Mot%20%20For%20Declaratory%20Ruling%20(Motion%20only).pdf

Ruhl et al., (2012): The Impact of Coal Combustion Residue Effluent on Water Resources: A North Carolina Example. Laura Ruhl, Avner Vengosh, Gary S. Dwyer, Heileen Hsu

- Kim, Grace Schwartz, Autu mn Romanski, and S. Daniel Smith, Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 43, Number 16,
pp. 6326

– 6333. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/Statements%2010

- 27

- 09/Attachment%202_Duke%20Study.pdf

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases, Volume 2: Case Summaries, Final Report, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012.

377 Ruhl et al., (2012), August 2011 sampling.
378 For instance, August 2011 sampling at Hyco Lake’s Outfall recorded (all d ata in ppm) 65.2 for chloride, 29.3 for sulfate, 1,024 for boron, 6.5 for arsenic, and 10.6 for molybdenum, resulting in Hyco Lake downstream concentrations of 63.9 for chloride, 29.9 for sulfate, 976 for boron, 4.1 for arsenic, and 10.2 for molybdenum. Th e comparable concentration values for Hyco Lake Upstream are 28.9 for chloride, 13.8 for sulfate, 386 for boron, 1.3 for arsenic, and 2.6 for molybdenum.
379 Rizzo Associates (ibid).
380 The Dan River Steam Plant was issued two stormwater NOVs on February 28, 2014. In addition to the Roxboro Steam Station, on March 3, four additional Duke Energy Steam Stations were cited for failing to secure a storm water permit: Belews Creek, Cliffside, Lee, and Sutton (ThinkProgress, 2014; Newsobserver, 2014).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

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

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #7. ICF, 10/2010.

Lemly (2010): A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal Combustion Waste: The Cost of Poisoned Fish and Wildlife, A. Dennis Lemly, EPA Docket comment EPA

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640

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

- conten t/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

- CCW.pdf

SETAC Pellston Workshop (2010): Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment, Summary of a SETAC Pellston Workshop, Peter M Chapman, William J Adams, Marjorie L Brooks, Charles G Delos, Samuel N Luoma, William A Maher, Harry M Ohlendorf, Teresa S Presser, and D Patrick Shaw, Editors, Summary of the SETAC Pellston Workshop on Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment, 22

– 28 February 2009, Pensacola, Flor ida, USA. Accessed Online June 2012. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selenium/Library_articles/pellston_SELSummary.pdf

Young et al., (2010): Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment; Hyco Lake, North Carolina. Appendix A. Selected Case Studies of Ecosystem Contamination by Selenium, Terry F. Young et. al., Edited by Peter M. Chapman et. al., CRC Press, 2010, Pages 262

– 264. Accessed Online June 20 12. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selenium/Library_articles/chapman_etal_2010_appendixA.pdf

Rizzo Associates (2009): CCW Impoundments Inspection Final Report, Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Person County, North Carolina. Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina, Project No. 09

- 4157, December, 2009. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/pec_roxboro_final.pdf

EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #7, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

EPA (2004): Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria fo r selenium

– 2004. USEPA Office of Water, EPA

- 822

- D

- 04

- 001, November 2004. Accessed Online July 2012. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidanc e/standards/upload/2008_10_27_criteria_seleniums_maintext.pdf

Hamilton (2003): Commentary: Review of residue

- based selenium toxicity thresholds for freshwater fish. Hamilton, S. J., Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 56 (2003) 201

– 210. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.seleniumtaskforce.org/images/Hamilton_2003.pdf

Crutchfield (2000): Recovery of a power plant cooling reservoir ecosystem from selenium bioaccumulation, John U Crutchfield Jr

., Environmental Science & Policy

, Volume 3, Supplement 1

, 1 September 2000, Pages 145

– 163. Accessed Online October 2012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901100000423

Skorupa (1998): Selenium poisoning in fish and wildlife in nature: lessons from twelve real

- world examples. Joseph P. Skorupa, USFWS, Sacramento, California. In : Environmental Chemistry ofI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

88 Selenium, William T. Frankenberger Jr. and Richard A . E rgberg , E dits, Mercel Dekker, Inc., 1998. Accessed Online June 2012. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selenium/Library_articles/SePoisoning.pdf

Gillespie and Bauman (1986): Effects of High Tissue Concentrations on Reproduction by Bluegills. Gillespie, R.B. and P.C. Baumann . 1986. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115:208

- 213. Summary in Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Selenium, EPA

- 822

- D

- 04

- 001, November 2004. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/w aterscience/criteria/selenium/pdfs/complete.pdf



### PR17. Swift Creek Structural Fill Site ReUse Technology, Inc. /Full Circle Solutions, Inc., 381 

### Rocky Mount, Nash County, 382 

### North Carolina

Type: Structural F ill



### . Background and Description: This 25

- acre structural fill site that received CCRs from four North Carolina and Virginia Cogentrix power plants, 383 operated from 1991 through at least 2001. 384 The Swift Creek site was classified as beneficial use site, and as such did not require a permit from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR). 385 On June 26, 1996, Reuse

381 The compani es that worked the Swift Creek project were ReUse Technology, a wholly owned subsidiary of Charlotte

- based Cogentrix, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Goldman Sachs Group, and Full Circle Solutions. ReUse Technology is the broker that file d the 1991 notification of the project. Prior to Goldman Sachs’ purchase of Cogentrix in 2003, ReUse Technology transferred its ash removal operations and other assets to Full Circle Solutions.
382 Swift Creek Structural Fill is located along Hwy 301, close to N. Battleboro and near the City of Rocky Mount.
383 NC DENR claims that the coal ash was generated actually only by four plants: three Cogentrix plants located in NC (Battleboro, Elizabethtown and Lumberton), and one plant located in VA (Richmond): EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0267. However, their designation, where the Elizabethtown and Lumberton plants are addressed as separate facilities, is incoherent. The six plants cited in EIP (2010) are as follows: Lumberton, Elizabethtown (NC): originally developed in 1984 by Cogentrix Energy, Inc., North Carolina Power Holdings, LLC now owns these two, 35 MW

each, coal

- fired power generating plants, located in Lumberton and Elizabethtown, respectively (Highstar Capital, 2014). Kenansville (NC): In 2008, Coastal Car olina Clean Power has applied to the North Carolina Utilities Commission requesting to convert this 1986

- established Plant from coal to biomass, with a generation capacity of up to 32 MW ( Triangle Business Journal, 2008)

. Rock Mount (NC): This Power Plant, on the Tar River, once provided power for the city of Rock Mount. It has been decommissioned and is now home to offices and a restaurant (RockyMount, 2013). Hopewell (VA): This Dominion

- owned 63 MW coal

- fired plant is located in Hopewell, Virginia. The st ation began commercial operations in July, 1992 and was subsequently re

- commissioned on April 1, 2007 (Dominion, 2014). Portsmouth (VA): The four coal

- fired generating unit and eight gas turbines plant has a generation capacity of 717 MW. Portsmouth Power Station was renamed in late 1983 to Chesapeake Energy Center. Owned by Dominion, it is located beside the southern branch of the Elizabeth River in the city of Chesapeake, Virginia. The station switched from coal to oil in the 1970s; then, with the soaring price of oil, Chesapeake Units 3 and 4 were re

- converted to coal by the early 1980s, and the station's two oldest units (111 MW

- each) were re

converted to burn coal in 1987 (Dominion, 2014a).
384 According to EIP (2010), CCR placement continued possibly until January 2003.
385 This structural fill, as many others in North Carolina, was built before regulations became effective in 1994. Regulations 15A NCAC 13B.1700, Requirements for Beneficial Use o f Coal Combustion By

- Products, include requirements that the user give DWM notice of intent to construct and a final certification that construction was done according to regulations. The rules also set out siting, design, construction, operation, closure, and recordation requirements; NC DENR comment to the CCR proposed rule docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9282, http://portal.ncdenr.org/c /document_library/get_file?uuid=c3f45e27

- b0da

- 4a0d

- 9c94

- 915aa21f97a3&groupId=14 and North Carolina DENR comment to the October 2011 NODA: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0267. For instance, State regulations require that structural fill proposals must submit a notic e to NC DENR and be constructed safely toI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

89 Technology got special permission from the NC Division of Waste Management to also use ash from Cogentrix’ Kenansville facility for the residuals of a boiler fuel mix of coal and shredded tires (80:20), which contain arsenic at higher levels than the coal ash alone. 386

CCR w as placed only one foot above the water table and into a wetland, contaminating off

- site groundwater and causing off

- site CCR dust impacts to adjacent property. In 2002, the owner determined that as much as seven feet of standing water was present in the bottom of the CCR f ill

. 387 A site investigation report in 2003 demonstrated that groundwater existed throughout the entire fill area.

EIP (2010) indicates that the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead and arsenic was exceeded onsite, as well as in offsite gro undwater down

- gradient of the fill site. EIP (2010) also notes sulfate exceeded the North Carolina Code 2L Groundwater Standard both onsite and offsite. 388



### Impact and Damage Claims: EIP (2010) mentions that a NC DENR inspection in the mid

- 1990s found that CCR had been placed too close to surface water, to the seasonal high groundwater table, and to the property line, all of which were in violation of the approved plan. In August 2001, the NC DENR determined that coal ash had been placed into a wetland on s ite. 389


### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 390

prevent erosion. They can’t be put within 50 feet of a wetland or stream, within 100 feet of a drinking water source, and within 2 feet of the seasonal high groundwater table. Addressing structural fills built in N orth Carolina prior to 1994, Ellen Lorscheider, planning and programs branch head of the solid waste section within NC DENR, said “When they said they had an end use, they didn’t have an end use

– it was a form of disposal. There was abuse of our regulatio ns

– the coal was a disposal site they called structural fill” (Newsobserver, 2014).

386 Facing South (2010). TCLP

- leachable arsenic of the combustions residuals of this fuel mix is approximately 40 percent of the hazardous threshold of 5.0 mg/L. The blend c ontained also high levels of zinc. The approval letter also required that the setback from any property boundary be increased from 25 to 100 feet; quarterly TCLP analysis of a suit of RCRA metals; and suggested one down

- gradient monitoring well to be insta lled at any site receiving 10,000 or more cubic yards of Tire Derived Fuel ash.
387 In its comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket, EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9951, Full Circle Solutions, Inc. claims that at the time the project began construction, the groundwa ter elevation was determined and the project was designed in accordance with the State of North Carolina guidelines. As verified by a qualified hydrogeologist after construction began, CCRs were placed above the groundwater elevation. In the midst of construction, two hurricanes flooded the area including this site. The underlying soils and the earthen berms surrounding the CCR are dense, low permeability clays which resulted in the trapping of stormwater and /or groundwater in the CCR fill with no effective means of escape.
388 Lead concentrations were as high as 0.93 mg/L, more than 6 times the MCL; and arsenic concentrations were as high as 0.068 mg/L, nearly 7 times the MCL. In January 2008 (according to NC D ENR: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0267 , in 2009), lead was measured at more than twice the MCL in off

- site groundwater down

- gradient from the ash, and arsenic and sulfate levels also exceeded MCLs in off

- site groundwater.
389 In its comment to the proposed CCR rul e docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9282, NC DENR conceded that the damage assessment for the Swift Creek site as portrayed in EIP (2010) “appears essentially accurate.”

390 ICF (2010). 

### Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1: 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  Offsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCLs for lead and arsenic, and the North Carolina Code 2L Groundwater Standard for sulfate.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

90 

### Other Considerations: According to a 2006 NC DENR Compliance Order, the NC DENR collected coal ash samples in 2004 from the power plants where the ash at Swift Creek originated, and found “elevated levels of lead, arsenic, and sulfates.” 391 This suggests that the constituents found in the groundwater at Swift Creek are related to the ash it received from these power plants.



### Resolution: A Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued on April 4, 2002 for failure to bring the coal ash fill area in com

pliance with the original plan for waste placement. The facility operators agreed to install groundwater monitoring wells in 2005, which confirmed suspicions that the ash was percolating contaminants. By then the site contained 134,000 cubic yards of ash. 392 A Compliance Order (CO) was issued on September 15, 2006, and a $4,000 penalty was assessed. The CO required that the nature and concentration of constituents in the groundwater and surface water be determined, the horizontal and vertical extent and rate of migration of contamination were also to be determined, and a dewatering plan to be submitted. A subsurface drainpipe corrective action system was installed in January 2008 to intercept groundwater and to lower groundwater elevation in contact with the CCRs. A July 2013 groundwater monitoring report 393 said the eight water samples showed no contamination of coal ash chemicals in deep groundwater monitoring wells. On May 16, 2014, NC DENR gave the site’s operators 90 days to come up with corrective measures pertaining to the shallow groundwater. 394



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven damage . <Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic and lead have been found on site and off site. The North Carolina DENR issued a NOV and

391 In an October 24, 2004 letter to Full Circle Solutions’ CEO, NC DENR addre ssed groundwater exceedances revealed in the July 2004 (in EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0267 , NC DER claims that the analysis actually occurred in June 2004) Sherrill’s Environmental report Groundwater Analysis Swift Creek Project Highway 301, prepared for ReUse Technology, Inc. the report revealed both arsenic and lead in groundwater sample from MW

- 1S at concentrations of 0.028 mg/L and 0.068 mg/L, respectively (the MCL of arsenic and lead allowed in groundwater is 0.010 mg/L and 0.015 mg/L, respectively). Sulfat e was recorded at the same well at concentration of 490 mg/L, while its SMCL is 250 mg/L. NC DENR required an assessment monitoring study plan for determining the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination in preparation for putting in place remed ial measures. Review of Groundwater Analysis, Full Circle Solutions, Inc.: http://www.southernstudies.org/images/sitepieces/swift_creek_groundwater_ltr.pdf
392 Newsobserver (ibid).
393 B y Sherrill Environmental, Durham, N. Carolina.
394 Newsobserver (ibid). indicate that hazardous constituents have migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCLs for lead and arsenic, and the North Carolina Code 2L Groundwater Standard for sulfate.

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  NC DENR determined in 2001 that coal ash had been placed directly into a wetland on site.

Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  NC DENR issued a Notice of Violation in 2002 f or failure to bring the fill area into compliance with an original plan for waste placement. A Compliance Order was subsequently issued in 2006, which included a fine and a requirement to delineate the nature and extent of groundwater sand surface water co ntamination.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

91 subsequent Compliance Order to delineate groundwater and surface water cont amination; however this Order did not have an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment.>


### References Dominion (2014): Hopewell Power Station. Accessed Online August 2014. https://www.dom.com/about/stations/fossil/hopewell

- power

- station.jsp

Dominion (2014a): Chesapeake Energy Center. Accessed Online August 2014. https://www.dom.com/about/stations/fossil/chesapeake

- energy

- center.jsp

Highstar Capital (2014): North Carolina Power Holdings, LLC. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.highstarcapital.com/investment.php?id=32

Newsobserver (2014): Rural NC sites become dumping grounds for unwanted coal ash. Newsobserver.com, May 22, 2014. Accessed Online November 2014. http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/22/3881617/rural

- nc

- sites

- become

- dump

grounds.html#storylink=cpy

RockyMount (2013): Rocky Mount: Area Driving Trail. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.rockymounttravel.com/tours

- driving.html

EIP (2010): Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #14. The Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice. February 24, 2010. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

Facing South (2010): ‘Dumpsites in Disguise’, Facing South, the Institute for Southern Studies, May 27, 2010. Accessed Online November 2014. http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/05/dumpsites

- in

- disguise.html

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix B, Case #14. ICF, 10/201 0.

NC DENR, solid waste database (Jan. 25, 2010) . A ccessed Online October 2010

. www.wastenotnc.org/sw/swpenalties.asp

Triangle Business Journal (2008): Coastal Carolina Clean Power to spend $14M for biomass plant. Triangle Business Journal, 19 May, 2008. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/ stories/2008/05/19/newscolumn1.html



### PR18. Conesville Fixed FGD Sludge Landfill, American Electric Power (AEP), 395 

### Ohio

Type: FGD Landfill and Associated FGD Sludge Pond.

395 The FGD sludge management system was the first of its kind in operation: it was originally owned/operated by Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company (EPRI, 1984).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

92 

### Description: American electric Power’s Conesville, Ohio Power Plant 396 used an unlined FGD Sludge landfill with a 50

- acre footprint between January 1977 and October 1988. While active, the landfill received primarily fixated scrubber sludge. 397 Groundwater impact was first detected in 1979/80. The current landfill was opened in 1987 and expanded in 1993. 398 AEP’s Conesville Plant is presently using some of its FGD to neutralize acid mine drainage emanating from an adjacent, abandoned open pit coal mine. 399 Much of the Plant’s CCRs are still wet

- managed. 400

The landfill, as well as an adjacent fly ash surface impoundment 401 directly up

- gradient of the FGD landfill, are located east of the Muskingum River adjacent to the floodplain. The site is underlain by about 10 feet of alluvial sediments and permeable glacial outwash 402 ( silts, clay s, and sands). Bedrock likely comprises shale, siltstone, and limestone of the Waverly (Upper

- Mississippian age) and Maxwell (Lower

Mississippian age) formations. 403

396 According to GenerationHub (2012), t he 1,891 MW Conesville Plant comprises four active generation units (with in

- service dates): Unit 3: 162 MW nameplate capacity

, ( 1962), Unit 4: 842 MW (1973), Unit 5: 444 MW (1976), and Unit 6: 444 MW (1978). C yclone

- boiler Units 1 and 2, with 125 MW capacity each, were shut down in 2005 due to corrosion fatigue. According to AEP (2011), on June 9, 2011, AEP announced that, based on impending EPA regulations as proposed, AEP’s compliance plan would retire nearly 6,000 MW of coal

- fueled power generation. This would include pulverized coal boiler (PCB) Unit 3, to be retired by Dec. 31, 2012, whereas PCB Units 5 and 6 would continue operating with retrofits. According to EPA Minefill Site Visit (2002), for the cyclo ne units, the ratio between bottom ash and slag vs. fly ash is approximately 80:20. For the PCB units, the bottom ash/fly ash ratio is approximately 20:80.
397 Namely, Poz

- O

- Tec, an FGD sludge mixed with fly ash and lime to stabilize potential contaminants. Poz

- O

- Tec was developed by Conversion Systems, Inc. (CSI, formerly known as IU Conversion Systems, Inc.) The FGD sludge is generated by the wet scrubbers of Units 5 and 6. FGD waste from Units 5 and 6 is approximately 3 percent solids as generated. It is pumped to thickeners that raise it to about 30 percent solids, then to vacuum filters that raise it to 45 percent solids. The FGD waste is then mixed with dry fly ash and some lime and placed in a storage pile for two to four days before it is transported to the facility’s landfill, approximately 3 miles from the plant. According to EPA Minefill Site Visit (ibid), the current landfill was constructed in a valley between old mine highwalls. It is regulated as a Class III landfill, as are AEP’s other CCR landfills in Ohio.

398 According to EPA Minefill Site Visit (ibid), all sections of the landfill are composite

- lined and capped, although the environmental con trols on the older section have a slightly different design than those on the expansion; e.g., the older section is equipped with a toe drain only, while the expansion includes a complete leachate collection system with a sand layer, lateral drains, etc. L eachate from the landfill requires treatment only to lower the pH before it can be discharged under the facility’s NPDES permit limits. The landfill is equipped with a ground

- water interceptor system that diverts ground water into the old mine sites. This keeps the mine flooded to prevent acid mine drainage generation and the formation of hydrostatic pressure on the landfill liner.
399 According to AEP (2012), eliminating the acid mine drainage involves using approximately 1.6 million tons of FGD material pro duced by the Conesville scrubbers to backfill the 100

- foot highwall.
400 According to EPA Minefill Site Visit (ibid), bottom ash and slag is slurried and pumped to dedicated, on

- site surface impoundments. Fly ash from Units 4 through 6 can be slurried and pu mped to dedicated surface impoundments or managed dry, whereas fly ash from Units 1 through 3 has been always managed dry. The on

- site surface impoundments are dredged on a nearly continuous basis and the dredged solids are transported to the facility’s la ndfill.
401 According to Lockheed Martin (2010), the fly ash Pond Complex, commissioned in the 1950s and regulated by EPA NPDES Permit No. OH0005371 is unlined, occupying some 82

- acres. There are four primary areas within the Ash Pond Complex: the Fly Ash St orage, Fly Ash Pond, Bottom Ash Pond, and Clearwater Pond. Splitter dikes constructed within the complex between 1976 and 1981 separate these areas. The splitter dikes were constructed from bottom ash and boiler slag placed above ash sediment. The Fly Ash Pond has been further divided by interior dikes constructed from bottom ash.
402 EPRI (1984).
403 Lockheed Martin (ibid); EPA (2007); and Islas (2006)

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

93 

### Impact: Thirty

- four monitoring wells were installed (two up

- gradient) to monitor the effectiveness of a Poz

- O

- Tec fixation process 404 to stabilize and thus immobilize potential contaminants. The stabilized FGD sludge was deposited next to the fly ash pond

. 405 The emergency FGD sludge pond, operated since January 1977 in conjunction with the s ludge management system, received filtrate water produced during vacuum filtration of the raw thickened FGD sludge. This filtrate is believed to be the principal source of cadmium concentrations in local groundwater which slightly exceeded the respective P DWS limit. After 20

- months of operating while unlined, the emergency FGD sludge pond was lined with fixed sludge. However, the liner was disrupted whenever unfixed sludge which had collected in the pond was excavated using a front

- end loader, and the damag e was not always repaired before the pond was reused. 406 Based on two sets of water quality data between February 1979 and July 1980, lead and chromium appeared to be migrating offsite. 407 In the first sampling campaign, lead exceeded the primary drinking wate r standard (PDWS) in two on

- site wells, and in three off

- site wells was up to twice the PDWS. Samples from on

- site wells in the first set of data also showed increases above background levels in the secondary drinking water standards (SDWS) of calcium, mag nesium, total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfate, and iron. 408

In the second set of data, samples from on

- site wells showed increases in calcium, magnesium, TDS, and sulfate relative to the first set of data. Exceedances of the PDWS for arsenic, cadmium, chrom ium, and selenium were found in on

- site wells and exceedances of the PDWS for chromium (up to sixteen times the PDWS) were found in three off

- site wells. Lead was not detected in any of the second set of samples.

EPRI 409 presents tabulation of exceedances in groundwater based on data provided by AES from 1981 through 1984. According to EPRI, these data indicate that arsenic concentrations met standards in effect at the time of monitoring, although some concentrations were higher than the current MCL (0.01 m g/L); and that mercury was detected in excess of the MCL once in an up

- gradient well and once in a well located within an ash pond. Most other wells reported non

- detects.

In its comment to the docket, AEP 410 states that shortly after the 1979/1980 water qu ality data sets were analyzed, the filtrate from the FGD sludge stabilization process, believed to be a possible source of cadmium, was routed to the thickener tanks. Subsequent groundwater monitoring, performed for an additional six years, indicated that only one of 482 samples for arsenic exceeded the PDWS; only six of 520 samples exceeded the PDWS for chromium, and five of the six exceedances occurred on one of the 25 sampling events. Seventeen of the 582 samples exceeded the PDWS for lead, and all thes e exceedances occurred on three of the 25 sampling events. No sample exceeded the cadmium PDWS. 411

404 According to EPRI (1984), additional monitoring wells were installed under Phase II of the FGD sludge fixation project, hence the statement “ t here are approximately 55 monitoring wells for the landfill, monitoring three underlying aquifers” in EPA Minefil l Site Visit (ibid).
405 According to EPRI (1984), in 45 laboratory tests the logarithmic average permeability of the field Poz

- O

- Tec samples was 6.07 x 10

- 6 cm/sec. Note that this permeability falls short of EPA’s proposed Guidelines for Landfill Disposal o f Solid Waste that a liner with permeability of 1 x 10

- 7 cm/sec should be used to control leachate when natural hydrogeologic conditions only provide minimum capability for amelioration of impacts from leachate on groundwater, as is the case at the Conesvi lle Site.
406 EPRI (1984).
407 Ohio’s comment to the proposed CCR management rule: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 8226. The impact on groundwater quality of the fly ash pond is documented in EPRI (1984).
408 EPRI (1984).
409 EPRI (2010).
410 American Electric Power, Comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6851.

411 According to EPA Minefill Site Visit (ibid), the facility uses chloride as an indicator parameter for monitoring. Chloride is observed in the leachate at about 800 mg/L, compared to single d igit concentrations in the aquifers. AEP claims that in the history of the landfill, only one well has had a statistically significant excursion from backgroundI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

94 

### Resolution : Late in 1988, a two

- foot clay cap with 6” topsoil cover was placed on the landfill, and the landfill has since been inactive. The utility continued voluntarily monitoring groundwater in the 1980s. No monitoring is presently required, but post

- closure inspections continue. 412

AEP contends 413 that based on (i) the subsequently improved groundwater monitoring data record cited above, (ii) EPA’s statement 414 on the limited potential for off

- site migration of contaminants, and (iii) the fact that the landfill has been capped for almost 23 years, this site should be removed from EPA’s list of damage cases. EPRI 415 seconds this claim, arguing that groundwater flow direction is toward Muskingum River, and that there are no recipients along the contaminants’ migration path.



### Postscript : This sit e is one of seven cited in the 1988 Report to Congress that Dames and Moore, in their 1982 study for USWAG, identified as having a potential for adverse environmental and health effects. EPA (2007) addresses the considerations underlying EPA’s decision in its May 2000 Regulatory Determination to reject it as a damage case, and the reasons for subsequently reinstating it as a potential damage case.



### Evaluate against Proven Damage Criteria : In reference to EPA’s damage case screening criteria, the migration of two primary MCLs (lead and chromium) off

- site qualifies the Conseville Fixed FGD Sludge Landfill as a proven damage case.


### References AEP (2012): FGD Project at Conesville Coal Prep Plant. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.aep.com/about/coalCombustion/currentProjects/FGD.aspx

GenerationHub (2012): AEP shuts Conesville coal wash plant, has it up for sale. B arry C assell , April 5, 2012. Accessed Online June 2012. http://generationhub.com/2012/04/05/aep

- shuts

- conesville

- coal

- wash

- plant

- has

- it

- up

- for

AEP (2011 ): AEP Shares Plan for Compliance with Proposed EPA Regulations. American Electric Power, June 9, 2011. Accessed Online August 2014. https://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1697

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases Vo. 2: Case Summaries. EPRI Final Report 1020554, Sept. 2010, PP. 2

- 145 to 2

- 146. Accessed Online July 2012 http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20 Product%20Damage%20Cases

Lockheed Martin (2010): Assessment of Dam Safety Coal Combustion Surface Impoundment (2010), (Task 3) Final Report, AEP, Conesville Generating Station, Conesville, Ohio. Lockheed Martin, February 15, 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/aep

- conesvl

- final.pdf

concentrations, and that after assessment monitoring, this excursion was not clearly attributab le to a release from the landfill, and the facility has returned to detection monitoring

. 412 However, according to EPA Minefill Site Visit (ibid), since its closing in 1988, the old FGD landfill has been subjected to post

- closure monitoring under OEPA regulations.
413 American Electric Power, Comment to the docket, ibid.
414 EPA (2007).
415 EPRI (2010).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

95 EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case # 63. Docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007

Islas (2006): Geological Report of the Appalachian Basin in Kentucky, Joseph L. Islas, June 28, 2006. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.asenergyconsulting.com/PDF/Appalachian_Basin_Report.pdf

EPA Minefill Site Visit (200 2 ): U.S. EPA Site Visit Report Coal Combustion Waste Minefill Management Practices

- Ohio

- Draft Final Report, August 28, 2002. Accessed Online April 2013. http:// www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/sites/oh

- visit.pdf

EPA (1988): Report to Congress (RTP) on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants (EPA530

- SW

- 88

- 002), US EPA, February, 1988. Accessed Online July 2012 http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coal

- rtc.pdf

EPRI (1984): Monitoring the Fixed FGD Sludge Landfill

-- Conesville, Ohio . EPRI, Project 1406

- 2 Final Report, October 1, 1984. Accessed Online November 2014

. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?k=Monitoring+the+Fixed+FGD+Sludge+Landfill

-- Conesville%2C+Ohio&r=mptypecategory%3AAREBVGVjaG5pY2FsIFJlc3VsdHMObXB0eXBlY2F0Z WdvcnkBAl4iAiIk,mptabresults%3AARABUmVzZWFyY2ggUmVzdWx0cwxtcHRhYnJlc3VsdHMBA l 4iAiIk



### PR19. Bruce Mansfield Power Station’s Little Blue Run Surface Impoundment, FirstEnergy, Shippingport, Greene Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania and Grant District, Hancock County, West Virginia

Type: Surface Impoundment.



### Background and Desc ription: The Bruce Mansfield Power Station (BMPS), located in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, has three generation unit with a total capacity of 2,741 MW and is the fourth largest power plant in the U.S. 416 The BMPS conveys, through a 7.5 miles underground pipe, up to 4 million gallons per day of approximately 30 percent solid coal ash and FGD slurry to the Little Blue Run surface impoundment (LBR). 417 The LBR impoundment is located west of the BMPS, about 0.6 miles south of the Ohio River

.

Permitted in 1974 and commissioned in 1977, t he LBR impoundment is unlined 418 and covers an area of approximately 967 acres across both Pennsylvania (about 60 percent of the permit area) and West

416 Bruce Mansfield produces about 550,000 tons of fly ash and 98,000 tons of bottom ash per year: FirstEnergy Little Blue Cleanup Nearly Years Away: http://www.timesonline.com/news/local_news/firstenergy

- little

- blue

cleanup

- nearly

- years

- away/articl e_e8f6198f

- 951b

- 5b95

- a7e0

- 78fdd44eb454.html

. 417 According to PA Geology (2009)

, t he plant uses a patented oxidation process called Forced Oxygen to Gypsum (FOG), to change the calcium sulfite hemihydrate from the wet scrubbing process into synthetic gypsum in the form of calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO 4 ·2H 2 O) . It is then dewatered and converted in a National Gypsum Company facility on the premises into a commercial quality wallboard.
418 In accordance with applicable law, PADEP has granted this site a waiver of the Pennsylvania residual waste regulations that require liners, leachate collection systems, and siting restrictions. The impoundment was thereby also exempted from the requirement to retrofit for a 25

- year, 24

- hour flood ( EIP, 2010a

, p . 171.) The liner requirement was waived upon promulgation of P ennsylvania’s coal ash regulations in 1992, and again with the expansion of the impoundment in 2006, for which FirstEnergy secured a “dem onstration” permit

, to determineI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

96 Virginia ( the remaining 40 percent )

. 419 The 400 foot high earth and rock dam with an impervious core blocks the Little Blue Run near its confluence with the Ohio River. With a storage volume of about 65,000 acre

- feet, a maximum hydraulic head of 388 feet, and about 100 million tons o f contained fly ash and scrubber sludge

, 420 this impoundment is the largest of its kind in the U.S. 421

The site is blanketed by a less than 10 feet

- thick mantle of in situ soil on the hilltops and hillsides, while up to 55 feet

- thick alluvial and colluvial soils occur in and near the valley bottom. C o mprising primarily a mixture of silt, sand, gravel, and rock fragments, t hese soils are for the most part saturated due to the high ground water level within the valley bottom. 422 The soil s are underlain by a Pennsylvanian

- age bedrock sequence of the Alleghany and Glenshaw Formations, several hundred feet thick, of cyclical shale, siltstone, claystone, and sandstone, with thin coal horizons , paleosols, and carbonaceous shale. 423 A series of s mall

- scale mines for domestic use of coal penetrated as far as 110 feet into the abutments. 424 Groundwater and surface water have been monitored both onsite and offsite. The geohydrologic gradient is northward, towards the Ohio River. As of July 2013, LBR fe atures an extensive water monitoring program that includes more than 50 groundwater wells, more than 30 surface monitoring points and more than 30 domestic wells. Sampling results are submitted to PADEP on a quarterly basis. 425



### Impact and Damage Claims: Groundwater: EIP (2010a) claims that levels of arsenic, barium, cadmium, fluoride, lead, and turbidity exceeded primary EPA MCLs in both onsite and offsite groundwater monitoring wells and in multiple off

- site residential drinking water wells, prompting se veral property buyouts by FirstEnergy. In addition, aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, sulfate, pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA standards (SMCLs) in both onsite and offsite groundwater.

In 2006, PADEP permitted an increase i n the height of the dam for the impoundment to accommodate more fly ash and scrubber sludge from the BMPS. 426 The resulting increase in head pressure has allegedly

whether specific uses of a slurry of scrubber sludge and ash, as well as geo

- tube technology

, could stabilize the waste site and extend the life of the unit. (EIP

, 2010 a , page 170.) The site was expanded in 2006, and, inclu ding the buffer areas owned by FirstEnergy, currently occupies over 18 percent of the landmass of Greene Township, in addition to an extensive area in West Virginia . In February 2011, a new, 264

- acre coal

- ash disposal impoundment expansion (the ‘Little Blu e East’ site) was proposed in Greene Township, adjacent to the current impoundment.

419 According to the Bureau of Waste Management, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), Form 13

- A : Modification to Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Permit for Solid Waste Disposal Permit No. 300558 (issued October 11, 2005), the permitted area is 1,695 acres.
420 EPA (2009). According to FirstEnergy, the total CCR material placed since its inception is a pproximately 118 million cubic yards; L ittle Blue Run at a Glance: ( https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/littlebluerun/files/Little%20Blue%20Run%20at%20a%2 0Glance_06 .2013_V3.pdf

).

421 FirstEnergy holds various permits for the site including NPDES discharge permits (PA0027260) for the outfalls as well as a Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law permit (PA0027481) and a Solid Waste P ermit (300558). For a recent aerial v iew of the impoundment area, see virtual pages 321 and 322 in FirstEnergy Closure Plan (2013).
422 CHA (2010).
423 Martino (2004) and Thiers et al., (1976)

. 424 CHA (ibid) : The deeper mines were backfilled with grout and the shallow mines were cleaned of loose material and filled with sand bags prior to the placement of backfill.
425 FirstEnergy Facts and History: https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/fecorp/environmental/environmental_stewardship/by

- product

disposal/LittleBlueRunInfo/facts_and_history.html
426 Comment to the CCR proposed rule docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6315.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

97 pushed the groundwater contamination farther off

- site. 427 This resulted in levels of arsenic, an timony, hexavalent chromium, lead, boron, cadmium, thallium, selenium, and other constituents in off

- site springs and seeps in excess of Pennsylvania’s WQSs. PADEP acknowledged 428 that the flow in several pre

existing springs down

- gradient from the impoundme nt has increased in the recent past and the springs are impacted (elevated calcium, chloride, and sulfate) by the LBR impoundment. At least 22 private wells have now been contaminated above MCLs, SMCLs, and constituents with health advisories. 429

Arsenic w as reported in 1993 at 0.021 mg/L in a private well (at that time, below the Federal MCL of 0.05 mg/L); six additional analyses of that well (1994

- 2001) showed a maximum level of 0.005 mg/L, and some non

- detects. However, FirstEnergy claims that because t he well did not contain other ‘CCR constituents’, arsenic might have been derived from soils. 430 Elevated levels of arsenic continue to be detected in six monitoring wells and three surface water points. Excessive cadmium levels was observed in nine wells (with a maximum level of 850 μg/L, or 170 times the MCL), and of lead

– in 11 wells (with a maximum level of 2,690 μg/L, or 179 times the MCL).

Arsenic was reported in groundwater collected in eight monitoring wells in 2006 (first year of regular arsenic analyses at the site’s 42 monitoring wells). FirstEnergy claims, however, that many of these detections were not replicated in subsequent samples from the same wells, and attributes the original records to laboratory errors and statistical anomalies. 431 Firs tEnergy concedes that, based on the past 4.5 years of arsenic data, one groundwater well 150 feet from the LBR impoundment (MW

- 16A) contains elevated arsenic, but other wells immediately down

- gradient have no arsenic exceedances. FirstEnergy also claims t hat alleged fluoride, lead, and total suspended solid (TSS) exceedances, as well as SMCL exceedances of chloride, iron, manganese, and sulfate, are either due to natural sources (e.g., coal seams, soils, dissolution of fresh

- water rocks in the underlying g eologic sequence) or to brine impacts from historic oil and gas activities in the area, and that exceedances of TSS are due to dry

- up of wells during purging. According to PADEP, cadmium was reported at levels above MCL only in nine (out of 414) monitorin g well samples, and four of these contain groundwater representative of background conditions; and barium and lead in the LBR impoundment’s supernatant are well below the corresponding MCLs, indicating that the impoundment is not the source term.

A recent private well water quality study 432 collected 85 samples from 81 different community resident’s wells surrounding the LBR impoundment. These wells are ordinarily located further away from the LBR

427 According to CHA (ibid) , page 78 and page 6 of Appendix A, respectively, the evidence is equivocal: (i) the January 2009 PADEP inspection report noted that the valley below the saddle dam has been impacted by leachate and there is a pump return system for this water; (ii) accord ing to the EPA

- sponsored inspection in October 2009, seepage reached a peak in 1991 at 650 gallons per minute (gpm), and has since receded to about 300 gpm. However, the July 27, 2012 Consent Decree lists several sizeable, contaminated seeps as subjects fo r a mandatory assessment by the utility; and see the next footnote.
428 Comment to the 2011 NODA: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 3009

- 0201. Also, a response letter by Michael G. Forbeck, PADEP’s SW Regional Office, to Richard I. Sprecker, FirstEnergy Generating Corp., in response to complaints by two residents of Lawrenceville, West Virgin ia, about higher than normal spring flows and increased wet areas on their properties (attachment to an email message from Lisa Evans, EarthJustice, to Stephen Hoffman, EPA/OSWER, March 13

, 2012 )

. 429 FirstEnergy countered ( Comment to the NODA docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0201) by presenting (i) a list of 40 residential well sites, within 500 feet to 1.5 miles from the LBR impoundment , where sampling

- as of August 2004

- has not detected any arsenic; and (ii) September 30

, 2010 testing results of several pri vate wells in Lawrenceville, West Virginia, with non

- detects for primary MCLs, including arsenic.
430 Comment to the 2011 NODA: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0201

. 431 Comment to the NODA, ibid.

432 Michanowicz (2011) 

### : Samples were taken on November 1, 2, 3, and 22 of 2 010

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

98 impoundment as compared to PADEP’s groundwater monitoring wel ls. 433 The Study identified (i) seven ‘verified impact wells’ pertaining to PADEP’s 3rd Quarter 2008 monitoring, immediately west, north, and northeast of the LBR impoundment; (ii) four samples that exceeded the SMCL for total dissolved solids (TDS); 434 (iii) sulfate, while below the SMCL, showed a significant down

- gradient increase; 435 (iv) only one sample (11.5 μg/L) exceeded the USEPA primary MCL for arsenic; and (v) other wells with SMCL exceedances (29 samples of manganese, 436 14 samples of iron, two samples o f aluminum , and one sample of fluoride) are so located with respect to the hydraulic gradient as to rule out the LBR impoundment as the source term.

PADEP 437 concedes that (i) its 1994 letter to the BMPS stated ‘this surface impoundment is affecting ground water over a large area with multiple aquifers ’ (PADEP attributes this to the unlined impoundment); (ii) In a 1996 COA, Penn Power, FirstEnergy’s predecessor, admitted that ’existing groundwater monitoring data indicate light groundwater impacts from LBR s upernatant...of SMCL or indicator parameters (sodium, calcium, chloride, and sulfate); and (iii) according to FirstEnergy’s 2007 Annual Report, 24 wells were labeled as ‘supernatant impacted’ (containing elevated levels of sulfate, sodium, calcium, chloride , and magnesium.) The data of FirstEnergy’s 2007 Annual Report are supported by some of the findings of the recent drinking water well study (elevated calcium, chloride, and sodium in down

- gradient wells). 438

FirstEnergy submits 439 that at the EPA public hear ing in Pittsburgh, 440 a number of people commented that they had drinking water well problems and groundwater concerns suggesting that LBR was the cause. The utility claims that local well water analyses had been provided to EPA by both FirstEnergy and PADEP which demonstrate that the LBR impoundment is in compliance with the requirements of the permit and does not pose a threat to the public or the environment. According to FirstEnergy, EIP’s (2010a) claims addressed water wells that could not be impacted by the LBR impoundment because they were up

- gradient or otherwise geologically separated from the impoundment, or were impacted by fecal contamination likely associated with poor well installation in an area used by cattle.

Surface water : Levels of arsenic, antimony, boron, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, selenium, and thallium exceeded Pennsylvania’s water quality criteria (WQC) in Mark’s Run and other onsite and off

site surface water sources. 441 Additionally, several constituents exceeded criteria conti nuous concentrations (CCCs) and criteria maximum concentrations (CMCs). FirstEnergy claims that EIP’s (2010a) allegations about an offsite surface water sample with eight arsenic readings (2003

- 2010) as high as 0.028 mg/L were actually recorded for surface water sample point SW

- 5, a sample of the supernatant

433 I n PADEP’s 3rd Quarter 2008 monitoring well s ampling

, PADEP ’s monitoring well constituent levels were higher on average for most metals and salts sampled.

434 

### T he down

- gradient average is 2

, 200 ppm , as compared to a n up

- gradient average of 560 ppm

. 435 The down

- gradient average is 241 ppm , as compared to an up

- gradient average of 6.25 ppm.
436 The m ean of 83 samples was 166.7 ppb. Highs were detected in residential wells south and southeast of the LBR impoundment , whereas PADEP’s monitoring well highs ar e to the north, northeast, and southwest of the LBR impoundment

. 437 PADEP’s comment to the 2011 NODA docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 3009

- 0201

. 438 Michanowicz (2011)

. 439 Comment to the CCR proposed rule: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9880

. 440 CCR Public Hearings (2010).

441 EIP (2010a). EIP also claims that FirstEnergy’s own monitoring reports reveal concentra tions of boron at the Little Blue Run Stream surface water monitoring station location immediately down stream of the impoundment discharge (SW

- 3) higher than the chro nic Pennsylvania water quality criterion for boron in all quarters between 2006 and 2012. During this same time period, concentrations of boron even exceeded the acute Pennsylvania water quality criterion for boron at SW

- 3 in 9 of 22 quarters; and in the o ne quarter of available data for selenium from SW

- 3 in the last five years, selenium exceeded the chronic Pennsylvania water quality criterion.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

99 within the impoundment which is treated and discharged through an NPDES permit. Only one offsite monitoring point, spring S

- 31 at Mark’s Run was found to contain 0.011 mg/L arsenic, but, FirstEnergy cl aims that this spring emanates from the Bruch Creek coal seam. Finally, FirstEnergy contends that claims about onsite surface water that flow offsite and show arsenic and selenium that exceed WQC and antimony at levels that exceed CCC are not applicable, b ecause these surface water monitoring points include supernatant within the impoundment, which should not be compared to DWSs. However, FirstEnergy does not challenge exceedances of selenium in SW

- 3.

EIP (2010a) cites numerous incidents that have occurred at or near the BMPS, including coal ash fugitive dust covering homes and properties, 442 rotten eggs’ odor, and various unregulated discharge issues including 800 gallons of scrubber sludge, 100 gallons of CCR slurry, and discolored waters. Additionally,

man y permit violations have occurred at outfalls located around the site.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 443

USWAG claims 444 that t his case does not meet the criteria of a damage case

.

442 Environmental News Service (2007); PennFuture (2012); and c itizen complaints aired at the Arlington , Virginia (August 30 , 20 10 

### ) and Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania (September 21, 2010) proposed CCR ’s rule public hearings.

443 ICF (2010a).

444 Comment to the 2011 NODA docket (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211): “because the allegations do not contain any valid evidence of off

‐ site groundwater monitoring data or off

‐ site groundwater monitoring data showing exceedances of specified health

‐ based criteria; nor does it meet the criteria for a damage case to surface water quality because the allegations do not contain any valid evidence of exceedances of Federal water quality criteria.” 

### Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1: 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  Onsite and offsite groundwater exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsen ic, barium, cadmium, fluoride, lead, and turbidity.

 Onsite and offsite groundwater exceeded EPA SMCLs for aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, sulfate, pH, and TDS.

 Offsite wells have since been acquired by FirstEnergy.

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  Onsite and offsite surface waters exceeded P ennsylvania’s WQCs, CCCs, and/or CMCs for arsenic, antimony, boron, cadmium, hexavalent ch romium, lead, selenium, and thallium.

 Incidents have occurred near the site including coal ash fugitive dust covering homes, rotten eggs’ odor, and various unregulated discharge issues including 800 gallons of scrubber sludge, 100 gallons of CCR slurry,

an d discolored waters.
Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  PADEP has issued several NOVs concerning fugitive dust, discolored water from discharge, and groundwater contamination.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

100 

### Other Considerations:

 At least 22 private wells have been contaminated and acquired by FirstEnergy. The impacted residents have been supplied alternate drinking water.

 There is no public water supply in Greene Township, where all residents rely on private wells.



### Resolution: P ADEP has issued a number of Notices of Violation (NOV) regarding fugitive dust, discolored water, groundwater contamination, and NPDES permit violations. In addition, in 2007, the Power Plant was sued by nearby residents due to violations of air emissions that resulted in documented health impacts, and the lawsuit was resolved in 2009 through a Partial Consent Decree.

Multiple unpermitted discharge violations lead to several enforcement actions

, includ ing : a NOV and $2,500 penalty for discharge of suspende d solids (194mg/ L ) and pH (10.5) in violation of NPDES (July 31

, 1989 ); a NOV and $2,500 penalty for exceedances of NPDES permit discharge limits for TDS (194 mg/ L ; maximum limit 60 mg/ L ) and pH 10.5 (maximum limit pH 9) into Mill Creek from Outfall 001 ( 1991 ) ; discharge of 800 gallon of scrubber sludge into the Ohio River from the LBR impoundment ( January 1994); a NOV for ‘fly ash sludge’ that was ‘disposed outside the permit ’ ( September 23

, 2003); and a PADEP letter in response to elevated sodium and chl oride levels, which indicate that a surface water point has been impacted by leachate from the impoundment ( October 21

, 2008). 445

PADEP and FirstEnergy entered into a settlement agreement on June 21

, 1994 for groundwater contamination, and BMPS was required to provide an alternative water supply to a private residence; on December 20

, 2007, PADEP required re

- sampling of four wells with elevated arsenic. On January 31

, 2009, PADEP required a groundwater assessment, and according to FirstEnergy’s revised plan ( July 6
, 2011) the cause for the elevated arsenic levels is being studied

. On February 16

, 2010, PADEP required

re

- sampling of 10 wells with elevated arsenic levels, but no comprehensive remediation plan was required.

FirstEnergy has initiated a remedial plan for the impacted springs: two larger springs along the hillside of Mill Creek that have shown impacts are captured and pumped back to the LBR impoundment in accordance with a COA and are ultimately discharged under the NPDES permit; and a large sprin g, just to the northwest of the dam in West Virginia, is collected and routed into the impoundment’s NPDES discharge pipe that conducts flow to the Ohio River. FirstEnergy has supplied alternative drinking water to a few residents where samples showed chan ging wells’ water quality. 446 Two owners were offered water treatment systems because of brine water in their wells, and another

– in response to a (transient) increase of sulfate

. 447 In addition, FirstEnergy has purchased at least 12 homes in Lawrenceville, W est Virginia. 448

445 According to Little Blue Run Regional Action Group (2012) , “PADEP recognized already in 1994 that the Impoundment was polluting groundwater and springs, reminded FirstEnergy it had to predict wa ter pollution would occur in the future, and suggested that various abatement techniques had not been properly evaluated” (letter from D.K. Hartner, PADEP, to Robert O. Johns, Penn Power Co., May 2, 1994). “Despite this realization, in 1997 FirstEnergy ob tained exemptions from PADEP’s normal requirements for an impermeable liner that would have served to prevent pollution reaching the groundwater.” ( In the Matter of Pennsylvania Power Co., Consent Order and Agreement 7 , September 25, 1997).
446 A lbeit, accor ding to FirstEnergy, “indicative of past oil and gas exploration”.

447 The increase of sulfate was attributed by FirstEnergy to an intersected coal seam.
448 Pa., W.Va. landowners sue FirstEnergy over Waste: http://www.observer

- reporter.com/article/20131014/NEWS04/131019654I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

101 On May 30, 2012, the Little Blue Run Regional Action Group issued a n NOV and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Sue FirstEnergy f or violations of the CWA, Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law (CSL), EPCRA, and RCRA at the L BR Coal Ash Impoundment. 449

On July 27, 2012, PADEP issued a Consent Decree against FirstEnergy, 450 requiring, among others, groundwater assessment monitoring, a variety of measures for groundwater and surface water protection, provision of drinking water to residences impact by ground water contamination, closure of the impoundment at the end of 2016, and a civil penalty of $800,000. The Consent Decree was issued pursuant to Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of RCRA

, 451 to ensure that FirstEnergy’s disposal of solid waste in the

449 Little Blue Run Regional Action Group (2012). According to the NOI , FirstEnergy is violating the CWA by di scharging pollutants from Outfalls 021 and 022 in violation of the terms and conditions of its NPDES Permit ; violating RCRA by disposing of coal ash in a manner that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment; violat ing the CSL by discharging pollutants that have polluted and continue to pollute the groundwater and surface water of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and violating EPCRA by failing to report releases of toxic chemicals from the LBR Impoundment and recycl ing of toxic chemicals at the Bruce Mansfield Plant. The NOI provides data to show that (i) the actual loadings of selenium to the Ohio River are at least 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than the 1.7 pound/day that PADEP determined would cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to the environment; and that (ii) in down

- gradient groundwater monitoring wells, about 10 percent of the samples exceed the drinking water standard for arsenic, about 25 percent exceed the secondary drink ing water standard for boron, over 40 percent exceed the secondary drinking water standard for chloride, about 45 percent exceed the secondary drinking water standard for iron, and approximately 50 percent exceed the corresponding SMCLs for manganese and s ulfate.
450 According to the issued 2014 Closure Plan, the Consent Decree was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 14, 2012.
451 More specifically, t he Consent Decree ( PADEP v. FirstEnergy

, 2012 a ) filed in federal court in Pittsburgh (W.D. Pa., No. 12

- cv

- 01061

- NBF) requires that FirstEnergy: (i) conduct quarterly reconnaissance within 3/4 of a mile in Pennsylvania and West Virginia surrounding the ultimate waste disposal limits of the Impoundment, to locate any and all seeps or springs which have developed as of or prior to such reconnaissance; (ii) sample newly identified seeps within 30 days of discovery for flow quantity and any of 33 specified parameters and constituents; (iii) submit to PADEP a quarterly report identifying all seeps and include current and historical sampling data and trend analyses for each seep, stream, water supply and monitoring well; (iv) within 30 days of receiving notice from PADEP, or FirstEnergy’s own determination (whichever occ urs earlier), that a seep is or has become contaminated by the Impoundment, submit a written plan to PADEP describing the means by which FirstEnergy will manage such seep; (v) monitor drinking water wells as directed by PADEP and, for any and all impacted drinking water wells within

one

- half mile of the ultimate waste disposal limits of the Impoundment, restore the affected water supply at no additional cost to the owner or replace the affected water supply with an alternate source; (vi) within no later th an two years following entry of the Consent Decree, provide, free of charge, an alternate supply of drinking water of like quantity and quality to the original supply to 17 addresses in Greene Township, P ennsylvani a, and four in Chester, W est V irgini a, that are listed in the C onsent D ecree, and to any other home with a drinking water well within a half

- mile of the impoundment, if PADEP directs it to do so ; (vii) by August 1, 2012, submit to PADEP and WVDEP plans and a schedule to address any further m odifications or additions to the collection facilities in Lawrenceville, West Virginia

, necessary to abate seeps contaminated by the Impoundment that flow into any surface stream; (viii) by February 1, 2013, submit to PADEP a report, signed and sealed by a Pennsylvania licensed Professional Engineer, on investigation measures to reduce or prevent groundwater impact (e.g., selective application of slurry walls and associated pumping facilities installed in peripheral locations to the Impoundment to limit or re

- direct groundwater infiltration or contamination ; cover/capping to prevent/minimize infiltration of precipitation ; and the installation and permanent maintenance of a natural or synthetic liner between the uncontaminated stormwater and the waste materia l) , and evaluate the future safety and stability of the dam in light of all methods and options for waste stabilization, dewatering, and closure activities; (ix) take all measures necessary to ensure that the existing and designated uses of surface waters, including LBR, receiving any contaminants from the Impoundment, are protected, and that water quality criteria in such surface waters achieve applicable regulatory standards for all parameters; and comply with all applicable point source surface water per mit requirements and groundwater quality standards; (x) b y March 31, 2013, submit to PADEP an application for aI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

102 I mpoundment will not create an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment

. 452 Th e Complaint follows groundwater degradation ( by arsenic, calcium, sulfates, and chlorides) recorded near the LBR impoundment as a result of the solid waste disposed of within the Impoundment

. 453 It alleges that FirstEnergy failed to conduct required groundwater assessment and abatement actions regarding seeps or springs that developed in the vicinity of the Impoundment that had been contaminated by constituents from the Impoundment, 454 in violation of PADEP’s regulations, a preceding (April 5, 2006) Consent Order and Agreement with PADEP , and the Permit. On December 20, 2012, the Little Blue Run Regional Action Group issued yet another NOI to sue FirstEnergy over alleged le aking of heavy metals into nearby waterways from BMPS’s unlined coal ash disposal pond. 455

Late in January 2013, FirstEnergy announced that it was scrapping plans for a new coal ash disposal facility adjacent to the soon to be closed ( end of 2016 ) LBR impo undment

. 456 Starting in 2017,

major modification to the Permit for the Impoundment proposing a closure plan for the Impoundment; (xi) provide a copy of the required reports a nd the investigative/assessment results for review by the Greene Township community members, and participate in public meetings as requested by PADEP; and (xi i ) conduct monitoring sufficient to ensure that operation of the Impoundment will not cause or con tribute to an exceedance of Ambient Air Quality Standards

. See: FirstEnergy Closure Plan (2013) and Closure Plan Major Permit Mod Application: https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/littlebluerun/files/Closure%20Plan%20Major%20Permit%20Mod%2 0Appli cation_March%202013.pdf

. 452 Also, for operating the Impoundment in violation of provisions of Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Management Act of July 7, 1980, P.L. 380, as amended , 35 P.S. ' 6018.101 et seq

. 453 Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of RCRA was invoked because “g roundwater is the source of drinking water for some who live near the Impoundment, and arsenic is a contaminant which has the potential to pose a risk of harm to human health. The groundwater in the vicinity of the Impoundment provides the base flow for th e streams adjacent to and nearby the Impoundment. The potential exists for contaminants present in the groundwater to enter the streams and pose a risk of harm to the environment .”
454 D esignated as S

- 30, S

- 31, Bayard Spring, Byers Spring, and Culler No. 3 S pring.

455 Little Blue Run Regional Action Group (2012a): T he notice from the Environmental Integrity Project and Public Justice alleged FirstEnergy had “significant and ongoing” violations of the Clean Water Act, as well as other state and federal pollution control laws, at the L BR coal ash impoundment at the company's BMPS . According to the NOI , FirstEnergy disposed of 1,860,526 pounds of metals into the coal ash impoundment in 2011 alone, including 79,500 pounds of arsenic and 26,190 pounds of selenium. Th e NOI said that water samples taken downstream from the coal ash impoundment ’s discharge point at Outfall 021 revealed “concentrations of boron and selenium that exceed Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria for fish and aquatic life, concentrations of arseni c and selenium that exceed federal drinking water standards, and concentrations of molybdenum that exceed federal health advisories.” EIP and Public Justice said that the elevated levels of heavy metals endanger public health and the environment. Specific ally, the NOI bases its allegations on water samples taken from Mill Creek downstream of the Impoundment discharge on October 2, 2012 . T hree water samples measured boron concentrations of up to 3,300 μg/L

, that exceed the 1,600 μg/L chronic PA WQC for fish and aquatic life . A background sample collected in Mill Creek

, about 1.72 miles upstream of the Impoundment discharge (as the crow flies) had boron concentration of only 110 μg/L . Five water samples taken from Mill Creek downstream of the Impoundment disc harge measured selenium concentrations of up to 66 μg/L, all exceeding the 4.6 μg/L chronic PA WQC for fish and aquatic life. A background sample collected in Mill Creek upstream of the Impoundment discharge revealed a selenium concentration below the detection level (less than 1 μg/L). Two water samples taken from Mill Creek downstream of the Impoundment discharge measured arseni c concentrations of 11 μg/L and 15 μg/L, both above the 10 μg/L MCL. A background sample collected in Mill Creek upstream of the Impoundment discharge revealed an arsenic concentration below the detection level (less than 1 μg/L). Finally, three water samp les taken from Mill Creek downstream of the Impoundment discharge measured molybdenum concentrations of up to 110 μg/L, all above the 40 μg/L LHA. A background sample collected in Mill Creek upstream of the Impoundment discharge revealed that molybdenum wa s below the detection Level (less than 5 μg/L).
456 FirstEnergy said it has formally withdrawn PA DEP and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit applications seeking to expand the 1,700

- acre Little Blue facility ; FirstEnergy to ship 3 million tons of coal ash annually upI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

103 FirstEnergy plans to send CCRs from the B MPS to LaBelle, P ennsylvania, for use in coal pit mine reclamation activities. After being dewater ed at the BMPS, over three million tons/year of dry ash and scrubber waste would be trans ported by barges for 96 miles down the Ohio and Monongahela rivers. Another 450,000 tons of scrubber material will continue being diverted to the National Gypsum plant
next to the BMPS

, for recycl ing into wallboard. 457 Citizen groups have expressed objection s to FirstEnergy’s disposal plan in LaBelle, Pennsylvania. 458

On March 29, 2013, FirstEnergy submitted to PADEP a closure plan for the LBR Impoundment. The proposed plan involves a two

- layered synthetic liner placed over the Impoundment, overlain by a foot of seeded topsoil; and a small (about 100 acres), lined pool area behind the LBR dam, which would serve as a retention basin for any storm water or melted snow. 459 The plan’s implementation would commence in 2017 and take about 15 years, covering 65 acres p er year. After site closure, FirstEnergy will continue extensive environmental monitoring programs at the disposal facility, including dam safety and groundwater and surface water monitoring. Following an August, 2013 public hearing on the closure plan, st akeholders criticized the plan as inadequate. 460 O n October 3, 2013, PADEP issued a 29

- page letter regarding FirstEnergy's closure plan for the LBR Impoundment. 461

Monongahela, Ohio Rivers: http://www.post

- gazette.com/stories/local/region/firstenergy

- to

- ship

- 3

- million

- tons

- of

coal

- ash

- annually

- up

- monongahela

- ohio

- rivers

- 671833/#ixzz2JOCItm22

. 457 Coal Ash: Company scraps plan for dump expansion

, Manuel Quinones, E&E reporter , January 25, 2013. T he LaBelle site is over a 360

- acre former strip mine and waste coal site along the Monongahela River . Notice of FirstEnergy’s application: Request for Determination of Applicability for beneficial use of low permeability cementitious material generated at the Bruce Mansfield Plant located in Shippingport Borough, Beaver County was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on November 2, 2013: http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol43/43

- 44/2053a.html

. 458 EIP stated: “ FirstEnergy’s current placement of coal ash has posed a threat to health and the environment and FirstEn ergy’s application lacks a variety of critical details needed to determine whether the proposed placement would pose similar or additional risks to public health or the environment... In order for a DOA to be granted pursuant to General Permit WMGR052, an ap plicant such as FirstEnergy must certify the coal ash meets the requirements for reuse as intended for coverage under the general permit and must certify the site meets the requirements for reuse as intended by the general permit. Because PADEP has already determined that the coal ash for which FirstEnergy is seeking approval to place in storage and in abandoned mines under WMGR052 may present threats to health and the environment serious enough to warrant a federal lawsuit, and because FirstEnergy’s DOA an d additional application materials contain a variety of deficiencies and omissions regarding pertinent operational or safety information, PADEP must deny FirstEnergy’s request for approval under General Permit WMGR052.”
459 First Energy: Little Blue cleanup nearly 20 years away: http://www.timesonline.com/news/local_new s/firstenergy

- little

- blue

- cleanup

- nearly

- years

- away/article_e8f6198f

951b

- 5b95

- a7e0

- 78fdd44eb454.html ; FirstEnergy Future Plans/Planning for Little Blue Run Closure: https://www.firstenergycorp.com/environmental/environmental_stewardship/by

- product

disposal/LittleBlueRunInfo/future_plans.html , and Closure Plan : https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/littlebluerun/files/Closure%20Plan%20Major%20Permit%20Mod%2 0Application_March%202013.pdf
460 In September 2013, the Environmental Integrity Project, the Little Blue Regional Action Group and the Pennsylvania communities of Georgetown and Hookstown declared the proposed 15

- year closure plan inadequate because it doesn’t require the utility to remove any of the waste from the pit, allowing the contamination of groundwater to continue indefinitely. “Even after the impoundment is closed,” the complaint says, “FirstEnergy’s own environmental models predict that only a small portion of the contaminants would be fully removed after 250 years.”
461 According to http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=37211992&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0e2k2 w5x 0&split=0

, EIP’s spokesman claims that PADEP has identified three "major" deficiencies in FirstEnergy’s closure plan: failure to address the extent of the groundwater contamination in Lawrenceville, the groundwater clean

- up plan, and the potential impac t to air quality.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

104 On April 3, 2014, PADEP issued permit requiring closure of the LBR. 462 The Closure Permit is concordant with the Consent Decree entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 14, 2012, outlining steps that FirstEnergy would take to cease waste disposal, close the impoundment, and offer to make public drinki ng water available to several residents living near the impoundment. FirstEnergy must cease disposal of waste into the impoundment by December 31, 2016 and begin capping activities in some areas in 2015. The Closure Permit requires FirstEnergy to increase the groundwater and surface water monitoring points from 74 to over 300, implement controls for noise, odors and particulate emissions, conduct quarterly seep reconnaissance, institute corrective actions when contaminated seeps are found, pursue groundwate r remediation measures, conduct post

- closing monitoring maintenance for as long as environmental problems remain at the site, and complete the site closing by December 31, 2028, three years earlier than proposed by the company. 463

On January 3, 2012, Edwar d and Debra Campbell sued FirstEnergy, alleging that the Utility was disposing of toxic coal ash in the LBR Impoundment and the ash contaminated the soil and water surrounding the impoundment. 464 On October 10, 2013, a group of 53 residents from Lawrencevill e, Hancock County, West Virginia, filed a lawsuit against FirstEnergy charging that the LBR Impoundment is causing leaching and seepage of contaminated water into their properties, with additional pollution coming from air emissions and other discharges. 465 Although the filing law firm has negotiated the sale of more than a dozen Lawrenceville homes to FirstEnergy, most residents there feel that their properties are no longer amenable for sale. 466



### ICF (2010 a ) Rationale : Proven Damage . <Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found both onsite and offsite, although FirstEnergy has acquired contaminated wells located offsite. Surface water exceedances of Pennsylvania’s WQC, CCC, and CMC have been found both onsite and offsite. Several impacts to the surrounding area have occurred, including dust, odor, and discharge issues. PADEP has issued several NOVs to FirstEnergy for reasons including dust, discolored water, and groundwater contamination.>

462 DEP issues permit requiring closure of FirstEnergy’s Little Blue Run impoundment , April 3, 2014: http://www.pa.gov/pages/newsdetails.aspx?agency=dep& item=15463

. 463 PADEP requires that FirstEnergy install an impermeable geomembrane liner over the waste, then a cushion geotextile layer to protect the liner, a one

- foot thick layer of soil, and a vegetative cover. The final elevation of the cover will be a gradual grade to eliminate infiltration into the waste and ensure that storm water remains uncontaminated. Additionally, FirstEnergy will reduce standing liquid behind the dam from the 214 acre pool to 100 acres to create a drainage area behind the dam. T he closure permit approves specific abatement measures to address groundwater contaminants (sulfates, sodium, calcium, magnesium, chloride and arsenic), detected in varying amounts in groundwater near the Impoundment. Finally, FirstEnergy has posted a fina ncial assurance bond of more than $169 million, the largest bond for a waste management facility ever required by PADEP, to ensure that all work is properly completed.
464 West Virginia Record (2013). Hancock County Circuit Court judge signed a dismissal ord er on March 11, 2013 in the lawsuit; the terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
465 According to http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNW B/split_display.adp?fedfid=37211992&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0e2k2w5x0 &split=0 and Law firm hired in FirstEnergy lawsuit has good track record: http://www.reviewonline.com/page/content.detail/id/569606/Law

- firm

- hired

- in

- FirstEnergy

- la

--- .html

, the lawsuit ( Anderson v. FirstEnergy, NWVa, No. 5:13

- cv

- 00141, 10/10/2013 ), filed by Kennedy and Madona LLP, seeks compensatory and punitive damages ass ociated with past and continuous hazardous property intrusions, estimating the ‘amount of controversy’ for each plaintiff to exceed $75,000. Absent removal of the coal ash waste from the impoundment, the litigants claim that “groundwater contamination will persist indefinitely“.

466 West Virginia Record (ibid). The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs' properties have been "inundated with water via seeps from the impoundment," creating constantly wet conditions in the yards, causing the foundations to shift and producing mold.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

105 

### References FirstEnergy Closure Plan (2013 ): Little Blue Run Disposal Area, Greene Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, Grant District, Hancock County, West Virginia; prepared for First Energy Generation, LLC Bruce Mansfield Plant, Shippingport, Pennsylvania; prepared by Civil & Environmental Co nsultants, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, CEC Project 921

- 22x.8010, March 2013. Accessed Online November 2013. https ://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/littlebluerun/files/Closure%20Plan%20Major%20Permit% 20Mod%20Application_March%202013.pdf

West Virginia record (2013): FirstEnergy sued by 53 over Hancock Co. coal ash disposal site. West Virginia Record, October 17, 2013. Accessed Online December 2013. http://wvrecord.com/news/263363

- firstenergy

- sued

- by

- 53

- over

- hancock

- co

- disposal

- site

Little Blue Run Regional Action Group (2012): Notice of Violation and Notice of Intent to Sue FirstEnergy Generation Corporation for Violations of the Clean Water Act, Clean Streams Law, Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at the Little Blue Run Coal Ash Impoundment in Beaver County, PA and Hancock County, WV

, s ubmitted on behalf of the Little Blue Run Regional Action Group and its members, May 30, 2012. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/2012_05_30_NOI_FINAL.pdf

Little Blue Run Regional Action Group (2012a): Notice of Violations and Notice of Intent to Sue FirstEnergy for Viol ations of the Clean Water Act and Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law at the Little Blue Run Coal Ash Impoundment in Beaver County, PA and Hancock County, WV

, s ubmitted on behalf of the Little Blue Run Regional Action Group and its members, December 20, 2012. A ccessed Online December 2012. http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/id/aada

- 937rbf/$File/NOI%20Little%20Blue%20Run%20Coal%20Ash.pdf OR: http://environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/20121220FINALLBRSupplementalNOIwattac hments.pdf

PADEP v. FirstEnergy (2012): Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department Environmental Protection v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, July 27, 2012. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/LittleBlueRun

FirstEnergyComplaint.pdf OR: http://www.cnsenvironmentallaw.com/2012/08/01/little%20blue%20run.pdf

PADEP v. FirstEnergy (2012a): Consent Order, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department Environmental Protection v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, July 26, 2012. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/FirstE nergyConsentDecreeFinal1.pdf

PennFuture (2012): Legal Cases/Current Cases, Bruce Mansfield. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.pennfuture.org/legal_detail.aspx?Type=C&Leg alCaseID=47

Michanowicz (2011): Little Blue Run Impoundment Community Well Water Sampling, Drew Michanowicz, May 18, 2011 (Based on the Little Blue Run Coal Combustion Residue Surface Impoundment Private Well Water Study), Center for Healthy Environments and Communities, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health. Accessed Online March 2012.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

106 http://www.chec.pitt.edu/documents/Public%20Education/LittleBlueRun

- CommunityMtg

- 9_13_11.pdf

CHA (2010): Assessment of Dam safety, CCR Impoundments Final Report: First Energy Generation Corporation, Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, LBR Dam, Shipping port, Pennsylvania, February 23, 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/bruce

- final3.pdf

CCR Pub lic Hearings (2010): T estimonials by impacted stakeholders in the Arlington, Virginia Hearing (P age 316) and the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Hearing ( Pages 15

- 17, 81

- 84, and 91

- 93). Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

EIP (2010a): In Harm’s Way: Lack o f Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans a nd Their Environment, Thirty

- N ine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #29. The Environmental Integrity Project, EarthJustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010. htt p://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/08_26_10.php

ICF (2010a): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix C, Case #29. ICF, 10/2010.

EPA (2009): Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/first

- mansfield.pdf

PA Geology (2009): Practical Uses for Air Pollution, Part 2

– Sulfur Dioxide. J.A. Harper, Pennsylvania Geology, Vo. 39, No. 4, winter 2009, pp. 6

- 12. Accessed Online March 2012. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/pub/pageolmag/pdfs/v39n4.pdf

Environmental News Service (2007): Polluting Pennsylvania Power Plant Sued by Neighbors (October 18, 2007). Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.ens

- newswire.com/ens/oct2007/2007

- 10

- 18

- 092.html

Martino (2004): Martino, R. L., 2004, Sequence stratigraphy of the Glenshaw Formation ( M iddle

– L ate Pennsylvanian) in the central Appalachian basin, in J. C. Pashin and R. A. Gastaldo, eds., Sequence stratigraphy, paleoclimate, and tectonics of coal

- bearing strata: AAPG Studies, in Geology 51, p. 1

– 28. Accessed Online March 2012. http://www.science.marshall.edu/martinor/research/Martino%20(2004).pdf

Thiers et al., (1976): Foundation treatment for the Little Blue Run Dam. Thiers, G.R.; Lobdell, L.W.; and Mihalcin, B.M. Proceedings, Rock Engineering for Foundations and Slopes, Vol. 1, ASCE Specialty Conference, Boulder, Colorado, August 1976. ALSO in Pittsburgh Geological society Golden Anniversary (1945

- 1995) Filed Guide Book. Peter J. Hutchinson, Fi e ld Trip Coordinator and Editor, 1995, Appendix 1. Accessed Online November 2012. http://www.pittsburghgeologicalsociety.org/out_of_print/1995golden/geology1995.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

107 

### PR20. Fern Valley Landfill, Orion Power Holdings, Inc., Elrama, Jefferson Borough, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Type: Off Site Landfill.



### Background and Description: The Fern Valley Landfill is located in Elrama, Pennsylvania, on the west side of the Monongahela River. 467 The landfill received at least some 4.85 million tons of bottom ash, fly ash, coal pile runoff sludge, lime grits, floor sweepings (composed mainly of lime and dirt), and Poz

- O

- Tec (stabilized FGD or scrubber sludge with added fly ash and lime) 468 from the Elrama Power Plant 469 between 1989 and 2003. However, the total tonnage of CCR disposed at the Fern Valley Landfill is unknown because it is not clear whether disposal started in 1979 or 1989: 470 Has disposal started in 1979, the maximum landfilled amount could have exceeded 11. 1 million ton. Disposal stopped in the fourth quarter of 2003, and the landfill officially closed in 2007.

The CCR was disposed of in a relatively narrow, confined area. 471 T he vertical depth of ash placement at the site’s closure was 70 to 100 feet thick a cross much of the center of the Fern Valley, and some CCR was placed beyond the permitted boundaries. This resulted in several Notices of Violation (NOV) by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). The landfill is lined with a 3

- fee t thick layer of Poz

- O

- Tec

. 472 Leachate, truck

- wash water, and storm water runoff from the active disposal

467 The Fern Valley Disposal Site is located two and a

- half miles from the Elrama Power Station . It is located in a small tributary valley along the northwest bank of the Monongahela River. This valley runs nearly parallel to the Monongahela River for most of its length, and is separated from the river by a steep, narrow ridge

. Local elevations range from nearly 1,100 feet a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l at the ridge top to 770 feet m s l at the valley mouth on Route 837, at the northeastern terminus of the Landfill. The Site’s northern boundary includes the inactive Clairton MSW landfill while to the east and west there are residential or undeveloped properties. Historically, coal

- strip and deep mines occupied much of the property to the north and south of the site.
468 CATF (2007).
469 The Elrama Power Plant, located across from Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, has a 460 MW capacity, comprising four generation units: 93 MW (Unit 1, came online in 1952), 93 MW (Unit 2, 1953), 103 MW (Unit 3, 1954), an d 171 MW (Unit 4, 1 960). According to http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10

- q

- genon

- energy

- inc

- 2012

- 08

- 09 (August 9, 2012), GenOn Energy

, the Plant’s owner since December 2010, mothballed Elrama ’s U nits 1

- 3 in June 2012 and U nit 4 was to be mothballed in October 2012

. The whole power plant w as to retire in March 1, 2014. GenOn stated that the four units are uneconomic due to the combined effect of market conditions and the significant capital and operating costs caused by their age. In addition, GenOn anticipates that future cash flows will b e negative for these units because they will require costly project investment to maintain their operability and to comply with existing and anticipated environmental regulations. (FERC, 2012).
470 A 1993 Groundwater Assessment Plan and a 1994 Groundwater As sessment Report state that CC R disposal operations in Fern Valley started in 1979, while a 1995 Groundwater Assessment Report states the disposal operations started in 1989. The original documents on which these conflicting dates are based are part of EIP’ s (2012) attachments.
471 Although permitted “Total Project Acres” at the Fern Valley Disposal Site cover 110 acres, the total active disposal site area was reported as 55 acres

. 472 According to Bryenton et al., (1996), Poz

- O

- Tec is a manufactured material that typically consists of a ratio of 1 part flue gas desulfurization sludge (calcium sulfite, CaSO 3 ) to 0.6 to 1 part fly ash to 1.5 to 2.0 percent quicklime, which is added as a catalyst. In certain states, it is authorized as an alternative CCR landfill liner material, because after placement and curing it is capable of attaining permeability of less than or equal to 1 x 10

- 7 cm/sec (e.g., Illinois Title 35, Subtitle G, Chapter I, Subchapter I, Part 816, Section 816.510): http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/035/035008160005100R.html

. According to Iadevaia and Kitchens (1980), typical Poz

- O

- Tec solids have permeability coefficients of 10

- 6 to 10

- 8 cm/sec. A pe rmeability of 10

- 6 cm/sec is usual with freshly placed Poz

- O

- Tec mixtures. The permeability is reduced to 10

- 7 to 10

- 8 cm/sec after curing. The cured material has properties similar to a low

- strength concrete. For the chemistry and mineralogy of Poz

- O

- Tec, see page 17 in Worldwide Pollution Control Association (WPCA)

– Duke Energy FGD WastewaterI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

108 areas discharged to a leachate

- collection and sedimentation/treatment pond near the lower terminal of the Landfill, a few hundred feet of the River. Water from the leachate collection/treatment pond

wa s discharged to the Monongahela River under an NPDES permit through Outfall 001.

Groundwater has been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite groundwater data are available. Surface water has been evaluated offsite in the Monongahela River. EIP (2010 ) claim s that the interpretation of groundwater monitoring data at the site is hampered by apparent mischaracterization of several monitoring wells as ‘ up

- gradient ’ when an examination of the CCR

- transfo rmed hydrogeology of the site indicates that they are probably receiving groundwater inflow from the CCR landfill. EIP (2010) claim s that the less permeable, lime

- stabilized FGD sludge and the Poz

- O

- Tec liner would have contributed to compact ing and sealin g, respectively, the CCR ash to reduce the permeability of the CCR pile, hampering the downward migration of leachate. Flow data from the quarterly reports on the leachate collection system of the Fern Valley Landfill indicate there has to be a substantial build

- up of leachate from infiltration of precipitation and its runoff over the disposal area , resulting in a saturation of the ash pile and the formation of water table (s)

. 473

The Fern Valley Disposal Site is located in the western portion of the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Provence

. The general stratigraphy of the area comprises units of the Pennsylvania Age consisting of the lower Monongahela and upper Conemaugh Groups outcropping into the valley

. The bedrock units are composed primarily of cyclothems 474 of gray, red, and green shale, cla ystone, sandstone, thin coal seams

, and thin zones of limestone.

The site lies on the eastern flank of the Murrysville

- Roaring Run Anticline about 400 feet east of its axis. The axis strikes about north 40 to 50 degrees east and plunges very gently to the southwest. This anticline is essentially flat

- lying in the vicinity of the site ( t he calculated dip of the bedrock at the site is 1.5 degrees to the south

- southeast). 475

Two confined, poorly

- connected aquifer units, dipping to the Monongahela R iver 476 outcrop in the landfill’s area: the Morgantown Sandstone aquifer outcrops in the floor of Fern Valley and on the side of

Treatment Seminar, March 7 , 2013; Options for Managing Dissolved Solids from FGD Wastewater : http://wpca.info/pdf/presenta tions/Charlotte2013/3

- Options%20for%20Managing%20Solids%20from%20FGD%20Wastewater%20by%20John%20Daniels,%20UNC. pdf

. At the Fern Valley Landfill, the Poz

- O

- Tec layer was placed over a bottom ash bed and drain system. During operation, CCR was placed beyond the lateral boundaries and above the elevations of the permitted disposal area, possibly beyond the limits of the liner/drainage system (EIP 2010, page 80.)
473 According to Norris ( 2002 ) , “Water does drain from the leachate collection system into the sediment pond. This flow averages 15 gpm

.... this yield of leachate represents an annual infiltration of 3.2 inches, less than 10% of the annual precipitation and itself a minimal infiltration value for unconsolidated sediments with no impermeable cover. How ever to the extent that run

- off is also routed through this system

.... the flow is far too low.” Far more water is infiltrating the surface of the disturbed area or draining into a conveyance toward the leachate collection pipes than is coming out of these pipes into the sediment/treatment pond. It is reasonable to assume that much of this water is exiting the site as mounding

- induced recharge to aquifers that outcrop into Fern Valley

. EIP claims that such a water table (s) may have formed at elevations consi derably above the water levels in the “up

- gradient” monitoring wells MW

- 5A, MW

- 12

, and MW

- 15

. 474 V ertically repetitive cycles

. 475 The stratigraphic and geologic information is from Duquesne Light Company Fern Valley Disposal Site Groundwater Assessment Report (Phase I) , 1994.
476 Unless reflecting a local structural disturbance (e.g., a fault), this is inconsistent with the statement in the preceding paragraph that ‘the anticline is flat

- lying in the vicinity of the site .’I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

109 the ridge above the Monongahela River , underlain by the Duquesne Coal and Limestone

. 477

, 478 T he 1994 and 1995 Groundwater Assessments indicate that groundwater flow in Fern Valley and its tributaries is influenced by fractures and that groundwater flow is primarily fracture

- controlled in the Morgantown Sandstone. 479 Aquifer testing showed that hydraulic conductivities in the Morgantown San dstone vary widely across the site, ranging from 1 x 10

- 7 cm/sec to 1.6 x 10

- 3 cm/sec. This wide range of calculated hydraulic conductivities is consistent with what is expected for unconsolidated soils underlain by bedrock units found at the site. In ge neral, though, hydraulic conductivities are very low except in the vicinity of apparent fracture traces, such as near monitoring wells MP

- 5A and MW

- 17.

The area has been completely mined for the Pittsburgh Coal. 480 This was predominantly underground mining with complete extraction, but there was also strip mining. The Pittsburgh coal

- seam , at an approximate elevation of 1010’ AMSL

, lies everywhere above the Fern Valley drainage

, where CCR is disposed

- off in the v alley

. However, the upper portion of the CCR landfill onlaps onto the former outcrop and mine voids of the Pittsburgh Coal. 481 Strip mining spoil (silty clay and rock fragments) present in the southern portion of the site i s 28.5 feet

- thick at the location of MW

- 10. N atural

, undisturbed soils at the site consist of silty clays with a maximum thickness (at MW

- 11) of 9.4 feet.



### Impact and Damage Claims: EIP (2010) indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater (in 2001, maxima reached 36 times the primary MCL in one down

- gradient well and 29 times in another). Additionally, boron, chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) regularly exceeded health advisory limits or EPA SMCLs in onsite groundwater.

EIP ( 2010) also notes that selenium concentrations in surface water downstream of the landfill have exceeded Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria (WQC), and other constituents (including arsenic, chloride, sulfate, and TDS) were found at concentrations higher th an in a sampling location upstream of the landfill. PADEP rejects many of these claims, e.g., claims about selenium exceedances, in 2001 and 2002, of the Pennsylvania surface water quality standard for the protection of aquatic life in surface water downst ream of the landfill; of sulfate and TDS concentrations having commonly exceeded S MCLs by two to three times in several measurements downstream from the landfill; of total arsenic in MW

- 20, a down

- gradient monitoring well, monitored in June 1995 at 0.028pp m (2.8 times the MCL); that between 1997 and 2006, surface water quality (SW

- 2) has significantly degraded downstream from the landfill compared to upstream water quality (SW

- 1) with respect to chloride, sulfate and TDS; and that selenium was measured at S W

- 2 at 0.047ppm in March 2001 and at 0.028ppm in February 2002, well in excess of Pennsylvania’s water quality standards for the protection of aquatic life from chronic toxicity effects of selenium (0.0046ppm).

Moreover, PADEP challenges the assertion th at damages at the site are associated with CCRs, 482 implicating instead

- based on a 1995 Groundwater Assessment

- pre

- existing sources, i.e., acid mine

477 Duquesne Light Company Fern Valley Disposal Site Groundwater Assessment Report , ibid.
478 According to Hutchinson (1995), both the Morgantown Sandstone and the Duquesne Coal and Limestone are

m ember s of the Casselman Formation, Conemaugh Group

. 479 Fern Valley and its side valleys appear to be fracture

- controlled, as suggested by their orientation relative
to each other and to the Monongahela River

. A potentiometric surface study in the 1994 Assessment found that, “groundwater flow may be locally controlled by hydrogeologic anomalies (i.e., lineaments) and groundwater flow may (be) in more than one direction.”

480 According to Hutchinson (1995), t he Pittsburgh coal

- seam comprises the basis of the Pittsburgh Formation of the Mississippian

- Age Monongahela Group; this Group overlies the Mississippian

- Age Conemaugh Group.
481 Fern Valley Assessment

, Charles H. Norris , Geo

- Hydro, Inc., 2002.
482 PADEP comment to the proposed CCR rule docket s : proposed CCR rule: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640 and the October 2011 NODA: E PA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 201 :I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

110 drainage (AMD) from an up

- gradient, abandoned surface coal mine and leachate from the side

- gradient, unlined Clairton municipal landfill. 483 PADEP further states that some of EIP’s (2010) claims cannot be confirmed due to the lack of well

- and date

- specific information, lack of specific analytical surface data for selenium for the two years referenced, and lack of Statistically Significant Increases (SSIs) of arsenic in four wells between 1995 and 2002.

EIP’s (2010) contention that several of the monitoring wells are mischaracterized as up

- gradient when actually they might be receiving groundwater inflow f rom the CCR landfill due to mounding at the landfill site are challenged by PADEP . PADEP cites (i) significant water level elevation differences (100

- 200 feet) between the wells designated as up

- gradient vs. those designated as down

- gradient, as well as
to pographic elevation differences, in support of their correct designation; and (ii) a variety of engineered and constructed drainage features at and underneath the landfill’s site that presumably facilitate fast lateral groundwater drainage that would preve nt any groundwater from mounding within the disposed CCR landfill.

EIP rebuts PADEP’s arguments by invoking that the configuration and low

- permeability of the CCR fill are amenable to the formation of mounding aquifer(s) within the CCR pile that have pr obably immersed the screened intervals of the monitoring wells designated as up

- gradient (MW

- 12, MW

- 15, and MW

- 5A) with leachate fluids characterized by elevated alkalinity, TDS, arsenic, sulfate, and boron, as well as of mildly alkaline pH values. 484 Additi onal arguments in support of such a scenario include changing water levels in “up

- gradient” wells that are far below levels of leachate in the ash fill, a very close proximity of one of those wells, MW

- 5A, to the CCR, and contaminant concentration patterns in the “up

- gradient” wells that appear to be responding to changing water levels.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3 A %2F%2Fwww.governor.state.pa.us%2Fportal%2Fserver.pt%2Fdocument%2F1208309%2Fmtchellphillipssewardfe rn10

- 27

- 11_pdf&ei=

- 3ZyVLG_G8H

yQSzjoG4CQ&usg=AFQjCNHVoOFknSX8FQp5uj0ThlpDElJNig&bvm=bv.80185997,d.aWw

. 483 Phase II Groundwater Assessment Report, Fern Valley Disposal Site, Jefferso n Borough, P ennsylvania. Prepared for: Duquesne Light Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, December 18, 1995. Note, however that field

testing of s prings and seeps located upstream of the disposal area and below the coal horizon during the Phase II Groundwater Assessment in 1995 lead to the conclusion that “ All pH measurements were neutral, indicating no acid mine drainage.” Actually, the pH of eleven discharges was recorded as mildly acidic, ranging between 5.5 and 7.5, and averaging 6.1.
484 In the down

- gradient monitoring wells: MW

- 6, MW

- 7, MW

- 20, and MW

- 21, the pH and alkalinity showed more tempered increases, attributed to influx of more acidic leachate from the Clairton Landfill , and higher concentrations of TDS, arsenic, sulfate, and boron. While TDS concentrations at the up

- gradient MW

- 5A were substantially less than at the down

- gradient MW

- 21, they followed the same app roximate pattern as at MW

- 21

, suggesting an influence from the ash fill

. Boron concentrations were noticeably higher in down

- gradient wells MW

- 21 and MW

- 6 than in the up

- gradient wells , likewise reflecting contamination of the groundwater from CCR. The ave rage concentration of boron at MW

- 21 was 998μg/L and its average concentration at MW

- 6 was 635μg/L. These compare to boron averages in the up

- gradient wells of 396 μg/L at MW

- 5A, 260μg/L at MW

- 15, and 144μg/L at MW

- 12. Concentrations of boron at MW

- 5A are consistently highest among the three up

- gradient wells

, suggesting that MW

- 5A, which is closer to the ash fill than either MW

- 15 or MW

- 12, is also being contaminated to a greater extent by coal ash leachate. Finally, the highest concentrations of arsenic were measured in March 2001

, when arsenic was found to exceed the MCL many

- fold in all four down

- gradient wells and in the presumably up

- gradient MW

- 5A within 50 feet of the ash fill. Arsenic c oncentrations ranged from 363μg/L in the down

- gradient MW

- 21 t o 135μg/L in the up

- gradient MW

- 5a. Dissolved arsenic concentrations in the March 2001samples ranged from 203μg/L in the down

- gradient MW

- 20 to 100μg/L in the down

- gradient MW

- 7. Field pH ranged from 6.77 units at MW

- 21 to 9.1 units at MW

- 7. Furthermore, t he groundwater containing th e s e arsenic levels was not acidic, hence AMD does not seem to be involved

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

111 Furthermore, EIP presents specific sampling data to buttress their 2010 claim that surface water quality at SW

- 2 has significantly degraded downstream from the CCR landf ill compared to upstream water quality (at SW

- 1). 485 From around 1997 to 2006, chloride, sulfate and TDS levels generally ranged two to five times higher at SW

- 2 than at upstream sampling locations (SW

- 1 and SW

- 3), and sulfate and TDS concentrations at SW

- 2 commonly exceeded the secondary MCL by two or three times. Following sampling and analysis for arsenic in the first quarter of 2002, PADEP conceded arsenic’s association with CCR leachate.

Ecologic damage: According to EIP (2010), a benthic study commissi oned by the utility in 1995 found that based on two environmental indices, mean species diversity and equitability, the downstream location (SW

- 2) was degraded relative to the upstream sampling location (SW

- 1). PADEP attributes the aquatic population impac t to discharges of untreated leachate from the municipal waste landfill upstream of SW

2. This argument is rebutted by EIP (2010) by asserting that PADEP failed to acknowledge that the March 1995 Benthic Survey did not sample the tributary that discharges from the ravine draining the Clairton Landfill site.

EIP (2010) also noted a number of serious deficiencies in the NPDES permit 486 and discharge from the landfill. PADEP claims that the permit limits were established based on the fact that the treated leachate

flows discharge to the Monongahela River, 487 and that the facility is in compliance with its NPDES permit. Furthermore, Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI) 488 challenges EI P’s (2010) claims 489 about the system’s presumed lapses in collecting, monitoring, and analyzing all on

- site and site vicinity water types, stating that two conveyance systems, independent of the leachate transport system , collect all the non

contact stormwater as well as waters from the upland wetlands , in accord with the requirements of the NPDES

- or the residual waste permit. 490 EIP challenges PADEP’s assertions of compliance by pointing out that they ignore the basic leg al protection in the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the S tate’s water quality criteria regulations that is afforded to all surface waters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not just larger bodies of water. 491

485 SW

- 2 is located well beyond the waste boundary of the landfill on a tributar y 200 feet downstream of NPDES Outfall 001

, the principal s pillwa y for th e l eac hate pond. This sam pling location is also right before the tributar y enters a culvert that empties into the Monongahela River.
486 Permit #PA0090271

. 487 From PADEP’s comment it can be inferred that the pollution limits as established are above the prevailing standards.
488 On December 3, 2010, RRI merged with Mirant Corp. to form GenOn Energy.
489 RRI’s comment to the proposed CCR rule: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9274.
490 RRI states that monitored constituents include aluminum, arsenic, boron, chloride, lead, selenium, sulfate, and TDS, and that except for aluminum, samples are taken in compliance with the residual waste landfill permit and the analytical results a re submitted to the regulatory agency. Samples are taken quarterly for chloride, sulfate, TDS, arsenic, lead, and selenium, and annually for boron. Samples are analyzed for aluminum in compliance with the NPDES permit with numerical limits defined for Outf alls 001

- 004.
491 To implement Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. §§ 691.5(b)(1) and 691.402), 25 PA Code Chapter 96 establishes the requirement for water quality criteria to be met in all surface waters of the state in § 96.3. (c): “To protect existi ng and designated surface water uses, the water quality criteria described in Chapter 93 (addressing water quality standards), including the criteria in §§ 93.7 and 93.8a(b) (addressing specific water quality criteria; and toxic substances) shall be achiev ed in all surface waters at least 99% of the time, unless otherwise specified in this title. The general water quality criteria in § 93.6 (addressing general water quality criteria) shall be achieved in surface waters at all times at design conditions.” (Emphasis added).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

112 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 492



### Resolution: Groundwater assessment activities at the Fern Valley site were initiated in 1993 to comply with PADEP’s regulations for residual

- waste landfills. A Phase I Groundwater Assessment Plan was developed by S.E. Technologies, Inc. and approved by PADEP on April 22, 1993. Phase I activities were conducted between March 1993 and August 1994. Results were submitted to PADEP i n a Phase I Groundwater Assessment Report. This report recommended that additional i nvestigations be conducted to define the groundwater flow direction and better characterize groundwater quality, and to allow assessment of groundwater quality. PADEP 's responses to the Phase I report were received in March, 1995. Civil Environmental Consultants was retained to continue the assessment activities initiated by S.E. Technologies through development and implementation of a second phase of assessment. 493

There were several PADEP NOVs around 2002 for CCRs placed beyond boundaries of the permitted landfill area and failure to report monitoring data. Ash disposal stopped in 2003, and PADEP approved closure of the site in July 2007. PADEP is expected to continue requiring water quality monitoring through at least 2017.



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven damage. < A documented study found degradation of the benthic community downstream of the landfill relative to the upstream location. Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found on site. There are no current regulatory corrective actions,

492 ICF (2010).
493 Phase II Groundwater Assessment Report, Fern Valley Disposal Site, Jefferso n Borough, P ennsylvania (ibid). 

### Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1: Documented exceedances of primary 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  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded health advisory limits or secondary MCLs for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are avai lable.

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  Selenium in surface water downstream of the landfill exceeded Pennsylvania WQC.

 A benthic study found a decrease in species diversity of aquatic animals has occurred in the downstream tributary.

Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  Due to placement of waste outside of the permitted landfill boundaries and failure to report monitoring data, PADEP issued several noticed of violation in 2002.

 Water quality assessments have been required and will continue through 2017 in response to citizen and regulatory

concerns.

 Actions and responses by the operator have satisfied regulators resulting in no further corrective regulatory actions.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

113 administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the site; however, notices of violation we re issued by PADEP in the past.>



### Postscript: USWAG claims 494 that t his case does not meet the criteria for a damage case because the allegations are only for on

‐ site groundwater. USWAG further claims that the information provided for the site does not contain documented evidence of off

‐ site groundwater monitoring data or off

‐ site groundwater monitoring data showing exceedances of specified health

‐ based criteria.

EIP claims that a fundamental question to evaluate PADEP’s contention about the impact of legacy mining and the unlined MSW ( Clairton ) Landfill as contributing to exceedances of up

- gradient monitoring wells is whether mounding of groundwater flow is carrying contamination from the coal ash landfill to “up

- gradient” monitoring wells in addition to contamination that may have reached these wells from these two legacy activities. The crux of PADEP’s response to the groundwater impacts documented at the Fern Valley site rests on its assertion that data from “up

- gradient” wells show nearly equal or h igher concentrations of many of the contaminants documented at down

- gradient wells at the site. However, the coal ash is placed very close to some of these “up

- gradient” wells, and the completion intervals for all of the “up

- gradient” wells appear to be at elevations below and therefore down

- gradient of water tables that apparently form in the ash. A final resolution of the respective contribution of the alleged sources to the Site’s impacts may have to await a stable isotopic groundwater study of boron, su lfur, and strontium.



### References FERC (2012): Order Accepting and Suspending Tariff Filing, Subject to Refund and Establishing Hearing and Settlement Procedures, GenOn Power Midwest, LP, Docket no. ER12

- 1901

- 000, issued July 30, 2012. 140 FERC ¶ 61,080, U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Accessed Online November 2014. http://www.ferc.gov/.../201207301742

... EIP (2010): Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New D amage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #22. The Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice. February 24, 2010. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix B, Case #22. ICF, 10/2010.

CATF (2007): Impacts on Water Quality from Placement of Coal Combustion Waste in Pennsylvania Coal Mines

. J. Stant, L. Evans, R. Gadinski, C. Norris, Clean Air Task Force (CATF). July 2007. Accessed Online March 2012 http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/PAMinefill.pdf

Bryenton et al., (1996): Design and Construction Guidelines for Coal Combustion By

- Product Utilization in Abandoned Mine Land Settings

- A Case Study. Donald L. Bryenton, P.E. John H. Gasper, P.E. ATC Associates, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana. Accessed Online November 2012. http://www.techtransfer.osmre.gov/nt tmainsite/Library/proceed/ccb1996/session4.pdf

Hutchinson (1995) : Pittsburgh Geological Society Golden Anniversary (1945

- 1995) Field Guide Book. Peter J. Hutchinson, Field Trip Coordinator and Editor, 1995. Accessed Online November 2012.

494 Comment to the 2011 NODA: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211, citing PADEP’s response to EIP (2010)

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

114 http://www.pittsburghgeologicalsociety.org/out_of_print/1995golden/geology1995.pdf

Iadevaia and Kitchens (1980): Engineering and Development Support of General Decon Technology for the Darcom Installation Restoration Program. Task 4. General Technology Literature Searches (II): Solidification Techniques for Lagoon Waters, Rosa Iadevaia and Judith F. Kitchens, Atlantic Research Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, December 1980. Accessed Online October 2013. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CC4QFjABO Ao&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi

bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA244081&ei=aYFxUsL0I6nRsATUl4DwCA& usg=AFQjCNHgQEO 8eI0DCRCKgHDWzJ0qnIAe8Q&sig2=CMloPtbWGe5hUGBas_aeeQ&bvm=bv.55617003,d.eW0



### PR21. Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station, Allegheny Energy Supply (AES) Company, Masontown, Fayette County, Pennsylvania

Type: Landfill, Leachate Storage Impoundment, and a Minefill

. 

### Background and Description: The 1,728 MW, three generation

- units Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station , located on the west bank of the Monongahela River, began operation in 1969

- 1971. 495 First, CCR was disposed of in the Hartley strip mine, on ad joining property to the south. 496 The strip mine has also an infill of coal refuse. The first landfill was a 40

- acre unlined area designated as Phase 1 and Phase 2. These two units, permitted as CCRs landfills in May, 1984, were built with a leachate collect ion system and under

- drain system to collect groundwater in the coal ash . In October 2009, Phase 3 went into service.

Allegheny Energy added magnesium hydroxide to the leachate to precipitate aluminum, iron and manganese; until 2001, leachate and wastewat er were discharged directly in to an unlined earthen impoundment and then into a tributary of Little Whitely Creek, a third

- order tributary of the Monongahela River. In the spring of 2001, PADEP determined this discharge to be in violation of its National P ollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, 497 following which the operator implemented a passive wetland treatment system for the leachate. 498 The wetland treatment system was designed to remove or reduce concentrations of iron, aluminum, manganese, and TSS and to control pH, but was not specifically designed to treat other problematic constituents in CCR leachate. In addition to coal ash, the landfill began receiving FGD sludge from the Hatfield Plant in 2007. This system includes an equalization b asin, four wetland cells, five rock drain cells, and a sedimentation pond.

495 Units and in

- service dates : 576 MW (1969), 576 MW (1970), 576 MW (1971). Late in 2012, FirstEnergy Corp oration announced it is studying whether to modify Hatfield’s Ferry to add natural gas to its three coal

- fired boilers (Frontier Business Edge, 2012). Citing the cost of environmental compliance and a weak market for electricity, FirstEnergy announced on J uly 9, 2013 that it expects to deactivate its AES subsidiary’s southwest Pennsylvania Hatfield's Ferry power station in the fall of 2013. The Plant has been scheduled for closure, subject to a review for possible grid reliability implications (Grounded, 20 13). The Plant closed at the end of 2013 (Herald Standard, 2013).
496 According to Allegheny Power (1996), the Waynesburg coal has been extensively strip

- mined in upland areas undernea th and south of the disposal area. Mine spoil thicknesses of up to 106 fee t were encountered at a test

- hole location along the margin of the disposal area. The generally mined

- out Waynesburg coal was formerly expose d in the disposal area at an elevation of about 1,030 feet AMSL. Except for a few unmined remnant s, the materials above an elevation of 1,030 feet AMSL consist of re

- graded mine spoil and ash which were co

disposed in the strip mine by the coal operator.
497 Permit No. PA0002941.
498 CCB Leachate Collection and Treatment System Corrective Action Plan, Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station, Monongahela Township, Greene County, NPDES Permit No. PA0002941

– Outfall 007

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

115 Between the late 1990s and 2009, and until banned due to excessive aluminum leachate, some of Hatfield Ferry plant’s CCRs were barged down the Monongahela River, to a dock across from Vestaburg, and used in the reclamation of the LaBelle strip mine (east of the river). 499 Coal ash and Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Material from the Hatfield’s Ferry Power Plant, among others

, ha ve been used to blend with the coal refuse generated by the adjacent Coresco, LLC coal preparation activities near Maidsville, West Virginia. 500

The Hatfield’s Ferry facility Site lies along the Lambert Syncline, which strikes from N70 0 W to N55 0 E, plunges gently to the northeast and dips northward at 0.4 0 to 1.6 0

. Bedrock beneath the site consists of Permian

- age strata of the Dunkard Group underlain by the Pennsylvanian

- age strata of the Monongahela Grou p

. In most area s , Dunkard Group strata were removed in conjunction with s trip mining of the Waynesburg Coal, which is the basal unit of the Group.

Th e 3 9 0

- f e e t th i c k M o no n g ah e l a Gr o u p ext e n ds fr o m t h e b ott o m o f t h e Wa y n e s

bu r g c oal to t h

e b ase of t h

e P i tts b u r g h co a l. O v e r o n e

- h a lf of t h e Mon o n g ah e l a G ro up’s ag g

regate th i

c k n ess

c o n sists of r e l ativ e l y per s i st e n t li m e s t o n e b e d s, and t

h e r e m a in d e r c o mpr i

s es v a r i a b l

e s h a l e , di s c o ntinuo u s s a ndsto n

e, a nd p e r s i s t e n t coal b e d s. Pri m ary m a r k er b e d s in t h e Mono n g a h e l a Gr o up

a r e three pr o lif

i c co a l r e s ources o

f h i s t or i c ec o n o m i c impor t a n ce t hr o u g h o u t t h e regi o n: t h e U n i o n t o wn, Se w i

c k l ey a nd P i

tt s bu r g h co a l s.

According to EIP (2010a), four aquifers have been identified at the landfill: a mine spoil aquifer located to the south of Phases 1 and 2; 501 a rind aquifer consisting of weathered bedrock; 502 a deeper Uniontown Sandstone aquifer; 503 and the even deeper Benwood Limestone aquifer. 504 Groundwater flow directions

499 The Labelle Mine is located in Greene County, Luzerne Township, Pennsylvania: See http://www.post

gazette.com/stories/news/health/large

- loads

- in

- la

- belle

- 277904/ and Gary Kuklish and co

- signers ’ comment to the proposed CCR rule : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 8243 . The ban was put in place ‘ because that source does not qualify for statewide certification under 25 Pa. Code § 287.663 for beneficial use at active and abandoned coal mines in P ennsylvania’.

500 On March 11, 2013, the Sierra Club and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy issued a 90

- Day Notice of Intent to file citize n suit for violations of RCRA at the Coresco LLC Coal Refuse Disposal areas near Maidsville, WV (west of the Monongahela River) , where, under an OSMRE permit it has been disposing of coal refuse mixed with CCR in a manner that allows contaminated groundwa ter to migrate to the Craft’s Run, a local stream, causing or contributing to levels of ionic pollution that are harming organisms that live in the stream

. On September 17, 2014, the parties entered a Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the North ern District of West Virginia at Clarksburg, whereby the defendants agreed to collect and treat leachate from two seeps along Craft’s Run and then to discharge them pursuant to their NPDES permit: Case 13

- 12211

- BLS Doc 1496

- 1 Filed 09/17/14 Page 1 of 18 (page 6).
501 The average hydraulic conductivity of the mine spoil is conservatively estimated at 5,000 gpd/ft 2

, several orders of magnitude higher than that of the underlying bedroc k.
502 As is typical of the Appalachian Plateau are a , stress relief, fracturing and weathering have combined
to modify the stratigraphic control s on shallow groundwater flow by creating a more conductive "rind" over the surfaces of the hills and valleys. The rind constitutes a shallow aquifer that cut s across the layer cake, stratigraphically transmitting water by primar y and secondary permeabilit y

. 503 The hydraulic con d uctivi t y of the Uniontown Sandstone aquifer has been estimated to range from 14 to 1 20 gpd/f t 2 near the crop line, where it has increased as a result of stress relief fracturing and weatherin g. 504 Both the Uniontown Sandstone and the Benwood Limestone belong to the Upper

- Pennsylvania age Monongahela Group; Geologic Unit: Uniontown: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/NewRefsmry/sumry_4214.html and Geologic Unit: Benwood: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/NewRefsmry/sumry_412.html . The h ydraulic conductivities within the Benwood limestone Aquifer at depth and away fro m outcrop area s range from 0.1 to 0

. 78 gpd/ft 2

. In shallow areas , where the Benwood limestone is part of the fractured rind syste m , hydraulic conductivities range from 0.21 to 3

. 5 gpd/ft 2

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

116 within the mine spoil and rind aquifers are generally in the same direction as the ground surface topography

– discharging to the west, nort h, and east along the top of bedrock and along a covered stream valley that discharges to the Monongahela River south of landfill Phases 1 and 2. Groundwater within the Uniontown and Benwood formations generally flows to the northwest

, towards bedrock outcrop areas and eventually mixes with mine spoil and rind aquifer groundwater. Shallow groundwater flow in the bedrock is due to natural stress fractures in the bedrock and from secondary fractures from strip mining. The groundwater flow rates are reportedly very high, especially near stream valleys and bedrock outcrop

areas. 505 The landfill site is a recharge area for each underlying aquifer.

Four streams around the landfill perimeter originate from shallow groundwater that emanates at sp rings or wetlands. Those streams are located to the north, northeast, southeast, and southwest of the landfill

– indicating that groundwater flow discharges radial l y from the landfill that is located on higher ground elevations. All of the streams are pere nnial

, classified as Warm Water Fisheries (WWF) under PADEP regulations and have a protected use for aquatic life.



### Impact and Damage Claims: EIP (2010a) indicates that onsite groundwater monitoring since 2005 has shown contamination of groundwater related to the CCR disposal areas. 506 Exceedances have included arsenic above the primary EPA MCL in three wells hundreds of yards south and east of the landfill, with dissolved concentrations mor e than x 11 the MCL; 507 boron (maximum 10.6 ppm) and molybdenum (maximum: 766 ppb) above the EPA’s Lifetime Health Advisory (HAL) and the Superfund Removal Action Level (RAL), respectively; 508 and manganese, sulfate, total dissolved solids (TDS), and aluminum above EPA SMCLs. These exceedances occurred at a number of monitoring wells around the Phase 1 and 2 landfills, the new Phase 3 landfill, the leachate collection sump, and the Hartley mine disposal area. 509 EIP (2010a) also notes that considering the discret e groundwater aquifers, some of the wells monitored as up

- gradient do not actually meet the criteria for up

- gradient and do show contamination from the CCRs

505 According to Allegheny ( 2006b), as cited in EIP (2010a). Maximum groundwater flow velocities are 149 feet per year for the mine spoil aquifer, 735 feet per year for the rind aquifer and the Uniontown Sandstone aquifer, and 137 feet per year for the Benwood Limestone aq uifer

. Allegheny Power (1996) presents a different set of flow velocity values, which reflect the depth

- and fracture

- dependent hydraulic conductivity of the two bedrock aquifers: Uniontown Sandstone aquifer: 440 to 14,000 feet per year; and the Benwood Limestone aquifer: 1,300 to 3,100 feet
per year. 506 A citizens group, Natural Resource Defense Council, complains that while Pennsylvania residual waste regulations call for quarterly testing of groundwater for parameters such as pH, chloride, sulfate, tota l alkalinity, total dissolved solids, iron, and manganese, among others, they require only one annual sampling for toxic contaminants associated with coal ash leachate such as arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc. Such infrequent monitoring may fail to detect signs of groundwater quality degradation, particularly if there are seasonal variations in contaminant concentrations or if unusually dry or wet weather has upset steady

- state conditions (Quirindongo, 20 07).
507 EIP presents September 2005 through March 2010 data for high arsenic concentrations in MW

- 217A and MW

218A, the farthest down

- gradient wells at the eastern perimeter of the Hatfield site; the few results for the same period available for MW

- 216A, th e lone designated up

- gradient well for the ash leachate impoundment, contained far lower concentrations of arsenic. Similarly, other parameters recognized as ash indica tor parameters (e.g., boron, molybdenum and selenium) were found at much higher levels a t MW

- 217A and MW

- 218A than at MW

- 216A during the same sampling interval. The high concentrations of arsenic, boron, molybdenum and selenium at the down

- gradient wells MW

- 217A and MW

- 218A were laboratory

- measured in groundwater with very alkaline pH values (around 10). In the very same sampling events, laboratory pH values at the up

- gradient MW

- 216A well were 5.7 to 5.8.
508 EPA HAL for boron is 1.0 ppm, and the RAL for molybdenum is 10 ppb.
509 EIP’s (2010a) claim that total arsenic has been measured at 342 ti mes the MCL, and boron and molybdenum have been measured at 5 times and 33 times their LTHAs, respectively, in contaminated groundwater 1,500 feet downgradient of the landfill, indicating that contamination has traveled beyond 1,000 feet from the waste bou ndary.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

117 disposal in the area. PADEP claims 510 that (i) boron is sampled annually in the wells and surface wat er points. At all monitored locations the boron levels meet Pennsylvania's Act 2 clean

- up standards for non

use aquifers, 600,000 ppb, and (ii) The Superfund Removal Action levels (RAL) referenced in the citizens’ comment are established for "Contaminated Drinking Water Sites"

, and EPA’s HAL are drinking water standards which trigger treatment requirements for drinking water; whereas at the point in which the sample was taken the water is not used for public consumption and therefore the HAL and RAL do not apply.

EIP (2010a) also notes that discharges from the leachate collection system into nearby tributaries have polluted surface water offsite and in Whiteley Creek ; and even after the NPDES permit violation was noted in 2001, there were continued violatio ns of aluminum, manganese, and thallium over permit effluent limits, 511 resulting in a PADEP Consent Order. 512 EIP (2010a) specifies that surface water monitoring in the nearby tributary and downstream in Whiteley Creek show elevated levels for a number of con stituents over their upstream values, including Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria (WQC) exceedances for boron in the tributary. 513 EIP (2010a) notes that these elevated concentrations generally mirror the elevated concentrations measured directly in the discharge sump as well as the groundwater concentrations. EIP cites four monitoring reports from December, 2009 and May, September a nd December of 2010, which also establish that several coal ash contaminants have been discharging at high levels from SP

- 1, a spring at the far eastern perimeter of the Hatfield Landfill property, some 200 meters east of and downhill from MW

- 218A. 514 Water that discharges from SP

- 1 flows eastward into an unnamed tributary that discharges into the Monongahela River.

510 Comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446.
511 For instance, according to Quirindongo (2007), there have been three violations of the 0.0042 ppm thallium limit at the landfill ’s outfall since this limit became effective in September 2003. In addition, data submitted to PADEP by Allegheny Energy in May 2003 show that ten of the 24 effluent samples taken from August 2002 to April 2003

were above 0.0042 ppm. Since those samples pred ated the new permit limit, the exceedances are not permit violations. However, they show that landfill leachate frequently contains excessive thallium levels.
512 Daily maximum levels for thallium, aluminum, and manganese were 0.0062 mg/L, 3.459 mg/L, and 2. 623 mg/L, respectively, as compared to daily discharge permit limits of 0.0042 mg/L, 1.2 mg/L, and 2.4 mg/L, respectively. PADEP (2011) claims that the thallium

- limit violations are attributed to the proximity of the effluent limit to the method detection limit (MDL) of the analytical procedure. PADEP claims that once Allegheny Energy has employed a more sensitive analytical method with a lower MDL, there have been no further thallium limit violations.
513 Comment to the 2007 NODA docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 079 6

- 0446.
514 The contaminants include: (i) selenium, the dissolved concentrations of which have risen from 7.0 μg/L in December, 2009, to 115 μg/L in December, 2010 ; (ii) chromium, the dissolved concentrations of which rose from 5 μg/L in December, 2009 to 16 2 μg/L in December, 2010 [ although Hatfield monitoring has never analyzed for hexavalent chromium, the December 2010 value is more than 16 times higher than the PA CCC and more than 10 times higher than the PA Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC

, the wate r quality standard for acute toxicity to aquatic life) for hexavalent chromium, the species of chromium most likely to be soluble in water with the pH and oxygen content of the water at SP

- 1 ]; (iii) boron, the dissolved concentrations of which rose from 4. 644 mg/L in December, 2009, to 27.840 mg/L in May, 2010, 31.210 mg/L in September, 2010 and 29.460 mg/L in December, 2010. (The September, 2010 concentration is more than 19 times higher than the PA CCC for boron of 1.6 mg/L and nearly 4 times higher than the PA CMC for boron of 8.1 mg/L) ; (iv) molybdenum, the dissolved concentrations of which rose from 56 μg/L in December, 2009, to 852 μg/L in September, 2010 before declining to 668 μg/L in December, 2010 [The September and December, 2010 molybdenum levels are more than three

- to four times higher than the federal Drinking Water Equivalent Level (200 μg/L) for molybdenum] ; (v) total dissolved solid (TDS) concentrations, which increased from 634 mg/L in December, 2009 to 2,480 mg/L in September, 2010, before declining to 2,104 mg/L in December 2010 ; and (vi) laboratory

- measured pH, which rose from 7.6 in December, 2009 to 9.16 in September, 2010, and 9.07 in December, 2010 (these latter three pH values exceed the upper limit of the federal secondary drinking w ater standard for pH in drinking water of 8.5 units and the upper limit of the PA water quality criterion for all surface waters in Pennsylvania of 9.0 units).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

118 PADEP counters 515 that the wetland treatment system has, with the exception of boron, treated successfully all the cited constituents; 516 and that t here are no WQC CC C s established by PADEP’s Water Quality program for the unnamed tributary because it is intermittent; also, it is not a source of public drinking water; and that there is no Pennsylvania WQC for molybdenum. Finally, discharge monitoring

r eports indicate that the facility’s discharge complies with the NPDES’ permit discharge limitations. PADEP 517 does not deny exceedances of boron, manganese, sulfate and TDS, but attributes them to Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) associated with past coal mining ac tivities in the landfill’s watershed. PADEP claims that this legacy is responsible for impacting both groundwater and surface water, as reflected in the composition of the shallow, “mine spoil” aquifer, consistent with the conclusions reached in the ground water assessment performed by Allegheny Energy in the 1990s.

In response to PADEP’s contention about the impact of coal mining legacy, EIP presents alkalinity/acidity and pH data from four monitoring wells in the Hartley Mine ( MW

- 1 and MW

- 2, required by t he mine’s ash placement operation

, and MW

- 206A and MW

- 207A, required as up

- gradient monitoring points for the coal ash landfill): while they reflect some effects of acidity, these data trends do not suggest strong AMD impacts from previous mining occurring in the mine spoil water from 1988 through 2000, when and where one would most likely find it. EIP also presents constituent concentration data that establish that discharges of alkaline coal ash leachate from the landfill, not AMD, have been causing excee dances of water quality criteria in the landfill receiving stream and degrading stream waters in the watershed of Little Whiteley Creek well beyond pollutant contributions coming from Little Whiteley Creek upstream of this tributary (and attributed by PADE P to mining legacy) for some time. These data also demonstrate that while the artificial wetland treatment system has improved the water quality of the landfill’s effluent after 2001 for some parameters, violations of water quality criteria for boron and s elenium and proposed criteria for molybdenum have continued afterwards in the landfill receiving stream. 518

R espon ding to an August 20, 1997Allegheny Energy’s application to modify the permit for the Hatfield Landfill , where the U tility acknowledged high boron attributed to fly ash that had been found in both up

gradient and down

- gradient groundwater samples, PADEP brushed off th e Utility’s a dmission by stating that b oron is a prominent surface coal mining indicator parameter in groundwater ; “ t herefore, th e co

disposal of fly ash with coal refuse and mine spoil suggests that boron would be present but not necessarily indicate those values associated with fly ash. ” However, not only is this a factually

515 PADEP (2011)

. FirstEnergy Corp, in its comment to the October 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 20 11

- 0392

- 0286, cites PADEP in stating that EIP’s (2010a) claim about surface water exceeding WQC is not applicable because these `surface water' monitoring points include supernatant within the impoundment and are managed through permitted industrial discha rges from the facility.
516 According to Quirindongo (2007), before the wetland treatment system was constructed in the spring of 2001, surface water also showed elevated arsenic levels. Four quarterly tests in the unnamed tributary to Little Whiteley Creek in 2000 found concentrations from 2.0 to 12.3 ppb, with an average of 7.1 ppb. The sample that contained 12.3 ppb exceeded the EPA MCL (10 ppb) for arsenic. Arsenic concentrations in the tributary have since decreased, but monitoring is now done annually, not quarterly as in 2000. Despite the previous elevated arsenic levels in the tributary, PADEP has not required Hatfield’s Ferry to monitor its water discharges for arsenic.

517 Comment to the 2011 NODA docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0201.
518 In the March 2008 Corrective Action Plan, PADEP actually concedes that the observed exceedances are associated with fly ash, and not with AMD, by stating: “Exceedances in 2007 were caused by newly opened active areas of the Landfill being exposed to erosi on. Best management practices (BMPs) were implemented or maintained to help control fly ash sediment in the surface runoff conveyances. However, after the BMPs were installed, the magnitude of flow overwhelmed these devices when the rainfall intensity exce eded the 10

- year, one

- hour storm .”I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

119 uncorroborated statement, 519 but according to EIP, no coal mining permit issued by PADEP with or without the use of coal ash placement before December 2010 even required regular monitoring for boron in groundwater or surface water.

Ecologic impact: EIP (2010a) also notes that a 2006 habitat and stream survey undertaken by a third party consultant indicated that CCR leachate degraded the two streams closest to the landfill. It notes that the tributary, which receives the (previously untreated) leachat e discharge and the closest tributary to the Phase 2 landfill, both have had impaired benthic macro

- invertebrate populations, and now have populations only of organisms resistant to pollution. Some sections of these streams exhibited “concreted bottoms” du e to deposition of chemical compounds. The report concluded that conditions in these streams were indicative of “polluted water and disturbed habitat”. 520 PADEP counters 521 that according to their consultant’s report, the low benthic counts were a result of th e stream size, bank erosion, and habitat disturbance and not due to leachate impact. EIP challenges this assertion by demonstrating that the information compiled in two studies by the landfill’s consultants 522 demonstrates that conditions for benthic life ha ve been impaired in these surface waters beyond the landfill’s property line as a result of the discharges.


### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 523

519 E.g., boron is not identified even once as such a parameter in Coal Ash Beneficial Use in Mine Reclamation and Mine Drainage Remediation in Pennsylvania , published jointly by PADEP and the Pennsylvania State University’ s Materials Research Institute in 2004 and considered to be PADEP’s most authoritative source on use of coal ash in mine settings. Moreover, Chapter 10 of this guide, “Soil Additives and Soil Amendments” repeatedly discusses the benefits of using coal ash as a soil amendment for mine soils and spoils to supply boron as a missing micronutrient needed for plant growth but cautions that over application of boron in fly ash can quickly become phytotoxic to plants.
520 Lemly (2010) and references therein. Lemly es timated the monetized value of the damage at $6 million.

521 PADEP (2011)
522 Namely, an “independent study on the surface

- water quality in Little Whiteley Creek” conducted for Allegheny Energy in May 1994 by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies (UMCEES), and a benthic macroinvertebrate study co nducted by GAI for Allegheny Energy on four streams emanating from the landfill in 2001. For instance, of the four unnamed tributaries studied by GAI, the most degraded conditions were found in ‘Tributary C’, where the “concreted” condition of the substrat e in this “perennial stream” was more extensive than in ‘Tributary B’. According to the study, the source of the precipitates causing this condition was most likely the discharges from the landfill’s sedimentation/treatment pond.

523 ICF (2010a). 

### Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1: 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  Onsite groundwater data exceeded prim ary EPA MCL for arsenic.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory for boron and molybdenum.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA SMCLs for sulfate, manganese, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of  Surface water monitoring indicates elevated levels of contaminants compared to upstream values, including boron ove r the PA WQC.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

120 

### Other Considerations:

 There are seven private drinking water wells and one public drinking water well within a two

mile radius of the Hatfield’s Ferry CC R disposal areas.

 In EPA (2007), Table 2, thi s site is assessed as ‘Indeterminate’.



### Resolution: A mitigation measure implemented in 2001 provided a passive wetland treatment system for the CCR leachate. A Consent Order and Agreement (COA) was issued by PADEP in March 2008 to address NPDES exceedances for aluminum, manganese, and thallium, which Allegheny Energy indicates, and PADEP confirms, are the result of leachate overflow. 524 However, there are no permit limits for selenium. 525 PADEP received a corrective action plan (CAP) from Allegheny Energy in September 2008, 526 which stated that the permit exceedances were due to leachate overflows from the sedimentation basin due to force main malfunctions, storm

- water containing fly ash dur ing heavy rains, and the inherent “analytical result variance” of the thallium analytical method itself. Currently, the CAP is being implemented. The CAP also requires fourteen wells and four surface water points around the Hatfield’s Ferry disposal facili ty to be sampled by Allegheny Energy.

As of October 2009, the landfill had been expanded by 106 acres (Phase 3) and the addition has a composite (double synthetic) liner system designed to reduce leachate to shallow groundwater, and a lined leachate stor age impoundment. 527 The older Phase 1 and 2 sections of the landfill have been closed.

524 The COA levied a $20,645 civil penalty, established stipulated penalties for future violations, and required Allegheny Energy to produce a Corrective Action Plan explaining the root causes of the effluent violations and the measures it will take to prevent their recurrence. FirstEnergy Corp., in its comment to the October 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0286, states that exceedances were from November 2003 to August 2007.
525 According to Citizens Coal Council and Environmental Integrity Project’s appeal (20 09), the challenged limit that PADEP intended to set up for selenium in the NPDES permit amendment is higher than any discharge reported by the power plants recently surveyed by EPA. Indeed, the very worst performer among the plants providing data from an outfall that solely discharges FGD scrubber blowdown, and indeed the worst performer in general of all 86 surveyed plants is the Big Bend Power Station in Florida. Big Bend discharges 2.04 milligrams mg/L of selenium daily. The technology

- based effluent li mits (TBEL) that PADEP established for selenium at Hatfield’s Ferry is 4 mg/L

— nearly double the reported discharges at Big Bend.
526 CCB Leachate Collection and Treatment System Corrective Action Plan, Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station, Monongahela Township, Greene County, NPDES Permit No. PA0002941

– Outfall 007

. Ibid.
527 From the top down, the Class 1 liner system consists of a protective cover, leachate collection system, 60 mil HDPE liner over a geocomposite drainage net leak detection system, another 60 m il HDPE liner over geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), and 6" of subbase material. damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  Effluent samples from the wetland treatment system indicate violations of aluminum, manganese, and thallium over NPDES permit effluent limits.

 A habitat and stream survey found that the two tributaries closest to the landfills, one of which receives the leachate discharge, had impacted populations of benthic macro

- invertebrates.
Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  PADEP en tered into a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) with Allegheny Energy in 2008 because of violations of the NPDES permit effluent limits for aluminum, manganese, and thallium. The COA required a corrective action plan and once approved allows two years to im

plement corrective actions for the illegal discharges.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

121 Leachate from the entire landfill is still being treated using the passive wetland treatment system. The effectiveness of these measures in meeting NPDES permit limits rem ains unclear, and will be understood only through continued chemical and biological monitoring of the Hatfield’s site. 528

Following posting of the Hatfield’s Ferry NPDES P ermit amendment ( PA0002941) on December 30, 2008, in March 2009 citizen groups appeal ed to the P ennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board ( EHB ) claiming that the amendment authorizes AES to discharge waste water containing heavy metals such as mercury, selenium, cadmium, and lead into a stretch of the Monongahela River that provides drinking water to over 90,000 people. 529

In March, 2011, the State’s EHB denied Allegheny Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment to exempt it from PADEP’s NPDES Permit requirement to monitor the discharge of the Plant’s FGD scrubber facility wastewater plant‘s efflu ents for sulfates and TDS. 530



### ICF (2010a) Rationale : Potential Damage, pending access to original report (GAI Consultants) for consideration of proven ecological damage.< Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory for boron and molybdenum, and the SMCL for sulfate, manganese and TDS have been found onsite. Although a habitat and stream survey undertaken by a third party consultant indicated impaired benthic macro

- invertebrate populations in the two tributar ies nearest the landfill (one of which receives leachate discharge), the study could not be located and reviewed. The PADEP entered a COA with Allegheny Energy because of violations of NPDES limits for three contaminants and required corrective actions; ho wever the COA did not indicate a finding of specific damage to human health or the environment.>



### Postscript: The Utility claims that based on the data reviewed it cannot be concluded that the levels of boron and molybdenum are resulting from coal ash leac hate, but are rather the result of coal mining legacy. Furthermore, the Site’s groundwater and surface water limits are being met, and the Site is in compliance with State permit provisions regarding groundwater monitoring. However, PADEP’s claim that mini ng legacy contaminated both groundwater and surface water, as reflected in the composition of the shallow, “mine spoil” aquifer, consistent with the conclusions reached in the groundwater assessment performed by Allegheny Energy in the 1990s

- is incongrue nt with the alkaline pH values documented in several down

- gradient monitoring wells, and with the significantly higher levels of contaminants in down

- gradient wells as compared to the levels of the corresponding contaminants in up

- gradient monitoring wells

.

USWAG claims 531 that this case does not meet the criteria for a damage case because the information provided for the site does not contain any documented evidence of off

‐ site groundwater monitoring data

528 Lemly (ibid).
529 The Plant’s newly installed FGD scrubbers

- discharge of 475,000 gallons per day of blowdown into the Monongahela River. In Citizens Coal Council and EIP vs. PA DEP (2009)

, Appellants challenged the failure of PADEP to set protective technology

- based effluent limits (TBELs) as the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. ) and the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Act (35 P.S. §§ 691.5 et seq. ) require.
530 EIP vs. Allegheny (ibid). Allegheny Energy’s contention was that its facility does not fall within the definition of a “new discharger” because it discharges at an existing outfall on the Monongahela River. According to Allegheny Energy Supply (2012) , “in April 2012, a joint motion was filed by the parties informing the EHB of a proposed settlement and seeking the lifting of a portion of the EHB's stay of certain terms of the Hatfield's Ferry Plant's NPDES permit. The joint motion was granted by the EHB on April 27, 2012. The parties intend to memorialize the settlement in a Consent Decree to be lodged with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Consent Decree, if entered by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, will resolve the disputes concerning th e Hatfield's Ferry Plant NPDES permit, including TDS and sulfate limits.”

531 Comment to the 2011 NODA docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

122 or off

‐ site groundwater monitoring data showing ex ceedances of specified health

‐ based criteria. This claim does not comport with EIP’s (2010a and 2012 ) claim that groundwater monitoring well exceedances since 2005 have included arsenic above the primary EPA MCL in three wells hundreds of yards south and east of the landfill, with dissolved concentrations more than x 11 the MCL; and with the fact that in March 2008, PADEP entered a COA with Allegheny Energy that required corrective actions because of violations of NPDES limits for three contaminants (thall ium, aluminum, and manganese), which Allegheny Energy and PADEP agree, were the result of CC R leachate overflow.



### References US EPA (No date): Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, Hatfield Power Station; accessed Online June 2012. http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110017437148

Herald Standard (2013): Hatfield's Ferry Power Station qu ietly closes for good. Herald Standard, October 20, 2013, updated: December 30, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.heraldstandard.com/new_today/hatfield

- s

- ferry

- power

- station

- quietly

- closes

- for

good/ar ticle_cd0133e1

- 9adb

- 58c2

- 8f8d

- 66769de34835.html

Grounded (2013): FirstEnergy: Hatfield's Ferry similar to Harrison, but too expensive to run. Grounded, A State Journal Energy Blog, July 9, 2013, Updated: August 8, 2013. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.statejournal.com/story/22794765/firstenergy

- hatfields

- ferry

- similar

- to

- harrison

- but

- too

expensive

- to

- run
Allegheny Ene rgy Supply (2012): Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, Unaudited Consolidated Interim Financial Statements for the Quarter ended March 31, 2012. Accessed Online November 2012. http://emma.msrb.org/EP650748

- EP508447

- .pdf

Frontier Business Edge (2012): Combining gas with coal could extend life of coal

- fired power plants. Frontier Business Edge, September 28, 2012, updated October 01, 2012. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/09/combining_gas_with_coal_could.html

EIP vs. Allegheny (2011): Environmental Integrity Project and Citiz ens Coal Company vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DEP and Allegheny Energy, Opinion and Order for Summary Judgment, Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) Docket No. 2009

- 039

- R (Consolidated with 2009

- 006

- R), March 21, 2011. Accessed Online Novembe r 2012. http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/HatfieldsFerrySummaryJudgment.pdf

PADEP (2011): 2011 NODA: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0201, Review of the Enviro nmental Integrity Project, EarthJustice and Sierra Club Report: In Harm’s Way: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment, PADEP Southwestern region. Accessed Online June 2012. http://files.dep.state.pa.us/AboutDEP/AboutDEPPortalFiles/RemarksAndTestimonies/CoalAsh/LittleBlue andHatfield10

- 27

- 11.pdf

EIP (2010a): In Harm’s Way: Lack of F ederal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment, Thirty

- Nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #30. The Environmental Integrity Project, EarthJustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/08_26_10.php

ICF (2010a): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendi x C, Case #30. ICF, 10/2010.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

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

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640, December 15, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

- CCW.pdf

Citizens Coal Council and EIP vs. PADEP (2009): Citizens Coal Council and Environmental Integrity Project vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection , Objections to Issuance of Permit Amendment PA0002941, before the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, H arrisburg, Pennsylvania, March 16, 2009. Accessed Online November 2012. http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/library/legal_docs/hatsfield

- ferrynotice

- of

- appeal

- final.pdf

EPA (2007): CCW Damage Case Assessments, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Quirindongo (2007): Coal Combustion Waste in Pennsylvania: The Case of the Hatfield’s Ferry Landfill. Quirindongo, Mayra, Natural Resource Defense Council. 2007. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/coal/coalpa.pdf

Allegheny Power (1996): Application for Permit Modification PADEP Soli d Waste Permit No. 300370, Allegheny Power Hatfield Power Station Disposal Site, Monongahela Township, Greene County, Pennsylvania, October 1996 (Revision 1: August 20, 1997; Revision 2: December 16, 1997).



### PR22. Martins Creek Power Plant 2005 Release, Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania

Type: Surface Impoundment D ike B reach and a Disused Surface Impoundment.



### Brief Description : On August 23, 2005, a dam confining a 37

- acre CCR surface impoundment (Basin No. 4) 532 experienced a failur e of a stop log in its outlet structure. 533 The breached impoundment was a depository of fly

- and bottom ash from Pennsylvania’s Power and Light (PPL) Martins Creek Power Plant. 534 In violation of the State's solid waste disposal permit, 0.5 million cubic yards (about 100 million

532 According to PPL (2009), Basin No. 4 was commissioned in 1989, and its total storage capacity is estimated at 12.75 mi llion gallons above grade. The maximum height of the impoundment dike is 43 feet while the total depth of the impoundment is 65 feet (22 feet below grade). Basin No. 4 is lined with a 36

- mil, synthetic, reinforced

- rubber (Hypalon) liner system . The impound ment holds predominantly fly ash with incidental amounts of soils, rocks, concrete, and plant residual waste. The volume of waste in the impoundment was 1,038,727 tons in accordance with the last submittal to PADEP on June 30, 2008. According to Dewberry & Davis LLC (2009), Basin No. 4 is regulated by the PA DEP Bureau of Waste Management. During active operation, the basin was regulated as a local, captive Class II residual waste disposal impoundment under PA DEP Permit No. 301256, which was effective on October 30, 2000 and expired on June 6, 2009.
533 According to Dewberry & Davis LLC (2009), the release resulted from the failure of stop log #2, which failed due to a fabrication defect, dating back to the original construction of the basin in the 1980s. St op log #2 was the second from the bottom of a stack of approximately 40 logs. The fabrication defects in this log were not identified by the periodic dam inspections. Once the log failed, there was no shutoff valve in the discharge pipe or other secondary barrier to prevent the subsequent release of water and ash.
534 The Plant is located at 6605 Foul Rift Road, Bangor, PA 18013, about 15 miles north of Easton, Pennsylvania. The Plant’s two coal

- fired generating units, each capable of producing 150 MW (commis sioned in 1954 and 1956), were closed and demolished between 2007 and 2009; and the two remaining units (came on line in the 1970s, totalI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

124 gallon) of coal

- ash and contaminated water flowed out through the discharge piping and from various associated manholes. The slurry flowed over about 10 acres of surrounding cornfields, a road near the basin, and into the Oughoughton Creek and Delaware River, covering the bottom and banks of the Delaware River for approximately 2.4 km downstream. 535 The release was completely stopped on August 27, 2005, 536 and PPL began an immediate cleanup effort including removal of the fly ash from the fields, Oughoughton Creek, and the Delaware River. Coal ash also covered about 20 acres of plant property after being forced through a manhole. 537



### Impact: Groundwater: As an emergency measure, the coal ash slurry ordinarily pumped from plant operations to Basin No. 4 was diverted to the smaller, older, unlined and the partially closed Basin No. 1, located adjacent to the Delaware River that had been used for short term storage of bottom ash and occasional emergency fly ash disposal. 538 The spill resulted in the exceedances of selenium, chromium, and iron in on

- site groundwater. Selenium levels up to 70 ppb were measured in MW 1

- 6, a monitoring groundwater well in Basin No. 1, and reached a maximum of 126 ppb by December 2005. 539 According to

generation capacity: 1690 MW) are fired by either natural gas or oil ( http://www.pplweb.com/ppl

generation/martins

- creek.aspx ). According to Dewberry & Davis LLC (2009), both the power plant and the ash basins overlie carbonate bedrock and many sinkholes have been mapped in the region. Basin No. 4 was located in an area believed to be free of sinkhole hazards. Nevertheless, a synthetic liner was incorporated into the design to reduce the risk of seepage from the basin opening up sinkholes, and a sinkhole contingency plan was developed. During construct ion, shallow bedrock was encountered in the northeast part of the basin, and some sinkholes opened up; these were treated by an extensive program of grouting. No sinkholes opened up during the operational history of the basin. For additional information on the Site’s geology, see the Supplemental Information volume compiled by Dewberry & Davis LLC (2009), at http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/specia l/fossil/surveys2/mtns

creek

- sup.pdf

. 535 According to NJDEP (2005), the part of the Delaware River on which the Martins Creek plant is located was designated by Congress as the Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic River in 2000.
536 http://www.prnewswire.com/news

- releases/leak

- stopped

- from

- ash

- basin

- at

- ppls

- martins

- creek

- power

- plant

55016797.html
537 Knoxnews .com (2009)

. 538 According to Dewberry & Davis LLC (2009), Ash Basin No. 1, constructed in 1955, has a surface area of approximately 23 acres, and is regulated b y the PADEP Bureau of Waste Management. During active operation, the basin was regulated as a local, captive Class II residual waste disposal impoundment under PADEP Permit No. 301256, which was effective on October 30, 2000 and expired on August 12, 2009. Basin No. 1 is an unlined basin that received predominantly fly ash and bottom ash. The basin has been retired and is generally overgrown with vegetation, including some sizable trees, and with the exception of the southern portion, closed in 1999, it is not yet closed; however, a closure plan has been developed by PPL, and at the time of the report was being reviewed by PADEP. There are two additional closed ash

- basins: No. 2 and No. 3. None of these two basins has been implicated in impact to groundwater ; however, according to The Morning Call (1989), apparently one of these basins, which was almost full and was scheduled to be replaced in the fall of 1989, was the source of an undetermined amount of coal ash that spilled into the Delaware River in April 1989. PPL speculated that heavy rain and wind altered the path of water flowing through the lagoon stirring up mounds of bottom ash. Checks done by PPL and by PADER (PADEP’s predecessor) showed a negligible accumulation of ash on the ecologically sensitive Delaware River bed, requiring no cleanup there or along the river bank. The spill's primary effect was a cloudy plume that stretched a mile down the river at its peak.
539 Bryce Payne/EarthJustice comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6313. The initi ation of emergency ash pumping into Basin 1 shortly after the spill caused rapid increases in ground water selenium at the Basin’s North End (MW 1

- 8 and 1

- 9) and the South End (MW 1

- 6) monitoring wells, but had minimal effects at intervening monitoring wel l, MW 1

- 7, that lies between the North and South end wells. Compared to the first selenium rise maxima of 60 to 76 μg/L at the North and South End wells, the maximum selenium measured in MW 1

- 7 was 13.7 μg/mL (September 9, 2005) and decreased rapidly to < 4 μg/mL (September 23, 2005). Payne infers that when emergency pumping of ash slurry into Basin 1 began, there was a rapid rise in ground water selenium under the North End that could only have occurred as a consequence of rapid penetration of the slurry w ater to the sampling depths of the two adjacent monitoring wells (MW 1

- 8 and 1

- 9). About 1.8 million gallons of water per day drainedI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

125 PPL Services Corporation, 540 the well results around Basins No. 1 and No. 4 show no exceedances of chromium and iron standards since the 2005 ash release. In fact, the highest chromium level was 0.005 mg/L, 20 times below the MCL (0.1 mg/L).

PPL concedes se lenium exceedances in monitoring wells MW1

- 8 and MW 1

- 6, 541 but claims that selenium exceedances in MW 1

- 6 were only temporary, because they returned to levels below the MCL by the third quarter of 2008. 542 EPA concluded 543 in its preliminary assessment of the response actions that based on its own evaluation of current analytical results of samples collected downstream of the release, no further federal action at the site was warranted at that time. EPA's evaluation of the

from Basin 1 every day during the emergency pumping and subsequent drain down period. A second rise in ground water selenium, confined to the South End of the basin (MW 1

- 6), began sometime after 12 October 2005, over a month after all pumping into the No rth End had stopped, and about a couple of weeks after all surface water had drained away. This October exceedance event in the South End raised the selenium concentrations to a maximum of 126 μg/L, and lasted more than a year. Based on the temporal sequen ce and spatial distribution of the two selenium peak events Payne hypothesized two different selenium mobilization and transport events. The September exceedance had been caused by the hydraulic conductivity of the structural vestiges of the two basins. La rge veins of bottom ash extend from the far North to the far South End, veins that formed in channels left by an old dike breaching that predated construction of the dike that in 2005 separated the North and South Ends, and subsequent construction of other , then

- buried, contiguous channels in the same areas. Outside the veins the ash fill is a stratified complex of distinct layers of bottom ash and fly ash. Those bottom ash veins and layers are capable of transmitting rapid water flow. This facilitated the rapid subsurface transmission of slurry water through the body of ash in the basin from the North to the South End, largely bypassing the area monitored by MW 1

- 7. As to the October exceedance, Payne infers that based on the estimated 1.8 million gallons per day drainage rate, depth of ash, and ash water holding capacity, it should have taken no more than four more days for the ash to have drained to field moisture capacity, leaving no water in the basin capable of flowing to the South End. Therefore, the second selenium peak simply could not have been due to a delayed flow of ash slurry water from the North End. Instead, it had to be due to selenium released from the fly ash in the basin, which is predominantly located in the South End. This is supported b y the fact that water samples from a piezometer (PZ 1

- 17) near the center of the basin, but still in an area predominated by fly ash, also showed a delayed peak in selenium, much larger and later than the one in the South End well. According to PPL Services Corporation ( Comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9971), with the exception of MW 1

- 6, no other primary or secondary MCL exceedances associated with the temporary operation of Ash Basin No. 1 were observed in any other monitoring wells. This included the MW 1

- 12S that was installed 250 feet directly downgradient of MW 1

- 6, between MW 1

- 6 and the Delaware River, which is located downgradient of Basin #1. MW 1

- 12S was installed as the point of compliance well for the basin pursuant to PADEP’s Residual Waste Regulations. Based on PADEP’s regulations and the lack of an exceedance at the point of compliance wells, the plant was not required to take any abatement actions to respond to this temporary excursion of the selenium MC L in this monitoring well.
540 Comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9971.
541 PPL Pennsylvania comment to the docket: http://www.uswag.org/pdf/2010/CC R%20Comments/PPLPenna11192010.pdf
542 According to PPL Service Corporation (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9971), selenium levels in MW 1

- 6 returned to levels below the MCL by the first quarter of 2007. A spike was observed in the second quarter of 2008 due to a high precipitation event, but by the third quarter the selenium level returned to below the MCL and has remained below the MCL.
543 April 2006 EPA Cover Letter to Preliminary Assessment Report of the response actions in late 2005 and early 2006. The preliminary assessment is a limited

- scope investigation performed on every Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) site. CERCLIS is Superfund’s database of sites investigated under Superfund. The assessment was co nducted in response to a September and October 2005 petitioning by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/resources/PressReleases/USEPA%20Grants%20DRN%20Petition%20Concern ing%20PPL%20Martins%20Creek%20Plant%2010

- 21

- 05.pdf

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

126 groundwater analytical results from re sidential wells indicated that the fly ash release has not affected groundwater quality down

- gradient of the site in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Surface water: Exceedances of Pennsylvania’s WQCs immediately after the release in the vicinity of the release area were noted for arsenic, lead, aluminum, and copper; exceedances of New Jersey’s WQCs immediately after the release were noted for arsenic (both upstream and downstream the Delaware River) and lead. 544

The immediate impact involved the dislocati on of at least 20 species of fish from the spill zone and smothering or poisoning of benthic invertebrates from ash

- related contaminants. In the longer term (6

- 12 months), suction dredging activities re

- suspended the ash, exacerbated fish dislocation, and removed benthic invertebrates from the river bottom. From August 2005 to April 2006, the boating access ramp on the Delaware River at the Martins Creek site was closed to the public. 545 Four years after the spill, concerns were expressed over possible long

- term impacts to the American shad ( Alosa Sapidissima)

. 546 Whereas a Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission report (2010) show a significant decline in returning shad in the Delaware River in the first decade of the millennium, it is not evident that this tre nd has been affected by the CCR spill incident.

For a succinct summary of the surface water sampling during and after the accidental CCR release ended on August 26, 2005, 547 see PPL Services Corporation’s comment to the proposed CCR rule’s docket. 548 Accord ing to a utility

- sponsored report, 549 the emergency and Phases I

- IV cleanup removed some 22,000 cubic yards of ash from the Delaware River banks and the Oughoughton Creek, as well as 56.5 million gallons of slurry from the Delaware River. The remaining ash

- related River’s channel deposits wer e depleted by the October 2005 high

- flow event. After this high

- flow event, arsenic was detected in less than one percent of the water column samples, and the downstream concentrations of metals associated with fly ash were indistinguishable from backgroun d after the October 2005 high flows. Elevated levels of arsenic, beryllium, mercury, selenium, and vanadium were detected in downstream River sediments, but their concentrations are claimed to not have posed a human health risk. River

- bank sediments subje ct to ecologic screening showed that only a small proportion of the samples exceeded the NJDEP Lowest Effect Level (6 ppm) for arsenic. Based on these findings, industry claims 550 that the spill event has resulted in no long

- lasting ecologic damage.


### Previous Basis for Consideration : Scientific : Exceedances of MCLs and SMCLs in on

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

- site surface water; and Administrative: PADEP issued a consent order for clean

- up.

544 Delaware River Basin Commission (2006)

. Initially high levels of arsenic in the Delaware River water forced the Easton Water Treatment plant to temporarily suspend drawing water.
545 Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized value of the damage at $31.4 million

. 546 For the life cycle and population restoration efforts of this anadromous species (that ascends rivers from the sea for breeding), see http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/SHAD.HTM

. 547 The results of this sampling are documented in the Phase IV report that was submitted to PADEP in June 20 06, which documents all the remedial and assessment work completed in response to the release. Section 4 of the Phase IV report describes the results of surface water sampling that was conducted at various locations along the Delaware River between August 25 and December 21, 2005. Approximately 2,200 surface water samples from 16 locations were collected during this period.
548 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9971.
549 Arcadis (2007).
550 Midwest Generation Edison Mission Energy’s comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 06 40

- 8244.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

127 

### Resolution: O n September 6, 2005, PADEP issued a Notice of Violation (NOV)/Consent Order for clean up, and fined PPL $1.5 million for polluting the Delaware River

. 551 Employing suction dredging, PPL removed fly ash from the river bottom and the other impacted areas (the dry bed of Oughoughton Creek). 552 The emergency response actions were completed in March 2006 and Phase IV of the cleanup and related impact studies were completed in September 2006

. 553 A new stop

- log assembly made of steel

reinforced concrete was installed al ong with two shutoff valves in the outlet structure of Basin No. 4. In June 2007, PPL submitted the Phase IV Completion Report to PADEP summarizing the emergency response actions and follow

- up river assessment work. 554

In September 2007 , the two coal

- fired units at Martins Creek were permanently taken out of service and subject to demolishing. 555 As of March 2009, Martins Creek Ash Basin No.4 was being dewatered and closed under PADEP’s oversight. 556 While about 98 percent of the standing water was removed from the impoundment, storm water that still collects in the impoundment is periodically pumped from the impoundment and discharged under the facility's NPDES permit. 557 The ash basin was closed and capped with a geosynthetic membrane. Final reclamation was to co nsist of a soil cap layer and vegetation

. 558


### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage. <Offsite MCL exceedances reported. Dam failure impacted river environment. Administrative orders for remediation due to surface water impacts.>


### References Federal Register

/Vol. 75, No. 118/Monday, June 21, 2010/ Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from

551 According to PADEP (2007), on November 18, 2005, the Department filed a lawsuit against PPL in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ( PADEP v. PPL Generation, 2005) . The CO stipulated a Dismissal of PADEP’s lawsuit without prejudice to the Depa rtment to bring a claim for Natural Resource Damages should that be necessary once Phase IV of the cleanup has been completed and the Phase IV report has been submitted and reviewed by the Department.
552 Phase II Work Plan (2005), Phase III Work Plan (2005) , and Blasland, Bouk & Lee (2006).
553 Arcadis (2007). According to Knoxnews.com (2009), PPL used temporary dams, allowing divers to vacuum the sludge from the riverbed

. 554 According to EarthJustice ( http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/pa

- coal

- ash

- factsheet

- 0512.pdf ), PPL has incurred $37 million in cleanup costs. The utility restarted ash basin No. 4 in De cember 2005 after completing repairs that included the replacement of the wood logs with versions made of steel

- reinforced concrete. Shut

- off valves were placed in the basin discharge pipe (The Morning Call, 2006).
555 The shut

- down had been precipitated by an agreement (May 2003) between the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and PPL Generation, LLC, to shut down two coal

- fired units at its Martins Creek power plant by September 2007, to significantly reduce emissions of air pollutants from the plant. ( http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/releases/03_0077.htm ). The demolition was completed in May 2009. ( http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/slate

- belt/index.ssf?/base/sports

- 0/1242360386222860.xml&coll=3 )
556 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46921 32/WM

- Letter

- to

- PPL

- Martins

- Creek

- LLC

. According to Dewberry & Davis LLC (2009), PPL noted that a number of monitoring wells were planned in impoundment No. 4 as part of the closure plan, although these had not yet been installed at the time of the 2009 annual dam stability inspection.
557 PPL (2009)

. 558 According to USWAG’s comment to the NODA, EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0060 (pages 48

- 53), “The impoundment ceased receiving wastewater in January 2008, and the closure work began shortly thereafter with dewatering the basin and preparing the revised closure plan and permit modification applications. Capping, final soil grading and seeding of the entire ash impoundment were not completed until spring 2012. The vegetation had reached an acceptable level by end of 201 2 so that the water runoff from the basin could be directed to the storm water outfall. By early 2013, all the remaining closure actions were completed, and by spring 2013, closure documentation was provided to state regulators for their final approvals of the closure. Regulators issued these final approvals in July 2013.” Whereas scheduled for 3

- years, the actual closure took five years to complete.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

128 Electric Utilities ( CCR Proposed Rule) . A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 0352

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appen dix A, Case #25. ICF, 10/2010.

Delaware River Basin Commission (2006): Assessment of Water Column Data Collected in Response to a Fly Ash Release on the Delaware River, Delaware River Basin Commission, John R. Yagecic, P.E., June 19, 2006 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/FlyAshAssessment_061906.pdf

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

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640, December 15, 2010 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

- CCW.pdf

Phase II Work Plan (2005): Phase II

– Delaware River Fly Ash Release Recovery Operations, Work plan Description of Portadam Installation & Fly As h Removal, PPL

– Martins Creek Steam Electric Station, Lower Mt. Bethel, PA, September 23, 2005 . A ccessed March 2012. http://www.pplweb .com/NR/rdonlyres/F1FC86F4

- 7998

- 4E77

- BE99

- FE555DAC42D4/6428/PhaseIIReportFinal32006.pdf ( No longer accessible )

Phase III Work Plan (2005): Phase III

– Delaware River Fly Ash Release Recovery Operations, Work Plan Description

- Dredging Operations, Fly Ash Impacted Riverbed Removal, PPL

– Martins Creek Steam Electric Station, Lower Mt. Bethel, PA, December 12, 2005 . A ccessed March 2012. http://www.pplweb.com/NR/rdonlyres/6ADA3F40

- D510

- 462B

- 99F8

- 89B7C040D130/5778/PhaseIIIWorkplanPackageFinal121205.pdf ( No longer accessible )

Blasland, Bouk & Lee (2006): Phase III Completion Report

– PPL Martins Creek Steam electric Station, L ower Mount Bethel, Pennsylvania, Blasland, Bouk & Lee, May 2006. A ccessed March 2012. http://www.pplweb.com/NR/rdonlyres/B0685D90

- BE5C

- 4711

- B9F6

- F475A72E3848/8253/PhaseIIICompletionReport.pdf ( No longer accessible )

Arcadis (2007): Phase IV Completion report, Martins Creek Steam Electric Station, Arcadis BBL, June 2007. Accessed Online March 2012. http://www.pplweb.com/NR/rdonlyres/B5E3B686

- D22B

- 4D97

- A5B4

- 670CDD966130/0/TableofContentsandExecutiveSummaryPhaseIVReport6807.pdf ( No longer accessi ble ) PPL (2009): Response to Request for Information under Section 104 (e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.c. 9604(e), Martins Creek Power Station, March 26, 2009 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/ppl

- martins.pdf

PPL Newsroom (2007): PPL Retires Two Coal

- Fired Units at Martins Creek Power Plant. Archived News, September 17, 2007. Accessed Online June 2012. http://pplweb.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=12270&item=20329

Dewberry & Davis LLC (2009): Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Dam Assessment Final Report, Martins Creek Steam Electric Station, PPL Generation, Bangor, Pennsylvania. Dewberry & Davis LLC. September 2009, revised December 9, 2009 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/mtns

- creek

- final.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

129 NJDEP (2005): New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Summary report: Sampling related to the Martins Cree k PPL Corporation spill

– Delaware River, August 2005

– Water column data

. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/pdf/Fall05.pdf

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (2010): Spring spawning American shad migration in the Delaware River, 2010, June 7, 2010

. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/reports/2010bio/5x0 6_15shad.htm

PADEP (2007): Public Notice of Proposed Settlement

-- Delaware River Ash Spill Between the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, PPL Generation, LLC and PPL Martins Creek, LLC Lower Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, in T he Pennsylvania Bulletin, [ 37 Pa.B. 1050], Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation, Under Act 2, 1995, Preamble 3, March 3, 2007. Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol37/37

- 9/358d.html

PADEP v. PPL Generation (2005): Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection, Plaintiff, v. PPL Generation, LLC and PPL Martins Creek, LLC, Defendants. No. 584 MD 2005, Civ il Action, November 18, 2005. Accessed Online November 2013. http://files.dep.state.pa.us/AboutDEP/Office%20of%20Chief%20Cou nsel/lib/ofcchiefcounsel/documents /ppl_complaint.pdf

Knoxnews.com (2009): Leaks, water worries shared with Pa., but TVA breach bigger: Sizing up fly ash ponds' spills, by Scott Barker, Knoxnews.com, January 4, 2009. Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jan/04/sizing

- up

- fly

- ash

- ponds

- spills/?print=1

The Morning Call (1989): PP&L Cleans Up Ash: State Says Delaware River Isn't Hu rt, by Pete Leffler, The Morning Call

– Lehigh’s Valley Newspaper, April 13, 1989. Accessed Online November 2013. http://articles.mcall.com/1989

- 04

- 13/news/2695292_1_delaware

- river

- pp

- l

- ash



### PR23. South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Canadys Plant, Walterboro, Colleton County, South Carolina

Type: Surface Impoundments.



### Brief Description : This facility is a coal

- fired power plant located along the Edisto River in the lower coastal plain of South Carolina. 559 Coal combustion ash from the power plant is mixed with water and managed in an ash storage pond. The facility operated an unlined, 80

- acre surface impoundm ent from

559 Highway 61, Canadys, SC 29433. The Plant is located about 50 miles WNW of Charleston and about 10 miles north of Walterboro, SC. According to SCE&G’s website ( ht tp://www.sceg.com/en/about

- sceg/power

- plants/fossil

- fired/canadys

station/ ), the Canadys Plant generated approximately 420 megawatts of electricity by burning pulverized coal in three units. Operating since 1962, the plant burned approximately 130 tons of coal per hour when operating at full load. Canadys utilized a closed cycle cooling water system, resulting in a little impact on the nearby Edisto River and the surrounding wildlife. Foll owing EPA’s promulgation of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MA TS”) on December 21, 2011, Canady’s generation units 1, 2, and 3 could not meet the emission standards without further modifications to the units (SCANA, 2014). One of three coal

- fired units at the Canadys plant (Unit #1) was retired in late 2012. SCE&G fi rst had planned to convert the remaining two to natural
gas

- fired units as an interim measure before retiring them completely in 2017. However, after reevaluating system needs and analyzing the economics of the situation, the company decided to proceed wit h retiring the plant by the end of 2013: http://www.sceg.com/en/news

- room/current

- news/sceg

- accelerates

- plans

- to

- retire

- canadys

- station.htm

. Canadys Station’s two remaining units (Units #2 and #3) ceased generating electricity on November 6, 2013 ‘as part of the company’s goals to reduce emissions, achieve a more balanced generation portfolio and comply with environmental regulations.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

130 1974 to 1989. In 1982 arsenic was determined above the MCL and the plume was delineated as limited but extending just beyond the initial site boundary. Nickel also has occasionally been found above a State standard in a single monitoring well adja cent to the old ash pond. Because of these results, South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) required the facility to delineate the extent of the contamination surrounding the old ash pond. The contamination was found to exten d beyond the original property boundary of the facility, but the operator was allowed to buy neighboring property under State policy at the time.

The old surface impoundment was deactivated in 1989

. 560 DHEC concluded that the contamination was not reaching the Edisto River and that its vertical extent was limited by a confining geologic unit 15 to 30 feet below the property. In 1996, DHEC approved a mixing zone and compliance boundary with ongoing monitoring around the inactive impoundment.

A 95

- acre ash po nd lined with a bentonite slurry wall, separated by an internal dike from a small polishing pond, began operation in 1989. 561 The s lurry wall (maximum permeability: 1 x 10

- 6 cm/sec) was installed as part of the new impoundment construction, which extends bey ond the compliance boundary of the old impoundment. In 2000, further MCL exceedances of arsenic were reported at and outside the original compliance boundary of the active impoundment. Geophysical investigation revealed the exceedances were due to multiple failures points of the new surface impoundment slurry wall. 562 Repairs to the slurry wall have been implemented and the mixing zone/compliance boundary expanded to include the new, active surface impoundment. Expanding the mixing zone and compliance boundary included requirements for groundwater monitoring at 15 well s, annual submittal of data, and comprehensive remedial system evaluation. As of 2008, arsenic (x4 the federal MCL) and selenium in groundwater were detected at the very edge of the expanded mixing zone. 563

For the 2007 CCR damage case assessment, DHEC conf irmed that arsenic contamination is attributable to CCR waste management units. DHEC also confirmed the limited likelihood of pathways to human receptors, given that groundwater supply wells in the region typically are drilled beneath the underlying confi ning geologic unit.

The site is located within the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. The sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain partly consist of sediment eroded from the Piedmont and Fall Line and partly of limestone generated by marine organisms and processes. A highly calcareous

- cemented clay and silt

- size stratum referred to as the Cooper Marl is typically located about 60 feet below the surface. 564



### Resolution: Under a c onsent agreement with DHEC, additional monitoring was put in place to delineate t he extent of the new arsenic plume and the compliance boundary was extended to encompass the new impoundment. In 1996, a slurry wall was installed around the old, inactive impoundment.

Corrective measures completed in 2007 included installing a dewaterin g system at the old impoundment to eliminate infiltration. The water is pumped from the old impoundment to the new impoundment, where it is treated prior to discharge, 565 and the old impoundment ’s ash is being removed and sold to a cement company. 566 A groundw ater monitoring program is in effect.

An early 2011 request , with a zoning exception, for a 160 Acre clay

- lined landfill, to replace the impoundment, was denied by the Colleton County of Board Zoning Appeals following a public meeting. 567

Following the deactivation of Canadys’ two last generating units, the decommissioning of Canadys Station is expected to take a number of years and will involve demolishing the plant, closing all ash andI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

131 wastewater treatment ponds, and constructing a permit ted dry ash storage facility onsite to store material which exceeds recycling demands. 568



### Previous Basis for Consideration : 569 Scientific : There are exceedances of the health

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



### ICF (2010) Rationale : Potential Damage. <Arsenic on onsite groundwater exceeded the MCL. No indication of offsite migration or potential impact to receptors.>



### Postscript : Evidence for multiple off

- site exceedances of primary MCLs (arsenic and nickel) that were not resolved by the purchase of the impacted properly by SCE&G and the expansion of the compliance boundary by SC DHEC.



### References EPA (200 7): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #10, docket ID EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regula tions.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #10. ICF, 10/2010.

560 Accordi ng to Dewberry & Davis (2011) , its current (2009) storage capacity was 675,000 cubic feet (418 acre

feet). The interior of the pond is now heavily vegetated.
561 According to Dewberry & Davis (ibid) , its current (2009) storage capacity wa s 2,189,468 cubic f eet (1,357 acre

feet). Discharge from the impoundment is regulated by an NPDES Permit No. SC0002020. F ly ash is collected from the hoppers of the electrostatic precipitators (ESP) on Units 1 and 2 and from the hoppers of the baghouse on Unit 3

. The fly ash from Units 1 and 2 is conveyed hydraulically through a series of pipes, along with the bottom ash and boiler slag from these units, to the Active ash Pond. T he fly ash from Unit 3 can also be conveyed hydraulically, along with the bottom ash a nd boiler slag, to the Active Ash Pond. However, the Unit 3 fly ash may also be pneumatically conveyed to a 1,200 ton ash storage silo. From the silo, the plant has the option of loading the fly ash into trucks to be transported for beneficial reuse. Both the Inactive Pond and the Active Ash Pond contain fly ash, bottom ash, pyrites and boiler slag. In addition, there are several additional ponds, which serve primarily for waste water treatment (i.e., coal pile runoff basins #1 and #2, coal pile runoff dete ntion basin, low

- volume waste ponds A, B, and C, and spray pond).
562 The contractor noted that drought

- like conditions during the preceding three years have caused a site

- wide decrease in the water table. The increase in potentiometric head between the new ash pond and the falling water table may be a contributing factor to the breaches in the slurry wall.
563 Arsenic and the Edisto , in an April18, 2011 email (SCE&G Canadys Plant Questions) from Billy Bruce to James Kohler, EPA, citing a 2008 article from the Charleston, South Carolina Post and Courier. According to The Post and Courier (2011), “arsenic has been found in groundwater near the plant's boundary along S.C. Highway 15 at levels higher than 600 ppb... Diagrams depicting the arsenic contamination show a torpedo

- shaped plume about 600 feet north of a boat landing on the Edisto. It shows the contamination has spread under S.C. Highway 15, beyond SCE&G's plant boundary.”

564 Dewberry & Davis (ibid).
565 Subject to an NPDES permit (SC0002020).
566 EPRI (2010)

. 567 Walterboro Minutes (2011); and Coal ash landfill exception fails: Board votes 2

- 2 on controversial SCE&G zoning bid : Charleston, SC Post and Courier, February 25, 2011.
568 SCE&G (2013).
569 EPA (2007).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

132 

### SCE&G (2009): SCE&G Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results . A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/sceg.pdf

Dewberry & Davis (2011): Coal Combustion Residue Impoundment Round 9

– Final Dam Assessment Report, Canadys Steam Power Station Ash Pond Embankments
, South Carolina Electric & Gas
, Canadys, South Carolina, December 2011

. Accessed Online December 2013. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/sc_canadys_final.pdf

South Carolina Groundwater Contamination Inventory, Technical Report #002

- 08, October 2008. Nati onal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Discharge to Surface Waters Permit No. SC0002020.

Post and Courier Interview with DHEC, 2008 . A ccessed Online July 2012. http://media.charleston.net/2008/text/DHECinterview.doc ;

EPRI (2010): Damage Case Report, V. 2: Case Summaries, EPRI, September 2010 . A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%2 0Product%20Damage%20Cases

Coal ash l andfill exception fails: Board votes 2

- 2 on controversial SCE&G zoning bid: Post and Courier, Feb. 25, 2011 . Ac cessed Online March 2012. http://www.postandcou rier.com/news/2011/feb/25/coal

- ash

- landfill

- exception

- fails/

The Ashepoo

- Combahee

- Edisto (ACE) Basin of South Carolina (A comprehensive regional study)

. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/doc/siteprofile/acebasin/html/intro/execsum.htm

SCE&G (2013): SCE& G Retires Canadys Station Power Plant As Part Of Strategy To Meet More Stringent Environmental Regulations, Cayce, S.C. (Nov. 13, 2013). Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.sceg.com/en/news

- room/current

- news/sceg

- retires

- canadys

- station.htm

The Post and Courier (2011): Coal ash pervasive: 2 billion pounds of power plant waste gets in ponds, landfills. The Post and Courier (Charleston, S.C.), December 14, 2 011. Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.arizonaenergy.org/News_11/News_Dec11/Coalashpervasive2billionpoundsofpow erplantwas tegetsinpondslandfills.html

Walterboro Minutes (2011): Walterboro City Council Regular Meeting M inutes, January 25, 2011. Accessed Online November 2013. http://www.walterborosc.org/Data/Sites/1/media/agendas%20and%20mintues/2011%20agn

min/minutes

-

january25min.2011.pdf

SCANA (2014): South Carolina Electric & Gas Company’s 2014 Integrated Resource Plan. Submitted to the Public Service Commission of South Carolina, February 28, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. STRICKEN

- Exhibit C

- State of Failure.pdf

- EFISI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

133 

### PR24. DOE Savannah River Project, U.S. Department of Energy, Aiken, Allendale and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina

Type: Surface Impoundment.



### Brief Description: The Savannah River Site (SRS) is a 310

- square mile reservation on the Upper Coastal Plain of Sou th Carolina established in 1950 for the production and processing of nuclear materials for national defense requirements. The Department of Energy manages SRS as a controlled area with limited public access. 570 The SRS is on the NPL with hundreds of identifi ed waste sites managed as 99 CERCLA operable units. The D

- Area Electric and Steam Generating Facility is a 70 MW coal fired utility burning bituminous coal from Middlesboro, Tennessee. P articulate material from the
water

- slurried waste stream is removed b y settling as it passes sequentially through two settling basins and a drainage swamp. A continuous flow of sluice water exits the basins, overflows, and enters a swamp that in turn discharges to Beaver Dam Creek (a tributary of the Savannah River).

All bottom and fly ash is deposited in the basins and no other wastes are co

- managed at the site. Water retention time in the entire basin system is around 60 days and water discharge from the site is about 5 million gallons/day. Sediments, water, and biota i n the disposal system have elevated concentrations of trace elements and heavy metals derived from the ash

. 571 B ullfrog tadpoles inhabiting the site have oral deformities and impaired swimming and predator avoidance abilities, and there also is evidence of

m etabolic impacts on water snakes inhabiting the site.

Research on amphibians in D

- area indicates that exposure to the wastes results in accumulation of trace elements and a variety of adverse effects. 572 A variety of lethal and sub

- lethal effects were docu mented in the biota of this ecosystem. Populations of benthic invertebrates were reduced. Impacts to 20 fish included elimination of at least five species, fin erosion, reduced swimming performance, and reduced growth. Snakes exhibited liver pathology and elevated metabolic rate. Frogs exhibited axial and oral deformities, 573 increased metabolic rate, 574 reduced swimming performance and reduced predator avoidance. Adult toads had abnormal levels of sex hormones and larval toads experienced 100 percent mortality . Salamanders experienced an extended larval period and showed reduced recruitment. Cotton rats had a high incidence of malformed DNA strands. The interaction of multiple sub

- lethal effects was

s ufficient to reduce recruitment and cause population

- level im pacts in frogs. 575 Indirect effects include the reduction of periphyton, 576 zooplankton, and benthic invertebrate abundance in D

- area. Such reductions are associated with alterations in growth and metamorphic traits in vertebrates and may, in part, explain ob served reductions in amphibian recruitment from the D

- area site. Finally, maternal effects involve the inclusion of higher mercury and selenium contents into eggs, leading the disruption of embryonic development resulting in increased frequency of developm ental abnormalities and reduced embryonic Survival rates. 577


### Previous Basis for Consideration: Scientific : Evidence of impacts on several amphibian species in a nearby wetland caused by releases from the ash settling ponds.



### Resolution: Beginning in 2001, a vegetative cover treatment study was done to develop ways of reducing acid drainage from the ash basin. Since that time, the ash basin has been operated as a landfill, with permanent capping and vegetation of filled areas. Final remediation of the site is expected to begin in 2015, concurrent with closure of the coal

- fired power plant. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory reported that substantial discharges of contaminants, including mercury and lead (selenium not reported) continued in 2005, which was the la test reporting year available. 578I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

134 570 According to Hopkins and Rowe (2004), the entire site, however, is designated as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP).
571 Data presented in Cherry et al., (2000) and cited below, were mean values for six w ater column sampling stations in and below the coal ash basin. The two metals found in the highest concentrations were iron and aluminum, both at concentrations well above their acute and chronic Water Quality Criteria (WQC) limits (16.9 and 13.0 ppm,
resp ectively). The average concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, selenium, and zinc in the drainage system water column also were greater than their respective acute WQC limits. For example, copper averaging 0.401 mg/L or 401 m g/L exceeded the acute (18 m g/L) and chronic (12 m g/L) WQC by 22 and 33 times. Zinc (371 m g/L) exceeded chronic WQC (47 m g/L) by eight times while cadmium (123 m g/L) did so by 112 times. These levels for zinc and cadmium exceeded the acute WQC by 1.1 and 31 times, re spectively. Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) values as high as 3,597 for aluminum, 1,253 for arsenic, and 156 for mercury were found in duckweed, suggesting that duckweed was a sink for metal deposition. The BCF is an environmentally relevant consequence be cause duckweed serves as a food source for aquatic and/or terrestrial organisms, and metals will accumulate at even greater concentrations in those organisms of higher trophic levels.
572 Hopkins et al., (1997); Hopkins and Rowe (2004).
573 Amphibians with oral abnormalities exhibit negative growth rates as a result of decreased grazing efficiency. Spinal abnormalities alter the normal propulsive movements of the tail, which is believed to affect their ability to escape predation.
574 The increase in metabolic rate is a sub

- lethal effect that often accompanies contaminant exposure. Such increases in energy expenditure are predicted to result in reductions in energy allocation to processes important to fitness including growth, reproduction, and/or storage.
575 Le mly (2010).
576 Periphyton are benthic (attached) algae that grow attached to surfaces such as rocks or larger plants. Periphyton are primary producers and sensitive indicators of environmental change in lotic (flowing) waters. ( http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/periphyton.html ).
577 Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized value of the damage at close to $18 million.

578 Lemly (2010) and references therein.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

135 

### ICF (2010) Rationale : Proven Damage . <Technical studies implicate CCRs in ecological impacts to biota through surface water.>



### References Hopkins et al., (1997): Increased Circulating Levels of Testosterone and Corticosterone in Southern Toads, Bufo terrestris, Exposed to Coal Combustion Waste William A. Hopkins, Mary T. Mendonca, and Justin D. Congdon, General and Comparative Endocrinology 108, 237

– 246 (1997). Accessed Online November 2014. http://ecophys.fishwild.vt.edu/wp

- content/uploads/2012/11/hopkins

- et

- al.

- 1997

- GCE.pdf

EPA (2007): Coa l Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #12, docket ID EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.g ov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #12. ICF, 10/2010.

Hopkins et al., (2004): Impacts of Aquatic Disposal of Coal Combustion By

- Products on Vertebrates on the Savannah River Site, Hopkins, William A. and Christopher L. Rowe, pp. 141

- 147 in the Proceedings of State Regulation of Coal Combustion By

- Product Placement at Mine Sites: A Technical Interactive Forum, Wyndham Hotel Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, May 4

- 6, 2004. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/MCR/Resources/ccb/PDF/State_Regu lation_of_CCB_Placement.pdf

Hopkins (undated): Sublethal Impacts of Coal

- Derived Trace Elements on Amphibians, Reptiles, and Invertebrates. B

. Hopkins, B

. Staub, C

. L. Rowe and J

. Congdon , Savannah River Ecology laboratory, Herpetology Program, Unknown d ate. Accessed Online June 2012. http://srelherp.uga.edu/projects/coal.htm

Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment, Appendix A. Selected Case Studies of Ecosystem Contamination by Selenium, Edited by Terry F. Young et al., CRC Press, 2010, Pages 265

– 269. Accessed Online June 2012. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selen ium/Library_articles/chapman_etal_2010_appendixA.pdf

The second five

- year review, USDOE Savannah River Site, WSRC

- RP

- 2001

- 4163, September 2003. Accessed Online June 2012 http://www .epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04

- 04015.pdf

2008 Savannah River Environmental Report. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/ERsum/er09/er2008.htm

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

- content/uploa ds/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

EPRI (2010): Damage Case Report, V. 2: Case Summaries, EPRI, September 2010. A ccessed Online June 2012.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

136 http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%2 0Product%20Damage%20Cases

Lemly (2010): A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal Combustion Waste: The Cost of Poisoned Fish and Wildlife, A. Dennis Lemly, December 15, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://prairieriv ers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

CCW.pdf



### PR25. Urquhart Station, SCANA, dba South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), Beech Island, Aiken County, South Carolina

Type: Landfill and Associated Coal Ash Settling Basins.



### Background and Description: Coal ash produced at the Urquhart Station 579 is disposed of in an active (Class II) landfill 580 and two settling basins along the Savannah River in Beech Island, South Carolina. 581 Disposal at this landfill dates back to the late 1980s. The landfill is 300 feet from the river, and the two settling basins are 100 feet from the river

. 582 Localized groundwater flow is assumed to be towards the

579 Station’s address: 100 Urquhart Dr ., Beech Island, SC 29842, east of Augusta, Georgia, and on Savannah River’s eastern shore. According to SCE&G’s website ( http://www.sceg.com/en/about

- sceg/power

- plants/fossil

fired/urquhart

- station/

, accessed Sept. 2012), established in 1953, the Urquhart Station generates 650 megawatts of electricity by burning pulverized coal and natural gas in its five units . Prior to the conversion of Unit 3 to gas, it burned a pproximately 40 tons of coal and 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per hour when operating at full capacity. According to updated website information (accessed Dec. 2013): http://www.sceg.com/en/my

community/environment/air/Urquhart

- Station.htm and South Carolina Radio Network (2012), the plant converted two of its coal

- fired units into co mbined

- cycle operation, fueled by clean

- burning natural gas, in 2002. These two units produce 330 MW of electric generation and use exhaust heat to power two 64 MW turbines (SCANA, 2012). Unit 3 (95 MW), the last coal

- fired boiler at the Station, was conve rted to burn natural gas in 2012. The remaining two units would be retired once SCE&G two new nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Site in Jenkinsville are finished by 2018.
580 Three Rivers Solid Waste Authority (2009).
581 According to Dewberry & Davis (2011)

, fly ash collected at the base of the stack by an electrostatic precipitator is stored in hoppers and conveyed pneumatically to a silo. From the silo it is mostly sold for beneficial use. What is not sold is hauled via truck to a permitted dumping site. T he plant does not discharge into the ash pond. Bottom ash collected from the furnace is conveyed hydraulically through a pipe to a dewatering bin. From the dewatering bin it is trucked to a permitted landfill. The transport water overflows from the dewater ing bin to the ash pond. Boiler slag is collected from the boiler and is sluiced into the same pipe that conveys bottom ash into the dewatering bin. The ash pond (constructed in 1977) was designed and operated for reservoir sedimentation and sediment
stora ge of ash. CCR and stormwater runoff are discharged into the reservoir. Inflow water is treated through gravity settling and deposition and the treated process water and stormwater runoff are discharged through an unregulated type overflow outlet structure . The ponds are not used for permanent storage and are periodically (once every 12 to 18 months) dredged to remove ash material ( fly ash, bottom ash, pyrites, and boiler slag). The ash pond is partly impounded by an earthen embankment system consisting of a dike configuration and partly incised into natural grade. There is actually one ash pond for the plant separated into two pools (upper and lower) by an internal dike. Accordin g to SCE&G (2009), Ash Pond 1 has a surface area of approximately 1.4 acres and a total maximum calculated storage capacity of approximately 18,000 cubic yards. When dredged, the volume of materials removed from Ash Pond 1 is estimated to be about 5,000

- 6, 000 cubic yards. Ash Pond 2 has a surface area of approximately 0.8 acres and a total maximum estimated storage capacity of approximately 11,500 cubic yards. When dredged, the volume of materials removed from Ash Pond 2 is estimated to be about 1,000 cubic yards.
582 For an aerial photo of the waste units, see Dewberry & Davis (ibid) , Fig. 2.1b.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

137 river. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite and wetland contamination has been inferred; however, due to the sporadic nature of contaminants at the site, no formal assessment or offsite investigation has occurred until 2010. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC ) indicated that no offsite monitoring has been required since results in wells near the river have not exceeded drinking water standards.



### Impact and Damage Claims: EIP (2010) indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater associated with the landfill and the ash settling basins. Additionally, arsenic and nickel have exceeded South Carolina drinking water standards in onsite groundwater associated with the landfill. The site is listed on the SC DHEC Groundwater Contamination Inventory (2008) for arsenic contamination exclusively associated with the ash basins. 583 Sampling at the Urquhart Station in 2010

- 2011 revealed arsenic above the MCL in four of nine ash pond wells (up to 1,209 ppb, 121 tim es the MCL), and in five of six wells at the coal ash landfill (up to 287 ppb). 584 A June 2010 Environmental Site Assessment report, prepared for SCE&GC, 585 based on monitoring well sampling in March 2010, revealed an arsenic plume that reaches maximum values of >200 μg/L immediately north of the landfill and adjacent to the primary Low Volume Waste Pond (near Well GW

- 14). Another plume, with maximum arsenic concentrations of >100 μg/L, occurs just off coal ash impoundments No. 1 and No. 2 (near wells GW

- 16 and GW

- 18). This plume affects only the shallow, unconfined aquifer. The 10 μg/L arsenic iso

- concentrating contour traverses the Power Plant’s property boundary at Coster’s Branch by about 150 feet.

A confirmatory groundwater and surface water sampling and laboratory analysis conducted in May 2010 586 detected arsenic in 10 groundwater samples at concentrations ranging from 8.8μg/L (in Well GW

- 13), to 485 μg/L (in Well GW

- 25). The concentrations of arsenic exceed the MCL of 10 μg/L level at all of the locations at which it was detected except in Well GW

- 13. These data confirm the configuration of the iso

- concentration contours of the two dissolved arsenic plumes in the shallow aquifer identified by the March 2010 sampling; the data also confirm that the arsenic plumes have not migrated to the deeper, confined aquifer. Based on the results of the May 2010 confirmatory groundwater and surface water sampling, the report recommended that additional assessment be conducted at the site to further delineate the horizont al and vertical extent of the dissolved arsenic plumes and/or that a Corrective Action Plan be developed for the site.

EIP (2010) also claims that contaminated shallow groundwater discharge into the adjacent wetland, and that drilling activities for a rep lacement well near the wetland revealed that coal ash waste was placed into the wetland

. 587

According to SCE&G (2009), on site there are also several additional ponds whose primary purpose is wastewater treatment (i.e., metals pond, low

- volume waste pond, a sh

- landfill runoff basin, low

- volume waste polishing pond, and stormwater runoff pond).
583 SC DHEC (2008), Page 21.
584 Risky Business (2011), Page B.1.
585 Boutin (2010)

. 586 Confirmatory Study (2010)

. 587 In its comment to the October 2011 NODA’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0274, SCANA Corporation claims that no monitoring wells at the site are located within a wetland, and therefore, no data exist to support a claim that coal ash was disposed in a wetla nd. Moreover, the groundwater level at MW

- 3B, located adjacent to a wetland and not within a wetland, is typically 10

- 12 feet below natural ground surface, and therefore the subject wetland feature does not act as a discharge feature for groundwater to the wetland.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

138 SCE&G claims that elevated levels of arsenic are due to the monitoring wells being placed in ash disposal areas and wells that were improperly constructed, and requ ested that the replacement well in the wetland area be abandoned. SC DHEC denied the request.

USWAG concluded 588 that t his case does not meet the criteria for a damage case because the allegations do not contain any documented evidence of off

‐ site groundwat er monitoring data or off

‐ site groundwater monitoring data showing exceedances of specified health

‐ based criteria. In the context of the 2010

- 2011 groundwater study findings, however, this conclusion does not hold water

. 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 589



### ICF’s (2010) Rationale : Inadequate Information

. Sporadic groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found on site. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report claims that coal ash
wastes have been disposed of in the wetland area, however there is no scientific study that provides documented evidence of damage to human health or the environment. Previous and ongoing assessment activities are “informal” and there are currently no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the site.



### Resolution: SCE&G met twice with SC DHEC in 2009 to develop a scope of work to conduct a hydrogeological assessment of the areas encompassing the coal ash sluice and low

- volume waste ponds at Urquhart Station. This work was completed in March 2010 and included installation of 12 new groundwater monitoring wells, aquifer characterization, as well as surface water and groundwater sampling and laboratory analysis. The res ults of this assessment were reported to SC DHEC in June Criteria Evaluation Criterion 1: D ocumented 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  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded South Carolina drinking water standards for arsenic and nickel.

 No offsi te groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  Ash was discovered in a replacement well near the wetlands, suggesting that coal ash waste were placed into the wetland.

Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  SCG&E completed a Comprehensive Groundwater Assessment for the landfill area, and they are currently assessing the nature and extent of the contamination associated with the ash settling basins. According to DHEC personnel these activities are considered to be “informal” actions, and no violations or orders have been issued to the

owner.

588 Comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211. USWAG further states that “the alleged damage case documents that groundwater monitoring wells nearest the river have not exceeded any drinking water standards and therefore no off

‐ si te exceedances have been demonstrated. Allegations in the reference also indicate ecological impacts to a wetland adjacent to the landfill but there is no evidence provided of any testing or scientific studies to support any allegation of ecological damage .”
589 ICF (2010a).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

139 2010. 590

Confirmatory groundwater and surface water sampling was conducted in May 2010 and reported to SC DHEC in July 2010. A work plan to conduct supplemental assessment of the interaction between s urface water and groundwater near the northern property line at the site was submitted to SC DHEC in October 2011. The supplemental assessment was conducted and the results reported to SC DHEC in February 2011. 591

While conceding that one monitoring well de tected arsenic in the groundwater above MCL, DHEC claims that the results have fluctuated and arsenic has exceeded the MCL in one sampling event since 2008. DHEC entered into a Consent Agreement with SCE&G for the closure of the landfill and in June 2011 t he Department approved the closure plan. 592 Decommissioning of the plant’s former coal

- handling facilities is in progress. 593



### Postscript : ICF’s (2010a) findings of ‘inadequate site impact information’ has been superseded by the findings of the July 2010 Confirmatory Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling Environmental Site Assessment and the 2010

- 2011 monitoring well evidence for arsenic exceedances.



### References EIP (2010): Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #26. The Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice. February 24, 2010. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

ICF (2010a): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix B, Case #26. ICF, 10/2010.

SC DHEC (2008): South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), Groundwater Contamination Inventory, 2008. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.scdhec.gov/envir onment/water/gwci/gwci.pdf

SCE&G (2009): SCE&G Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results, August 2009; accessed Online December 2013. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/sceg

- urg_080409.pdf

Dewberry & Davis (2011): Coal Combustion Residue Impoundment Round 9

– Final Dam Assessment Report, Urquhart Generating Station Ash Ponds, South Carolina Electric & Gas, Beech Island, South Carolina, November 2011. Accessed Online December 2013. http:// www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/sc_urquhart_final.pdf

Risky Business (2011): Coal Ash Threatens America’s Groundwater Resources at 19 More Sites. Environmental Integrity Project Report, December 13, 2011. Accessed Online June 201 2. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/documents/121311EIPThirdDamageReport.pdf

.

590 SCANA Corporation’s comment to the October 2011 NODA’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0274.
591 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0274.
592 DHEC’s comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392, November 14, 2011: http://www.astswmo.org/Files/Policies_and_Publications/Cross

- program/Coal_Combustion_Residua ls/2011.11

- NODA_Comments/South_Carolina_NODA_Comments.pdf
593 SCANA (2012), page 21.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

140 Boutin (2010): Environmental Site Assessment, SCE&G Urquhart Station Coal

- Ash Sluice Water and Low Volume Waste Ponds Site #00377, NPDES Permit #0000574, Beech Island, Aiken County, South Carolina; Brian S. Boutin, PG (ICR response to Question 11, provided to EPA/OECA: Urquhart Assessment Report 0610_FINAL1.pdf), June 2010.

Confirmatory Study (2010): Confirmatory Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling Environmental Site Assessment, SCE&G Urquhart Station, Coal

- Ash Sluice Water and Low Volume Waste Ponds Site #00377, NPDES Permit #0000574, Beech Island, Aiken County, South Car olina, July 2010.

South Carolina Radio Network (2012): SCE&G to phase out six coal

- fired units, May 30, 2012. Accessed Online December 2013. http://www.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/2012/05/30/sceg

- to

- phase

- out

- six

- coal

- fired

- units/

SCANA (2012): United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10

- K, February 29, 2012. Accessed Online December 2013. http://www.scana.com/NR/rdonlyres/9C2111E3

- B230

- 4C4B

- 8178

- 085C3F8B2F23/0/201110K.pdf

Three Rivers Solid Waste Authority (2009): Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, prepared by Three Rivers So lid Waste Authority for Counties of Aiken

– Allendale

– Bamberg

– Barnwell

– Calhoun

– Edgefield

– McCormick

– Orangeburg

– Saluda, November 4, 2009. Accessed Online December 2013. http://www.trswa.org/Three

- Rivers

- Regional

- Solid

- Waste

- Management

- Plan

- 2009.pdf

SCANA (2014): South Carolina Electric & Gas Company’s 2014 Integrated Resource Plan. Submitted to the Public Service Commission of South Carolina, February 28, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. STRICKEN

- Exhibit C

- State of Failure.pdf

- EFIS



### PR26. TVA Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant , 594 

### Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee Type: Surface Impoundment Dike Failure.



### Brief Description: The Tennessee Valley Authority ( TVA) Kingston Fossil Fuel plant (KIF) is located in Roane County, Tennessee, on a peninsula formed by the confluence of the Emory River (to the north) and the Clinch River (to the south and east)

, about 35 miles west of downtown Knoxville

. 595 The plant uses the Emory River as a source of cooling water and discharges effluents into the Clinch River. Water

594 The TVA Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant (KIF) is located at Emory River Mile 2.6 and is at the headwaters of Watts

Bar Reservoir near the confluence of the Clinch and Emory Ri vers (Clinch River Mile 2.7). KIF adjoins Swan Pond Road just north of U.S. Highway (US) 70 in Midtown. Begun in 1951 as the Kingston Steam Plant, KIF was built to supply nearby Oak Ridge atomic energy installations with a steady supply of electricity. Whe n it was commissioned in 1955, it was reportedly the largest coal

- fired power plant in the world. KIF has nine generating units: units 1

– 4, rated at 175 MW each (launched into service in 1954), and units 5

– 9, rated at 200 MW each (launched in 1955). KIF bu rns daily about 14,000 tons of coal with an average of 12.5 percent ash. For plants to optimize operation of a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system and predicted environmental implications, see TVA (2008).
595 Most nearby Federal lands are U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reservation properties for the Oak Ridge facilities, but residential and recreational areas are in close proximity. The closest residences are directly across Swan Pond Road from the plant rese rvation. Residences are also located across Swan Pond embayment and the Clinch and Emory Rivers.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

141 for the KIF is drawn from the reservoir created by the Watts Bar Dam which is located about 38 miles downs tream from the mouth of the Clinch River. 596

Kingston’s CCR disposal system was first constructed in the 1950s and has undergone significant changes through the years. Prior to the December 2008 spill incident, all KIF’s disposal units were located to the northeast of the Plant and on the south bank of the Emory River section of the Watts

- Bar Lake. They included the Main Ash Pond, the Stilling Pond, the Fly Ash Stacking Area (Dredge Cells 1 and 2 and an Emergency Dredge Cell), and the Stack Runoff

- Leachate Pond (on portion of the site of the Initial Ash Cell). Following the December 2008 spill incident, all the pond areas (with the exception of the stilling pond) have been converted to ash stacking areas. In addition, on the peninsula on the northern bank of the Clinch River section of the Watts

- Bar Lake, the Gypsum Disposal Area and the Gypsum Dewatering Facility were constructed. 597

The initial 1954, 85

- acre Ash Pond and more expansive 275

- acre final storage area, enclosed by the perimeter “East Dike” and “Dike C”, were located immediately north of the KIF along the bank of the former Emory River at the confluence with Swan Pond Creek and its flood plain. The 275

- acre storage

area 598 consisted of the main pond where ash was deposited and a stilling pond. 599 Onc e the initial ash ponds were full in the early 1980s, the TVA began to dredge ash from a collection pond and to construct elevated dredge cells with containment dikes where ash from the main pond is finally placed. Between 1954 and 1990, the loose wet ash placed in the dredge cells accumulated to a depth of 40 to 65 feet. 600

The Ash Processing Area was built in 2009 as a place to dewater and temporarily store ash dredged from the Emory and Clinch Rivers during cleanup and recovery from the spill. This area w as built over an abandoned section of the ash disposal area, including 7.4

– 16.2 meters of ash fill, and an abandoned metal cleaning pond. 601

To reduce system

- wide sulfur

- dioxide emissions from all nine generation units and to meet requirements under the 1 990 Clean Air Act, as well as to maintain compliance with the USEPA Title IV regulations for the Acid Rain Program, in 2010 TVA installed two scrubbers using limestone forced oxidation (LSFO) technology. TVA began testing of the new scrubbers in June 2010, and the new clay

- lined units became fully operative in June 2010. 602 Following the December 2008 fly ash dike failure at KIF, on August 20, 2009 TVA decided to convert the future handling of CCRs from wet to dry storage. 603 To achieve a wet to dry conversion for gypsum, TVA constructed a gypsum dewatering facility that was scheduled to come online in December 2011. 604

The KIF is underlain by a mantle of predominantly residual soil that resides over Lower Paleozoic bedrock sequence. Soil (primarily clay and sil t with variable chert gravel content) thicknesses range from 8.5 to 120 feet and average 40.5 feet within the confines of the proposed FGD disposal area. 605 . As is Typical to the Valley and Ridge Province hosting the KIF, the bedrock has been disrupted by se veral low

- angle reverse (thrust) faults: the Chattanooga Fault, the Watts

- Bar Lake Fault, and beyond the KIF’s property to the northwest

– the Harriman Fault. Underneath the ash pond area, the bedrock is overlain by a clay, silt and sand alluvium that is 2 0 to 40 feet thick. The underlying Cambrian

- age Conasauga Shale formation consists of folded and fractured shales with minor layers of limestone and dolomite. It is underlain by the Cambrian

- age Rome Formation Shale. These two Cambrian formations are thrus t

– by the Chattanooga Fault

– over the Cambrian

- Ordovician age Knox Group carbonates. 606

The Knox Group is a slight to highly fractured, massive to layered chert

- rich dolomite. Most cavities and joints are completely or partially filled with clays or sand s, but open cavities were observed at half of the

core

- hole locations. There are topographic expressions of dolines (enclosed karstic depressions) at the site: the dolines are thickly mantled by residual soil with thicknesses ranging from about 35 to 75 fe et.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

142 Groundwater movement at the site generally follows topography with groundwater flowing southeasterly from the site ridgeline toward the Clinch River without traversing private property. 607 Based on a survey of water use in June 2005, there were no surf ace water or groundwater supplies located within a 1

- mile radius of the site. Furthermore, considering that the site is hydraulically bounded on virtually all sides, and since all downgradient property between the disposal site and surface water boundaries lies within the plant property, there is no potential for future development of residential wells, nor for off

- site impacts to residential or municipal groundwater supplies.

Wastewater discharge is regulated under tow permits: Permit No. TN0005452, regulating fly ash and bottom ash sluice water discharges to Clinch River at mile 2.9; 608 and Permit No. TN00080870, regulating discharge from the Flue Gas Desulfurization System storm water pond into Clinch River at mile 2.5. 609 The Pre

- December 2008 surface water Quality was compromised by the area’s historic

596 The Watts

- Bar, operational since 1942, is one of nine TVA dams on the Tennessee River. Stretching approximately 72 miles along the Tennessee River, the dam c reates a slack

- water reservoir with channels that extends more than 20 miles up the Clinch River and 12 miles up the tributary Emory River. The December 2008 failed dredge cells are located two miles up the Emory River from its historic confluence with the Clinch River.
597 Based on TVA (2002), Figures 1

- 1 and 3

- 2; TVA (2006), Figure 2

- 1; and TVA (2010a), Figure 1

- 2.
598 It is sited on alluvial flood plain deposits of clay, silt, and sand.
599 According to TVA (2006), as of 2005, KIF produced between 320,000 to 4 40,000 tons of fly ash and 80,000 to 110,000 tons of bottom ash annually (about an 80/20 percent ratio).
600 AECOM (2009).
601 For design and layout information of the rebuilt waste units during TVA Kingston’s dam integrity inspection, October 21, 2011 (the ac tive Ash Pond C and the FGD Landfill, then under construction), see Dewberry Associates (2013), Sections 2.1, 3.2, 4.1, and 4.2, Figures C

- 1 and C

- 2, and Appendix B, Document 23.
602 TVA (2006)

. The amount of gypsum produced by LSFO scrubbing is dependent on the sulfur content and heating value of the coal, absorber efficiency, and the amount of coal fired. The maximum theoretical gypsum production at KIF (based on 75 percent capacity factor for operation of the plant and the use of 5.0 lb sulfur per mmBtu co al) is expected to be 560,000 tons per year. The gypsum disposal facility at KIF is located on the west bank of the Clinch River/Watts

- Bar Reservoir near Clinch River Mile 3.5. Disposal site selection factored in the need of the gypsum dewatering facility to be close to the gypsum pond and stack area and the barge loading area. The preferred site is the mid

- section of the KIF Peninsula (“KIF Peninsula Area #2”). During the 2008

- 2010 gypsum facility construction period, ten sinkholes were discovered and repa ired. In December 2010, TVA discovered that liquid was draining through a sinkhole near the southern edge of the disposal area, causing dramatically elevated selenium concentrations in underlying groundwater, and ultimately discharging to the Clinch River. TVA dewatered the area in January 2011. During investigation and repair work, TVA discovered additional sinkholes. The clay liner was ultimately removed and replaced, and covered with a high

- density polyethylene (HDPE) liner. See also TDEC General Counsel (2010) and Dewberry Consultants (2013), Appendix B, Document 24.
603 TVA (no date, presumably 2009), and TVA (2010b).
604 TVA ( 2010a ). TVA (2010a) supplement ed the original environmental assessment for the installation of the scrubbers at KIF : Installation of Flue Gas Desulfurization System on Kingston Fossil Plant Environmental Assessment (TVA, 2006)
605 TVA (2006).
606 AECOM Slide Presentation ( http://www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/ ), Part Three, slides 1 8 and 20.
607 According to TVA (2002), Figure 3

- 1 ( Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Based on December 1994 Water Level Measurements ), there was some 10

- 15 feet groundwater mounding underneath the Ash Pond, with groundwater flow assuming an arcuate radial p attern to the south, east (Emory River) and northeast (Swan Pond Creek Embayment). However, following the conversion to dry stacking following the 2008 spill incident, this mounding might be no longer in existence.
608 Issued September 1, 2003, the permit e xpired August 31, 2008. TVA reported that it had submitted an application for renewal prior to February 28, 2008. TDEC issued a draft renewal permit on October 11, 2010.
609 Issued September 22, 2009, the permit expired September 30, 2013. (Dewberry, ibid, A ppendix A, Document 9).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

143 legacy. T he Emory River arm of Watts

- Bar Reservoir and the Clinch River arm of Watts

- Bar Reservoir are on the state 303(d) list of impaired waters because of sediments contaminated with polychlorinated b iphenyls (PCBs) and chlordane from upstream industrial point sources. The section of the Emory above the influence of the Watts Bar impoundment is listed due to mercury from atmospheric deposition. Several tributaries of the Emory River upstream of KIF are listed for manganese, iron, and pH from historic coal mining activities. One nearby tributary of the Emory Arm is also listed for arsenic. Some of this contamination occurs as a result of former U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) operations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. The primary concern is PCB contamination in fish. Other contaminants include radioactive materials and metals. 610



### Impact: Surface Water/Soils and Sediments, Ecology: On December 22, 2008, the northeastern dike of the unlined 611 surface impoundment (Main Ash Pond) at KIF failed. About 5.4 million cubic yards of fly ash sludge along with about 327 million gallons of water were released within about one hour over a 300

- acre area and into a branch of the Emory River. The spill ruptu red a natural gas line, disrupted power and transportation, rendered three homes uninhabitable and damaged many others, which resulted in the evacuation of a nearby residential area. 612 About 90 percent of the release went into the Emory River, inundating th e channel with up to 10 meter

- thick ash column for a distance of over 6 km. Ash made its way also into the Clinch River, which joins with the Emory downstream, and was also found 16 km downstream in the Tennessee River, which joins with the Clinch. 613 Togeth er, the three rivers form the upper end of Watts Bar Reservoir. 614

A Root Cause Analysis 615 identified four factors likely to have contributed to the dikes’ failure scenario: 1) the presence of ‘slime’, an unusually weak foundation of ash and silt, formed by a not

- regulated discharge of ash slurry towards a tributary of the Emory River prior to the impoundment’s construction, 2) the impoundment’s ‘upstream’ expansion phase that involved construction of sloping dikes over the wet ash, 3) the increased load on the retaining walls due to higher fill, and 4) the high water content of the wet ash. The TVA Office of Inspector General concluded that TVA Kingston’s management failed to address concerns about the stability of the Kingston ash storage facilities. 616

610 TVA (2010a).
611 EPRI Comment EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9765, page 49.
612 For a photo presentation on the release and its immediate aftermath, see Pond Failure Slides (2009). This ash spill is the largest volume industrial spill in U.S. history. The incident triggered USEPA’s decision to issue federal regulations for the management of CCRs, and to conduct a nationwide, comprehensive information collection and dam integrity survey campaigns of the utility industry’s CCR surface impoundment s. 613 According to Deonarine et al., (2012), t he ash was released into the river between Emory River Mile 2.5 and Emory River Mile 3. The resulting ash wave distributed the ash as far upstream as Emory River Mile 6. High

- flow events that followed in the mon ths after the spill distributed ash further downstream in the Clinch River from Clinch River Mile 5 to Clinch River Mile 0, and into the Tennessee River.
614 According to http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/23/tennessee.sludge.spill/?iref=mpstoryview , it was the largest coal

- related slurry spill in United States history, more than three times the size of the Martin County coal sludge spill of 2000, which spilled 306 million US gallons (1,160,000 m 3 ) of liquid coal waste.
615 Edison Mission Energy’s (EME) comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 8244, and AECOM (2009).
616 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) comment to the proposed rule’s docket: EPA

HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6298. TDEC states that while TVA was aware of the potential structural failure of the landfill via information from its employees and consultants, it has not pursued a preventative action, nor has TVA communicated this information to the reg ulatory agency. TDEC cites the TVA Office of Inspector General’s July 23, 2009 report (page 4): "TVA was aware of 'red flags' that were raised over a long period of time signaling the need for safety modifications to the TVA ash ponds. These 'red flags' we re raised by both TVA employees and consultants hired by TVA. Specifically, a 1985 internal memorandum written by a TVA engineer and two 2004 reports by external engineering consultants raised concerns about the stability of the Kingston ash storage facili ties."I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

144 The spill’s immediate impact killed approximately 5,000 fish, and unknown numbers were stranded or buried under the ash. Birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles were exposed to toxic ash in the spill area and sluice pond, and some were killed. Mussels and ot her benthic macro

- invertebrates were smothered. At least 33 hectares of aquatic ecosystems in an embayment area were completely destroyed during the initial release. 617

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) found exceed a nces of the more stringent criteria for chronic exposure of fish and aquatic life at least once in January 2009 for aluminum, cadmium, iron, and lead. Most of these exceed a nces were in the Emory River near the ash slide. TDEC criteria for thallium in waters that serv e as a source of drinking water and from which fish are consumed have also been exceeded in some TDEC samples from both the Tennessee and Emory rivers, but there have been no exceedances of the Tennessee thallium standard for waters that serve as a

source of drinking water only. 618 However, the maximum levels of arsenic, mercury, and selenium from all standard sampling locations on the Emory, Clinch, and Tennessee rivers have been below both the Tennessee Fish and Aquatic Life Criterions for Continuous Concen tration and the Tennessee Domestic Water Supply Criterions. 619

Sampling results for the contaminated residential soil showed arsenic, cobalt, iron, and thallium levels above the residential Superfund soil screening levels. Preliminary analyses of ash, wate r, sediments, and fish tissues collected from near the spill site 18 days following the dike failure revealed the following: (1) Levels of arsenic and selenium were elevated above toxic thresholds in river sediments for a distance of at least 4.8 km downst ream; (2) fish tissues in this zone contained toxic concentrations of selenium (above 4 mg/kg whole

- body, dry weight), at and beyond the thresholds of toxicity for reproduction and growth; 620 (3) fish exposed to ash

- related toxic elements showed several hist ological alterations indicative of toxic element stress. Fish tissue sampling conducted upstream of the spill zone revealed contaminant levels indicative of legacy pollution from previous, permitted discharges that had taken place prior to the spill. 621

Sev en months following the spill, all fish collected still had concentrations of selenium above a toxic threshold, and most were still contaminated at that level 14 months after the spill. Ash

- laden sediments were toxic to mussels and other benthic macro

- inve rtebrates. Eighteen months after the spill, concentrations of arsenic in sediment pore waters were over 10 times the toxic level for sensitive benthic invertebrates at sites 12 km downstream. Twenty

- one months after the spill, a high percentage of fish exh ibited lesions, deformities, and infections, all symptoms of very extreme stress. 622

617 Lemly (2010) and references therein.
618 TVA ( 2010a ).
619 Ibid.
620 Note that U.S. EPA (2004) calculated a final chronic value for selenium of 7.91 μg/g dry weight whole body tissue concentration.
621 Lemly (2010) and references therein; and Appalachian State University (2009): The TVA Phase I Emory River Dredging Plan indicates that normal plant operations discharge 2.84 lb of dissolved selenium per day, equivalent to over 41,000 pounds over the servi ce life of the plant through December 2008. TVA 2007 Toxics Release Inventory states that 1,111 lbs of selenium compounds were released in 2007, which is equivalent to 3.04 lbs per day ( http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/kingston.htm#tri ). Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized value of the damage at $29.4 million.

622 According to a December 2009 EPA Science Panel Review: “Selenium concentrations in surface water result from both TDEC an d TVA suggest that no adverse ecological impacts in the river systems have occurred at this time. While there are detected concentrations of selenium in some samples within the 1 μg/L to 5 μg/L concentration range, these are sporadic and have not been cons istently elevated. As dredging proceeds at a more rapid pace, monitoring of the river systems should continue.... Because of the significant time lag between seleniumI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

145 Water quality sampling completed in June 2009 in the Clinch River indicated that levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, selenium, antimony, nickel, thallium, barium and beryllium have exceeded WQC for drinking water, aquatic organisms and recreational uses in the River. 623 Phase II monitoring water quality results for surface water discharging from the Clean Water Ditch (an interceptor ditch to divert runoff ar ound the Swan Pond Embayment) into the Emory River between July 2010 and July 2011 indicated that arsenic and selenium were below Tennessee’s Aquatic standards, 624 but they exceeded the corresponding MCLs for these metals. 625

TVA 626 summarized a battery of air , groundwater and sediment monitoring, ecologic and biologic studies conducted by third parties, contending that, as of September 2010, the spill has not resulted in any lingering impacts. State and federal agencies concluded that t he only way people could have been exposed to the coal ash was through direct contact with the coal ash or by ingestion in the first several weeks following the spill. The airborne coal ash could affect people exposed to higher concentrations of particulate matter, especially those with pre

- existing respiratory or heart conditions. However, as of October 2010, of the over 200,000 air samples analyzed since the spill occurred none have exceeded EPA NAAQS, and the EPA stated that there was no kn own threat to public health from an air pollution exposure associated with the clean

- up of the ash spill

. Health monitoring found no health issues related to the ash release among residents living in the area around the site. 627 The joint agency report also concluded that using municipal drinking water and springs/wells within a four

- mile radius of the release would not harm human health, because the raw and finished water has continuously met drinking water standards and no evidence of groundwater contaminat ion has been found since the spill. 628

In addition to the persistent, abnormally high selenium contents in fish tissue and reduced benthic

macro

- invertebrate populations even in areas outside the dredge zone following the Phase 1 ash removal, 629 three addit ional findings suggest a potential for lingering impacts: (i) a study showed significant arsenic buildup in reduced river bottom sediments downstream from the spill site; 630 (ii) a

mobilization and biological response, the monitoring strategy should be a systematic effort to track accumulation over time rather than simply collecting fish periodically or when certain concentration screening levels are reached.”

623 Sierra Club (2009), attached Exhibit 1.
624 Arsenic: 0.15 mg/L; selenium: 0.05 mg/L.
625 See TVA’s bi

- weekly data (J uly 2010 to mid

- July 2011) for discharge trends of dissolved arsenic ( http://www.tva.com/kingston/pdf/water/Embayment%20Dissolved%20Arsenic.pdf ) and dissolved seleniu m ( http://www.tva.com/kingston/pdf/water/Embayment%20Dissolved%20Selenium.pdf ) from the Clean Water Ditch to the Emory River. While at no point during this monitorin g period have the discharge levels exceeded Tennessee’s WQSs, considering the increase in the concentration levels of these two contaminants in the first half of 2011, it is not clear why the TVA ceased presenting similar data after mid

- July 2011.
626 Comment to the docket: http://www.uswag.org/pdf/2010/CCR%20Comments/TVA11192010.pdf ; TVA’s Ash Release Environmental Monitoring website (http://www.tva.com/kingston/water/groundw ater_monitoring.html).
627 OARU (2010) and Tennessee DoH (2010).
628 Public Health Assessment report, Final Release, September 7, 2010, the Tennessee Department of Health (DoH), jointly with the U.S. DHHS and the ATSDR Division of Health Assessment and Consult ation, footnotes 178

- 185; EPRI’s comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9765; TDEC comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2009

- 0640

- 6298.
629 Lemly (2010). TVA downplays these findings: “So far, no significant health effects (damage or injury) have been observed. Some characteristics of fish health were generally poorer in 2009 immediately downstream of the ash spill than at upstream reference sites. Fish health effects seem to be limited to a small area and to fish species that reside in localized areas for extended periods of time. There was some recovery in fish health observed between 2009 (soon after the ash spill) and before dredging wa s complete in 2010. Analysis of fish sampled after dredging (i.e. fall 2010; spring 2011; and fall 2011 fish collections) is expected to be available in spring 2012.” ( http://www.tva.com/kingston/ fish/index.htm )”.

630 Vengosh (2009) and Ruhl et al., (2009).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

146 study to investigate the impact of the ash on surface water and sediment qual ity over an eighteen month period after the spill, with a specific focus on mercury and methylmercury in sediments, revealed that while surface water quality was not impaired with respect to total mercury concentrations, in the sediments of the Emory River near the coal ash spill total mercury concentrations were 3

- to 4

- times greater than sediments several miles upstream of the ash spill. Similarly, methylmercury content in the Emory and Clinch River sediments near the ash spill were slightly elevated (up to a factor of 3) at certain locations compared to upstream sediments. 631

, 632 (iii) Finally, results of recent monitoring of groundwater underneath Kingston’s coal ash disposal area, ash processing area, and gypsum disposal facility show exceedances of the MC L for selenium in three wells (maximum concentration of 412 ppb, or 8.2 times the MCL). 633

A two year investigation into the environmental impacts of the spill (Jackson, 2011) revealed several impacts. (i) Selenium concentrations were identified above crite rion continuous concentration (CCC) set by the U.S. EPA in total available water samples, and sediment samples were elevated up to 21 times background concentrations for arsenic following the spill. (ii) Fish body burdens for arsenic and selenium were stat istically elevated in the months following the spill, particularly in redear sunfish; and (iii) concentration of selenium in fish tissues were found above proposed biological effects concentrations, particularly in redear sunfish which had hepatic selenium concentrations at levels above 20 mg/kg. Furthermore, fish were identified with pathological abnormalities such as exopthalmus

631 Deonarine et al., (2012). Up to 2 percent of the total mercury in sediments containing coal ash was present as methylmercury. Mercury isotope composition and sediment geochemical data sugges ted that elevated methylmercury concentrations occurred in regions where native sediments were mixed with coal ash. This coal ash may have provided substrates (such as sulfate) that stimulated biomethylation of mercury. The production of methylmercury in t hese areas is a concern because this neurotoxic organomercury compound can be highly bioaccumulative. The authors conclude that while t he Emory

- Clinch River system is susceptible to methylmercury biomagnification in the aquatic food web, as documented befo re the spill, and the ash appeared to influence net methylmercury production in river sediments, its subsequent influence on the food web remains unclear. The methylation of mercury by sediment microbes is only an initial step towards, and not a guarantee of, food web accumulation. The effects of ash contamination on food web accumulation of methylmercury need to be studied further.
632 Before the spill, the Emory

- Clinch system was already impaired with respect to mercury, due to historical releases from U.S. Department of Energy facilities in Oak Ridge, TN, about 20

- 30 km upstream along the Clinch River. A portion of this mercury has migrated downstream along the Clinch River, including locations near the spill. Furthermore, the TVA plant diverts large volume s of river water through the cooling water intake situated along Emory River (near its confluence with the Clinch), resulting in periodic backflows and possible mobilization of Clinch River sediments upstream into the Emory. Thus, the Clinch River provides a source of legacy mercury to this site. Other sources of mercury to the rivers could include non

- point sources such as atmospheric deposition and runoff from a mercury

- contaminated mill at Emory River Mile 11.3 (non

- operational from 2002). Both the Emory and Clinch Rivers are currently under fish consumption advisories that pre

- date the ash spill. Mercury isotope composition in sediments (δ 202 113 Hg) was quantified by Deonarine et al., (2012), to identify the contribution of the various sources of mercury and their spatial distribution in the Emory

- Clinch River system, to distinguish the legacy mercury from the fraction contributed by the spilled ash.
633 EIP (2011) also identifies exceedances of federal health

- based guidelines for cobalt (maximum 104 ppb) a nd manganese (maximum 26,900 ppb, 90 times the LHA.) According to TVA Inspector General (2011), at Kingston, there was an MCL exceedance for arsenic in June 2009. However, additional monitoring on a monthly basis from September through December 2009 was pe rformed, and the exceedance was not repeated. Because the exceedance was not repeated, it did not result in any of TDEC’s three levels of assessment. Additional exceedances during the monitoring results reviewed for calendar years 2008

- 2009 included antimo ny (four cases), aluminum (three), ammonia (three), and chromium (one case).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

147 (popeye), histopathological changes in the gills, reduced condition index, bacterial infections, and fin erosion. 634

Benthic invertebrate communities were assessed in December 2010, following the completion of dredging in summer 2010. Benthic invertebrate communities were sampled at transects spread across approximately 20 miles of river that includes both riverine and reservoir

- like conditions. The community composition was reflective of a reservoir system, with dominant taxa being insect larva, bivalves and aquatic worms. Most community metric results were similar for ash

- impacted areas and upstream reference areas. Variation i n the benthic community was correlated more with habitat than with sediment chemistry or residual ash. Although released ash undoubtedly had some initial impacts on the benthic community in this study, the severity of these effects appears to be limited to the initial smothering of the organisms followed by a rapid response and the initial start of recovery post

- dredging. 635

Groundwater: Results of recent monitoring of groundwater underneath Kingston’s coal ash disposal area, ash processing area, and gypsum disposal facility show several exceedances and elevated concentration values for several metals. The gypsum disposal area, as described above, experienced a sinkhole shortly after it was put into service in 2010. This event affected wells G4B, G5A, G5B, an d G6B, causing selenium concentrations as high as 412 μg/L (or 8.2 times the MCL). Whereas Selenium levels have declined following TVA’s remediation and repair work, they still remain elevated above background concentrations, and, in well G5B, above the MC L. 636



### Resolution: On January 12, 2009, TDEC issued an order requiring TVA to clean up the spill, monitor and repair damage to the environment, and develop a short

- and long

- term ash management plan for the Kingston Power Plant and its six other coal fired plants in Tennessee. 637 The order also required TVA to assess the structural integrity of all of its CCR surface impoundments and landfills and to make structural improvements to all the regulated units established as having structural integrity concerns. On May 11, 2009, EPA issued an Administrative Order of Consent outlining cleanup requirement under CERCLA. TVA agreed to clean up over five million tons from the Emory River and surrounding areas of spilled coal ash. 638 The ash disposal cell that failed and t he adjacent ash pond are to be closed and a

634 However, following an analysis of young bluegill sunfish demonstrating exopthalmus, no direct correlation could be made between these individuals and highly elevated contaminant concentrations. Fish populations are showing sustained elevation of toxic elements two years following the spill but are also likely benefitting from immigration/ emigration of individuals from healthy source populations creating sustained populations.
635 Buys et al., (2014).
636 EIP (2011) and EIP (2013, Fig. 9

- 1 and 9

- 3 and narrative). These references also identify exceedances of federal health

- based guidelines for cobalt (maximum 104 ppb) and manganese (maximum 26,900 ppb, 90 times the LHA), accompanied by elevated cobalt, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, boron, sulfate, and TDS. According to TVA Inspector General (2011), at Kingston, there was an MCL exceedance for arsenic in June 2009. However, additional monitoring on a monthly basis from September through December 2009 was performed, and the exceedance was not repeated. Because the exceedance was not repeated, it did not result in any of TDEC’s three levels of assessment. Additional exceedances during the monitoring period of calendar years 2008

- 2009 includ ed antimony (four cases), aluminum (three), ammonia (three), and chromium (one case).
637 Scott (2010). An ad

- hoc, interagency Advisory Committee was tasked to (i) determine if the investigation by TVA of the mechanism of failure at Kingston used sound engin eering principles and practice, and (ii) determine if the structural evaluation by TVA of other CCR facilities used sound engineering principles and practice. In addition, TVA completed an Environmental Assessment to evaluate cleanup options resulting from the CCR spill (TVA, 2009).
638 Lemly (2010) and references therein: The aquatic portion of cleanup is to be done in three phases: (1) suction dredging of 62 hectares of river channel and transport of ash by rail to a landfill disposal site in Alabama (compl eted), (2) excavation and/or dredging of 33 hectares of embayment area and on

- site disposal at the Kingston Fossil Plant, and (3) excavation and/or suction dredging of 20 hectares of perimeter areas and on

- site disposal at theI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

148 new disposal cell constructed to receive remaining ash from the cleanup. These efforts were projected to take up to four years to complete, and were estimated to cost $1.2 billion.

In November 2009, The Sierra Club petitioned Tennessee’s Water Quality Control Board contending that TDEC has violated the CWA and Tennessee’s Water Quality Control Act by failing to require that KIF submit to WQBELs under the October 16, 2008 NPDES No. TN00080870. 639

In June 2009, the Tennessee Department of Health (TDEH) and the TDEC issued a recreation advisory for Watts Bar Reservoir, warning the public against boating, swimming, and fishing in the Emory River section of the reservoir, and restated a consumption advisory for mercury

- contaminated fish. On June 14, 2010, TDEC issued a Consent Order against the TVA assessing $11.5 million in penalties in response to the Kingston release due to violations of the Tennessee WQC Act and the Tennessee SWD Act. The Emory River was reopened May 29, 2010, after TVA removed more than 3.5 million cubic yards of ash and sediment from the river and adjoining areas. 640 On December 1, 2010, the first, “time critical” phase of the cleanup, was completed, when the last of 414 train shipments of recovere d coal ash was transported for disposal at the EPA

- approved RCRA Subtitle D Arrowhead landfill in Perry Co., Alabama. 641 The second phase of the cleanup was approved by EPA in January 2011: in June 2011, TVA began consolidating spilled ash that did not enter the river. The ash is being stored on

- site in the dredge cell that is being rebuilt and reinforced to resist earthquakes. 642 In October 2011, TVA completed ash excavation from the north embayment (Berkshire Slough), removing more than 1.2 million cubic yar ds of material. 643 For a recent status review of the clean

- up operation, see Zeller (2011). In November 2012, the final phase of the cleanup

– monitored natural recovery

– was selected to address an estimated 500,000 cubic yards of ash remaining at the botto m of the Emory and Clinch Rivers. 644 Under the

Kingston Plant. Phase 2 and 3 operations will continue until 2014, and TVA acknowledges that despite the effort, a large amount of ash will remain in the rivers and re

- suspended ash will move further downstream.
639 Sierra Club (2009). The Petitioners claim that in the October 2008 NPDES Permit, while TDEC acknowledges that “metals such as arsenic, mercury, boron, cadmium and zinc” are water quality “constituents of concern” in KIF’s scrubber wastewater, it still all ows KIF to discharge 1 MGD of untreated scrubber wastewater into KIF’s settling pond, and water from the settling pond will empty into the Clinch river, without setting any effluent limits on the amount of mercury and other toxic metals, sulfates and TDS t hat will be discharged in the wastewater from the scrubber system at KIF. TDEC justified not setting any WQBELs that reflect impaired water quality in the Clinch River on the ground that EPA, in its 1982 Effluent Guidance, has not required such limits for metals.
640 According to a December 7, 2011 Factsheet posted on TVA’s website: http://www.tva.gov/sites/kingston.htm

, accessed Online June 2012. However, according to Lemly (2010), notwithstanding the ac knowledgement in the NPDES permit for the period 2004

- 2008 that “ The discharge from Outfall 002 may contain several different pollutants, the combined effect of which has a reasonable potential to be detrimental to fish and aquatic life”, following the 20 08 spill, the NPDES permit was renewed without establishment of discharge limits for the 16 primary toxic elements including arsenic, mercury and selenium, despite prior, persistent toxicity of discharges to fish and invertebrates.
641 TVA’s December 7, 2011 Factsheet, ibid.
642 According to TVA’s Kingston Recovery Project update, as of March 2012, the Perimeter Wall Stabilization (PWS) project comprises an 11,500 feet long underground wall being constructed around the perimeter of the ash storage area. When complete, the wall will surround the Dredge Cell, Ash Pond, and Lateral Expansion areas. The PWS is designed to withstand a 6.0

- magnitude earthquake on the East Tennessee fault and a 7.6 magnitude earthquake on the New Madrid fault (West Tennessee).
643 Tha t portion of the cleanup effort is expected to be completed in 2014. http://news.bna.com/deln/display/batch_print_display.adp , November 8, 2012.
644 According to EPA’s approval letter o f the final cleanup plan, this alternative relies on natural processes such as mixing, scouring/redeposition and sedimentation (burial) to reduce the relatively low risks posed to benthic macro invertebrates (mayflies and snails) and to birds that prey on them. This alternative was selected because “it meets theI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

149 EPA/Superfund Division

- approved final cleanup plan, 645 TVA will monitor sediment, aquatic wildlife, and groundwater annually for 30 years, with five

- year reviews of monitoring approaches and locations, at a total cost of $10 million. Modeling of sediment transport also will be conducted. 646

TVA purchased some 900 acres of residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the spill. TVA developed a long

- term land use plan for some of the purchased property and on August 2, 2011, conducted a public meeting in Kingston to share its conceptual plan with the commu nity. TVA will retain ownership of this property, designating some as recreational and green space areas, while retaining some as permanent plant buffer. Finally, TVA intends to invest up to $2 billion to convert all of its ash and gypsum ponds from wet st orage to dry storage in eight to 10 years. 647

In 2010, two class action suits were filed against TVA. 648 In Anita Auchard, et al. v. TVA , Case No. 3:09

- CV

- 54, filed on March 26, 2010, a U.S. District judge granted TVA’s Motions to dismiss all claims for punit ive damages against TVA and to strike all jury demands against TVA. 649 On August 23, 2012, a U.S. District judge ruled in Chesney, et al. v. TVA, et al. , Case No. 3:09

- CV

- 09 that TVA is legally responsible for the December 2008 incident and that TVA would h ave to pay unspecified damages to more than 800 plaintiffs who sued after the spill. 650 On August 1, 2014, a settlement has been announced with more than 800 property owners, whereby TVA would pay the plaintiffs $28.7 million. The U.S. District Court Judge s till has to approve it. 651

In response to the appearance of the sinkhole in the FGD landfill, on December 17, 2010, TDEC issued an Enforcement Order for Corrective Action, for KIF’s violation of both the State’s Water Quality Control Act and the State’s Solid Waste Disposal Act. 652

identified Removal Action Objectives, provides the best balance with respect to effectiveness and implementability, is the most cost

- effective, and is also generally supported by the community.”

645 http://www.tva.com/kingston/admin_record/pdf/NTC/NTC85.pdf
646 The selection process involved having TVA issue the Phase 3 Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Report for the three su ggested alternatives, a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, and a Baseline Ecologic Risk Assessment for a 60

- day public comment period that ended October 10, 2012. According to htt p://news.bna.com/deln/display/batch_print_display.adp , November 8, 2012, the two other initially proposed alternatives were (i) placing a granular cap of 6” rocks over the spilled material in the river bed, coupled with monitoring (projected cost: $44.8 mi llion), and (ii) dredging the remaining materials (estimated cost: $179.1 million). http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/11/08/2470757/community

- to

- hear

- final

- p lan

- to.html
647 The October 2010 draft renewed NPDES Permit No. TN0005452 required that KIF submit an Ash Pond Closure Plan, and estimated schedule and closure actions to be taken for conversion from wet ash to dry ash handling (TDEC, 2010). As of March 2012, the wet

- to

- dry ash storage conversion is complete at the Kingston Fossil Plant. Gypsum, a byproduct of the scrubbing process, is stored dry in a lined storage facility.
648 Auchard v. Tennessee Valley Authority , No. 3:09

- cv

- 54 (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 1, 2010) and Blanchard v. Tennessee Valley Authority (proposed). For a brief summary, see Fehrenbach et al., (2011).
649 http://www.balch.com/files/upload/Mays%20v%20TVA%20.% 20Mar%2026%202010.pdf
650 According to Chicago Tribune News (2012), U .S. District Judge Thomas Varlan wrote “ Had TVA followed its own mandatory policies, procedures, and practices, the subsurface issues underlying the failure of North Dike would have been investigated, addressed, and potentially remedied before the catastrophic failure." For the full court decisi on, see http://www.tned.uscourts.gov/docs/tva_ash_spill_ruling.pdf

. The TVA said in a statement that it had already purchased nearly 180 properties affected by the spill, settled mo re than 200 other claims submitted by residents and paid $43 million to the Roane County Economic Development Foundation for use by communities in the affected area. TVA reported in December 2011 that it paid nearly $11 million on outside legal help to bat tle lawsuits from the spill.
651 ABC News (2014).
652 TDEC General Counsel (2010). KIF has violated Tennessee Code Annotate (T.C.A.) §69

- 31

- 101 et seq., the Water Quality Control Act, and the NPDES Permit TN00080870, for discharges from the gypsum detention pond into KIF’s discharge channel via Outfall 01A. By allowing the discharge of solid wastes from the landfill into theI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

150 

### Previous Basis for Consideration: 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 for the lower section of the Emory River.



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage . <Large scale failure impacted river environment; Administrative order included fish advisory due to risk from CCR contaminant.>



### Postscript: Scientific: A significant weight of evidence has accumulated since the proposed CCR rule in support of a substantial ecologic damage and a potential for long

- term accumulation and retention of toxic metals (arsenic and methylmercury) under anaerobic substrate conditio ns in the Emory/Clinch River systems down

- stream from the ash spill area. In addition, groundwater associated with the new gypsum dewatering facility was impacted by selenium. Administrative: The U.S. Eastern District Court of Tennessee decided that TVA is legally responsible for the December 2008 incident and that TVA would have to pay unspecified damages to more than 800 plaintiffs who sued after the spill.



### References Buys et al (2014): Ecological Risk Assessment for Residual Coal Fly Ash at Watts Bar R eservoir, Tennessee Limited Alteration of Riverine

- reservoir Benthic Invertebrate Community Following Dredging of Ash

- contaminated Sediment. David J. Buys, Amber R. Stojak, William Stiteler, Tyler F. Baker, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management , August 2014. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.researchgate.net/publ ication/265053816_Ecological_Risk_Assessment_for_Residual_Coal_ Fly_Ash_at_Watts_Bar_Reservoir_Tennessee_Limited_Alteration_of_Riverine

reservoir_Benthic_Invertebrate_Community_Following_Dredging_of_Ash

- contaminated_Sediment

Jackson (2011): Ecological Impa cts of the TVA Coal Ash Spill in Kingston, TN: a Two Year Assessment. Daniel Lee Jackson, M.Sc. thesis submitted to the Appalachian State University, August 2011. Accessed Online September 2014. libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Jackson,%20Daniel_2011_Thesis.pdf

Federal Register

/Vol. 75, No. 118 /Monday, June 21, 2010 / Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities ( CCR Proposed Rule). Accessed Online June 201 2. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2010

- 06

- 21/html/2010

- 12286.htm

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #26. ICF, 10/2010.

AECOM (2009): Executive Summary of Root Cause Analysis of Kingston Dredge Pond Failure on December 22, 2008, Kingston Fossil Plant, Harriman, Tennessee. AECOM, Project No. 60095742, June 25, 2009. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/FINAL

- 062609_Executive_Summary

- REV3.pdf

Clinch River, at an estimated r ate of 20 to 100gpm for several days, KIF has violated the conditions of the NPDES Permit, T.C.A. §69

- 3

- 108 (b)(6). In addition, KIF has violated the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act, T.C.A. §68

- 211

- 101 et seq. , and the State’s Solid Waste Disposal Permi t IDL73

- 0211 for the disposal of gypsum generated from burning coal at KIF.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

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

. EIP Report, Dec. 13, 2011. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/documents/121311EIPThirdDamageReport.pdf

Appalachian State Universi ty (2009): Preliminary summary report from water, sediment, and fish samples collected at the TVA ash spill by Appalachian State University, Appalachian Voices, Tennessee Aquarium, and Wake Forest University. Babyak, C., S. Carmichael, S. Edwards, A. George, D. Lemly

, D. Lisenby, B. Payne, and S. Tuberty, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, 2009. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.appvoices.org/resources/Ap pVoices_TVA_Ash_Spill_Report_May15.pdf

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

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640, December 15, 2010. A ccessed Online J une 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

CCW.pdf

Ruhl, Laura et al., (2010): Survey of the Potential Environmental and Health Impacts in the Immediate Aftermath of the Coal Ash Spill in Kingston, Tennessee, Environmental Science and Technology, 2009, Volume 43, Number 16, pp. 6326

– 6333. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/Statements%2010

- 27

- 09/Attachment%202_Duke%20Study.pdf

Vengosh (2009): The Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Ash Slide: Potential Water Quality Impa cts of Coal Combustion Waste Storage, A testimony to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, by Prof. A. Vengosh, Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, March 2009. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/file/TestimonyWater/2009

- 03

- 31

-- Vengosh.pdf

ORA U (2010): Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Kingston Project Surveillance Program, Baseline Medical Screening Results , August 17, 2010, in cooperation with the Vanderbilt University Medical Center physician medical toxicologists. Accessed Online June 2012

. http://www.orau.org/documents/kingstonproject/Kingston

- Fly

- Ash

- Results

- Report.pdf

USEPA, Region 4, Administrative Order and Agreement on Consent, TVA King ston Fossil Fuel Plant, Tennessee Valley Authority Release Site, Roane County, Tennessee, Docket No.: CERCLA

- 04

- 2009

- 3766, May 2009. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www. epa.gov/region4/kingston/May8TVAKingstonFinal106Order.pdf

EPA Science Panel Review (2009): Review of Potential Selenium Issues Following a Coal Ash Spill at the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston Fossil Plant, an EPA Science Panel Review Paper Prepared a t the Request of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Staff, Last Updated December 2009 (Based upon public comments received on the August 18, 2009 Review). Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.epakingstontva.com/Selenium%20Reports/Selenium%20review%20paper_revised_121709 %20with%20appendices.pdf

Sierra Club ( 2009): Petition for Statutory Appeal before the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board in the Matter of Tennessee Department of the Environmental and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, NPDES Permit No. TN00080870, Nov. 12, 2009. Accessed Onl ine August 2014.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

152 http://environment

online.state.tn.us:8080/pls/enf_reports/f?p=9034:34051:11892922348473::NO: 34051:P34051_PERMIT _NUMBER:TN0080870

Pond Failure Slides (2009): TVA Kingston Ash Pond Failure Photo Slide Show. January 20, 2009. Southern Appalachian Information Node, National Biologic Information Infrastructure. Accessed Online October 2014. http://www.slideshare.net/mountainsol/tva

- kingston

- ash

- pond

- failure

- photo

- slide

- show

- presentation

Zeller (2011): TVA Kingston Ash Recovery Proj ect, Roane County, Tennessee: Status Update, December 8, 2011, Craig Zeller, P. E., USEPA Region 4 Superfund Division. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.tva.gov/kingston/public_meetings/presentations/EPA%20Presentation%20FINAL%2012

- 8

- 2011.pdf

Scott (2010): TVA Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant Release Site Removal Update. Barbara Scott, TDEC, March 17, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.tnenvironment.com/Pres10/Scott.pdf

TDEC General Counsel (2010): Commission’s Order, Case No. SWM10

- 0010 & WPC10

- 0135, In the Matter of Tennessee Authority. TDEC Office of General Counsel, De cember 17, 2010. Accessed Online August 2014. http://environment

online.state.tn.us:8080/pls/enf_reports/f?p=90 34:34051:6516918967901::NO:34051:P34051_PERMIT_ NUMBER:TN0005452 , under Order

. EPA (2004): Draft aquatic life water quality criteria for selenium

– 2004, EPA

- 822

- D

- 04

- 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (4304), Washington, DC. 2004. Accessed Online July 2012. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/selenium/upload/complete

2.pdf

Chicago Tribune News (2012): Tennessee Valley Authority liable for 2008 coal ash spill

- ruling. James B. Kelleher, Reuters, August 23, 2012. Accesse d Online August 2012. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns

- rt

- us

- usa

- environment

- tva

- spillbre87n001

- 20120823,0,7718166.story

The Washington Post Business (2012): Federal judge rules TVA is liable for 2008 coal ash spill, utility on hook to pay damages, Associated Press, August 23, 2012. A ccessed Online August 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/federal

- judge

- rules

- tva

- is

- liable

- for

- 2008

- coal

- ash

- spill

utility

- will

- have

- to

- p ay

- damages/2012/08/23/12aa01dc

- ed49

- 11e1

- 866f

- 60a00f604425_story.html

Fehrenbach et al., (2011): Recent Developments in Coal Ash Disposal/Reuse Litigation. The American Bar Association's Annual Review 2011, Volume 2: Section 15.3. John Fehrenbach, Eric P . Gotting, Scott P. DeVries, Yelitza V. Dunham, Averil M. Edwards, and Michael T. Champion, Winston & Strawn LLP, and Andreas H. Leskovsek, Dynegy Inc. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.winston.com/siteFiles/Publications/Ann.Rev.11ch15%20Environmental%20Law.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

153 TVA Inspector General (2011): Final Report

– Inspection 2009

- 12991

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

- 12991.pdf

Deonarine et al., (2012): Environmental Impacts of the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston Coal Ash Spill. 2. Effect of Coal Ash on Methylmercury in Historically Contaminated River Sediments. Amrika Deonarine

, Gideon Bartov

, Thomas Martin Johnson

, Laura Ruh l

, Avner Vengosh , and Heileen Hsu

Kim

, Environ. Sci. Technol.

, Web Publication Date: December 18, 2012. Accessed Online January 2013. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es303639d?source=cen

TVA (2002): Kingston Fossil Plant Units 1 Through 9 Reduction Systems for Nitrogen Oxide Control, Draft Environmental Assessment

, April 2002. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/kingston/index.htm

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

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

- 32_scr_opt_fea.pdf

TVA (2006): Installation of Flue Gas Desulfurization System at Kingston Fossil Plant, Roane County, Tennessee, Final Environmental Assessment, Project Number 2005

- 81, Tennessee Valley Authority, April 2006. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/kingston2/index.htm

TVA (2010a): Installation of a Mechanical Gypsum Dewatering System at Kingston Fossil Plant, Roane County, Tennessee
, Final Supplemental En vironmental Assessment, Project Number 2005

- 81, Tennessee Valley Authority, December 2010. Accessed Online February 2013. http://www.tva.gov/environment/r eports/KIF_Gypsum/2005

- 81_KIF_GypsumDewateringFEA.pdf

TDEC (2010): Draft NPDES Permit No. TN0005452, TVA

- Kingston Fossil Plant (KIF), Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee. State of Tennessee D epartment of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, October 11, 2010. Accessed Online August 2014. http://environment

online.state.tn.us:8080/pl s/enf_reports/f?p=9034:34051:6516918967901::NO:34051:P34051_PERMIT_ NUMBER:TN0005452

, Draft Permit

. TVA (2009): Emergency Dredging for the Kingston Fossil Plant Ash Dike Failure, Roane County, Tennessee, Final Environmental Assessment. Tennessee Valley Aut hority, in Cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, March 2009. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www. tva.gov/environment/reports/kingston_dredge/environmental_assessment.pdf

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

TVA (2010b): Kingston Dry Fly Ash Conversion , Roane County, Tennessee, Final Environmental Assessment, Project Number 2009

- 76, Tennessee Valley Authority, June 2010. Accessed Online February 2013.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

154 http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/kif_dry_ash/FEA.pdf

Dewberry Consultants (2013): Coal Combustion Residue Impoundment Round 11

- Dam Assessment Report, Kingston Fossil Plant, T ennessee Valley Authority, Harriman, Tennessee, Dewberry Consultants, LLC, April, 2013. Accessed Online July 2014. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industria l/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm#T

ABC News (2014): Utility to Pay Tennessee Coal Ash Victims $27.8M. Nashville, Tennessee, August 1, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/utility

- pay

- tenn

- coal

- ash

- spill

- victims

- 278m

- 24809376



### PR27. DOE Oak Ridge Y

- 12 Plant Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2, Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Type: Surface Impoundment and an Abandoned (Limestone?) Quarry.



### Brief Description/Impact: Built in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, the original mission of the Oak Ridge Y

- 12 Plant was to use an electromagnetic process to separate uranium isotopes. This mission continued till 1993. Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit (OU) 2 consists of Upper McCoy Branch (UMB), the Filled Coal Ash Pond (FCAP), and the area surrounding the sluice channel formerly associat ed with coal ash disposal in the FCAP. UMB runs from the top of Chestnut Ridge across the FCAP into Rogers Quarry (RQ). The sluice channel area extends approximately 1,000 feet from the crest of Chestnut Ridge to the edge of the FCAP. 653

, 654

The FCAP is an 8 .5 acre 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 UMB. After the surface impoundment was filled to capacity (1967), t he slurry first released directly into UMB then was diverted (1989) through a bypass pipe to the RQ. In essence, ash sluice water basically flowed over or across the filled holding pond which had exceeded its holding capacity for an unknown period of time.

In 1990, disposal of ash into RQ was discontinued when a chemical vacuum system and a bottom ash dewatering system were installed at the plant. Both fly ash and bottom ash are now disposed in a landfill. Meanwhile, erosion of both the spillway and the as h resulted in ash release into the UMB, generating an ash embankment of up to 4

- feet high. 655

653 According to DOE/EM

, land use for the Chestnut Ridge Area Operable Unit 2 (the Filled Coal Ash Pond/Upper McCoy Branch) has been documented in the Feasibility Study alternative screening process. Remediation will have include d stabilization of the dam, which will remain under Department of Energy control. The Chestnut Ridge area includes many waste management areas. These areas we re designated for evaluat ion under the CERCLA process because they were designated to remain Controlled Access, regulated under RCRA.
654 For the geolog y, geohydrology (including karst flow features of the Knox Aquifer), and groundwater and surface water contamination of the Chestnut Ridge area, see AJA Technical S ervices (1997), Sections 2.1

- 2.11. For groundwater flow direction and rate, point

- of

- complia nce concentration trends, plume delineation, and quantitative trend analyses, see Section 4 of the AJA Technical S ervices (1997) . For facility maps, geologic cross

- sections, groundwater iso

- potential maps, and groundwater monitoring well sampling results f or the period 1990

- 1996, see Appendix A of the AJA Technical S ervices (1997)

. 655 Cherrie et al., (2000).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

155 The RI/FS revealed the following constituents with exceedance of MCLs and/or MCLs: surface water in UMB: arsenic, aluminum, iron, and manganese; in spring water: arsenic, aluminum, lead, iron, and manganese; in groundwater: aluminum, iron, and manganese. 656 Water quality samples taken between July 1986 and July 1990 showed arsenic in McCoy Branch exceeded the recommended maximum concentration (50 mg/L) for protection of aquatic life from July 1986 until July 1989 and from January 1990 until May 1990. Selenium concentrations in McCoy Branch exceeded 10 mg/L from July 1986 through January 1989. 657

Toxicity testing did not show significant evidence for toxic conditions in UMB, but bioaccumulation studies indicated that concentrations of selenium, arsenic, and possibly thallium were elevated in largemouth bass from RQ; arsenic exceeded screening criteria; some fish from RQ had deformed bony structures, and downstream sunfis h populations had high percentages of deformed heads and eroded fins; and no fish populations were found above RQ. In addition, selenium uptake into plants is a possible source of exposure to soil invertebrates and small mammals. 658 Overall, fish community d ata indicated environmental stress from coal ash inputs, ranging from complete elimination above Rogers Quarry, to altered species composition, trophic composition, and a profound increase in fish deformities below Rogers Quarry. 659

Efforts to reintroduce f

ish to Upper McCoy Branch in the mid

- 1990s were unsuccessful, but were attempted again in 2006

- 2009. As of 2009, two species were surviving due to stocking. The ecosystem originally supported 15 fish species. Because of concerns about human health, “no hu nting” signs were posted along the perimeter of the coal ash pond in 1997. However, no such warnings were posted along McCoy Branch or at Rogers Quarry, which remained open for public access for both fishing and Oak Ridge Reservation game hunts that were h eld several times a year. Concentrations of selenium in muscle fillets of largemouth bass from RQ equaled or exceeded consumption restriction advisory levels (10ppm dry weight, or 2.5ppm wet weight) from 1990

- 2009.



### Resolution: In the mid

- 1980s, the Y

- 12 plant began investigation and groundwater monitoring at a number of locations within its boundaries, as required under RCRA and by the Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation (TDEC). The entire Oak Ridge site was place d on the NPL in 1989 (Placement on NPL for groundwater and surface water contamination from coal ash as a separate OU).

In 1993, a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study began at Operable Unit 2 and was completed in March 1995. Biological monitoring has also been conducted at the site as part of a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) required by the 1984 HSWA and as part of the Phase I Remedial Investigation. A remedial acti on was conducted to stabilize the filled coal ash pond, McCoy Bridge dam holding contaminated pond sediments in place. A wetland, removed during stabilization activities, was re

- constructed as part of the remedial action.

656 Feasibility Study (1994), and Cherry et al., (2000). Ground water contamination was monitored at four down gradient wells below the ash pond and conc entrations for five of six constituents were higher than up

- gradient well concentrations of these constituents. Contamination was mainly prevalent in the first down

- gradient well (GW 672) closest to the ash pond discharge and aluminum, manganese and zinc w ere measured in elevated concentrations at the other three wells located up to 2,000 ft away. Aluminum reached 910 μ g/L at GW 672 compared to the concentration range in up

- gradient wells of <20

- 50 μ g /L. Iron at 11 mg/L in GW 672 was two orders of magnitud e higher than in the up

- gradient wells (<0.004

- 0.15 mg/L). Zinc in all down

- gradient wells was high (20

- 70 μ g /L) compared to the up

- gradient wells (<1

- 8 μ g /L).
657 Ryon (1992), in Cherry et al., (2000).
658 Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized value of damage at $1.6 million.

659 Cherry et al., (2000).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

156 Physical work was completed and the remedial action report was approved in 1997. 660 However, the selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory (CERCLA) preference for treatment, which is to permanently and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contamination. The prefe rred outcome is not possible because treatment of the large volume of coal ash at this site was deemed “not practicable”. The ash will remain in place at the site, and surface water will receive limited treatment. Institutional controls will restrict access to the contamination and reduce risk to human health. Actions taken to isolate the ash, restrict animal access, and reduce contaminant migration to surface water should reduce risk to ecological receptors. 661



### Previous Basis for Consideration: This ca se has been categorized as a proven ecological damage case based on scientific documentation of impacts to fish and other wildlife on

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

- site monitoring locations. Administrative: Fed eral RCRA and TDEC requirements, including placement of the entire Oak Ridge Reservation on the NPL

. 662



### Other Considerations

 Co

- Managed wastes but administered in NPL as separate Operable Unit

 Placement on NPL for groundwater and surface water contaminatio n from coal ash as separate OU

 Onsite arsenic above primary MCL, aluminum iron and manganese above SMCL

 Ecological damage from onsite impacts to fish and other wildlife including bioaccumulation, reported fish deformities

 Fish deformities and potentially elevated arsenic and selenium



### ICF (2010) Rationale : Proven Damage . <Documented surface water impacts to biota included bioaccumulation, fish deformities, and biota population decline. The site was placed on NPL with the coal ash landfill as a separate op erable unit indicating specific damage from CCRs.>



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #9, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #9. ICF, 10/2010.

EPRI (2010): Damage Case Report, V. 2: Case Summaries, EPRI, September 2010. A ccessed March 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%2 0Product%20Damage%20Cases

DOE/EM (undated): U.S. Department of Energy/Environmental Managementy. Oak Ridge Y

- 12 Plant. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.em.doe.gov/bemr/bemrsites/oryp.aspx

660 EPA Superfund Record of Decision (1996)

. 661 Lemly (2010).
662 EPA (2007).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

157 Remedial Investigation Report on Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 (Filled Coal Ash Pond/Upper McCoy Branch) at the Oak Ridge Y

- 12 Plant Oak Ridge, T ennessee (Baseline Risk Assessment Included) [DOE/OR/01

- 1268&D2] [Y/ER

- 172&D2].

Cherry et al., (2000): Cherry, Donald S., Rebecca J. Currie and David J. Soucek, 2000: Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystem s from Coal Combustion Wastes; Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28, 2000. Accessed Online June 2012. http://citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

content/uploads/2012/04/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

- ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

COAL

- COMBUS.htm

Feasibility Study (1994): Feasibility Study for the Y

- 12 Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 Filled C oal Ash Pond, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DOE/OR/02

- 1259&D1. August 1994. Ryon (1992): Ecological Effects of Contaminants in McCoy Branch 1989

- 1990. Ryon, M. G., ORNLHM

- 11926. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 84 pp, 1992. Accessed Online June 20 12. http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1992/3445603528127.pdf

EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE), EPA ID: TN1890090003, OU 26, OAK RIDGE, TN, 02/21/1996, EPA/ROD/R04

- 96/260. Accessed Online June 2012. http:// www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0496260.pdf

Lemly (2010): A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal Combustion Waste: The Cost of Poisoned Fish and Wildlife, A. Dennis Lemly, December 15, 2010. Accessed Online June 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

CCW.pdf

AJA Technical Services (1997): Calendar Year 1996 Annual Grou ndwater Monitoring Report for the Chestnut Ridge Hydrogeologic Regime at the USDOE Y

- 12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, AJA Technical Services, Inc., Y/SUB/97

- KDS15V/2, February 1997. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/515511

- PK2gIG/webviewable/515511.pdf



### PR28. Coal Combustion Waste Landfill, Trans

- Ash, Inc., Camden, Ben ton County, Tennessee

Type: Gravel Pit serving as an Offsite Monofill /Structural Fill.



### Background and Description: Since 2002, Trans

- Ash has disposed of coal combustion residual (CCR) at a former gravel

- mined quarry (Bivens Quarry) in Camden, Tennessee. The former quarry is located in the Bivens Industrial Park (BIP). The CCRs in this Ash Landfill, Class II Disposal Facility consist of fly ash and bottom ash generated at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Johnsonville Fossil Plant (JOF ). 663 The 40

- acre landfill (Phase 1) is currently active, and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) recently approved an expansion of the landfill by additional 20

- acres (Phase 2), thereby creating an additional 2.2 million cubic yards of coal ash storage capacity for JOF. 664 At BIP, the ash is formed into a large level pile, which may be used in the future as structural fill

663 For additional information on the nexus between the Johnsonville Fossil Plant and the Bivens/Trans

- Ash landfill, see the module on Johnsonville Fossil Plant, Technical Support Document Module # PTb53.
664 According to TVA (May 22, 2009), expanding the ashfill would result in the loss of about 3 acres of low

- quality wetlands at BIP. TDEC and USACE require mitigation for the activities resulting in the loss of the wetlands. Therefore, a related proposed action is to create about 18 acres of wetlands on a 22

- acre tract of land along White Oak Creek in Houston County, Tennessee.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

158 for a light industry business park

. 665 Due to previous gravel mining activities penetrating into groundwater, Trans

- Ash was required to install a lining throughout the landfill (a 0.25” thick geosynthetic clay liner, GCL); however, Trans

- Ash failed to do so, resulting in coal ash in direct contact with groundwater. 666 Sixteen private wells are located within a one

- mile ra dius of the landfill, and at least eight wells supply nearby residents with drinking water. Groundwater has been evaluated both onsite and offsite. The Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the landfill’s expansion (Phase 2) includes 23 parameters monitored on a semi

- annual basis. 667

The entire Site lies within the outcrop zone of the Devonian

- age Camden Formation. 668 The Camden Formation is underlain by the Harriman Formation, another chert that is difficult to distinguish from the Camden. Beneath the Harriman For mation, at a depth of about 150 feet, are limestones of the Ross and Decatur Formations. Groundwater in the area is generally under unconfined (water

- table) conditions, although the low permeability of the chert formation results in some localized confined conditions. Overall groundwater flow is to the north

- northeast, into the valley of Cypress Creek. 669

Groundwater monitoring wells installed for the Phase 1 ashfill comprise four wells. Well MW

- 1 is screened at a depth of 90.4 feet in the Camden and represents the Phase 1 up

- gradient monitoring well. Down

- gradient Wells MW

- 2, MW

- 3, and MW

- 4 are screened wi thin the shallow Camden Formation at depths ranging from 20.5 to 27.5 feet. March 2008 water level measurements for these wells and five exploratory borings in the proposed Phase 2 ashfill area indicate that the general direction of shallow groundwater mov ement is to the northeast toward the Cypress Creek floodplain . Shallow groundwater in the floodplain is expected to discharge into Cypress Creek or flow eastward, ultimately discharging into the Tennessee River. 670

As a further check of leachate activity at BIP, TDEC requested the installation of three piezometers in the Phase 1 ashfill at BIP. The piezometers were installed in April 2009. A new monitoring well (MW

- 5) was installed at this time also, to replace MW

- 4, which is scheduled to be abandoned and bu ried by the Phase 2 ashfill.



### Impact and Damage Claims: Groundwater: 

### EIP (2010) indicates that levels of mercury exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in groundwater at two offsite residential wells (“Gibson wells”). In early 2009, in response to a complaint by a resident with two private water wells (‘Gibson wells ’), TDEC tested the wells and found mercury ranging from 0.011 to 0.013 mg/L (x5.5 to 6.5 higher than the federal MCL for drinking water). Additionally, arsenic (up to x27 the federal primary MCL), chromium, lead, and mercury exceeded their primary EPA MCL s in onsite groundwater. 

### EIP ( ibid) also claims that down

- gradient monitoring wells have exhibited increasing trends in boron and sulfate concentrations over the last two years, indicating that groundwater quality is likely being influenced by landfill lea chate. In April 2009, on

- site groundwater samples showed up to 9.39 mg/L of boron and 739 mg/L of sulfate. Since March 8, 2007, boron concentrations in groundwater monitoring well (MW

- 4) steadily increased from <0.05 to 0.648 mg/L, and sulfate concentrati ons have steadily increased from 27.2 to 79.5 mg/L. TVA acknowledges that 10 percent of the water percolating through the landfill seeps through the liner and the ‘geologic buffer’ that lies beneath the CCRs. 671

TVA admits that levels of CCR constituents (s ulfate and boron) in groundwater are associated with coal ash leachate from the landfill, 672 but argues that the mercury contamination is not from their landfill but is naturally occurring presumably because the CCR does not contain mercury as indicated from leaching results and the wells with exceedances are up

- gradient of the landfill. 673

EIP (ibid) rejects Trans

- Ash‘s arguments for the following reasons:I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

159  TVA argues that CCRs do not contain mercury, yet EPA’s 2004

- 2008 TRI data show that TVA‘s Johnsonville Fossil Plant disposed of > 1,220 pounds of mercury at an off

- site land disposal facility. The only approved, off

- site land disposal facility for Johnsonv ille Fossil Plant is the Trans

- Ash, Inc. CCR landfill.

 TVA presented some of the leaching results (indicating no detectable mercury) as ‘non

- detectable’, but the detection limit (<0.01 mg/L) was five times higher than the mercury MCL (0.002 mg/L) for drin king water.

 TVA has argued that CCR leachate from the landfill is representative of coal ash, yet piezometers were not drilled deep enough to sample groundwater conditions on top of the landfill liner and within the drainage blanket constructed of bottom ash.

665 TVA (May 22, 2009). According to Triad (2008), “The existing facility includes approximately 38.3 acres permitted for the beneficial use of coal ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Johnsonville Fossil Plant.”

666 Whereas the current design for Phase 2 specifies a liner with a GCL overlying re

- compacted soil graded to maintain a minimum 3

- foot separation from the seasonal high groundwater elevation, the design does not strictly meet TDEC’s minimum requirements for a Class II disposal facility; therefore , waivers have been requested as follows: in lieu of the requirement for 30

- mil FML (with a hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10

- 13 cm/sec or less) 2

- feet 1.0x10

- 7 compacted clay liner with geologic buffer of 5 feet of 1.0x10

- 6 cm/sec soil, the waiver reques ts GCL with 3

- feet 1.0x10

- 6 cm/sec compacted soil. The waiver’s request rationale is that leachate modeling utilizing this design indicates the concentration of COCs would not exceed the applicable MCLs in the uppermost aquifer underlying the site (Camden Formation). In addition, the geosynthetic clay bottom liner of Phase 1 would be tied in and sealed to the Phase 2 FML (or equivalent) bottom liner prior to stacking in the Phase 2 area. Finally, an ash leachate collection system (LCS) would be constructed along the eastern margin of the ashfill to capture lateral drainage accumulating above the bottom liner of the expanded ashfill. The LCS would be discontinued following closure of Phase 2.

667 Triad (2008).
668 The quarry was previously mined for chert gravel. The Camden Formation (total thickness: 150 feet) represents one of the region‘s principal aquifers and generally consists of thinly bedded, sharply fragmented chert with occasional thin inter

- bedded clay seams and pods. G roundwater is near the surface in wetland areas to the east and west, and groundwater is expected to flow into a series of lakes adjacent to the landfill. On

- site monitoring wells indicate mounding of groundwater within the landfill.

669 Triad (2008).
670 Ibid.
671 According to TVA (May 22, 2009), “Because leachate was neither expected to significantly impact groundwater at BIP nor required by regulations, an LCS was not provided to capture ash leachate produced by infiltration of precipitation falling on the Phase 1 ashfill surface.”

672 According to TVA (May 22, 2009), “monitoring results to date have not shown exceed a nce of any TDEC maximum contaminant level (MCL). However, over the past two years, Well MW

- 4 has exhibited increasing trends in concentrations of sulfa te and boron. These results indicate that groundwater quality in the Phase 1 ashfill vicinity is likely being influenced by leachate from the Phase 1 ashfill.”

673 According to TVA (May 22, 2009), mercury is below detection limits in the leachate samples; ho wever, mercury is present above the MCL in both its suspended and dissolved forms in monitoring Well MW

- 5. Based upon the fluoride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids data from the piezometers and the monitoring well, the monitoring well appears to contai n water of a character different from the leachate in the Phase 1 ashfill. Initial sampling results for MW

- 5 do not indicate that groundwater at that location has been affected by ash leachate, despite the presence of mercury. Unlike MW

- 4, the April 2009 b oron data collected from MW

- 5 are consistent with background ranges for these parameters. Comparison of total (0.00748 mg/L) and dissolved (0.00326 mg/L) mercury data for MW

- 5 suggests solids present in the sample contain mercury. Assuming no mercury was i ntroduced during well installation, suspended solids and consequently dissolved solids in the sample from MW

- 5 are most likely derived from natural aquifer materials. The presence of detectable mercury in groundwater samples collected from up

gradient MW

- 1 and down

- gradient MW

- 3 in November 2002, prior to ash disposal at BIP, further supports the notion of natural (or pre

- existing) sources of mercury in shallow groundwater at the site. JOF ash leachate is an unlikely source of mercury in both the private we ll and MW

- 5, since mercury has never been detected in any of the historical TCLP, SGLP or SPLP tests performed on JOF ash samples.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

160  TVA argues that the Gibson well is cross

- gradient or up

- gradient to the landfill. However, o n

- site monitoring wells indicate mounding of groundwater within the landfill.

 TVA has argued that the mercury in the Gibson well is naturally occurring and n ot the result of contamination from the Trans

- Ash, Inc. landfill. Yet, the highest mercury concentrations in groundwater were found in the Gibson wells (up to 0.013 mg/L, x6.5 the primary MCL, March 2009) and in MW

- 5 (0.00748 mg/L, x3.7 the primary MCL, Ap ril 2009) located on the western perimeter of the landfill. TDEC‘s sampling data of 19 domestic water supply wells near the landfill show that the highest mercury concentration in any well other than the Gibson wells was 0.000087 mg/L

– or 126 times less t han the lowest concentration reported in a Gibson well. Mercury was not detected at any concentration in 15 wells (79 percent).

 Trans

- Ash, Inc. placed coal ash in the quarry prior to determining statistical background concentrations for CCR pollutants, in cluding mercury. As a result, Trans

- Ash lacks the relevant baseline concentrations levels for CCR pollutants to compare to recent data.

Concerning EIP’s (ibid) claims of off

- site damage to two private residential drinking water wells, ASTSWMO claims 674 that there is still a lack of conclusive evidence that the alleged damage is associated with the Trans

- Ash landfill. ASTSWMO conjectures that the mercury exceedance in the Gibson well disregards the fact that the location of the well adjacent to a former grave l mine may play a role in the mercury level detected in the well. The Gibson well is bordered on two sides, and likely recharged, by two gravel mining ponds. Furthermore, EIP (ibid) did not properly address the issue of ‘naturally occurring’ metals in grou ndwater in the area of the site. The geologic formation of the uppermost aquifer, the Camden chert, typically contains relatively large amounts of both iron and manganese oxides, and in an environment that has been significantly disturbed by gravel mining or well drilling, it is highly possible that metals will leach out of the geologic materials and be detected in the groundwater.

ASTSWMO claims that it is misleading to conclude, as EIP (ibid) did, that since the other 19 private wells sampled in the area did not show elevated Mercury levels, mercury cannot be naturally occurring in groundwater at the site. The other 19 wells were not located adjacent to the old gravel mining area. 675 As to The EIP’s (ibid) citing of data from the groundwater monitoring program at the site as evidence that waste from the landfill has impacted the groundwater, ASTSWMO claims that the EIP (ibid) fails to mention that the highest contaminant levels were detected prior to waste being placed in the landfill. For instance: EIP (ibid) claims that arsenic was detected at 27 times the MCL, but it fails to mention that this detection was from a sample taken prior to waste being placed at the landfill, and that arsenic has not been detected, at a detection level of 0.010 mg/L, in mo nitoring wells at the site for the last five years.

EIP (ibid) me ntions that the newly installed monitoring well, MW

- 5, showed, in the initial sampling, a level of mercury of 0.00748 mg/L. However, it fails to mention that in the two subsequent samplings

, mercury levels were 0.000646 mg/L and ‘non

- detect’, at a detection level of 0.000301 mg/L. The fact is that, in almost all cases, newly installed wells at the site have shown higher metal detections in the initial samplings and the levels have decreased over time. This may be due to disturbance of the hydrogeologic environment due to drilling and well installation.

As to EIP’s ( ibid) contention that the piezometers installed at the site to characterize the metals which might be leaching from the coal as h were “not drilled deep enough to sample groundwater conditions on top of the landfill liner and within the drainage blanket constructed of bottom ash”, ASTSWMO claims

674 Comment to the October 2 011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0271.
675 It is not clear what bearing these arguments have on the elevated level of mercury in the Gibson Wells. Unless inordinate levels and mobilization of mercury from the local sedimentary rock sequence is demonstrated, these arguments do not hold water.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

161 that the piezometers were drilled to a depth of approximately two feet above the top of the liner in an effort to avoid damaging the liner. Hence, any water sampled from a piezometer at this depth should be indicative of dissolved metals leaching from the coal ash above the liner.

Finally, with regard to the alleged sulfate exceedances, th e JOF’s consultant’s reports have repeatedly stated that although the sulfate is slightly elevated, it is present at levels similar to historical data and that they believe “the sulfate in MW

- 4 is naturally occurring and not indicative of groundwater
conta mination from the landfill”. They also cite literature which shows the sulfate levels are within a range of naturally occurring levels for the geologic formation.

Surface water: In addition to impacting drinking water wells with mercury, TDEC also found that Trans

Ash released coal ash into surface waters, allowed coal ash to run off the site with storm water, and disposed of ash in unlined areas, putting ash into direct contact with groundwater. TDEC recently allowed Trans

- Ash, Inc. to expand its landfil l to accommodate more coal ash from JOF . EIP (ibid ) also claims that surface water and sediment have been impacted by the Trans

- Ash landfill. The report indicates that TDEC data show that the highest sediment mercury concentration was from the sediment pon d at the landfill.



### Resolution: TDEC’s Division of Water Pollution Control reportedly issued three Notices of Violation (NOV) to Trans

- Ash for releasing CCR in an unlined portion of the landfill; releasing CCR into an unnamed tributary to Cypress Creek; a nd failure to report violations or take corrective action. 676



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 677

Criteria Evaluation Criterion 1: D ocumented 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  Offsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for mercury in two resid ential wells.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury.

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  TDEC has issued an NOV to Trans

- Ash for releasing CCR into an unnamed tributary to Cypress Creek. The EIP/EJ Report claims that surface water and sediment have been impacted by the Trans

- Ash landfill; however no specific data to support these claim s was provided. Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  In 2005, TDEC issued a Commissioners Order and assessed a $160,000 penalty against Trans

Ash for not installing a liner in the entire landfill and improperly installing a liner in portions of the landfill.

 In 2009, in response to a complaint from a reside nt with two private wells (“Gibson well”) and subsequent TDEC sampling of the well, EPA

676 TDE C (2005) in EIP (ibid). In 2005, TDEC assessed a $160,000 penalty against Trans

- Ash, Inc when inspections revealed that Trans

- Ash did not install a liner in the entire landfill, and improperly installed the GCL in portions of the landfill, leaving the GCL “saturated with water”.

677 ICF (2010).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

162 USWAG states that this case does not meet the criteria for a damage case. 678

The May 2009 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Phase II Bevins landfill (TVA, May 22, 2009) notes that TVA requested from TDEC waivers for Class II geological buffer and liner requirements as well as for ca p requirements. However, TDEC insisted that the expanded landfill shall be designed with accordance to Tennessee’s Class II landfill requirements. 679

ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage . < Offsite groundwater exceeded the primary EPA MCL for mercury, and ons ite groundwater exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, chromium, lead, and
mercury. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report claims that surface water and sediment have been impacted by the Trans

- Ash landfill, however there is no scientific study that provides documented evidence of damage to human health or the environment. The TDEC issued a Com missioners Order to address landfill violations and EPA implemented an Emergency Removal Action to address contaminated offsite residential wells.>



### References EIP (2010): Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage C ases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #29, The Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice. February 24, 2010. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix B: Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases, Case #29. A report prepared for the EPA, October 2010.

TVA (May 22, 2009): Johnsonville Fossil Plant Ash Disposal Site Expansion, Benton, Houston, and Humphreys Counties, Tennessee (including links to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment and to the Final S upplemental Environmental Assessment. JOF Ash Disposal Phase 2, Project Number: 2 007

- 75). Accessed Online May 2012. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/johnsonville_ash/in dex.htm Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment: http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/johnsonville_ash/jof_ash_phase2_fsea

- no_appendices.pdf

Triad (2008): Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Bivens Industrial Park Monofill Expansion, Camden, Tennessee, Appendix F, TriAD Project No. 01

- TRA03

- 01, December 19, 2008. TriAD Environmental Consultants, Inc., prepared for: Trans

- Ash, Inc. Accessed Online De cember 2012. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/johnsonville_ash/appendix_f

- jof_ash_phase2_fsea.pdf implemented an Emergency Removal Action that involved the connection of the Gibson residence to the city water supply.

678 Comment to the 2011 NODA (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211): In the context of the cited contamination of off

- site residential drinking water wells, because the allegations do not provide documented evidence of off

‐ site groundwater contamination, including in particular that the alleged contamination of a private drinking water well originated from the landfill is baseless

. 679 Transcript of the Knoxville, TN CCR proposed rule public hearing, October 27, 2010, pages 338

- 340 : http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

163 

### PR29. Brandy Branch Reservoir, Marshall, H arrison County, Texas

Type: Cooling Reservoir Receiving Discharge from Surface Impoundments or from a Lignite Coal Pile Runoff

. 

### Brief Description/Impact : The 1,242

- acre Brandy Branch Reservoir, also known as Hallsville or Pirkey Lake, is an impoundment of Brandy Branch Creek. The reservoir was constructed in 1983 to serve as a cooling pond for Southwestern Electric Power Company’s (SWEPCO) Pirkey Power Plant

, 680 and has been used for boating and fishing. The original claim was that the cooling reservoir re ceived discharges from surface impoundments containing elevated levels of selenium, a claim that is challenged by industry (see below). From 1986 to 1989, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department reported that average selenium concentrations in fish from th e Brandy Branch Reservoir increased from 0.81 to 2.29mg/kg

. 681 In 1992, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS; then known as TDH) issued an advisory 682 restricting the consumption of fish from the reservoir based on selenium concentrations in the fish. 683

Whereas no detailed biochemical or reproductive assessment has been done for Brandy Branch Reservoir, changes in fish populations (reduced standing crop ) were documented in a scientific study; the State concluded that those changes were due to coal ash basin discharges. Populations of some predatory sport fish (e.g., largemouth bass) continued to be reduced in 2007. 684

USWAG claims 685 that because the Pirkey plant was constructed several years after the issue of elevated selenium levels at the Martin Creek and Welsh reservoirs elsewhere in Texas was first identified, SWEPCO took steps to prevent the potential discharge of water from CCR ponds into the Brandy Branch reservoir by designing the Pirkey plant with a closed

- loop ash management system. 686 Plant personnel determined that drainage from the Plant’s lignite storage stormwater runoff basin may have been the source of selenium loading to the reservoir. Howev er, there was no information to link ash handling at Pirkey with the elevated selenium levels. To prevent the potential discharge of coal pile stormwater runoff into the reservoir, in the late 1990s, the Pirkey plant converted discharge from the lignite ru noff base for use as make

- up water for the flue gas desulfurization system.



### Previous Basis for Consideration : 687 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.



### Other Considerations

 No observable impacts on fish population in this case. Brandy Branch was included in early studies because of fish kills reported at nearby Martin’s Creek Reservoir (EPA 2007, Case #22)

 Fish Consumption advisory issued; Advisory because of selenium concentrations in fish tissue rescinded because concentrations were not above newly, state

- introduced, al lowable selenium standard.

 ATSDR/TDH reevaluated risk in using new samples collected in 1996

- 1997 and found no risk.



### Site Notes

 The State of Texas raised the allowable selenium concentration in fish tissue from 2 to 6 mg/g (dry weight) on September 29, 20 03.

 Advisory lifted after 2003 fish sampling and analysis of human health risk. 688 The highest mean selenium level in fish never exceeded 6 mg selenium/kg of fish tissue, the newly establishedI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

164 TDH health

- based assessment comparison (HAC) for fish. 689 However, fish

- toxicity experts (Lemly

, ibid

, and references therein) have established 4 mg selenium/kg of fish tissue as a toxic threshold.

 There is an inexplicable discrepancy between the selenium concentration levels reported by Texas Parks and Wildlif

e and Lemly ( ibid ) pertaining to 1986

- 1989.

680 SWEPCO is a subsidiary of American Electric Power (AEP). The Plant, c ommissioned in 1985, has a Nameplate Capacity of 721 MW. For information on Pirkey’s CCR management system, see EPA (2009).

681 Lemly (2010) cites different fish tissue selenium concentration values: <Texas Parks and Wildlife determined that during 1986

- 1989 , average fish tissue selenium levels increased from 3.24 to 11.6 ppm dw (dry

- weight). During 1986

- 2003, Texas Department of Health reviewed all data from fish monitoring over an 18

- year period (1986

- 2003) and determined that the average concentration was 8.92 ppm dw. The levels found (8

- 11 ppm) are within the range associated with impaired blood chemistry and health indicators, teratogenic deformities, and reproductive failure in the same species naturally exposed to coal ash discharges at other locations. > The discrepancy may reflect a different reporting methodology, i.e., Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) reporting total tissue concentration levels, whereas Lemly (ibid) reporting dry

- weight concentration levels. On the status of the Federal sele nium

- in

- fish regulation, see comment to the proposed rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 2930, Attachment.
682 ATSDR (1998).
683 Texas Bureau of Health (1992). Lemly ( ibid) estimates the monetized value of damage at over $108 million. This damage case was brought first to EPA’s attention in a letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding comments on the May 2000 Regulatory Determination, September 19, 2000.
684 Lemly, ibid.
685 In an A ugust 23, 2005 letter from J. Roewer, USWAG, to R. Kinch, EPA/OSW, USWAG documents possible misconceptions about the source of Pirkey’s selenium loading discharge to the cooling lake. Based on the history of this case, USWAG requests that EPA remove the Br andy Branch Case from the list of damage cases: USWAG (2008).
686 This claim seems to be bolstered by Amec’s (2011) cit ation of 1983/84 hydrologic and hydraulic design capacity reports of the bottom ash ponds and of the Surge and Auxiliary Surge Ponds of t he Pirkey Plant. According to these documents the wastewater ponds, working as a hydraulically connected system, were provided with capacity above the normal operating level “to capture and hold the 10 year

- 24 hour runoff from the basin and pond drainage areas.” The report further notes that runoff from rainfall in excess of the 10 year

- 24 hour storm will be discharged from the Secondary Ash Pond through a spillway. The spillway design capacity was noted to be for the 100

- year 24

- hour event; additionall y, pond freeboard was provided “above the maximum water level” that would result from that 100

- year 24

- hour event. The Auxiliary Surge Pond w as designed to be used only in emergency conditions. The old reports indicate that the Surge Pond and Auxiliary Sur ge Pond are sized to detain the 10

- year 24

- hour and 10

- year 12

- hour rainfall events, respectively. However, clarifying calculations in support of the cited information were not provided to Amec during preparation of their draft report , so the effectiveness of the intended self

- contained design cannot be evaluated. In addition, t he Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has issued Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. 02496 to AEP

- SWEPCO. This TPDES Permit authorizes AEP

- SWEPCO to discharge clarified and treated wastewater from the coal combustion processes at Pirkey to unnamed tributaries of Hatley Creek, which flow to Hatley Creek and on to the Sabine River above the Toledo Bend Reservoir, circumventing the Brandy Branch Reserv oir. However, the effective date of the permit is May 14, 2007 and it is not known to what extent similar requirements were included in earlier TPDES permits, which would have support ed USWAG’s arguments

. 687 EPA (2007).
688 TCEQ (2004): “Depending on body weight (10

- 30 kg), children could consume approximately one to five (four ounce) meals of Brandy Branch fish per week before exceeding the MRL. Adults (70 kg) consuming five to six (eight ounce) meals of Brandy Branch fish per week would not be expected to exceed the MRL. Approximately three times these amounts would be required to exceed the lowest levels reasonably expected to result in signs and symptoms of toxicity, therefore, ingestion of fish at these amounts pose no a pparent public health hazard”.

689 Comment EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6851.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

165  The State removed Brandy Branch from the State’s Clean Water Act § 303(d) list of impaired
waters.



### ICF (2010) Rationale : Not a Damage Case . <No indicator of damage due to elevated selenium in surface water and fish tissue. There is no study finding specific damage to fish in the Brandy Branch Reservoir due to elevated selenium.> 690



### Postscript: ICF’s (2010) rationale is rejected because the fish advisory had been in force for about 12 years, and considering that the newly established allowable selenium concentration in fish tissue (6 mg selenium/kg) exceeds the threshold value (4 mg selenium/kg) recommended by national fish

- toxicity experts. 691 Notwithstanding whether industry’s claims about a closed loop coal ash m anagement system (i.e., no coal ash has been ever delivered to the Plant’s cooling ponds via the CCR impoundments’ outfall system) are substantiated, coal pile runoff is considered a Uniquely Associated Waste and as such, from a regulatory perspective is u ndistinguishable from CCR runoff as a source term for the selenium impact. 692



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #20, docket ID EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #7. ICF, 10/2010.

EPA (2004): Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for selenium

– 2004. USEPA Office of Water, EPA

- 822

- D

- 04

- 001, November 2004

. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2008_10_27_criteria_seleniums_maintext.pdf

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

. Accessed On line March 2012

. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=114&pg=0

690 A report submitted by SAIC to Dennis Ruddy, EPA/OSWER on April 20, 2000 ( Rationale and Conclusions Rega rding Commenter

- Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases ) states: <This case is similar to the Welsh Reservoir Case discussed above. The TWPD report on this case, however, states that “at Brandy Branch, the ash handling system is closed, wit h i nput from the system limited to a small number of permitted outfalls”. Conclusion: Based on the uncertainty expressed in the TPWD report about the source of selenium contamination in this case, there is insufficient information to conclude that this case i s a damage case.>
691 Note, however, that EPA (2004) proposes a higher threshold: “The draft freshwater chronic criterion is expressed as a concentration in whole

- body fish tissue of 7.91μg/g, dry weight, and says if fish tissue samples exceed 5.85μg/g du ring summer or fall, fish should be monitored during the winter to determine if selenium exceeds 7.91μg/g.”
692 See (i) §261.4(b) in the December 2014 final CCR rule; (ii) a January 13, 1981 letter from Gary N. Dietrich, EPA, to Paul Elmer, USWAG, addressing ‘associated waste’, available in the docket to the final rule; (iii) the 1999 Report to Congress on wastes from the combustion of fossil fuels (where coal pile run

- off is considered ‘low

- volume waste’: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/volume_2.pdf ), and (iv) the May 22, 2000 Regulatory determination on wastes from the combustion of fossil fuels , where the term Uniquely Associated Waste was first introduced ( Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 99/Monday, May 22, 2000/Rules and Regulations).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

166 TCEQ (2004): Assessing the Fish Consumption Use, Water Quality in Brandy Branch Reservoir, March 2004

. Accessed Online March 2012

. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/water/tmdl/15brandybranch/15

- brandybranch.pdf

TCEQ (20 11): Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Assessment of Brandy Branch Reservoir, May 18, 2011. Accessed Online March 2012

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/water/tmdl/15

- brandybranchreservoir.html

Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment, Appendix A. Selected Case Studies of Ecosystem Contamination by Selenium, Terry F. Young et al., Edited by P eter M. Chapman et al., CRC Press 2010, pages 257

– 292.

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

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640

- 6313, Appendix I, December 15, 2010

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Envir onmental

- Damage

- from

CCW.pdf

ATSDR (1998): Health Consultation Brandy Branch Reservoir Marshall, Harrison County, Texas, September 30, 1998, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/PHA.asp?docid=114&pg=0

USWAG (2008): USWAG’s comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432, Appendix C. February 11, 2008

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432

Amec (2011): Report on Dam Safety Assessment of Coal Combustion Surface Impoundments, American Electric Power (AEP) and Southwest Electric Power (SWEPCO). H.W. Pirkey Power Plant, Hallsville, TX. Amec Project No. 3

- 2106

- 0183.0003. Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc., Louisville, KY, June 2011. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/aep

- pirkey

- final.pdf

EPA (2009): Response to a CERCLA Information Collection Request, Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPC) Pirkey Power Station. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/index.htm#S



### PR30. Martin Lake Reservoir, Texas Utilities Electric, Tatum, Rusk and Manola Counties, Texas

Type: Cooling Reservoir R eceiving U npermitted S tormwater Di scharge from S urface I mpoundments.



### Brief Description : The 5,020 acre, unlined 693 Martin Creek reservoir was constructed in 1974 as a cooling lake for the Tatum Texas Utilities Generating Company’s power plant. 694 U npermitted

693 EPRI (2010).
694 According to Sanzillo (2011) and Luminant (No date), the Martin Lake Plant is owned by Luminant/T exas Competitive Electric Holdings (TCEH). Its three generation units of 793 MW nameplate capacity each (they came online in 1977, 1978, andI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

167 1979) have a combined generation capacity of 2,250 MW. L ate ly , the plant has been burning a combination of local (Texas) lignite and Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

168 discharges from two fly ash settling ponds between September 1978 and May 1979 resulted in elevated levels of selenium in the lake’s water [ average of 2. 6μg/ L (range = 1 to 34μg/ L )] and fish (i n 1979, selenium concentrations in bass ranged from 7.1 to 8.3 mg/kg.) Within two years, the biomass of planktivorous fish declined by over 90 percent, and a monitoring study conducted by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department found that major reproductive failure was occurring in other species (e.g., largemouth bass, bluegill ). 695 In 1978 and 1979, during the start

- up phase of the power plant, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) reported incidents of fish kills, which it attributed to elevated levels of selenium. Dead fish had elevated selenium relative to background fis h and impacts (enlarged kidneys, hemorrhaging) consistent with selenium overexposure. In response, t he TDH issued a fish consumption advisory in 1992. 696

According to Young et al., 697 numerous studies in Martin Creek Reservoir have documented histopatholog ic abnormalities in fish tissues following the discharge of power plant effluent into the system. Liver, kidney, heart, and gonadal abnormalities were the most commonly documented aberrations. For some species (e.g., redear sunfish) overall health was comp romised (reduced condition factor) for more than 8 years after discharge ceased. Population decline was documented in several fish species, drastically altering the aquatic community in Martin Creek Reservoir. Planktivorous and carnivorous species were mos t affected, with gizzard shad populations experiencing some of the most drastic declines, from 890 individuals/ha in 1977 to 182 individuals/ha in 1979. Recovery of this species was slow, reaching only 264 individuals/ha in 1981.

In 1996 and 1997, TDH col lected 34 fish 698 for a re

- evaluation of the fish consumption advisory. The concentration of selenium in the fish ranged from 0.7 to 4.0 mg/kg with an overall average concentration of 2.3 mg/kg. Although selenium levels in fish from Martin Creek Lake was sti ll above reported national averages (0.1 to 1.5 mg/kg), the concentration of selenium in fish from Martin Creek Lake has been decreasing. However, elevated tissue levels of selenium and reproductive impairment of fish (ovarian damage) were still evident ov er seven years following the discharges. 699

About seven to eight years after the discharge episode, high selenium concentrations in red

- winged blackbird (

Agelaius phoeniceus ) eggs (mean value of 11.1 mg/kg) were documented and associated with greater than 50 percent depression in egg hatchability. Two blackbird foods

– grass

- hoppers and mayflies

– averaged 1.1 and 15 mg selenium/kg, respectively. 700 Barn swallow ( Hirundo rustica ) eggs contained on average 3.3 mg selenium/kg, and showed normal hatchability com pared to local reference population. 701



### Resolution: Following the fish mortality incidents, TXU worked closely with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC, the predecessor of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, TCEQ) to modify the design and operating procedures of the new plant. These included increasing freeboard capacity of its CCR management ponds, lining ponds with synthetic membranes, installing leak detection systems, monitoring ground

- and surface water, and biomonitorin g of fish. These modifications were incorporated into the facility’s operating permit. 702



### Previous Basis for Consideration : Scientific : Evidence of adverse effects on wildlife

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



### Other Considerations

 ATSDR concluded, in a 1998 study, that the levels of selenium in Martin Creek Rese rvoir have decreased significantly during the period of investigation (1979

- 1998). Based on these findings,I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

169 ATSDR recommended 703 that the fish consumption advisory issued for Martin Creek Lake in 1992 should be re

- evaluated based on the then current recomm ended limitations on long

- term fish consumption.

 The State of Texas raised the allowable selenium concentration in fish tissue from 2 to 6 ppm (dry weight) in October 2004 and lifted the Advisory; 704 and Texas removed the reservoir from the State’s Clean Wa ter Act § 303(d) list of impaired waters Clean Water Act § 303(d) list of impaired waters.



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage Case . <No indicator of human health damage due to elevated selenium in surface water and fish tissue. Reported slow fish die

- off demonstrated in three year study reducing total biomass, population, and diversity.>



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #22, docket ID EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Ca ses, Appendix A, Case #22. ICF, 10/2010.

Young et al., (2010): Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment; Hyco Lake, North Carolina. Appendix A. Selected Case Studies of Ecosystem Contamination by Selenium, Terry F. Young et al., Edited by Peter M. Chapman et al., CRC Press, 2010, Pages 264

– 265 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selenium/Library_articles/chapman_et al_2010_appendixA.pdf

TCEQ (2004): Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Assessment of Martin Creek Reservoir, March 2004 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/water/tmdl/12martin/12

- martin.pdf

Lemly (2010): A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal Combustion Waste: The Cost of Poisoned Fish and Wildlife, A. Dennis Lemly, EPA Docket Comment EP A

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640

- 6313, Appendix I, December 15, 2010

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- conte nt/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

CCW.pdf

695 Garrett and Inman (1984).
696 TCEQ (2004).
697 Young et al., (2010) and references therein.
698 Seventeen bass, 10 channel catfish, 4 black crappie, 1 white crappie, and 2 flathead catfish.
699 Sorensen ( 1986) , in Lemly (1999). Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized value of damage at over $229 million. On the status of the Federal selenium

- in

- fish regulation, see comment to the proposed rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 2930, Attachment.
700 Anonymo us (1998).
701 Skorupa (1998) and Anonymous (1998).
702 In an August 23, 2005 letter from J. Roewer, USWAG, to R. Kinch, EPA/OSW, USWAG requested that EPA identify the Martin Creek Reservoir as a site where the previously identified “proven damage” has been re solved to the satisfaction of the State. USWAG’s comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432, Appendix C.
703 ATSDR concluded that estimated exposures to selenium from eating fish from Martin Creek do not exceed minimum risk levels for advers e health effects for children consuming one to two meals per week (4 ounces each) or for adults consuming approximately two meals per week (8 ounces each). Approximately three times these amounts would be required to exceed the lowest levels reasonably exp ected to result in signs and symptoms of toxicity, therefore, ingestion of fish from Martin Creek Reservoir poses no apparent public health hazard.
704 TCEQ (2004).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

170 Lemly (1999): Selenium Impacts on Fish: An lnsidious Time Bomb. A. Dennis Lemly, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 1139

– 1151 (l999)

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.trout.forprod.vt.edu/fishpubs/lemly1999_04.pdf

ATSDR (1998): Health Consultation Martin Creek Lake Henderson, Rusk and Panola counties, Texas, September 17, 1998, Agency fo r Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/PHA.asp?docid=117&pg=0

Anonymous (1998): Guideline for Interpretation of the Biol ogical Effects of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment: Selenium. United States Department of the Interior, National Irrigation Water Quality Program Information report No. 3, November 1998

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.usbr.gov/niwqp/guidelines/pdf/Selenium.pdf

EPRI (2010): Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases. Volume 2: Case Summaries. 1020554, Final Report, September 2010

. A ccessed Online June 201 2. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%2 0Product%20Damage%20Cases

Skorupa (1998): Selenium poisoning in fish and wildlife in nature: lessons from twelve real

- world examples. Joseph P. Skorupa, USFWS, Sacramento, California. In: Environmental Chemistry of Selenium, William T. Frankenberger Jr. and Richard A . E rgberg , E dit s, Mercel Dekker, Inc., 1998

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selenium/Library_articles/SePoisoning.pdf

Sanzillo (2011): The Case to Retire Big Brown, Monticello and Martin Lake Coal Plants: Three Financially Mismanaged, Unprofitable, Outmoded and Worthless Coal Plants in North Texas, Tom Sanzillo, TR Rose Associates, New York, New York, a Report Prepared for Sierra Club, March 17, 2011. Accessed Online January 2013. http://texasgreenreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/the

- case

- to

- retire

- big

- brown

- monticello

- and

martin

- lake

- coal

- plants.pdf

Luminant (No date): Martin Lake Power Plant and Mines. Accessed Online August 2014. http://www. luminant .com/ plants /pdf/ martinlake _facts.pdf



### PR31. Southwestern Electric Power Company Welsh Reservoir, Mount Pleasant, Titus County, Texas

Type: Cooling Reservoir receiving selenium effluents from surface impoundments

. 

### Brief Description /Impact: The Welsh reservoir is a 1,365

- acre lake (with storage capacity of 23,590

acre

- feet) constructed in 1976 and operated by Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) to serve as a cooling reservoir for the Welsh Power Plant. 705 The reservoir has also become a popular

705 The American Electric Power

– owned Welsh Power Plant, Pittsburg, Texas, comprises three ge neration units, 558 MW each, that came on line in 1977, 1980, and 1987. AEP announced in June 2011 that they were slating to retire Unit 2 of the Welsh Plant, generating 528 MW of power, by December 31, 2014; whereas Units 1 and 3 (1,056 MW) would continue to operate with scrubber retrofits (AEP, 2011)I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

171 recreational area for fishing, boating and scuba diving. Between 1976 and 2000, 706 the reservoir received discharges from ash ponds apparently in compliance with the Plant’s NPDES permit. 707 The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) monitoring documented elevated levels of selenium and other metals in fish. TPWD reported levels of selenium in Welsh Reservoir fish ranging from 2.28 to 4.41 mg/kg from 1986

- 1989. In 1992, TPWD issued a Fish Consumption advisory because of excessive selenium concentrations in fish tissue.

In 1998, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) 708 re

- evaluated the fish consumption advisory. The concentration of selenium in the analyzed fish ranged from 1.2 to 4.5 mg/kg with an overall average concentration of 2.7 mg/kg, indicating that selenium levels in fish from W elsh Reservoir continued to be above reported national averages (0.1 to 1.5 mg/kg). TDH concluded that there is no clear indication of an overall change in selenium concentrations in fish tissue over the 12 years of investigation; however, there is a nine year period (1989

- 1998), in which there are no data to represent an overall increase or decrease in average concentrations. The maximum average concentration of 4.4 mg/kg selenium in fish tissue occurred in 1987. Total standing fish crop was reduced by up to 75 percent for some species. Several fish kills were reported by TPWD from 1989

- 1999, and were attributed to elevated summer water temperatures associated with the heated discharge from Welsh Power Plant. 709 Therefore, it is likely that coal ash pollution , in combination with elevated water temperature, caused the kills. Fish populations were still depressed in 2007, despite changes in angler harvest regulations and artificial stocking to enhance standing crop and diversity of species. 710



### Resolution: In 200 0, in accord with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, the procedure was modified, to eliminate the discharge of ash

- pond decant water to the cooling reservoir. A consumption advisory for fish in the cooling pond issued in 1992 stated that s elenium concentrations in fish tissue exceeded 2 mg/kg which was used then as a standard. AEP claims that for all samples collected over 17 years, the mean selenium fish tissue concentration was 3.6 mg/kg with only one sample exceeding the newly introduced 6 mg/kg Tissue Residue Concentration standard. 711



### Previous Basis for Consideration : Scientific : selenium accumulation in fish may be attributable to the ash settling ponds. Administrative: The State has issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of contamination.



### Site Notes

 This case was addressed in EPA (2007).

 The State of Texas raised the allowable selenium concentration in fish tissue from 2 to 6 mg/kg (dry weight) on September 29, 2003 and rescinded the old value. The fish consumption advisory was lifted on October 14, 2003

.
 As a result of TDH’s study, the State removed the reservoir from the State’s Clean Water Act § 303(d) list of impaired waters. 712



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Not a D amage Case . <No indicator of damage due to elevated selenium in surface water and fish tissue.>



### Postscript: Considering that the Welsh reservoir still has documented ecological (fish population) damage, and the fact that the documented Tissue Residue Concentration selenium levels in fish have exceeded the recommended allowable levels (4 mg/kg)

, 713 this site is a proven damage case.



### ReferencesI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

172 EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #21, docket ID EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007



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

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #21. ICF, 10/2010.

Hamilton (2003): Commentary: Review of residue

- based selenium toxicity thresholds for freshwater fish. Hamilton, S. J., Ec otoxicology and Environmental Safety 56 (2003) 201

– 210, 2003

. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.seleniumtaskforce.org/images/Hamilton_2003.pdf

Lemly (1993): Guidelines for eval uating selenium data from aquatic monitoring and assessment studies. Lemly, A.D., Environ. Monit. Assess. 28, 83

– 100, 1993

. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.trout.forprod.vt.edu /fishpubs/lemly1993_01.pdf

Lemly (2010): A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal Combustion Waste: The Cost of Poisoned Fish and Wildlife, A. Dennis Lemly, EPA Docket comment EPA

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640

- 6313, Appendix I, December 15, 2010

. A ccessed On line June 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

CCW.pdf

TCEQ (2011): Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Assessment of Welsh Reservoir, last modified June 2, 2011 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.tceq.state. tx.us/implementation/water/tmdl/14

- welshreservoir.html

ATSDR (1998): Health Consultation Welsh Reservoir Mount Pleasant, Titus County, TX, September 30, 1998, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/PHA.asp?docid=145&pg=0

706 American Electric Power C omment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6851; and USWAG comment to the 2007 NODA docket, ibid. In their 2007 comment, USWAG states that TPWD noted that (i) the Welsh Plant burned bituminous rather than lignite coal, which has a lower content of seleniu m; (ii) a 1982 sediment sampling conducted by the TPWD under the Plant’s permit to determine the effects of discharges from the ash ponds on the reservoir showed low levels of selenium

– 1 mg/kg or less at all sampling points. Based on this evidence, USWAG implies that the Power Plant’s ash impoundments were not the source of the elevated selenium levels in the Welsh reservoir.
707 USWAG’s comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432, Appendix C.
708 Twenty fish were collected: 12 largemouth bass , six channel catfish, one flathead catfish, and one common carp.
709 Metals and other pollutants in coal ash effluent are known to reduce lethal temperatures for fish and also to modify their behavior in a way that would make them less likely to avoid letha l temperature zones in a heated reservoir.
710 D. Lemly, Comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6313, Appendix I. Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized damage value of the Welsh Lake fish consumption advisory at over $161 million.

711 American Electric Po wer Comment to the docket, ibid.
712 Based on the State’s actions, USWAG requests that EPA either remove Welsh Reservoir from the list of CCR damage cases, or reclassify the reservoir as a site where the previously identified damage has been resolved to the satisfaction of the State. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432, Appendix C.
713 Both Lemly (1993) and Hamilton (2003) agree that studies continue to support the dietary selenium threshold of 3

- μg/g and the whole

- body selenium threshold of 4

- μg/g for fish. However, EPA (2004) proposed a final chronic value for selenium of 7.91

- μg/g dr y weight whole body tissue concentration. On the status of the Federal selenium

in

- fish regulation, see comment to the proposed rule’s docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 2930, Attachment.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

173 EPA (2004): Draft aquatic life water quality criteria for selenium

– 2004. EPA

- 822

- D

- 04

- 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Water (4304), Washington, DC. 2004

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollut ants/selenium/fs.cfm



### PR32. Clinch River Plant, American Electric Power

– Appalachian Power Company, Cleveland, Russell County, Virginia

Type: Surface Impoundments and landfill.



### Background and Description : The Clinch River plant 714 has two ash ponds and a fly ash landfill. The
two unlined ash ponds were commissioned in 1954

- 55, 715 with capacities of 1,240 and 1,332 acre

- feet, respectively. The 45 acre Pond Area 1, receiving both fly

- and bottom

- ash, and the fly ash landfill are

curren tly active. 716 Bottom Ash Pond Area 2 was closed in 1998. 717 The plant lies in a rural area, on the Clinch River, to which effluent from the ponds is discharged. 718

The Clinch River Plant is in the Appalachian Mountains section of the Valley and Ridge physiogr aphic province. Bedrock consists of shale, sandstone, and minor dolomite of the Cambrian

- age Rome Formation. The area is characterized by northeast to southwest trending folds. The course of the Clinch River is within the Rome Formation. 719 The Clinch River watershed has an assemblage of freshwater mussel species ( unioniods ) that is among the most diverse in the world. 720



### Impact and Damage Claims : EIP (2010a) indicates that a dike failure in Pond Area 1 in June 1967 721 released about 400 acre

- feet (130 million gallon) of ash slurry into Dump’s Creek (which joins Clinch River a half mile downstream) in under an hour. The spill equaled approximately 40 percent of the daily

714 The Clinch River Plant, located close to southwestern Virginia’s coal mines, was commissioned in 1958 (Generation Units 1 and 2) and 1961 (Unit 3). According to AEP (2011), the Clinch River Plant is slated for the following operational changes: Unit 3 (235 MW) would be retired by Dec. 31, 2014; and Units 1 and 2 (470 MW
tota l) would be refueled with natural gas with a capacity of 422 MW by Dec. 31, 2014.
715 Dewberry and Davis (2011), Appendix B, Documents 18 and 19, and Section 4.1.1. Both ponds have since undergone extensive modifications.
716 Pond Area 1 is a multi

- cell pond composed of Pond 1A and Pond 1B (Dewberry and Davis, ibid). This Area had a history of seepage and boils at the toe area on the downstream face since before 1978. Late in 1990, a cement bentonite

- fly ash cutoff wall was co nstructed within the perimeter dike of Ash Pond 1 (Appendix A, Document 7). The cutoff wall served to block potential seepage paths in the dike to improve downstream stability. Ash Pond 1 is periodically dredged, residuals allowed to dry, and the CCR is tr ucked off

- site to an approved landfill or for other beneficial use

717 According to Dewberry and Davis (ibid), the Owner was considering a closure permit for Ash Pond 2 and that it would be capped and would function as a landfill (Appendix A, Document 6). Th e Owner submitted the closure plan for Ash Pond 2 for regulatory approval in 2009 but has since retracted the plan.
718 The plant has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. VA0001015.
719 Dewberry and Davis (ibid), Appendix A, Doc ument 4.
720 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (2010). According to references cited in EIP (2010a), sampling performed at selected sites within the Clinch River between 1979 and 1994 found a total of 39 mussel species, six of which were endan gered and 14 of which were endemic to the Cumberland Plateau. In the watershed at least four fish and 18 freshwater mussel ( Unionoidea ) species are listed as either federally endangered, threatened, or of special concern.
721 A 50 to 80

- feet section of a dik e surrounding Ash Pond 1A/1B was breached. According to repeated citations in Dewberry and Davis (ibid), it was Ash Pond 2 that gave way.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

174 flow for Clinch River, blocked flow for several minutes, and raised the water level by sever al meters, forcing some waste nearly a half mile upstream. EIP (2010a) notes that studies of the spill determined high pH as the major source of toxicity in the released slurry. 722 It also noted that the spill killed approximately 162,000 fish for nearly 66 miles down the Clinch River in Virginia and another 55,000 over 24 miles into Tennessee. Studies also noted that benthic macro

- invertebrates were completely eliminated for nearly four miles below the spill, while snails and mussels (for which the river is well known and contains multiple species listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern) were eliminated for nearly 11 miles downstream of the plant. 723 A study nearly five years later noted that mollusk communities still had significantly reduced nu mbers for about 18 miles downstream, though a smaller, acidic spill in 1970 could also have had effect on population recovery.

In addition to the two (1967 and 1970) acutely toxic spills discussed above, long

- term, high concentrations of copper in the ef

fluent discharges from the Power Plant have been associated with biological impairment. Studies in the 1980s also noted that populations of biota nearer to the discharge point remained impaired. They noted that besides the toxic spill, metal concentrations in the effluent of copper and aluminum exceeded EPA's Water Quality Criteria (WQC), 724 though copper levels were reduced following process modifications introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s. More recent studies 725 found that the current damages to bio ta were likely caused by effluent discharges and were less prominent outside the area immediately near the discharge point.

According to EIP (2010a), following the reductions in effluent copper, most benthic macro

- invertebrate community parameters (e.g., richness and diversity) recovered at affected sites, from levels that were typically 70 percent of reference levels to levels that ranged from 80 percent to more than 100 percent of reference levels. However, bivalves remained impaired downstream, with tr ansplanted mollusks at effluent

- affected sites having a typical survivorship of 40 percent and growth 20 percent that of reference sites. Concentrations of aluminum, which continued to be measured at almost x10 the water quality criteria for chronic exposu re, have been identified as a likely candidate for continuing impairment of aquatic ecosystems downstream from the Power Plant.

The rather high copper effluent levels prevailing even after the Power Plant has introduced process modifications were caused b y a waiver for copper (Total Recoverable copper limit of 0.039 mg/L) granted in the VDPES permit of Outfall 003, 726 the final discharge from the advanced wastewater treatment plant which receives all waste water from the ash handling activity. According to V ADEQ, the effluent limits were developed using currently accepted anti

- degradation and mixing zone policies, and capable of preserving the 0.0124 mg/L WQS adopted for the Clinch River.

According to VADEQ, 727 based on data from the most recent five

- year pe rmit cycle, during the last permit action in 2010 the maximum reported concentration of total recoverable copper was 0.037 mg/L and the long term average concentration is 0.016 mg/L. The most recent reported aluminum concentration for outfall 003 is 0.16 m g/L, higher than the 0.087 mg/L criteria for aluminum. However, it is not likely to produce in

- stream concentrations which approach the criteria level; because Virginia has not adopted WQS for aluminum, no water quality

- based effluent limits are contained in the permit. Therefore, the state claims that wastewater from Outfall 003 is in compliance with all regulatory water quality standards.

Industry 728

, 729 cites recent studies to suggest that the originally impacted segment of the River has completely recover ed from the 1967 spill incident, showing an increase of the sensitive mussel populations. 730

, 731

, 732 VADEQ is more circumspect about the status of the River’s mussel population: as a signatory to an MOU between the State of Tennessee, EPA Regions 3 and Region 4, and the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy for studying the reasons for the mussel decline at upstreamI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

175 sections of Clinch River and its tributaries, 733 VADEQ partakes in the Clinch

- Powell Cle an Rivers Initiative 734 to study the reason for the mussel decline. VADEQ believes that blaming mussel decline on discharges from the Clinch River Plant, or any cause, is premature completion of the study.



### Resolution: Other than repair of the failed dike, no regulatory action is reported that is related to the ash spill. VADEP notes 735 that the historical release is a legacy issue which is not an accurate picture of Virginia's current regulatory programs.

High concentrations of the power plant’s effluent me tals in the late 1980s were addressed by operational changes: the replacement of cooling tower piping (completed in 1987); AEP worked with VADEQ and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to study the power plant’s discharges, culminating in construction of an

a dvanced wastewater treatment plant (1993) “that has resulted in effluent water quality from the Power Plant that is overall superior to ambient river water”. 736 Finally, AES removed Ash Pond 2 from service (mid

- 1990s), eliminating seepage to the Dumps Creek

. 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 737



### Criteria Evaluation Criterion 1: 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  None

722 The ash from the coal burned at the Clinch River plant had a high free lime (CaO) content, which reacted with
water in the settling pond to form alkaline slacked lime [ Ca(OH) 2 ] . During the release, pH as high as 12.7 was the source of toxicity.
723 Lemly (2010) and references therein. Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized value of the damage at $11.4 million

724 Copper effluents levels (average: 0.436 mg/ L ) exceeded WQC criteria (acute WQC: 0.013 mg/ L , and chronic WQC: 0.009 mg/ L ) from 1985 to 1989. Various studies linked these exceedances to depression of enzymatic activity in transplanted clams and shifts from pollution

- sensitive aquatic insect species to more pollution tolerant species.
725 Hull (2002) and references therein.
726 VADEQ Comment to the October 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0228.
727 VADEQ Comment to the October 2011 NODA docket, ibid.
728 AEP comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0202.
729 USWAG comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211.
730 Ahlstedt, Steven A., Current Status of Freshwater Mussel Populations in the Clinch River at the Appalachia Power Company’s C linch River Steam Plant, Russell County, Virginia (Clinch River Miles 268.3

– 264.2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, December 2008.
731 Written communication from American Electric Power, October 20, 2011.
732 VADEQ has benthic macro

- invertebrate stations on the Clinch River upstream of and downstream of the Clinch River Plant. The most recent VADEQ data reveal a Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) scores of 71 and 73 (a VSCI level of <60 indicates quality i mpaired for aquatic life use, and >70 is indicative of a very health and diverse benthic community).
733 VADEQ Comments to the October 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0228.
734 CPCRI, which consists of federal and state regulatory and resource agencie s, environmental advocacy groups, universities, and coal companies.
735 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9284.
736 Comment to the 2011NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0202.
737 ICF (2010a).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

176 

### Other Considerations : This case was listed as a documented case in the EPA’s 1988 Report to Congress and identified as a damage case in 1993. However, in EPA (2007), the case was rejected citing “no evidence of co

- management” based on the 1999 Report to Congress. While indeed outside the scope of the 1999 Report to Congress due to lack of co

- management issues, the case transcends the “co

management” issue and therefore should not have been rejec ted in EPA (2007).



### ICF (2010a) Rationale: Proven Damage. <Scientific studies have indicated documented ecological damage in the form of fish, mollusk, and macro

- invertebrate population damage downstream from the CCR effluent discharge and from the dike failure in 1967.>



### References EIP (2010a): 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, Case #36. The Environmental Integrity Project, EarthJustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/08_26_10.php

ICF (2010a): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix C, Case #36. ICF, 10/2010.

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

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640, December 15, 2010. A ccessed Online March 2012

. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/ uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

CCW.pdf

EPA (2007): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Solid Waste. Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007. Case No. 71, Clinch River, Virginia. Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

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

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, Am erican Electric Power

– Clinch River Plant

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_ id=110000585581 have migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  A dike failure in 1967 resulted in a large spill of ash slurry into the Clinch River. Studies of the spill found severe damage to fish, mollusk, and macro

- invertebrate populations over considerable distances downstream of the spill. Follow

- up studies noted some lasting effect on populations from this spill, as well as continuing damage to biota in the area immediately near the ash pond effluent discharge. Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  NoneI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

177 Crossman, J.S., J. Cairns, Jr., and R.L. Kaesler (1973): Aquatic invertebrate recovery in the Clinch River following hazardous spills and floods. Bulletin 63 of the Virginia Water Resources Research Center. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://vwrrc.vt.edu/pdfs/bulletins/1973/Bulletin63.pdf

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (2010): F reshwater mussel restoration . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/awcc/freshwater

- mussel

- restoration/

Hull (2002): An Ecotoxicological Recovery Assessment of the Clinch River Following Coal Industry

related Disturbances in Carbo, Virginia (USA): 1967

- 2002. Matthew S. Hull, M.Sc. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, December, 2002 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd

- 12272002

- 103204/unrestricted/thesis.pdf

AEP (2009): AEP’s Response to Request for EPA’s Informatio n under CERCLA Section 104(e) for Ash Management Units, March 31, 2009. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/sur veys/survey

- clinch.pdf

Dewberry & Davis (2011): Coal Combustion Residue Impoundment Round 9

– Final Dam Assessment Report, Clinch River Power Plant, Ash Pond Management Units, Appalachian Power d/b/a American Electric Power, Carbo, VA, Dewberry & Davis, L LC, December 2011. Accessed Online December 2013. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/aep

- clinch

- river

- final.pdf

AEP (2011): AEP Shares Plan for Compliance with Proposed EPA Regulations. American Electric Power, June 9, 2011. Accessed Online August 2014. https://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1 697



### PR33. Appalachian Power Company, Glen Lyn, Giles County, Virginia

Type: Surface Impoundments.



### Background and Description : The Glen Lyn Power Plant has two onsite ponds for management of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), sited on alluvial sediments of the New and East Rivers

. 738 One is a fly ash pond commissioned in 1965 and covering 7.6 acres. 739 The other is a multi

- unit bottom ash pond

738 The Glen Lyn pla nt, with a generating capacity of 338 MW, comprises two generating units (i n

- service dates in parenthesis) : 100 MW (1944) and 238 MW (1957). According to Dewberry and Davis (2011), the Plant has been operating since 1919. This Plant has been used only duri ng peak demand in the winter and summer. It is slated to close by the end of December 2014 (Roanoke Times, 2011 and AEP, 2011). The Glen Lyn Plant has two cooling water systems, one for each power unit, both of which draw water from the pump

- house located on the New River. One unit discharges back into the New River while the other discharges into the East River (Lynde, 1994.)
739 American Electric Power (2009). The fly ash pond’s storage capacity is 185 acre

- feet. According to Dewberry and Davis (2011), sinc e the original construction, the Middle pond cell has become a permitted landfill and the Lower pond cell

- a storm

water management (SWM) basin that serves the landfill. The Upper pond cell, which is known today as the auxiliary Fly Ash Pond, was assessed for preparation of the cited report. It contains a 1

- 3”

- thick clay liner (Dewberry and Davis, ibid, virtual page 335). Until early 2009, the pond was used as an emergency backup pond for storing wet fly ash. From the 1970s to 2009 the pon d intermittently received wet fly ash (on average four times a year), until the slurry pipes to the pond were turned off. The fly ash pond is currently inactive; fly ash is dry

- handled, and either sold for beneficial use or truck

- hauled for disposal in an offsite, Virginia structural fill (Cumberland Park Fly Ash Project: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/beneficial

- use

- coal

- ash

- question

epa

- mulls

- regulation

- 0

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

178 commissioned in 1963 and covering 5.1 acres, from where ash is routinely removed for beneficia l use. 740 Some other wastewaters are treated in contiguous units of the bottom ash pond. Effluent was discharged from these ponds into Adair Run which then flowed into the New River, until discharges stopped in 1980. 741 The ponds, however, remain active. 742 The New River is classified as a “national scenic river” by the US National Park Service in recognition of its “outstandingly remarkable” fish and wildlife communities.

The Glen Lyn Power Plant is located within the Valley and Ridge physiographic province. B edrock consists of the Bluefield and Hinton formations of Mississippian age. The Bluefield formation which underlies the bottom ash pond is shale with some thin inter

- bedded layers of sandstone
, siltstone
, and limestone. Nearby exposures show a steeply

- dipping competent bedrock. Outcrops of the Hinton Formation inter

- bedded shale and sandstones are exposed in road cuts adjacent to the fly ash ponds. Also adjacent to the ponds is a deeply weathered portion o f the formation which is presently being used as a borrow area for dike construction Material. 743



### Impact and Damage Claims: Dewberry and Davis (2011) cite a slope failure of the northern dike, which occurred upon first filling of the pond as well as a 10 fe et deep sinkhole along the south

- west corner of the dike. The slope failure and sinkhole incidents appear to have occurred at separate times prior to 1978; however, no documentation could be found that confirmed a spill and/or release of CCRs due to these incidents.

EIP (2010a) and Cherry et al., (2000) summarize a number of scientific studies that examined surface water impacts at the Glen Lyn Plant in the late 1970s until the discharges stopped in the summer of 1980. EIP (2010a), citing a specific study

, 744 indicates that effluent discharges from the ponds impacted the biota in the stream, reducing the taxon richness and diversity, particularly for macro

- invertebrates and fish and impacting microbial measures of aquatic ecosystem function and overall healt h. 745

The adverse impacts of highly alkaline pH on the osmo

- regulation and oxygen consumption of the mayfly Isonychia bicolor from the New River’s banks next to the Power Plant 746 lend support to the former study. Another study 747 noted that contaminants such as cadmium and nickel bioaccumulated to very high levels in duckweed (from a factor of 580 for copper to 10,000 for cadmium and nickel), which while not toxic to the plant, could be a source of contaminants rather than an endp oint. 748 Finally, another study 749 noted that the bacterial community was altered by the level of effluent discharge.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 750



### Criteria Evaluation Criterion 1: 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  None

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  A number of studies undertaken in the late 1970s and 1980s determined that effluent discharge from the CCR impoundments had an impact on the biota in the stream, affecting the diversity of macro

invertebrate, mayfly, and bacterial populations.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

179 

### Resolution: After t he fly ash pond ceased operation in 1980 due to ineffective settling of ash, f ly ash was disposed in bottom ash ponds and in a landfill on utility company property. As of 2005, the on

- site landfill was nearly full and most of the ash was being hauled away for disposal at a mine site in West Virginia. In 2007, a new off

- site structural fill was commissioned near by in Giles County, Virginia. Promoted as a community development project called Cumberland Park, the unlined fill is located in the floodplain of the New River. Ash placement began in 2008.

In its comment to the docket, 751 Virginia DEQ Characterizes this damage case as a ‘legacy issue’, claiming it is not an accurate picture of Virginia's current regulatory program. According to Virginia DEQ, 752 t he facility has made many improvements to its operation to reduce pollutant loading and the

vo lume of discharge. In the current VDEPS permit, Outfall 006 (associated with the wet pond system and has not had any discharges from the overflow during the past 15 years) and 007 (the discharge of which includes the leachate ponds from the existing landfi ll which currently has its final cap installed) are required to be monitored for flow, pH, TSS and oil and grease (biological toxicity testing, using Ceriodaphnia dubia , is no longer required for both these Outfalls based on the last 15 years of data for O utfall 007). Outfall 006 still requires biological toxicity testing if there is ever a discharge from the system. There is also monitoring of total recoverable copper, arsenic, nickel, zinc, and selenium. EIP (2010a) references water quality problems from TSS, a rise in pH, and elevated levels of cadmium, chromium and selenium; however, the Discharge Monitoring Report data submitted to DEQ do not indicate any current issues with TSS or a rise in pH. The New River is impaired with PCBs and perhaps bacteria, both unrelated to CCRs. Presently, the DEQ has no reason to suspect a benthic impairment, much less one contributed by the Glen Lyn Plant. Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human hea lth or the environment  None

740 Ibid, and Dewberry and Davis (2011). The bottom ash pond is unlined, and its storage capacity is 90 acre

- feet. The Bottom Ash Pond layout was modified in 1976 to its current multi

- cell layout. The bottom ash pond complex is a three

- pond system (north, sou th and clearwater cells), where other wastewaters are separately treated in contiguous cells. Bottom ash from the Plant is sluiced to either the north or south cell while the other cell remains inactive. The inactive cell is periodically dredged of bottom ash after dewatering, and the material is loaded onto trucks where it is hauled offsite for permitted disposal. Overflow from the active cell is discharged to the clearwater cell through an outlet structure. Water from the clearwater cell flows into a skim mer structure and into a decant tower where it is conveyed to East River through a concrete pipe.

741 According to Dewberry and Davis (2011), the Plant is located along three watercourses; the New River to the north, Adair Run just east of the Fly Ash Pond , and East River just west of the Bottom Ash Pond.

742 Regulated under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No. WI0002780.
743 Dewberry and Davis, ibid, Appendix A, Document 3.

744 Specht et al., (1984)

. 745 Mayflies were greatly reduc ed in numbers in the ash influenced stream and a population shift occurred whereby resistant coleopterans flourished. The fly ash impacts were multiple due to high total suspended solids (TSS = 102 mg/L), a rise in pH to 9.5, and elevation of selected trac e elements such as Cd (90 mg/L), Cr (70 mg/L), Zn (73 mg/L), As (110 mg/L), and Se (85 mg/L). Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized value of the damage at $160,000.

746 Gregory T. Peters et al (1985).
747 James R. Clark, et al . (1981).
748 See, for instance, the impact of copper

- spiked sediments on the survival rate of benthic juvenile Asiatic clams ( Corbicula fluminea ) (Lynde, 1994).
749 Stephan R. Larrick, et al, (1981).
750 ICF (2010a).
751 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9284.
752 Comment to the October 2011 NODA: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0228.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

180 USWAG states 753 that the alleged impacts have been completely mitigated and potential sources of impacts have been closed.



### ICF (2010a) Rationale: Not a Damage Case Pending Access to the Original Report ( Specht et al., 1984.) <While scientific studies did indicate ecolo gical damage in the stream near this site, specific data linking the damage to CCR contamination is not available.>



### Postscript: The study by Specht et al. (1984) clearly demonstrates that the ecological damage is linked to the elevated pH and metals associated with the thermal CCR effluents discharge into the tributary of the New River.



### References EIP (2010a): In Harm’s Way: Lack o f Federal Coal Ash Regula tions Endangers Americans and Their Environment, Thirty

- N ine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #37. The Environmental Integrity Project, EarthJustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/08_26_10.php

ICF (2010a): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix C, Case #37. ICF, 10/2010.

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, Appalachian Power Glen Lyn Power Plant

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://iaspu b.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000585518

Cherry et al., (2000): Cherry, D.S., R.J. Currie, and D.J. Soucek. 2000. Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Co mbustion Wastes. Prepared for the Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council (Mar. 28, 2000)

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://citizenscoalcouncil.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/04/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

ADVERSE

- ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

James R. Clark, et al . (1981): Accumulation and Depuration of Metals by Duckweed ( Lemna perpusilla ). Clark, J. R., J. H. Van Hassel, R. B. Nicholson, D. S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 5:87

- 96, 1981

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://pdn.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=272576&_user=14684&_pii=01476 51381900488&_check=y&_coverDat e=1981

- 03

- 01&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlV

zSkWA&md5=bd3d1742e22f531916c15d1068e426f0/1

- s2.0

- 0147651381900488

- main.pdf

Stephan R. Larrick, et al, (1981): Structural and Functional Changes of Aquatic Heterotrophic Bacteria to Thermal, Heavy and Fly Ash Effluents. Larrick, S. R., J. R. Clark, D. S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. Water Res. 15:875

- 880, 1981

. A ccessed Online June 2012.

753 Comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0201: “The wet operations were converted to dry operations that led to removal and closure of the wet fly ash pond. Cessation of effluent discharges into the

re ceiving stream in the summer of 1980 resulted in ecological recovery (based on a study of benthic macro

invertebrates) within a period of 10 months. No toxicity was measured from the fly ash pond during its operation and although the studies cited in the r eference document [EIP (2010a)] showed some differences in biotic communities upstream versus downstream of the former fly ash pond discharge, no acute or chronic toxic effects were demonstrated. Valid effluent samples were collected on a recurring basis u nder the NPDES program, evaluated by Virginia DEQ, and found acceptable for meeting state water quality standards.”I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

181 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4250746?uid=307624801&uid=3739936&uid=2129&uid =2&uid =70&uid=3&uid=16748408&uid=67&uid=62&uid=3739256&sid=21100649605276

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

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640, Dec ember 15, 2010. Accessed Online March 2012

. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

CCW.pdf

Lynde (1994): Lynde, S.R, Techniques For Evaluating Power Plant Discharges Using In

- Situ Leaf Breakdown And Flow

- Through Laboratory Sediment Bioassays. M. Sc. Thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universi ty, 1994

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/public/etd

- 36202069662011/etd.pdf

. Gregory T. Peters et al (1985): Response of Isonychia bicolor to Al kaline pH: an Evaluation of Survival, Oxygen Consumption, and Chloride Cell Ultrastructure. Gregory T. Peters, Donald S. Cherry, John Cairns Jr, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42, 1088

- 1095 (1985)

. A ccessed Online Ju n e 2012. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f85

- 135

Rowe et al., (2002): Ecotoxicological Implications of Aquatic Disposal of Coal Combustion Residues in the United States: A Review. Rowe, C.L., W.A. Hopkins and J.D . Congdon, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 80:207

- 276. Accessed Online June 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12503897 and http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.publicationAbstract/publication_id/125 23

. Specht et al., (1984): Spec ht, W. L., Cherry, D. S., Lechleitner, R. A. and Cains, J., Jr. , Structural, Functional and Recovery Responses of Stream Invertebrates to Fly Ash Effluent, Can. J. Fish, Aquat. Sci. 41, 884

- 896 (1984) . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f84

- 105

American Electric Power (2009): Response to Request for Information under CERCLA Section 104(e) for Ash Management Units, March 31, 2009

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/aep.pdf http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/survey

- glenlyn.pdf

Roanoke Times (2011): Appalachian Power's Glen Lyn plant in Giles County fa ces shutdown. Roanoke.com, June 10, 2011. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/289337

AEP (2011): AEP Shares Plan for Compliance with Proposed EPA Regulations. American Electric Power, June 9, 2011. Accessed Online August 2014. https://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1697

Dewberry and Davis (2011): Coal Combustion Residue Impoundment, Round 9

– Final Dam Assessment Report, Glen Lyn Power Plant, Ash Pond Management Units, Appalachian Power d/b/a American Electric Power, Glen Lyn, Virginia, Dewberry and Davis, LLC, December 2011. Accessed Online December 2013. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/aep

- glen

- lyn

- final.pdfI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

182 

### PR34. Virginia Power Yorktown Power Station Chisman Creek Dispo sal Site, Yorktown, York County, Virginia

Type: Sand and Gravel Pits.



### Brief Description : Between 1957 and 1974, four abandoned, unlined sand and gravel pits 754 at the 27

- acre site received over 500,000 tons of fly ash from the combustion of coal and petroleum coke at the Yorktown Power Station

. 755 The site consists of four former ash disposal areas, three man

- made ponds, freshwater intermittent stream that drains the site, and the upper tidal portion of the Chisman Creek estuary. Chisman Creek discharg es into the Chesapeake Bay. Topographically, the site is a broad, terraced plain incised by the freshwater tributary. The terraced plain is an ancient geologic shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay. Surface elevations range from approximately 45 feet above mean sea level immediately to the west of the site down to sea level in the east

. 756

Local surface soil is the moderately to highly permeable, 0 to 20 feet thick, Quaternary

- age Tabb Formation. 757 It is composed of medium sand with some gravel and fine silty, clayey sand. The Early

Pliocene Yorktown Formation, of comparatively lower permeability, underlies the Tabb Formation. 758 It is composed of silty sand with calcareous fossil debris. The interf ace separating the strata is a significant geochemical and physical groundwater boundary. Local groundwater flow in the Tabb Formation is generally toward the east and north, toward the tributary stream and estuarine creek. Shallow groundwater flow has bee n interrupted by the presence of the borrow pits and ponds. 759



### Impact: Disposal at the site ended in 1974, when Virginia Power began burning oil at the Yorktown plant. In 1980, nearby shallow residential wells became contaminated with nickel and vanadium. A rsenic, beryllium, chromium, copper, selenium, and molybdenum were also detected at elevated concentrations. 760

754 According to Robert (2004), the ash disposal areas are former sand/aggregate quarries or borrow

- pits that were filled with coal combustion byproducts from Yorktown Power Station. The disposal areas are known as Areas A, B, C, and D. Ash in Area D was late r removed and relocated in Area C. The three man

- made ponds are borrow

- pits that never received ash and are known as Ponds A, B, and C.
755 According to Robert (2004), Yorktown Power Station is located approximately one mile east of the village of Yorktown a nd approximated two miles north of the damage site. It has a 376 MW generation capacity with two 188 MW units each units that came online in 1957 and 1959. Virginia Electric and Power Company, a unit of Dominion Resources, Inc., owned and operated Yorktow n Power Station and contracted with Brandt for ash disposal services. On September 1, 2011, Dominion Virginia Power announced that one coal

- fired unit at the Yorktown Power Station would likely close by 2015 and a second coal

- fired unit would likely be con verted to natural gas (Dominion, 2011).
756 Ash placement activities in the past have elevated the surface of the disposal pits as much as 20 feet above the surrounding terrain.
757 http://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc

- unit.php?unit=VAQt%3B0 ; and Peebles et al., (1984).
758 Ward and Blackwelder (1980).
759 According to http://www.yorkcounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=W7Zfa62AR8U%3D&tabid=1723&mid=2756 , the site is located in an area where groundwater table lies within less than 2.5 feet below ground surface.
760 EPA’s (2007) identification of selenium as the key contaminant at the Chisman Creek site is not compatible with information (e.g., Nature and Extent of Trace Element, 1983, Table 11), whereby selenium levels in impacted residential wells were lower than the corresponding levels in reference wells. However, Siudyla and May (1981) demonstrate (Tables 3 and 4) that the key contaminants sampled by monitoring wells installed in shallow groundwater are vanadium, manganese, zinc, chromium, nickel, sulfate, and selenium.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

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



### Resolution: In September 1983, EPA added the site to the NPL under CERCLA. 761 EPA performed a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) between 1984 and 1986. The RI/FS determined that the groundwater contamination was local ized in the area of the pits.

In September 1986, a ROD was issues for operable unit number 1 (OU1), which included disposal pits and groundwater. The ROD included capping the disposal pits, groundwater and leachate collection for treatment and to lower th e water table beneath the pits, replacement water supply wells to 55 homes with contaminated well water, and post

- closure monitoring. In 1988, EPA issued a ROD for operable unit number 2 (OU2), which included relocation of a 600

- foot portion of the tributa ry to minimize contact with the fly ash disposal areas, diversion of surface runoff, and long

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

Construction of all cleanup components was completed on December 21, 1990. The site has been redeveloped as a public park, including a baseball and a soccer field. 762 Contaminated groundwater is currently pumped from the area beneath the baseball fields and treated off site at a local wastewater treatment plant. Following the completion (in December 2006) of it s third five

- year review of the site, 763 EPA determined that the remedial action at OU1 is protective in the short term because the extent of the vanadium contamination in the shallow ground water aquifer is not presently known. In December 2011, EPA complet ed the fourth five

- year review of the site. EPA is presently working with Virginia Power to determine the extent of the vanadium contamination and to amend the restriction to make sure it provides the necessary assurance that it will be protective over tim e. After three rounds of sampling the groundwater in the vicinity of Area C, EPA believes only one more round of sampling will be necessary to completely define the extent of the vanadium contamination. It is anticipated that the last round of sampling wil l take place in the winter of 2013.



### Previous Basis for Consideration : 764 The Chisman Creek disposal site was designated as a proven damage case in the 1999 Report to Congress. 765 According to EPA (2007), the justification for this status is based on: Scientific: (i) Drinking water wells contained selenium above the (health

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



### ICF (2010) Rationale : Proven Damage . <Offsite groundwater exceeded MCLs for selenium. Administrative order specified groundwater use restrictions to mitigate risk from CCR leachates.>

761 EPA Region 3 (2012)

. 762 Chisman Creek Park is located east of Wolf Trap Road (Virginia Rte 630).
763 EPA (2012).
764 EPA (2007), and Report to Congress (1999)
765 In its comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432, Appendix C, USWAG claims that even if EPA assessment of Chisman Creek is limited to selenium levels (which ignores the fact that vanadium and nickel were the drivers for the CERCLA remedi ation), the data still indicate that the primary source of the contamination was pet

- coke ash. Accordingly, USWAG requests that EPA remove Chisman Creek from the CCR “proven” damage case list and reclassify it as a pet

- coke site.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

184 

### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case # 6, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #6. ICF, 10/2010.

Report to Congress (1999): Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Co mbustion: Potential Damage Cases. March 15, 1999. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ffc2_397.pdf

EPA Region 3 (2012): C hisman Creek, York County, Virginia Superfund Program Site Fact Sheet EPA Superfund. Accessed Online July 2012. http://epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/VAD980712913.htm

EPA (2012): (Current Site Informati on, ROD, and 2006 Five

- Year Report). Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/super/sites/VAD980712913/

Robert (2004): Williams, Robert J., Chisman Creek Superfund Site: A Retrospective Review

, pp. 93

- 99, In Department of Interior Office of Surface Mining and Southern Illinois University, Proceedings of State Regulation of Coal Combustion By

- Product Placement of Mine Sites: Technical Interactive Forum

, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, May 4

- 6, 2004 ( Mine Placement Proceedings ). Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/MCR/Resources/ccb/PDF/State_Regulation_of _CCB_Placement.pdf

Peebles et al., (1984): The Middle and Late Pleistocene Stratigraphy of the Outer Coastal Plain, Southeastern Virginia; Pamela C. Peebles, Gerald H. Johnson, and C. R. Berquist. Virginia Minerals, Vo. 30, No. 2, pages 13

- 23, May 1984. Accessed Online July 2012. https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMR3/dmrpdfs/vamin/VAMIN_VOL30_NO02.pdf

Ward and Blackwelder (1980): Stratigraphic Revision of Upper Miocene an d Lower Pliocene Beds of the Chesapeake Group, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. Lauck W. Ward and Blake W. Blackwelder, in Contributions to Stratigraphy. Geologic Survey Bulletin 1482

- D, 1980. Accessed Online July 2012. http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1482d/report.pdf

Nature and Extent of Trace Element Contamination (1983): The Nature and Extent of Trace Element Contamination Associated with Fly

- Ash Disposal Sites in the Chisman Creek Watershed. College of W illiam and Mary, Virginia, Institute of Marine Science, Glouchester Point, Virginia, and Virginia Associated Research Campus, Newport News, Virginia, EPA Region 3: Mid

- Atlantic Region Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, Administrative Record on the Web, June 1983, 106 pages. Accessed Online May 2014. http://loggerhead.epa.gov/arweb/public/search_results.jsp?siteid=VAD980712913#

Siudyla and May (1981): Investigation of Shallow Groundwater Contamination from Fly Ash Disposal in York County, E.A. Siudyla and A.E. May, Tidewater Regional Office, State Water Control Board, May 21, 1981. Accessed Online May 2014. http://loggerhead.epa.gov/arweb/public/search_results.jsp?siteid=VAD980712913#I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

185 Dominion (2011): Dominion Virginia Power 15

- Year Plan Targets Reliable, Cost

- Effecti ve Solutions for Growing Energy Needs. Dominion News, September 1, 2011. Accessed Online August 2014

. http://dom.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=26677&item=71833



### PR35. John E. Amos Power Pla nt, Appalachian Power, Winfield, Putnam County, West Virginia

Type: Surface I mpoundments and (not implicated) Landfills.



### Background and Description : The John Amos Power Plant 766 located by the Kanawha River bank in Winfield, West Virginia ( just across the river from Raymond City, West Virginia) disposes of coal ash waste in several impoundments, 767 the largest of which is the unlined, 175

- acre Little Scary Creek (LSC) fly ash surface impoundment. The LSC impoundment has a storage capacity of 2,687 acre

- feet a nd a dam height of 223 feet. The fly ash slurry from one of the Power Plant’s three generating units is pumped to this large headwaters impoundment. Until recently, the treated fly ash decant water was discharged at Outfall 001 to LSC, formerly a small tr ibutary to the Kanawha River. Until August 2010, when wet sluicing to the impoundment ceased, 768 about 95 percent of the Creek’s total flow comprised treated and decanted fly ash impoundment discharge.

Five additional impoundments used to store bottom ash a re located at the power plant. These impoundments were commissioned in 1971, cover approximately 30 acres, and have a total storage capacity of 357 acre

- feet. 769 Two active landfills and one recently constructed and permitted landfill are also in operation. 770

766 The John E. Amos Plant has a nameplate generating capacity of 2,933 MW . It comprises three generation units: Units 1 and 2 have a nameplate generating capacity of 816.3 MW each, and were started up in September 1971, and June, 1972 respectively. Unit 3, rated at 1,300 MW, was started up in October, 1973. All units are supercritical, dry

bottom boilers powered by a blend of low

- sulfur coal and Northern Appalachian Basin high

- sulfur coal ( http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Nov_4/ai_n15776786/ ).

767 According to Dewberry and Davis (2009) and Dewberry and Davis (2009a), all commissioned in 1971. There are also a New Landfill (WVPDES 0001074); the Quarrier landfill (WVPDES # 0077046), and a new landfill, slated to become operative in April 2009 (WVPDES # 0116254).
768 C omment to the 2011 NODA: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0202.
769 Of these, four were active (1A and 1B

- two raw water intake basins, a primary clarifier reservoir, and a secondary clarifier reservoir) during the site visit of Dewberry and Davis (2009a); a fifth cell, located in the northwest corner of the Complex, was reportedly filled during the late 1980s or early 1990s. And see WVDEP (2009a) and Dewberry and Davis (2009a, Fig. 2.2

- 1 and narrative). Due to their small dam height (24 feet), they were outside the scope of Dewberry and Davis (2009). Two of the five exis ting fly/bottom ash ponds utilized for fly ash temporary disposal (1A and 1B) are large enough for WVDEP dam safety jurisdiction. Current (2009) operation of the ponds consist of sluicing bottom ash into Ponds 1A or 1B, allowing particles to settle and the overflow to circulate to the reclaim pond. The active/inactive status alters between Ponds 1A and 1B approximately every one to two years. After the active cell becomes full, it is placed in inactive status to dry and to be cleaned out. The decant water f rom either cell discharges into the primary clarifying cell and then into the secondary clarifying cell (Treatment Basin). WVDEP has recently approved a modification to combine the two ponds into one structure by raising the surrounding embankments.
770 Acco rding to WVDEP (2009a), a Februa ry 2009 site inspection of the Quarrier Landfill (WVPDES # 0077046 ) triggered a NOV ( F09

- 40

- 066

- JHH) , for failure to properly operate and maintain all facilities and system of treatment and control to achieve compliance with NPDES permit: the storm water related violations included inadequate sedimentation controls and practices, insufficient revegetation, and fly ash deposited in wetlands on both sides of haul road.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

186 The plant area is underlain by Quaternary

- age alluvium consisting of lenticular floodplain deposits of clay, silt and sand with some gravel lenses to a depth of about 50 feet. Bedrock consists of Pennsylvanian

- age shale, coal, clay and very limited amounts of limestone (there is no karst terrain within the site area). The Pennsylvanian deposits range from 3,000 to 3,800 feet in thickness and are relatively horizontal to slightly

- folded. Groundwater in the plant area is near the pool level of the Kana wha River (about 566 feet) within the alluvial sediments underlying the facility while the upland areas are primarily stress relief fracture flow marked by secondary porosity resulting from fracturing. Groundwater flow in the upland area tends to follow th e stress relief fracture flow pattern that typically mimics surface topography while flow within the alluvium sediments underlying the plant is primarily towards the Kanawha River or Bill’s Creek. 771

Surface water discharge from the impoundments into LSC ha s exceeded NPD ES permit criteria several times in the past; however the state has granted variances for surface water criteria. WVDEP granted site

- specific variances from the statewide numeric criteria for selenium (0.062 mg/L) and copper (0.105 mg/L daily max, 0.049 mg/L 4

- day average) for the LSC fly ash impoundment discharge. However, selenium exceedances (0.0600 mg/L to 0.110mg/L) were reported in 10

- monthly reports between June 2009 and August 2010. In addition, arsenic violations (0.135 mg/L) were re ported in June and July 2009. 772

Effluent discharge is planned to be rerouted into the Kanawha River to avoid L SC in the future. There are no onsite or offsite groundwater data available. Surface water has been evaluated onsite and offsite.



### Impact and Dam age Claims : EIP (2010) indicates that levels of selenium in effluent water discharge from the site have exceeded NPDES permit limits. EIP (2010) also indicates that levels of selenium in surface water samples from LSC exceeded West Virginia’s acute and chr onic water quality standards for the protection of aquatic life. Average selenium concentrations in LSC are more than x6 higher than the state‘s standard that protects aquatic life from chronic toxic effects to selenium exposure in surface waters. Accordin g to WVDEP, 773 the previous permit (WV0001074) contained effluent limits for selenium on Outlet 001 (Maximum Daily of 0.062 mg/L). The reissued permit (July 17, 2007) contains
t hat same limit as an interim limit with a compliance schedule to meet final limits of 0.0381 mg/L average monthly and 0.062 mg/L max daily. 774 “The facility was given a compliance schedule to meet end

- of

- pipe chronic toxicity limitations on this discharge in the most recent permit. As a result of this, the facility has indicated t o us that they intend to reroute this discharge to the Kanawha River and eliminate it from LSC due to issues in achieving these limits. In order to comply with the final limits for toxicity, they must report less than 1 TUc. Data submitted thus far for t he daphnia species has been 2.0 TUc (October 2007), 8.0 TUc (January 2008), and 4.0 TUc (April 2008).”

EIP (2010) indicates that selenium concentrations in September 2006 fish tissue data (average concentration 58.02 mg/kg) well exceeded EPA’s proposed Ch ronic Exposure selenium fish tissue criterion (7.91 mg/kg dry weight, EPA 2004) 775 and a threshold value established by a selenium expert at

771 Dewberry and Davis (2009b), Appendix V, virtual page 886

. 772 EPA’s ECHO: http://www.epa

- echo.gov/cgi

bin/effluents.cgi?permit=WV0001074&charts=viols&monlocn=all&outt=all
773 Rebuttal to EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446
774 Hence, the information presented on Page 20 of EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446, regarding the discharge from this facility not having any selenium limits is incorrect.
775 In addition, if whole

- body fish tissue concentrat ions exceed 5.85 μg/g dw during summer or fall, fish tissue should be monitored during the winter to determine whether the selenium concentration exceeds 7.91 μg/g dw. Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Selenium

– 2004; EPA

- 822

- D

- 04

- 001, Novembe r 2004 (Page 82):I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

187 the USDA Forest Service (4 mg/kg, Lemly 2002). 776 EIP (2010) also suggests that the average concentration of selenium i n fish tissue associate with the site should trigger a West Virginia fish consumption advisory, restricting consumption to no more than 6 meals a year. 777

In his comment to the docket, Lemly 778 states that the impoundment’s discharges contaminated streams and increased the concentration of five trace metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc) and two metalloids (selenium and arsenic) in fish. Selenium has bio

- accumulated in aquatic food chains and fish tissues to levels exceeding a toxic threshold (4 m g/kg whole

- body, dry weight). Physiological and biological changes indicated that fish were poisoned by fly ash effluent, and that some reproductive impairment occurred, although no detailed reproduction studies were conducted to quantify the levels of imp airment. The last biological effects assessment (1996) showed that fish were still being poisoned. 779 According to WVDEP, 780 LSC exhibited valance state selenium almost exclusively (93.9 percent) in the selenite (Se +4 ) form, which is reported to be more bioac cumulative.

AEP confirms 781 that LSC has approved site

- specific criteria for copper and selenium (for selenium: 62 μg/L). AEP claims, however, that while EIP (2010) cites WVDEP high fish selenium tissue levels as evidence of the degradation of aquatic life uses, WVDEP has not adopted any numeric fish tissue criteria for selenium, and USEPA is not expected to finalize the revised aquatic life criteria for selenium until 2012. AEP claims that there is evidence in the scientific literature (including studies sp ecific to the LSC) that levels of selenium in freshwater fish can be high, but without significant population

- level impacts. AEP claims that according to numerous biological studies they have conducted in LSC, the LSC supports a fairly diverse fauna despit e the Creek being comprised of almost entirely fly ash pond discharge water.

In reference to the evidence cited above, USWAG’s statement 782 that t his case does not meet the criteria for a damage case to surface water because there is no evidence that the aq uatic life use in Little Scary Creek is, or was previously, impaired due to selenium levels in fish tissue is untenable.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria 783

Criteria Evaluation Criterion 1: 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  None

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/selenium/upload/complete.pdf : 776 Lemly ( 2002).

777 According to WVDEP (2009), sampling in the LSC between November 1, 2005, and July 20, 2007, yielded the following average selenium concentration values: water column: 31.5 ppb; fish tissue: 40.43 ppm; Sunfish tissue: 6.20 ppm; and Minnow tissue: 5 4.69 ppm. The bioaccumulation factor was calculated as 1283 L/kg.
778 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6313, Appendix I.

779 Lemly estimated the total case monetized damage at close to $470,000.

780 WVDEP (2009); and see http://wvmdtaskforce.com/proceedings/06/Campbell.pdf for a discussion of the scientific contention about selenium toxicity in fish.
781 C omment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0202. See References for citations of the (Utility

- funded) Little Scary Creek Selenium

- in fish studies (Lohner et al., 2001; and Reash et al., 1999).
782 Comment to the 2011 NODA docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211.
783 ICF (2010).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

188 

### Other Considerations

 West Virginia granted site

- specific variances from the statewide numeric NPDES criteria for selenium and copper for Little Scary Creek impoundment discharges.

 No study documents damage to the environment from the selenium levels and direct implication of CCRs given prevalence of selenium laden effluents from other sources, including coal mining.

 Despite elevated levels in fish tissue, there is no documentation of human health risk in part as fish in study were primarily Creek Chubs w hich are minnow sized fish, unlikely to be directly eaten by humans. The concentrations are likely to accumulate in the food

- chain, but no study documents the damage in this case.

 Fish analysis, performed by two separate laboratories and three different sa mple collection events, generally confirm results.

 According to AEP, 784 wet sluicing to the impoundment ceased in August 2010; consequently, LSC no longer receives treated fly ash water and has returned to its original headwater stream characteristic s. 785



### Resolution: On August 1, 2014, a coalition of citizens groups reached a consent decree with Appalachian Power Company (APCo) concerning major changes in the operations at the Amos Plant, and the status of its appeal of WV NPDES Permit No. WV0001074, a draf t of which was issued by the WV DEP on April 1, 2014. 786 This draft permit revises the final effluent limitations at Outlet 003. On August 1, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action alleging that, notwithstanding the issuance of administrative orders by WV DEP extending the compliance schedule for achieving final effluent limitations at Outlet 003, APCo violated the terms of WV NPDES Permit No. WV0001074, as revised in 2011, by exceeding the daily maximum and monthly average limitations for merc ury and monthly hazardous constituents have migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  Selenium exceeded NPDES permit limits in effluent discharge from the impoundment.

 Selenium detected in surface water samples from Little Scary Creek exceeded West Virginia’s water quality standards for protection of aquatic life.

 Selenium concentrations in both species reported, Creek Chub fish tissue data (average 58.02 mg/kg) and Green Sunfish (average 11.72 mg/kg dry weight) well exceeded EPA’s proposed selenium fish tissue criterion (7.91 mg/kg, EPA 2004) and a threshold value established by a selenium expert at the USDA Forest Service (4 mg/kg, Lemly 2002). Criterion 3: Where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  None (No advisory has been issued by the State, and no action has been taken by the Power Plant).

784 C omment to the 2011 NODA docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 20 11

- 0392

- 0202

. 785 According to AEP (2014), following t he Plant’s conversion from a wet fly ash system to a dry fly ash system, by November 2010 all fly ash pond discharges to Outlet 001 ceased.
786 West Virginia Rivers Coalition et al., (2014). Plaintiffs are West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, and Sierra Club.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

189 average limitations for selenium at Outlet 003. Based on the negotiations of the Parties, simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, the Parties lodged this Consent Decree with the Court. 787



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Not a Damage Case. <Th ere are no documented exceedances of primary EPA MCLs in onsite or offsite groundwater. While there are limited and sporadic exceedances of selenium NPDES permit limits in the discharge from the impoundment, the state granted variances on the statewide num eric criteria for selenium. Similarly, while surface water and fish tissue samples from Little Scary Creek had selenium concentrations above various comparison criteria, there is no scientific study that links these exceedances to evidence of damage to hum an health or the environment and implicates CCRs. There are no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the site.>



### Postscript: Based on the evidence for excessive selenium effluents and high selenium conten ts in fish tissue, and notwithstanding State variance, this case qualifies as a proven, ecologic damage case.



### References EIP (2010): Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case #30. The Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice. February 24, 2010. Accessed Online September 2013. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix B, Case #30. ICF, 10/2010.

Dewberry and Davis (2009): Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Task 3

- Dam Assessment Report, John E. Amos Plant (Site 26), Fly Ash Dam Complex, American Electric Power, St. Albans, West Virginia, Revised December 2009. Accessed Online June 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/aep

- amos

- fafinal.pdf

Dewberry and Davis (2009a): Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Task 3

- Dam Assessment Report, John E. Amos Plant (Site 26), Bot tom Ash Dam, American Electric Power, St. Albans, West Virginia, December 2009. Dewberry and Davis, LLC, October 2009. Accessed Online January 2014. htt p://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/aep

- amos

- bafinal.pdf

787 The proposed injunctive relief is fir APCo to achieve compliance with the applicable limitations for mercury and selenium at Outlet 003 included in the Amos NPDES Permit by the Compliance Deadline (6 months after the issuance of the final permit based on the Draft Amos NPDES Permit, or June 30, 2015, whichever is later). APCo shall pay for mitigation activities to improve, conserve and protect natural resources in t he State of West Virginia by providing mitigation funding in the amount of $38,250 for the land acquisition, restoration and/or conservation activities of the West Virginia Land Trust, and in addition shall pay a civil penalty amount of $4,250 to the Unite d States. Together with the Mitigation Payment, the payment of this civil payment is made in settlement of all of Plaintiffs’ claims in this action under the CWA for violations occurring prior to the Effective Date of this Consent Decree. Defendant shall b e liable for stipulated penalties in the following amounts if it fails to achieve and maintain compliance with the applicable maximum daily and monthly average limitations for mercury and selenium at Outlet 003 in the Amos NPDES Permit at any time after th e Compliance Deadline: (i) $1,500 per exceedance for the daily maximum limitation for mercury or selenium; (ii) $3,000 per exceedance for the monthly average limitation for mercury or selenium.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

190 Dewberry and Davis (2009b): Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Task 3

- Dam Assessment Report, John E. Amos Plant (Site 26), Appendices. Accessed Online January 2014

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

- amos

- comboappend.pdf

Lemly (2002): Selenium Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems, a Guide for Hazard Evaluation and Water Quality Criteria . Dennis A. Lemly. Springer, New York, 2002

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://books.google.com/books?id=qGH37iOW7yMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r &cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Leml y (2010): A White Paper on Environmental Damage from Coal Combustion Waste: The Cost of Poisoned Fish and Wildlife, A. Dennis Lemly, EPA Docket Comment EPA

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640

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

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

CCW.pdf

WVDEP (2009): Selenium Bioaccumulation among Select Stream and Lake Fisheries in West Virginia, West Virginia Dept. of Environmental Protection, February 2009

. A ccessed Online June 2012. htt p://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/Selenium/Se_Fish_Tissue_Summar y_Paper_final_Feb09.pdf

WVDEP (2009a): Fly Ash Dam/Landfill Condition Evaluation. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water and Waste Manag ement, Environmental Enforcement November 2009 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/ee/ds/Documents/Status_WV_Fly_Ash_Dams_Landfills_Nov 609.pdf

Lohner et al., (2001): Ecotoxicological assessment of bluegill sunfish inhabiting a selenium

- enriched fly ash stream. 1. Hematological and Population Level Assessment. T. W. Lohner, R. J. Reash, V. E. Willet, and L. A. Rose. Ecotoxicology and Envi ronmental Safety 50, 203

- 216 (2001), Environmental Research, Section B . Ac cessed Online July 2012. http://203.250.122.194/blood/b_chem/b_chem_019.pdf

Lohner et al., (2001a): Assessment of tolerant fish populations ( Lepomis sp .) inhabiting selenium

- laden coal ash effluents: 3. Serum Chemistry and Fish Health Indicators. T. W. Lohner, R. J. Reash, V. E. Willet, J. Fletcher. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 50: 225

- 232, 2001

. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651301920998

Reash et al., (1999): Ecotoxicological assessment of bluegill sunfish inhabitin g a selenium

- enriched fly ash stream. Reash, R.J., T.W. Lohner, K.V. Wood, and V.E. Willet. In : Hanshel, D.S., M.C. Black, and M.C. Harrass (editors), Environmental Toxicology and Risk assessment: Standartization of Biomarkers for Endocrine Disruption and Environmental Assessment, Volume 8 . American Society for Testing and Materials, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1999.

AEP (2014): Notice of Appeal and Request for Stay, Appalachian Power Company, dba AEP v. Division of Water and Waste Management, West Virgini a Department of Environmental Protection, submitted to the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board, August 6, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. 14

- 15

- EQB

- Environmental Quality Board

West Virginia Rivers Coalition et al., (2014): Consent Decree, W est Virginia Rivers Coalition, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, and Sierra Club v. Appalachian Power Company d/b/a/ American Electric Power, in the United S tates District Court for the SouthernI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

191 District of West Virginia at Huntington, Case 3:14

- cv

- 24237, August 1, 2014. Accessed Online August 2014. Access through: InsideEPA.com (2014): Settlement Agreement on Selenium Discharges, August 6, 2014. http://insideepa.com/201408062478749/EPA

- Documents/Text

- Document/cwa

- pacts

- show

environment alists

- bid

- to

- raise

- bar

- for

- power

- plant

- elg/menu

- id

- 96.html



### PR36. WEPCO Cedar

- Sauk Landfill, Cedarburg, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin

Type: Sand and Gravel Pit.



### Brief Description: This unlined, 25

- acre landfill, 788 located in a former sand and gravel pit, received about 650,000 cubic yards of fly and bottom ash from the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) Port Washington Power Plant 789 between 1969 and 1979. 790 The landfill was located over shallow groundwater in hi ghly permeable (10

- 3 to 10

- 4 cm/sec) media, a hummocky end moraine and glacial outwash deposits from the last Pleistocene glacial advance of the Lake Michigan Lobe. 791 The underlying unconsolidated glacial sediments generally consist of permeable, well sorted sand and gravel deposited by meltwater streams near the ice margin. The sand and gravel mining operation removed the unconsolidated material over the underlying Si lurian dolostone of the Niag a ran Series, considered a regional aquifer that is used by private water supply wells in the Town. This allowed waste to be placed directly on the fractured and dissolved dolostone knob beneath the landfill. 792

788 Ash

- disposal was state

- permitted, under License # 0603 (Zil mer and Fauble, 2004). EPRI (2001) states that the site property encompassed an area of 55 acres (There, Fig. 2

- 1), with 28 acres used for disposal of coal and bottom ash from an off

- site power plant. The ash was covered with soil as individual cells were filled. This soil cover was 0.2 to 2.7 feet thick and had texture ranging from sand to clay.
789 Built in 1935, the Port Washington Power Plant had four coal

- fired dry

- bottom arc

- firing units and one gas turbine with total capacity of 340 MW. The coal units became operational in 1935, 1943, 1948, and 1949 and burned bituminous coal (EPRI, 2001). The plant's coal

- fueled units were replaced with two, 545 MW generators, the first

– in 2005, and the second

– in 2008 (WE, 2014).
790 According to EPRI (2001), the si te was active between 1969 and 1977. According to http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/SL/Viewer.html?Viewer=RR+Sites&runWorkflow=ZoomToBRRTS&brrtsid=35206

, the lan dfill is located about 1,800 feet southwest of the intersection of Cedar Sauk Road and Maple Road (NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec 02, T10N, R21E), about 5.4 mile as the crow flies WSW of the Port Washington Power Plant. According to EPRI (2010), the Cedar Sau k ash fill property contains land that is included in the Mole Creek Primary Environmental Corridor.
791 The Oak Creek Formation (Mickelson and Syverson, 1997), and see also Young and Batten (1980, Fig. 4).
792 According to Zilmer and Fauble (2004), this massive dolomitic limestone has a highly irregular erosional surface and contains numerous fractures and solution features. Cross

- sections based on borings near and beneath the landfill area show that the landfi ll was sited on a bedrock knob of Niagaran dolostone. North and east of the bedrock high, towards Mole's Creek, the sand and gravel outwash deposits thicken from absent to 25 feet thick beneath the landfill to over 50 feet thick near the creek. There are two major aquifers present at the site: the upper sand and gravel outwash deposits and the lower, Niagaran dolostone. The sand and gravel aquifer is generally unconfined and forms the water table. To the east of the landfill, near Mole's Creek, the sand an d gravel unit is underlain by silty clay to clayey silt glacial till unit. Beneath the landfill this unit is either absent due to mining or directly underlain by bedrock. Beneath the landfill and elsewhere along the bedrock knob, groundwater is in contact with the upper sand and gravel aquifer and the water table can occur within both units. In the landfill’s area, the probability of a well to yield 100

- 500 gl/minute is good (Young and Batten, 1980, Fig. 11). The quality of the Niagara aquifer’s water in th e area is one of the best in Ozaukee County, with sulfate levels below 25 mg/L, TDS around 350 mg/L, and hardness of about 300 mg/LI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

192 Groundwater withi n both the sand and gravel aquifer and the Niagaran bedrock flows from the west to the east and southeast and likely discharges to wetland areas 0.2 miles to the east. 793 Mole's Creek is considered a groundwater discharge point for shallow groundwater that f lows from the landfill area. There are two residences located between the CCR fill and this wetland northeast of the site that may have private wells. However, there are no exceedances in on

- site wells between the CCR fill and these potential receptors. Th e off

- site exceedances occur in monitoring wells to the southeast. 794



### Impact: Sometime after closure, the water table rose, saturating portions of the ash fill

. 795 With Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ (WDNR) approval, WEPCO installed and began

mon itoring a series of monitoring wells in late 1978. After closure of the facility, ground water monitoring revealed onsite groundwater exceedance of the MCL for selenium, the State standard for boron, and the secondary MCL for sulfate. 796 The boron and sulfate plume extended southeast from the central portion of the ash fill area to the creek (see EPRI, 2001, Fig. 3

- 2 and Fig. 3

- 3), while selenium was limited to three wells at the down

- gradient edge of the ash fill area and one well about 2 00 feet down

- gradient, near the down

- gradient edge of the ash fill area. 797 In 1980, vegetation monitoring in a

(Young and Batten, ibid, Figs. 16

- 18). For Ozaukee County groundwater susceptibility, depth to water table, bedrock type, de pth to bedrock, and soil deposits maps, see USGS (2007).
793 Groundwater flow is primarily through the sand and gravel unit and dolomite bedrock. These formations are hydraulically connected in areas where the lower silt and clay is absent. The predominant f low direction is east (EPRI, 2001, Fig. 2

- 5). The hydraulic conductivity of the sand and gravel was approximately 2.6 x 10

- 3 cm/sec. Slug test hydraulic conductivity values ranged from 2 x 10

- 4 cm/sec to 2 x 10

- 2 cm/sec in the sand and gravel and from 4 x 10

- 4 to 7 x 10

- 4 cm/sec in the bedrock. Assuming an effective porosity value of 0.20, a hydraulic conductivity of 2.6 x 10

- 3 cm/sec and a hydraulic gradient of 0.020 from EPRI (2001) Fig. 2

- 5, groundwater flow velocity in the sand and gravel beneath the as h fill area is about 270 ft/yr, suggesting a four

- year travel time for advective migration from the upgradient edge of the fill area to the down

- gradient edge. Hydraulic gradient decreases to 0.008 down

gradient of the ash fill area as the sand and gravel aquifer thickens, resulting in a groundwater flow velocity of about 110 ft/yr. This groundwater flow velocity suggests a five

- to six

- year advective travel time from the down

- gradient edge of the ash fill area to the creek. Comparison of mapped base of ash elevations to groundwater table elevation suggests that there are areas where base of ash is less than 5 feet above the water table. However there is no direct evidence of saturated ash at this site.
794 Zilmer & Fauble, ibid.
795 According to EPA (2007). How ever, according to EPRI (2010), a site

- specific analysis performed by EPRI found less than 5 feet of separation but no direct evidence of saturation.
796 According to WDNR’s comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416 (Table 2), contaminant concentrati ons in monitoring well W

- 4 were as follows: boron ranged between 11 and 186 mg/L; selenium: 1

- 980μg/L; and sulfate: 520

- 1,923 mg/L. These levels are well above the Wisconsin Enforcement Standard (ES) of 0.96 mg/L for boron and 250 mg/L for sulfate. In addi tion to selenium and boron exceedances, Cherry et al. (2000), when mentioning constituents in down

- gradient monitoring wells that exceeded federal standards for drinking water or protection of aquatic life, cite sulfate concentrations of up to 2,300 mg/L, and TDS concentration of up to 3,290 mg/L.
797 According to EPRI (2001, Section 3 and Appendix A), the boron and sulfate plume, delineated by boron concentrations greater than 1 mg/L and sulfate concentrations greater than 100 mg/L, extended to a creek rough ly 600 feet east of the ash fill area. G roundwater quality results for the entire monitoring period (1978 to 2001) indicate that pH of all water samples was slightly acidic to slightly alkaline (6.1 to 8.5). Median concentrations of boron, sulfate, and sod ium were significantly higher in down

- gradient wells than in up

- gradient wells. In addition, concentrations of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and selenium were higher than background in some down

- gradient wells. Median boron concentrations in downgradient groundwater were as high as 54 mg/L at W

- 4 (EPRI, 2001, Fig. 3

- 2) and median sulfate concentration was as high as 800 mg/L at W

- 4 (EPRI, 2001, Fig. 3

- 3). As of 1984, a boron and sulfate plume had migrated southeast as far as W

- 15, and elevated boron concen trations in surface water at SW

- 2 suggest that the plume had migrated as far as the creek. Most down

- gradient wells had low to non

- detectable concentrations of selenium; therefore the median selenium concentration in down

- gradient groundwater was the same as in up

- gradient groundwater (EPRI, 2001,I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

193 wetland immediately east of the fill area found stress characteristic of boron toxicity. Leaf tissue samples had boron concentrations of 300 to 1, 600 ppm compared to 7 to 61 ppm in healthy plants from other areas of the site.



### Previous Basis for Consideration 798 

### : Scientific : selenium in offsite (?) ground water exceeded the (health

- based) primary MCL, and there was clear evidence of vegetative damage. Administrative: The State required remedial action.



### Resolution : In response to the groundwater contamination findings, the company performed investigations of hydrogeology and groundwater quality, followed by remedial actions. The facility has undergone two remediation efforts since ash disposal ceased in 1977. Remediation efforts began in 1982 with placement of a cap consisting 2 feet of silty clay soils from a nearby borrow area over the existing soil cover. Following completion of the cap, i n 1983, WE PCO proposed a groundwater mitigation plan to the WDNR consisting of three groundwater extraction wells to be placed down

- gradient of the fill

area. 799 The extraction system was designed to hydraulically contain groundwater from flowing beyond the downgradie nt edge of the ash fill area, thereby preventing eastward migration of boron from the ash fill area to the wetland where vegetation stress was observed. T he system began operating in September 1984; after five successful years, 800 the levels of boron and sul fate contaminants began to rise again due to decreasing extraction well efficiency; and by 1997, concentrations in most wells were near pre

remediation levels. 801 Based on groundwater modeling of the system, WEPCO concluded that the capture zone of the three extraction wells was inadequate to capture all groundwater contamination migrating from the landfill.

To address this problem, in 1997 WEPCO installed an engineered cap over the landfill. In preparation for the cap upgrade, the old cap was stripped of v egetation and topsoil, fine

- graded, rolled, and cleared of any rocks or soil clods greater than 2 inches in diameter. 802 The engineered cap, the completion of which occurred in October 1997, consisting of (from bottom to top) recompacted clay, 30

- mil PVC
geo membrane, a rooting layer with two

- feet of general fill, and six inches of topsoil. The groundwater extraction system was permanently abandoned in 1997. 803 Judging from the resulting rapid drop of boron and sulfate levels in 2003, to lows of 14 mg/L and 262 mg/L, respectively , it is evident that decreasing infiltration through the waste mass by capping has effectively reduced contaminant concentrations

Table 3

- 3a). However, four down

- gradient monitoring wells (W

- 3, W

- 3A, W

- 4, and W

- 10) had selenium concentrations higher than the MCL of 0.05 mg/L (EPRI, 2001, Table 3

- 3b) prior to 1984. Pre

- remediation selenium

co ncentrations were highest at W

- 4, and routinely exceeded 0.05 mg/L, while concentrations in the other three wells exceeded that value in less than 20 percent of the samples.
798 EPA (2007).
799 According to EPRI (2001), the wells pumped at a rate of 44 to 109 m 3 /day.
800 According to EPRI (2001), this system initially caused boron and sulfate concentrations within the central portion of the plume to decrease by 50 to 80 percent.
801 While selenium in W

- 4 was generally elevated, with levels as high as 980 μg/L, before the site was closed, the selenium concentrations dropped sharply after the site was closed and the relief well system was operational in 1984: within 3 months (September , 1984 to December, 1984), the selenium levels dropped from 240 μg/l to 12 μg/L and they never recovered. Zilmer and Fauble (2004) claim that these results suggest that at least at this site, selenium does not stay in solution as readily as either sulfate or boron. According to EPRI (2001), it is possible that the 1982 cap changed redox conditions in the ash, favoring the reduced species of selenium (selenite), which is less mobile than the oxidized species (selenate), while the groundwater extraction syste m captured most of the mobile selenium in groundwater. In any case, the 1982 cap and the groundwater extraction system remediation effectively removed selenium from groundwater at this site.
802 EPRI (2001).
803 EPRI (2001).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

194 down

- gradient of the landfill. 804 Groundwater quality at the site is monitored semi

- annually using a network of 26 monitoring wells. CCR indicator concentrations are decreasing or stable in all except three of the 26 active monitoring wells. 805



### ICF (2010) Rationale : Proven Damage . <Documented study of ecological impact in adjacent wetland due to CCR contamination, including stressed vegetation and bioaccumulation in plant tissues of boron.>



### Postscript: In its comment to the docket, WDNR

, 806 based on a detailed study, concurred with the classification of this damage case

. 807



### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Wast e Damage Case Assessments, Case #16, docket ID EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDeta il;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #16. ICF, 10/2010.

EPRI (2001): Evaluation of Remedial Actions at an Unlined Coal Ash Landfill: CS Site. EPRI Report 1005214, Technology Review, December 2001. Cosponsor Wisconsin Electric

– Wisconsin Gas. Accessed Online September 2014. http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001005214

EPRI (2010): Damage Case Report, V. 2: Case Summaries, EPRI, September 2010. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combustion%20Produ ct%20Damage%20Cases

Zilmer and Fauble (2004): Groundwater Impacts from Coal Combustion Ash Disposal Sites in Wisconsin, Pub

- Wa 1174 2004, Michael Zillmer and Philip Fauble, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Waste & Materials Management Division. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/wa/WA1174.pdf

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

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COA L

- COMBUS.htm

804 For changes in groundwater concen trations of boron and sulfate by the water extraction system prior to the installation of the upgraded cap, see Figs. 3

- 8, 3

- 9, 3

- 10, and 3

- 11 in EPRI (2001). For concentration changes of the same constituents after the upgraded cap was installed, see Figs . 3

- 13 and 3

- 14 in EPRI (2001). According to http://dnr.wi.gov/botw/GetActivityDetail.do?adn=0246000713&siteId=1624800&crumb=1&search=a

, Site remedia tion activity closed in Oct. 2011, and the Landfill was then transferred to DNR’s Solid Waste Program.

805 EPRI (2010).
806 WDNR’s comment to the proposed CCR rule: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416, and Zilmer and Fauble (2004).
807 USWAG, in its comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432 (Appendix C), requested that EPA identify the Cedar Sauk Site in the docket as a site where the previously identified “proven damage” has been resolved to the satisfaction of the St ate through implementation of corrective measures.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

195 USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Ozaukee County/Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater contamination susceptibility map and evaluation: Wisconsi n Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 p. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find /ozaukee/susceptibility.html

Young and Batten (1980): Ground

- Water Resources and Geology of Washington and Ozaukee Counties, Wisconsin, H. L. Young and W. G. Batten, U. S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Surv ey, Information Circular Number 38, 1980. Accessed Online November 2013. http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/IC38.pdf

Mickelson and Syverson (1997): Quaternary Geology of Ozaukee and Washington Counties, Mickelson, D., and Syverson, K., Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin 91. 56 p. Accessed Online November 2013

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

, Ozaukee.

WE (2014): Wisconsin Energy Corporation

- History. Accessed Online August 2014. http://search.we

energies.com/search?q=cache:YNv3tfCa8i8J:www.wisconsinenergy.com/aboutus/history.htm +port+was hington&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&site=wisconsin_energy_all&ie=UTF

8&client=wec_01&proxystylesheet=wec_01&oe=UTF

- 8



### PR37. Columbia Energy Center, Alliant Energy

– Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Pardeeville, Columbia County, Wisconsin

Type: Surface Impoundments

. 

### Background and Description: The Columbia Power Station 808 has three currently active ash impoundments on site, all officially commissioned in 1975, though plant operations and coal combustion residual (CCR) storage and discharge began in 1974. The three unlined ponds consist of an 8.5

- acre primary ash pond (PAP), a 16

- acre secondary ash pond (SAP), and a 1

- acre polishing pond (PP). There is also a 500

- acres cooling pond , and a Landfill Storm Water Pond Impoundment (LSP). 809 Since the plant’s opening in 1975, CCRs have been slurried into th e series of the three impou ndments 810 and

808 Columbia Energy Center is a base

- load, subbituminous coal

- fired, electrical power station located southwest of the town of Pardeeville, Wisconsin, close to the left bank of the Wisconsin River. The Plant has two generation units of 550 MW each that came online in 1975 and 1978 (Alliant Energy’s 2011 Annual Report: http://phx.corporate

ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=71431&p=irol

- irhome ).
809 According to GZA GeoEnvironmental (2011), The Landfill Storm Water Pon d Impoundment (LSP) was commissioned in 1984 in conjunction with the on

- Site ash landfill. The LSP is a lined (HDPE, with permeability of 10

- 10 cm/sec) earthen embankment structure and stores storm water runoff and sediments from the open cells of the ash landfill. The LSP receives fly ash, bottom ash, and economizer ash with the storm water runoff from the ash landfill. Water that collects in the LSP is removed by evaporation. According to WI DNR (2013), the landfill is an active monofill with a capacity of over 500,000 cubic yard (License #2325, DNR Facility ID 111042140).
810 According to GZA (ibid), p rior to 2004, most solids would settle in the PAP and the remaining solids would be discharged with water to the SAP. Since 2004, the solids settle in the P AP and the pump house on the northeastI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

196 sulfuric acid added to reduce the pH from over 10 to 8 or lower, as required by the discharge permit. The effluent is then discharged into a stream which subsequently flows into Rocky Run Creek, a third

- order tributary of the Wisconsin River. 811 The addition of acid causes barium, aluminum, and chromium to precipitate into a floc that is discharged with the other effluents.



### Impact and Damage Claims : EIP (2010a) indicates that effluent discharges from the impoundments damaged stream habitat and had severe impact on populations of aquatic communities downstream from the discharge point. A number of studies undertaken between 1974 and 1980 by the US EPA’s Environmental Research Laboratory and the University of Wisconsin

- Madison’s Institute for Env ironmental Studies 812

, 813 indicated that along with increased total dissolved and total suspended solids (TDS and TSS, respectively), a number of heavy metals had increased concentrations downstream. One of the studies identified contaminants in the ash pond drainage with exceedan ces of WQC over the EPA’s Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), including cadmium and copper. 814

The studies documented a sequence of macro

- invertebrate community responses: populations of benthic

macro

- invertebrates and fish were dramatically reduce d for at least 3.5 km downstream, 815 as were microbial measures of aquatic ecosystem function and overall health. Some species of macro

invertebrates were totally eliminated four months after effluent discharge started in 1974. Crayfish exhibited markedly el evated tissue concentrations of selenium, zinc, and iron as well as impaired metabolic rates in areas below the discharge.

After loss of most macro

- invertebrates in 1977 downstream from the effluent discharge point, the community recovered by 1980, althou gh a shift in dominance to more tolerant species, lower total abundance, and a slight decline in diversity suggest continued sub

- lethal influence of the coal ash effluent. Variations of the severity of stress suggested by these changes was attributable to a series of generating station activities related to coal treatment, effluent discharge characteristics, and dredging of accumulated floc in the upstream drainage ditch. In 1977, when the downstream monitoring point reached a maximum conductivity, the bio ta were the most impacted in comparison to an upstream

portion of the impoundment returns water to the plant for reuse and/or treatment and disposal per the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit. Solids recovered from the PAP are recycled for ben eficial use or disposed of in the active dry ash landfill on Site. The SAP contains fly ash, bottom ash, economizer ash and other products that are transported in the discharge water from the PAP. Since 2004, precipitation that collects in the SAP infiltra tes into the ground or evaporates. Prior to 2004, the PP received water and unsettled solids from the SAP. Any remaining solids were allowed to settle and water was discharged from the PP into a drainage ditch via a spillway. Water travelled through the di tch and was eventually discharged off

- Site under WPDES Permit Number WI0002780. The PP contains fly ash, bottom ash, and economizer ash and other products that were transported in the water from the SAP. Similar to the SAP, since 2004, precipitation that c ollects in the PP infiltrates into the ground or evaporates. For a location map and an aerial photo of the Plant’s disposal units, see GZA (ibid) Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
811 The plant has a non

- major National Pollutant Discharge Elimin ation System (NPDES) permit No. WI0002780, and is also regulated under a state WPDES permit.
812 Magnuson et al., (1980)

. 813 Webster et al., (1986)

. 814 The range of cadmium concentrations of 0.0024 to 0.0029 mg/L, exceeded USEPA’s recommended WQC of 0.002 mg/L for acute ex posure, and was around 10 times USEPA’s WQC of 0.00025 mg/L for chronic exposure. The concentrations may have also exceeded Wisconsin’s WQC for chronic exposure in surface waters of 0.00143 to 0.00382 mg/L, depending on hardness. The range of copper concen trations of 0.004 to 0.043 mg/L likely exceeded EPA’s WQC criterion of 0.013 mg/L for acute exposure and 0.009 mg/L for chronic exposure (based on 100 mg/L of hardness) and depending on hardness and pH, probably exceeded Wisconsin’s acute WQC of 0.00807 to 0.0298 mg/L and chronic WQC of 0.00187 to 0.00572 mg/L, which apply to all surface waters.
815 Lemly (2010) estimated the monetized value of the damage at $240,000.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

197 reference site, and when process changes reduced the conductivity of the effluent in 1980, the biota downstream had returned (though modified in relative abundance) to pre

- discharge levels. The effluen t response threshold (1,000 μmhos conductivity) accurately predicted the recovery of ash pond drain

macro

- invertebrates when effluent concentrations fell below the threshold.



### Evaluation Against Proven Damage Criteria 816



### Resolution: No regulatory actions reported in response to the 1970s violations. The results of the ecological studies le d to modification of methods for treating coal to i ncrease the efficiency of the electrostatic precipitators and reduce the harmful effects of the impoundments’ effluents. Subsequent changes to the power plant operations have led to significant restoration of the receiving stream aquatic environment. This included modifications to the Power Plant’s operations to reduce flocculants in the impoundments and conductivity in ash pond discharges, elimination of wet sluicing of fly ash in favor of dry fly ash management, and re

- use of water to the point that there has not been a wastewater discharge from the ash ponds since 2004. 817

A 1984 study revealed that polluted groundwater containing elevated concentrations of boron, sodium, and sulfate was moving off

- site and into wetlands adjacent to the Wisconsin River. The elevated sodium was attributed to trona (Na 2 CO 3 ), used to condition fly ash to enhance sulfate removal from flue gas. A 2004 report showed that arsenic, selenium, lead, and manganese were leac hing at concentrations toxic to aquatic life. Although the ash ponds are now closed, they are unlined and continue to leach contaminants into groundwater. The affected wetlands have been identified as a key natural resource feature of lower Rocky Run Creek and the Wisconsin River.

In February 2003, WP&L’s Columbia Energy Center received a Notice of Violation from the Wisconsin DNR for exceeding limits in its Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit, which requires the Plant to sample its ash pond discharge and sanitary wastewater plant discharge for various parameters, including acute and chronic toxicity. The WPDES permit issued in 1998 required the 

### Criteria Evaluation Criterion 1: 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  None

Criterion 2: Where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  Several studies undertaken in the late 1970s and mid 1980s determined that effluent discharge from the CCR impoundments had an impact on downstream habitats and caused considerable damage to populations of macro

- invertebrates. Criterion 3: Where there ha s been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  None

816 ICF (2010a).
817 Alliant Energy Corporate Services’, Inc. comment to the October 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0290.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

198 Plant to identify what was causing the toxicity in its discharge through an evaluatio n and to develop a reduction plan. The evaluation was performed and the Plant developed a reduction plan that identified carbon dioxide injection as the treatment to reduce the aluminum concentrations. The Wisconsin DNR did not approve this method of treat ment and directed the Plant to revise the reduction plan, at which time WP&L’s Columbia began evaluating a number of treatment alternatives and undertaking a physical evaluation. In November 2003, WP&L submitted a progress report to the Wisconsin DNR for t he ash pond toxicity discharges along with plans for the sanitary wastewater treatment plant. In December 2003, a construction permit for the sanitary wastewater treatment plant was submitted to the Wisconsin DNR with an anticipated construction start date in spring 2004. 818 According to GZA (ibid), the wastewater plant has been in operation since 2004.



### ICF (2010a) Rationale: Proven Damage. <Scientific studies indicated documented ecological damage in the form of population damage downstream from the CCR effluent discharge.>



### Postscript: USWAG 819 notes that t he USEPA classified this site as “Indeterminate” in EPA (2007) due to insufficient information; however, upon reassessment of the existing evidence as presented in the cited studies, the nexus between th e ecological damage and CCR management at the Columbia Energy Center Power Plant clearly qualifies the Columbia Energy Center impoundments as an ecological damage case.



### References EIP (2010a): In Harm’s Way: Lack o f Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans a nd Their Environment, Thirty

- N ine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Case 38. The Environmental Integrity Project, EarthJustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/08_26_10.php

ICF (2010a): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix C, Cas e 38. ICF, 10/2010.

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, WPL

– Columbia Energy Center

. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://iasp ub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000420385

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

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 06 40, December 15, 2010 . A ccessed Online July 2012. http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/03/Lemly

- 2010

- Environmental

- Damage

- from

C CW.pdf

Magnuson (1980): Magnuson, J. J., Forbes, A. M., Harrell, D. M. and Schwarzmeier, J. D. 1980. Responses of Stream Invertebrates to an Ash Pit Effluent, Wisconsin Power Plant Impact Study. EPA

600/ 3

- 80

- 081, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, C incinnati, OH . A ccessed Online July 2012. http://books.google.com/boo ks?id=UdG2efq19PcC&ots=r04mkckWNh&dq=Responses%20of%20Strea m%20Invertebrates%20to%20an%20Ashpit%20Effluent%2C%20Wisconsin%20Power%20Plant%20Im pact%20Study.&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false

818 EDGAROnline (2004)

. 819 Comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211

.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

199 Webster et al (1986): Webster, K.E., Anne M. Forbes, and John J. Magnuson. 1986. An Evaluation of Environmental Stress Imposed by a Coal Ash Effluent. EPA/600/S3

- 85/045. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN . A ccessed Online July 2012. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000TMJ7.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=19 81%20Thru%201985&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc= &TocEntry=&QField=pubnumber%5E%22600S385045%22&QFieldYear=&Q FieldMonth=&QFieldDa y=&UseQField=pubnumber&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFIL ES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C81THRU85%5CTXT%5C00000010%5C2000TMJ7.txt&User=ANONY MOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C

- &MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality =r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display =p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page ’

EDGAROnline (2004): Interstate Power & Light co 10

- K SEC Filing, filed on 3/11/2004 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://sec.edgar

- online.com/interstate

- power

-- light

- co/10

- k

- annual

- report/2004/03/11/Section4.aspx

GZA GeoEnvironmental (2011); Final Report Round 7 Dam Assessment

- Wisconsin Power & Light Columbia Generating Station Primary Ash, Secondary Ash, Polishing & Landfill Stormwater Ponds, Pardeeville, Wisconsin, GZA Geoenvironmental Inc., June 2, 2011. Accessed Online January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/alliant

- columbia

- final.pdf

WI DNR (2013): Solid Waste Landfills Licensed in Wisconsin, Licensed for Year 2014 (Oct. 1, 2013

- Sept. 30, 2014), State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Accessed Online February 2014. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/waste/documents/facl ists/wislic_swlandfills_bycnty_withwaste.pdf



### PR38. WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill, WE Energies, Waukesha, Waukesha County, Wisconsin
Type: Sand and Gravel Pit. 

### Brief Description/Impact: The unlined, 820 approximately 30

- acre ash landfill is located in a former gravel quarry 821 that received an estimated 500,000 cubic yards of fly ash and bottom ash from the Valley Power Plant between 1969 and 1978. 822 The soil underlying the site comprises a variety of

uncon solidated glacial deposits from 90

- 150 feet in thickness, including highly permeable sand and gravel units inter

- layered with a silty

- clay unit. The lower sand and gravel unit is in direct contact with the weathered bedrock north of the site. The underlyin g bedrock is a Silurian

- age Niagara Dolomite, which serves as the primary aquifer for the City of Waukesha. 823 The site area lies in a regional groundwater recharge area. Downward gradients from the glacial aquifer to the dolomite occur at nearly

820 EPRI (2010).
821 The landfill is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 164 and State Highway 59 in the Town of Waukesha. According to EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416 (Table 2), License #0918.
822 The Class F ash deposited in this landfill has pozzo lanic properties but was not self

- cementitious. The Valley Power Plant was constructed along the Menomonee River in Milwaukee in 1968 as a combined, 280 MW power

steam facility. In August 2012, WE announced plans to convert the Plant’s fuel source from coa l to natural gas. On March 17, 2014, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) issued a Certificate of Authority approving the project (WE Energies, 2014).
823 Zillmer and Fauble (2004). For Waukesha County groundwater susceptibility, depth to water table, bedrock type, depth to bedrock, and soil deposits maps, see USGS (2007).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

200 all nested well locations. A groundwater divide on the northwestern part of the site results in flow primarily to the north, west, and south to the dolomite. Horizontal flows in the dolomite aquifer are in the range of 35 to 60 feet/year to the west and north and les s than 25 feet/year to the south. 824

Waste thickness ranged from less than 10 feet to more than 40 feet. Approximately 7,500 cubic yards of ash was deposited below the water table in the pond on the northern portion of the site, 825 and 30,000 cubic yards

- in the southern portion of the site behind an earthen dike constructed on clay till. Groundwater monitoring between 1988 and 1998 found sulfate, boron, manganese, chloride, and iron above the State’s Enforcement Standards (ES) and arsenic above the State’s P reventive Action Level (PAL) in nearby private wells. 826

, 827 Other down

- gradient monitoring wells showed sulfate, boron, iron, and manganese in excess of the ES and selenium and chloride in excess of PALs. A recent WDNR data 828 on contamination in the most impa cted wells differ somewhat from the preceding.



### Resolution: Groundwater monitoring around the landfill was initiated 1970s. WEPCO initiated a hydrological investigation in 1988, which included the installation of 13 additional monitoring wells and piezometers and the sampling of four private water supply wells adjacent to the site. State agency staff considered this site one of the most seriously affected coal ash sites in the State. 829 The State required a continuation of monitoring at this closed fa cility in 1982 and an investigation into ground water contamination in 1994, neither under a Consent Order. 830 Between 1995 and 1998, WEPCO submitted a series of reports assessing the degree and extent of the contamination from the landfill, including an

824 According to the Supplemental ECA (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0093, Attachment A

- 1).
825 According to the Supplemental ECA (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0093, Attachment A

- 1), there were about 30 feet (44,000 cubic yards) of unsaturated ash overlying the saturated ash.
826 According to the Supplemental ECA, a groundwater plume characterized by high co ncentrations of sulfate (1,000 mg/L) and boron (40 mg/L) emanates from the saturated ash area on the northern end of the site. The plume migrates to the west downward in the glacial aquifer and enters the dolomite aquifer about 350 feet west of the
saturat ed ash area. Once in the dolomite, the plume spreads laterally to the south, north, and west. The extent of the plume is greater in the dolomite than in the glacial aquifer. Elevated concentrations of boron and sulfate in dolomite wells were found approxim ately 1,100 feet north and 1,100 feet west of the ash fill. Notably, in the three nested wells shown in Figure 3

- 6 that are screened both in the glacial and dolomite aquifer, sulfate concentrations are higher in the dolomite aquifer than in the glacial aqu ifer. A total of 12 private water supply wells around the site (nine completed in dolomite) were found to have at least slightly elevated boron concentrations. Groundwater modeling indicated that the boron plume would continue to spread in the dolomite aqu ifer under current conditions.
827 Wisconsin Enforceable Standards are enforceable benchmarks to identify potential risk concerns; Preventative Action Limits are approximately 10% of MCLs and not comparable risk

- based standards. In their comment to the Augus t 2013 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0093, Citizens Coal Council and Labadie Environmental Organization cite WDNR files to indicate that five offsite residential wells and one business well had been impacted.
828 According to the WDNR comment to the doc ket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6416 (Table 2), arsenic concentrations ranged between: 2

- 5μg/L, boron: 15

- 50ppm; sulfate: 836

- 11,70ppm; and manganese: 490

- 670μg/L. Cherry et al. (2000) cite also an exceedance of TDS (1720 mg/L). In addition, according to the ab ove cited comment to the August 2013 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0093, levels of molybdenum were recorded in the impacted wells as high as 7 mg/L, 35 times higher than EPA’s Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) and 175 times higher than EPA’s Life

- time Health Advisory for consumption of molybdenum in drinking water.
829 Regardless of the presence of a closed, originally unregulated municipal landfill and a closed foundry waste landfill adjacent to the coal ash landfill. According to Zillmer and Faubl e (ibid), the migration of CC R contaminates into the deep aquifer may have been hastened by a private water supply well (WJAC) near the western edge of the ash fill. The business operating the well may have been pumping it on a regular basis to wash the nu merous cars on their sales lot. This well was the first impacted private well near the landfill. The concentration of sulfates made the water undrinkable and bottled water was supplied up until the time the well was abandoned and the facility placed on cit y water.
830 An investigation performed by WE in 1988 found elevated levels of sulfate and boron in groundwater immediately west of the site. This was confirmed by an ECA (1994/95).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

201 env ironmental contamination assessment (ECA) report in 1995 and a Supplemental ECA in 1998. 831 On May 5, 1999, WEPCO submitted a remediation plan that included removal of the saturated ash from the northern portion of the site and replacement of ash above the s easonal high groundwater elevation.

The coal ash landfill underwent closure including excavation and removal of approximately 7,500 cubic yards ash in direct contact with groundwater and placement of an engineered cap (a synthetic geomembrane) over 19 acr es of the site’s 26 acres of ash filled area due to presence of buildings and other structures; some of the remaining ash landfill was covered by asphalt and is being used for parking

. 832 WE Energies paid for the abandonment of contaminated private water su pply wells and the connection to municipal water from the City of Waukesha. Remediation has been performed. 833 The facility is inactive and maintained as green space.

Recent test results suggest that contamination at some active private wells near the landf ill is still continuing, fifteen years after the cleanup was completed. Four private drinking wells show molybdenum levels recently above Wisconsin’s health standards. In those wells, the test results show that since 2002, molybdenum (up to 62 ppb), boron, and sulfate levels are fluctuating up and down more or less in tandem with each other. This suggests that the elements are all coming from the same source

– CCR. These pollutants have exceeded health levels at times, and for some wells the levels appear t o be increasing.



### Previous Basis for Consideration: 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 Enforceable Standards for boron; and contamination from the faci lity appears to have migrated to off

- site private wells. And Administrative: As a result of the various Preventative Action Limit and Enforceable Standard exceedances, the State required a ground water investigation.



### ICF (2010) Rationale: Proven Damage , < Groundwater exceeded state enforceable standards (boron) but not MCLs. Elevated offsite contaminants (boron and sulfate) appear CCR related despite adjacent landfills. Administrative action requiring assessment has no explicit finding of specific damage.>


### References EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #14, docket ID EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #14. ICF, 10/2010.

831 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0093, Attachments A

- 1 and A

- 2.
832 The cover design consists of 3

- inches of existing cover fill, a 4

- inch sand bedding layer, a 30

- mil PVC geomembrane, a geocomposite drainage layer (consisting of geotextile and geonet), 2

- feet of general fill, and 6

- inches of topsoil.
833 In its comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0432, Appendix C, USWAG requested that EPA identify the Highway 59 Site in the docket as a site where the previously identified “proven damage” has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Stat e through implementation of corrective measures. However, according to Zillmer and Fauble (ibid), WE Energies made a case for not excavating the 30,000 cubic yards of saturated ash along the southern portion of this landfill. WDNR recommended the removal o f these materials since they seemed to represent an additional source of leachate generation. The WDNR included additional environmental sampling of private water supply wells as a condition of approving the remedial action plan. The monitoring frequency f or down

gradient water wells was being increased in response to plume movement.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

202 EPRI (2010): Damage Case Report, V. 2: Case Summaries, EPRI, September 2010. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation %20of%20Coal%20Combustion%2 0Product%20Damage%20Cases

Zillmer and Fauble (2004): Groundwater Impacts from Coal Combustion Ash Disposal Sites in Wisconsin, Pub

- Wa 1174, 2004, Michael Zillmer and Philip Fauble, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Waste & Mat erials Management Division. Accessed Online July 2012. http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/wa/WA1174.pdf

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

- content/uploads/2012/07/A

- REVIEW

- OF

- THE

- ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL

- IMPACTS

- OF

- COAL

- COMBUS.htm

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Waukesha County/Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehens ive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater contamination susceptibility map and evaluation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 pages. Accessed Online September 2012

. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/buffalo/susceptibility.html

We Energies (2014): Valley Power Plant Conversion. Accessed Online August 2014. https://www.we

- energies.com/home/projects/vapp.htm



### PR39. Oak Creek Power Plant, Wisconsin Energy (WE)

– Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Oak Creek, Racine County, Wisconsin 834



### Type: Collapse of an O ld Structural Fill

. 

### Background and Description : The Oak Creek Power plant has been in operation since the 1950s. Around 1953, p rior to the operation of the Plant’s two old landfills (between the mid

- 1960s to the early 1990s) and the current, active Caledonia Landfill, WE began disposing of ash as fill on what is referred to today as Early Ash Disposal Areas (EADAs). One of the EADAs filled in that pre

- regulation era was a ravine near the Milwaukee/Racine County line. Unlicensed ash disposal continued at the site throug h the 1960s, until ash became regulated as solid waste. 835

834 This module focuses on Oak Creek’s proven damage case that is associated with the collapse of CCR structural fill on October 31, 2011 and its aftermath. There is a separate write up on Oak Creek’s potential damage case that is associated with molybdenum exceedances in off

- site drinking water wells (Module PTb55).
835 According to USW A G’s comment to the August 2011 NODA docket ( EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211, page 43, footnote 32 ), < In that (October 31, 2011) incident, a bluff on the facility property collapsed in what has been called a “freak accident” and some of the debris was carried into Lake Michigan. It appears that the debris may have included fly ash that was used to fill a ravine at the site in the 1950’s. It must be stated, however, that this historicalI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

203 In January 2008, WE requested an exemption to use the EADA on the bluff overlooking the south portion of their Oak Creek Power Plant as a staging and material storage area during construction of a new air pollution control system. 836 WDNR granted a conditional exemption for the use of this area in June 2008. The exemption conditions did not allow for the construction of permanent buildings or equipment on the EADA; required installation of liners to m inimize infiltration of water into the ash from retention basins and open drainage channels constructed over ash; prohibited placement of ash where ponding, dewatering, and flooding might occur, and required removal of any saturated ash encountered during construction.



### Impact and Damage Claims : On October 31, 2011, a lakefront bluff along Lake Michigan, near the construction site for a new air scrubber facility, at the eastern edge of the EADA and slightly downhill from an unlined, storm

- water retention po nd gave way, generating a mudflow and releasing a variety of construction materials (sea/land containers, road

- and construction vehicles, and fuel containers), soil, and fly

- and bottom ash into Lake Michigan. 837 The collapsed area resulted in a debris fie ld stretching 120 x 50 to 80 yard. About 25,000 cubic yards of historic coal ash mixed with soil have been mobilized, 725 cubic yards of which ended in the Lake. Initial estimates of potential petroleum product discharge were reduced from 1,000 gallons to 150 gallons. 838 For a documented coverage of the October 31, 2011 incident and a January 9, 2012 reassessment, see references. 839

In a sample of EPA

- collected and analyzed soil/fly ash material from the base of the landslide, elevated levels of ar s enic

, ch r omium , and TCE were detected

. 840



### Resolution: 841 WDNR, USEPA, US Coast Guard, and WE formed a Unified Incident Command team. The Command team issued daily reports on the progress of clean

- up activities. Samples of the historic coal ash and soil mixture and of lake water were collected, particularly at the intakes to water treatment plants along the lake (Cit ies of Oak Creek and Racine). Imp acts to the lake water appear to be limited to the immediate vicinity of the spill site, and impacts to drinking water supplies have not been detected.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation Criterion 1: documented exceedances of primary MCLs or other health

- based standards measured in groundwater at sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous  None.

use of fill is not indicative of current structural fill practices. In fact, the ravine filling activity at the Oak Creek facility was discontinued decades ago and would not be permissible today under Wisconsin’s CCR structural fill requirements.>
836 Summary of Bluff Failure We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant , WI Natural Resources Board Meeting, Waste and Materials Management program, December 12, 2011.
837 According to NOAA (Undated), t his coal ash reportedly consisted of ~80 percent fly ash and ~20 percent bottom ash. The particle size was reportedly about10 μm.

838 The Seattle Times (2011); the original figure of 250,000 cubic yard was modified to 25,000 cubic yard in the No vember 13

- 14, 2011 update of the Incident Status Summary reports from Unified Command (ICS

- 209). See also POLREP #3 ( 2011)

. The amount of collapsed material was revised again

- to 22,720 cubic yards: Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (2013).
839 Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (JSOnline, 2012).
840 December 2011. See also WDNR Waste and Materials Management (2011).
841 Coakley (2011).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

204 After the stability of other portions of t he bluff was assessed and site safety was ascertained, cleanup activities were started near the Lake Michigan shore. WE also began to clear the historic ash and soil mixture from the wastewater polishing ponds (sited so as to protect the water quality of L ake Michigan.) The majority of the ash/soil mix involved in the slide has been collected and disposed in the lined, engineered WE Caledonia Landfill. Equipment was located and removed from the lake

. 842

USCG asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to prepare an emergency response recommendation. 843 It was decided that once coal ash enters the water, there are no effective containment strategies beyond preventing additional ash from entering the water. The containment efforts incl uded 1,500 feet of linear boom on the Lake to contain the debris and fuel.

Analysis of water samples in the immediate vicinity of the release to the water contains substances consistent with fly ash, but analysis shows substance levels in the water column dropped off rapidly. An early January 2012, joint NOAA/Coast Guard report established that the ash that ended in the Lake would be so dispersed that it would not have any significant environmental impact, 844 and that no recoverable quantities of coal ash wo uld be found on the lakebed. Based on these findings as well as the preliminary chemical analysis, WDNR concluded there is no public health risk from the collapse and the coal ash does not appear to pose a significant risk to the environment. 845 However, some long term, sub

lethal impacts on local fish and raptor populations cannot be totally ruled out. 846

On March 2, 2012, upon conclusion of its investigation to determine the cause of the bluff failure

, WDNR issued a notice of violation (NOV) o f state solid waste regulations against WE, following the constituents have migrated to the extent that they could cause huma n health concerns Criterion 2: where a scientific study provides documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage)  None

Criterion 3: where there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment  WDNR issued a Notice of Violation in early March, 2012, alleging WE failed to comply with construction permit requirements for lining a storm water pond. This resulted in the collapse of some 25,000 cubic yards of coal ash mixed with soil and mechanical equipment unto the shore and water of Lake Michigan, causing local contamination by diesel fuel, TCE, arsenic, and chromium.

842 According to Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (2013), the cleanup and site remediation cost amounted to $12.1 million. The remediation work was completed in about a month’s time, and the ravine was regarded in the spring of 2012.
843 NOAA (Undated)

. 844 Ibid

. 845 See supporting data at WDNR Waste and Materials Management (2011).
846 The NOAA report states that long

- term, sub

- lethal effects of heavy metals in local fish such as Lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush), spawning at this time of year, chinook, coho, and rainbow trout, are a possibility, making them unsafe for human consumption . In addition, several species of raptors

, including bald eagles (state special concern), osprey (state special concern), peregrine falcon (state endangered), red

- shouldered hawk (state threatened), pigeon hawk

, and northern goshawk (state special concern) that feed on fish may become contaminated.I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

205 late 2011 collapse of a bluff into the shores and water of Lake Michigan. 847 DNR faulted WE for developing a stormwater pond on a coal ash site adjacent to the utility's Oak Creek Power Plant, claimin g that WE’s failure to install and maintain a proper liner contributed to the environmental mishap. WE is subject to fines of up to $5,000 per day during the period of violation. The NOV said that under the conditional exemption for building a waste site i ssued by DNR, the company was required to install a liner where ponds or open channels are constructed over the waste site. DNR's report on the mishap noted that several sources of water played roles in the bluff collapse, but the lack of a liner was a sig nificant factor. 848

Early in July 2013, WE settled with WDNR 849 to pay $100,000 for three violations of state environmental regulations in connection with the October 2011 bluff collapse into Lake Michigan. The complaint alleged that WE had excavated waste ma terials and constructed a new retention pond in areas other than those approved by the DNR, failed to notify the DNR when grading of the project reached 50 percent completion, and failed to revise its erosion control plans when the retention pond was moved

.
On November 8, 2011, The Sierra Club filed a notice of intent to sue WE, 850

, 851 alleging violations of federal environmental statutes resulting from the collapse of a bluff contai ning coal ash into Lake Michigan. The Sierra Club alleged violations under the CWA and RCRA based on the company's improper management of a coal ash impoundment facility at the Oak Creek Power Plant.



### References : The Seattle Times (2011): Officials study effects of Lake Michigan collapse damage, November 2, 2011

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/201667329 3_apuspowerplantbluffcollapse.html

POLREP #3 (2011): Oak Creek Bluff, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, US Environmental Protection Agency Pollution/Situation Report, November 21, 2011

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.epaosc.org/site/sitrep_profile.aspx?site_id=7404

Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (JSOnline

, 2012): Report downgrading Oak Creek bluff collapse damage, January 9, 2012 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/authorities

- investigate

- bluff

- collapse

- at

- we

- energies

- plant

132929538.html ; http://www.jsonline.com/business/report

- downgrades

- bluff

- collapse

- damage

- 873o47t

136992038.html

Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (JSOnline

, 2012a): DNR proposes violation against WE Energies in coal ash bluff collapse, March 1, 2012 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/141110853.html#comments

847 DNR Proposes Violations against We Energies in Coal Ash Bluff Collapse , Milwaukee Journal Business Sentinel, March 1, 2011: http://www.jsonl ine.com/blogs/business/141110853.html ; and Wisconsin Energy Corp. Accused of Violating Waste Rules Following Lake Contamination, BNA Snapshot, March 6, 2011.
848 In the violation notice, the WDNR notes that a detention pond (built in 2009) for the flue gas desulfurization process “appears to have the greatest potential to impact groundwater recharge and flow to the bluff collapse area. Even at low seepage rates, a significant volume of water would have discharged through the basin bottom over the three

- year period since the basin was constructed.”

849 The settlement was filed in Racine County Circuit Court: Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (2013).
850 BNA Snapshot (2011).
851 Notice of Intent to Sue (2011).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

206 AGU Blogosphere (2 011): Intriguing Landslide of the Week

– catastrophic bluff collapse at WE Energies plant at Oak Creek in Wisconsin, November 1, 2011

. A ccessed Online June 2012. http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2011/11/01/intriguing

- landslide

- of

- the

- week

- catastrophic

- bluff

collapse

- at

- oak

- creek

- in

- wisconsin/

Coakley (2011): Summary of Bluff Failure We Energies Oak Creek Po wer Plant Natural Resources Board Meeting, Ann Coakley, Director, Waste and Materials Management Program, December 14, 2011 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/oakcreek/nrbpresentation.pdf

WDNR Waste and Materials Management (2011): Oak Creek Bluff Collapse Cleanup, December 15, 2011. Accessed Online June 2012. http://dnr.wi.go v/org/aw/wm/oakcreek.html

NOAA (Undated): Oak Creek Power Plant Coal Ash Release, LCDR John (Jay) Lomnicky. NOAA’s Emergency Response Recommendation, Prepared for US Coast Guard, Sector Lake Michigan, NOAA / National Ocean Service / Office of Response & R estoration / Emergency Response Division . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/oakcreek/noaa

- finalreport.pdf

BNA Snapshot (2011): Lawsuit against Utility over Coal Ash Incident near Milwaukee: Notice of Intent to Sue over Collapse of Bluff Containing Coal Ash

, BNA Snapshot, November 14, 2011 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=23428611&vname=dennotallissues&fn=2 3428611&jd=a0c9r2c0t4&split=0

Notice of Intent to Sue (2011): Notice of Intent to Sue under the Federal Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; McGillivray, Westerberg, & Bender LLC, Attorneys. November 8, 2011 . A ccessed Online June 2012. http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/id/jsml

- 8ngunk/$File/OakCreek.pdf

Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (2013): We Energies pays $100,000 to settle state lawsuit over bluff collapse, Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, July 9, 2013. Accessed Online May 2014. http://www.jsonline.com/business/we

- energies

- pays

- 100000

- to

- settle

- state

- lawsuit

- over

- bluff

- collapse

b9951038z1

- 214787161.html

USWAG (2011): Comment submitted by Jim R. Roewer, Executive Director, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. to the August 2011 NODA. Accessed Online September 2014

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

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0211I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

207 

### PR40. E.J. Stoneman Generating Station Ash Disposal Pond, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Cassville Ash Disposal Site, 852 

### Grant County, Wisconsin

Type: Surface Impoundment

. 

### Brief Description : This unlined, 21.8

- acre surface impoundment was located just southeast of the town of Cassville, 853 on the floodplain between a line of bluffs and the left bank of the Mississippi River, on permeable sand and gravel (permeability of about10

- 2 cm/sec). 854 It managed fly ash and subordinate bottom ash from the combustion of southern Illinois coal, demineralizer regenerate, and sand filter backwash between the 1950s and 1987. 855

Whereas the long

- term groundwater gradient is southerly, from the bluffs to the River, in detail, the disposal area shows radial flow with an alte rnating centrifugal and centripetal groundwater flow regime. 856 The permeable deposits below the site serve as an aquifer for the Village of Cassville Municipal Water Supply upgradient of the site and for residences and businesses outside of the Village limi ts. Fifteen of these wells are within 1200 feet of the site; at least three of those are shallow, small diameter wells screened from 36

- 40 feet below the surface.



### Impact: Monitoring data includes 27 groundwater locations that were monitored between Decemb er 1976 and December 1998. Thirteen potable wells sampled, located up to 550 feet away from the site, recorded on site groundwater MCL exceedances for cadmium and chromium, and SMCL exceedances for sulfate, manganese, iron, and zinc. Offsite wells had cadm ium, boron and sulfate elevated over background. The following maximum values were recorded: cadmium: 1226 μg/L; chromium: 1,360 μg/L; sulfate: 1,470 mg/L; TDS: 2,124 mg/L; boron: 57 mg/L; manganese: 9.9 m g/L; iron: 30 mg/L; and zinc: 52 mg/L.



### Resolution : Due to groundwater contamination and violation of State location standards (the impoundment was located close to the Mississippi River, in violation of the State’s requirement for 300 feet of separation from navigable rivers, and closer to 15 water supply wells than allowed by State standards), the State issued an administrative order for a groundwater study in 1976, and required (January 1982) the operator to close the facility and provide alternative drinking water to the affected residences. The utility installed cover in 1989, and consolidated the ash to 10

- acre area away from residences. Since 1989, coal ash has been managed in a double

- lined landfill, with leachate collection. The site is now under long

- term care requirements and continued groundwater monitoring. According to the utility, 857 there are no longer off

- site impacts.



### Previous Basis for Consideration : Scientific : Cadmium and chromium exceeded (health

- based) primary MCLs, and contamination [boron and sulfate] migrated to nearby, pr ivate drinking water wells; and Administrative: The State required closure of the facility.



### ICF (2010) Rationale : Potential Damage. <On site groundwater exceeded MCLs for cadmium and chromium and SMCLs for iron, manganese, sulfate, and zinc. Boron and sulfate contamination have migrated to nearby private drinking water wells; however, there is no indication that these concentrations exceed health

- based standards.>



### Postscript: ICF failed to note that “More recent monitoring data confirm ... cadmium exceed ing the primary MCL.... in the (offsite) drinking water wells.” 858



### ReferencesI. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

208 EPA (2007): Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, Case #13, docket ID EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

ICF (2010): Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, Appendix A, Case #13. ICF, 10/2010.

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

. A ccessed Online July 2012. http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=Evaluation%20of%20Coal%20Combus tion%2 0Product%20Damage%20Cases

EPA (1999): Technical Background Document for The Report to Congress On Remaining Wastes From Fossil Fuel Combustion: Potential Damage Cases, March 15, 1999. Accessed Online July 2012. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/regs.htm

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

- Sept. 30, 2012 ). June 29, 2012. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

. A ccessed Online September 2012. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Waste/documents/faclists/WisLic_SW Landfills_byCnty_withWaste.pdf

USGS (2007): Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map, Grant County/Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. Based on: Schmidt, R.R., 1987, Groundwater contamination susceptibility map and eval uation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s Groundwater Management Plan Report 5, PUBL

- WR

- 177

- 87, 27 pages. Accessed Online September 2012. http://wi.water.us gs.gov/gwcomp/find/grant/susceptibility.html

852 According to WDNR (2012), the current landfills License Number is 3122 (for a landfill with a capacity of 50,000 to 500,000 cubic yards).
853 On the opposite side of town is the Nelson Dewey Ash landfill ( 2007 CCW Damage Case Assessments, Case #15)

. 854 For Grant County groundwater susceptibility, depth to water table, bedrock type, depth to bedrock, and soil deposits maps, see USGS (2007).
855 EPA (1999). The Stoneman Station was brought into service and owned by Dairyland in 1951. The Plant comprises two generation units, with nameplate capacity of 18 MW and 35 MW. It was sold to DTE Energy Co., a Detroit, Michigan

- based utility, in the 1990s, and recently converted into a biomass

- fueled facility.
856 Mound or d epression depending on the river level (”it appears that because of its lower permeability

– 10

- 5 cm/sec

- water levels in the ash fall more slowly during periods of falling river levels, creating a mound. The reverse occurs during periods of rising river levels

. ”) Due to the varying groundwater flow directions, there are no
up

- gradient wells associated with the site.
857 EPRI (2010).
858 EPA (2007).I. C CR Proven Damage Case s December 201 4

209