Damage Cases: Docu mented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

0 Alexander Livnat , Ph.D.
12/1 8 /2014

Evidence o f fugitive dust impact throughout the life cycle management of coal combustion res idual s (CCR) has been available even prior to the publication of the proposed CCR rule in June 2010. Since the proposed rule was issued, a great deal of additional evidence has surfaced. This evidence , combined with the results of air quality risk screenin g conducted by EPA that demonstrated human health risk associated with CCR fugitive dust was instrumental in EPA’s decision to regulate air quality issues associated with CCR management. This technical support paper documents all CCR fugitive dust impact c ases known to EPA at the time the final CCR management rule was about to be sign ed

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

1 Vitale Fly Ash Pit, Beverly, Massachusetts

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

AES Coal Combustion Plant, Guayama, Salinas Area, Puerto Rico

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

BBSS S&G Quarries, Constellation Energy, Gambrills, Anne Arundel County, Maryland

................................ 5

Brandywine Coal Ash Landfill, Mirant MD Ash Management, LLC/Mirant Mid

- Atlantic, LLC,

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

Dominion Virginia Power’s Battlefield Golf Course, Chesapeake, Virginia

................................ .................... 7

Indian River Power Plant

– NRG Energy (Formerly: Delmarva Power), Burton Island, Millsboro, Delaware

.. 8

First Energy’s Bruce Mansfield P ower Plant, Little Blue Run Impoundment, Shippingport, Greene Township,
Pennsylvania

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11

Mitchell Power Station, Allegheny Energy, Courtney, Pennsylvania

................................ ........................... 14

La Belle, Luzerne Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania

................................ ................................ ........ 14

Rostosky Ridge Road C ollapse of CCR Pile , Forward Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

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

East End Landfill (aka East End Resource Recovery), 1820 Darbytown Road, Henrico County, Virginia

....... 21

Fort Martin Power Plant, Fort Martin, West Virginia

................................ ................................ ................. 23

Arrowhead Landfill, Uniontown, Perry County, Alabama

................................ ................................ ........... 24

Duke Energy’s Riverbend Steam Plant, Mt. Holly, Meckle nburg CO., North Carolina

................................ .. 26

Progress Energy, Asheville (Arden), North Carolina

................................ ................................ ................... 27

Swift Creek Structural Fill Site, ReUse Techn ology, Inc./Full Circle Solutions, Inc., Rocky Mount, North

Carolina

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

Harlan County, Kentucky

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

Louisville Gas & Electric Can e Run Power Plant, 5252 Cane Run Rd., Louisville, Kentucky

.......................... 30

Duke Energy’s Gibson Generating Station, Somerville & Mount Carmel Area, Indiana

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

Hoosier Energy Merom Station, Merom, West Old 54, Sullivan County, Indiana

................................ ........ 37

Ameren Coffeen Power Station and US Minerals, Coffeen, Illinois

................................ ............................. 39

Rocky Acres Coal Combustion By

- Product Disposal Site

– Bunge Corp., Oakwood, Vermilion County, Illinois

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 40Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

2 Electric Energy, Inc., Met

- South Coal Combustion W aste Disposal Facility, Joppa, Illinois

.......................... 41

Arizona Public Service San Juan Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant, New Mexico

............... 45

Valmont Coal Plant, Boulder, Colorado

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 46

Nevada Energy, Reid Gardner Generating Station, Moapa, Nevada

................................ ........................... 47

College Peat and Landscaping and Alaska Industrial Support, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska

................................ . 51

Fugitive Dust Cases: Summary Table

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 54Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

3 

### EPA Region 2



# Vitale Fly Ash Pit, Beverly, Massachusetts

I mplicated Activity: Disposal, l andfill ( s and and g ravel p it)

.



### Description: An abandoned sand and gravel pit used as an unpermitted landfill between the
1950s and the mid

- 1970s. The Vitale Brothers, the site owners until 1980, ac cepted and disposed saltwater

- quenched fly ash from New England Power Company along with other

wastes.



### Status: The site submitted a site

- closure report February 1, 2007, and a preliminary screening of the site closure report was underway in July 2007, and is no longer active.



### Impact Summary: In addition to groundwater and surface water impacts, there were complaints of fugitive dust from the site from neighbors located 500 feet away.



### Study : Air sampling on one occasion in 1988 revealed arsenic concentra tions of 2 ppb.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: Unknown.



### References:

C oal C ombustion W

aste Damage Case Assessment s , July 2007, EPA ( Case #2 )

.



# AES C oal C ombustion P lant, Guayama, Salinas A rea, Puerto
Rico

Implicated Activity: Beneficial u se ( s tructur al f ill).



### Description: In the absence of CCR disposal facilities, AES sells all its CCR (300K ton/year) at $0.15/ton, with free customer delivery, once recipient commits to limit the type of testing he can perform. CCR (mixed fly

- and bottom ash, w ith add ed water, drying and cutting) are used as fill material in residential, commercial and road construction sites. The coal plant frequently stockpiles tens of thousands of tons of CCR in proximity to the Jobos Bay; particles of CCRs are mobilized by the Cari bbean breeze into the Ocean.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

4 

### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: Photographs of residential construction sites where CCRs were used in Salinas, PR, reflect virtual clouds of CCRs (particularly in the dry, December to May season) in spite of the fact that the Commonwealth government theoretically requires fugitive dust
controls at construction sites.



### Study : “A recent sample from the power plant indicates alpha particles of 9.9 pCi/g (nearly twice EPA’s ARARs), in addition to 5.7 pCi/g beta particles and high levels of Arsenic (23 mg/kg)
and other metals.” The recommendations of a March 2006 University of P uerto R ico study: Possible Applications for Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion By

- Products from the Guayama
AES Power Plant

– for a great number of detaile d CCR evaluations to better determine suitability of CCP for different applications have not been performed prior to its extensive use
as a fill material.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: Puerto Rico has weak regulatory system: When the Salinas Municipal la ndfill contaminated nearby wells, the government authorized relocation of the wells rather than requiring corrective action. New PR permitting regulations curtail public participation in siting processes and other activities requiring permits (Law 161, Dec ember 1, 2009). P uerto R ico ’s Environmental Quality Board ( Junta de Calidad Ambiental ) has no regulations in place regarding CCRs generation, disposal or secondary use. In 1996, the Board issued a resolution (Resolution 96

- 39

- 1; ratified by Resolution R

- 00

- 14

- 2, April 25, 2000) providing that EAS was not required to comply with the provisions applicable to installations that produce solid wastes. There are no permit or notification requirements for beneficial use projects, nor a requirement for independent characterization of CCR prior to its secondary use. The Guayama region, with one of the highest percentages of people of African descent in PR, including high poverty rates, unemployment and school dropout rates, qualifies as an environmental justice commu nity.

Public Justice announced on September 26

, 2012 an Intent to Sue AES due to its liberal use of CCR in construction projects that cause, among others, excessive fugitive dust. 1



### References:

Arlington, VA

, Public Hearing , August 30, 2010 : http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

1 http://publicjustice.net/sites/default/files/down loads/Final

- AES

- Notice

- Letter

- with

- Appendicies

- 26Sep2012.pdf

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

5 May 4, 2011 meeting between Ruth Santiago, a community activist , and EPA, Arlington,

Vir ginia.



### EPA Region 3



# BBSS S&G Quarries, Constellation Energy, Gambrills, Anne Arundel County, M aryland

Implicated Activity: Disposal, s tructural f ill ( s and and g ravel pit s )

.



### Description: Fugitive dust associated with reclamation work of two mini ng pits.



### Status: Inactive . Site ceased receiving CCR as a result of contamination by heavy metals of adjacent drinking water wells.



### Impact Summary: Complaints by neighboring residents.



### Study : In December, 2007, Environmental Maryland documented the im pacts of resuspended CCRs on a Maryland residential community adjacent to the Gambrills mine reclamation site in a study that showed that CCR fugitive dust ( f ly ash and/or coal ash ) , emanating from the disposal site, w ere present in all the samples collect ed throughout the community. Coal particulate represented between trace amounts (<1%) to 5% of the total particulate in these samples, with four of these samples containing more than trace amounts of post

- combustion coal particulate. Fly ash was present at 12 of the 12 sampled sites; coal ash was present at eight sites; oil soot was present at six sites; and wood char was present at six sites. The se grab

- sample s give an immediate picture of the particulate at that moment in time: depending on time, weather, and wind conditions, percentages could increase or decrease.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: None specific to fugitive dust.



### References:

Brad Heavner, Environment Maryland , comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 4041

.

Joshua Stewart, Airborne fl y ash concerns residents, Annapolis Capital, September 26, 2007. Reprinted in http://www.croftonfirst.org/docs/Airborne_fly_ash_concerns_residents.pdfDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

6 Coal Ash Found In Dust at Homes Near Gambrills Dump, news release, Environmental America, January 3, 2008 : http://www.environmentamerica .org/news

- releases/clean

- air/clean

- air2/coal

ash

- found

- in

- dust

- at

- homesnear

- gambrills

- dump (inaccessible, 3/16/2012)



# Brandywine Coal Ash Landfill, Mirant MD Ash Management, LLC/Mirant Mid

- Atlantic, LLC, Brandywine, Prince George’s County, M aryland

I mplicated Activity: Disposal (l andfill )

.



### Description: None available.



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: Windblown ash from the Brandywine coal ash landfill produces dense clouds of fugitive dust from large piles of uncovered ash. A children’s playground i s located 250 yards from the uncovered landfill , and there is a little league baseball field and kid’s soccer field within several hundred yards of the coal ash site. About a dozen homes lie within a half

- mile of
the landfill.



### Study : No air monitoring or soil/dust sampling has been completed as of May 2011.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: None specific to fugitive dust. In April 2010, MDE filed suit in federal court maintaining that the disposal site was leaching pollutants in violation of the
CWA and s tate law. A $1.9 million settlement was reached in January 2013

.



### References:

May 10, 2011 email

, with an attachment and photos

, from Lisa Evans, EarthJustice, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.

Prince George’s Cable TV News (CTV) documented the problem in a new s segment : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiT5aK0CV88

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

7 

# Dominion Virginia Power’s Battlefield Golf Co urse, Chesapeake, Virginia

Implicated Activity: Beneficial use ( structural fill ) . (Also, a potential damage case site on account of groundwater contamination.)



### Description: Between 2002 and 2007, Dominion Virginia Power built a 217

- acre, 18

- hole golf

cou rse with 1.5 million tons of coal ash. The coal ash was amended with 1.7 to 2.3 percent
cement kiln dust . During construction of the golf course, neighbors and workers reported clouds of black dust migrating from the construction site to the adjacent resid ential neighborhoods.



### Status: Inactive.



### Impact Summary: Homeowners abutting the golf course reported that their homes, yards, cars, picnic tables and play equipment were covered with ash. They were reassured by Dominion Virginia Power it was harmless.



### S tudy: None.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: In March 2009, a law suit was filed by 400 residents from neighborhoods surrounding Battlefield Golf Club against Dominion Virginia Power, Combustion Products Management, VFL Technology, Battlefield Golf Club at Ce nterville owners MJM Golf LLC, and several related companies. The plaintiffs asked more than $1 billion in damages. The attorneys dropped that lawsuit in 2011, after the court dismissed substantial portions of the
case. Whereas t he judge ruled that the res idents had not provided enough evidence that they had suffered damages from well water contamination, 2 one of the parts of the law suit allowed to move forward allege that airborne contaminants from the golf course pose a health risk

.

In August 2009, anothe r lawsuit was filed against Dominion Virginia Power against the same group of defendants. The suit maintain ed that the material has begun to leach into the groundwater feeding two neighborhoods in Chesapeake's Fentress section. It sought $1.25
billion to remove the fly ash, clean and restore the site, and bring public water and sewer to the neighborhoods. It also s ought millions more to pay for homes, properties, medical bills and the nuisance created by the development. 3

2 Dominion Virginia Power funded an alternative, piped water supply system to the affected neighborhood

. 3 According to a former construction manager of the golf course, Dominion Virginia Powe r directed the building of the course with fly ash to disguise the project’s true purpose

— a coal ash dump. In a sworn statement, DerrickDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

8 In February 2012, a contractor wh o helped build the course filed a $10 million lawsuit in Chesapeake Circuit Court against Dominion and the company that transported the fly ash, alleging that the material used in shaping the course caused his kidney cancer. According to that suit, the pla intiff, Neil Wallace, inhaled fly ash particles while working at the site regularly
over a five

- year period and developed a cancerous kidney that was removed in 2010. 4

In February 2012, lawyers representing nearly 400 people living near the Battlefield Gol f Club at Centerville refiled a lawsuit, asking for damages related to toxic fly ash on which the course was
built. 5 The lawsuit asks for $2 billion in damages. As of May 2013, a half

- dozen lawsuits were still pending in Circuit Court. 6



### References:

Hazar dous and Solid Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities. EPA Proposed rule, June 21, 2010. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 0352

The Virginian Pilot (2013): Chesapeake fly ash fight yields little resolution , The Virginian Pilot, May 5, 2013. Accessed Online January 2013. http://hamptonroads.com/2013/05/chesapeake

- fly

- ash

- fight

- yields

- little

- resolution

Ash in Lungs: How Breathing Coal Ash is Hazardous to Your Health . Alan H. Lockwood and Lisa

E vans, Physicians for Social Responsibility and EarthJustice. August 1, 2014: http://www.psr.org/news

- events/homepage

- story

- archive.html?page=2



# Indian River Power Plant

– NR G Energy (Formerly: Delmarva Power), Burton Island, Millsboro, D elaware

Howell, a former employee of the builder of the golf course, said, “It was clear that a golf course wasn’t being built, ” stated Howell. “It was a coal ash dump. All Dominion ever cared about was tonnage and how much more they could dump.” Louis Hansen, The Virginian

- Pilot, Lawsuit claims Dominion saw golf course as ‘coal ash dump , August 27, 2009: http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/lawsuit

- claims

- dominion

- saw

- golf

- coursecoal

- ash

- dump

4 Chesapeake fly ash suit against Dominion refiled . PilotOnline, February 22, 2012: http://hamptonroads.com/2012/02/chesapeake

- fly

- ash

- suit

- against

- dominion

- refiled (Originally: Marjon Rostami, TheVirginian

- Pilot, Chesapeake fly ash suit against Dominion refilled , February 22,

2012: http://hamptonroads.com/2012/02/chesapeake

- fly

- ash

- suit

- against

- dominion

- refiled ).

5 The suit was filed against Dominion Virginia Power, MJM Golf LLC

- the golf club's owners

- and two other parties involved in building the golf course.

6 The Virginian Pilot (2013): Chesapeake fly ash fight yields little resolution, The Virginian Pilot, May 5, 2013. Accessed Online January 2013. http://hamptonroads.com/2013/05/chesapeake

- fly

- ash

- fight

- yields

- little

- resolutionDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

9 

### Implicated Activity: Disposal ( l andfill )

.



### Status: Active

. ( A potential d amage c ase on account of groundwater contamination )

.



### Description: T he Phase I L andfill mound loses 1.51 tons /year from wind erosion

. 7



### Impact Summary: The population in the six zip codes around the facility is a lung cancer cluster with an incidence of 104.7 per 100,000 compared to Delaware’s 76.9 rate; 16% of Indian

River District

- school children have special education needs compared to 9.7% upwind; and heart disease, stroke, and heart attack rates are all elevated. 8



### Study : In response to community requests, the Delaware Division of Public Health (DPH) and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environme ntal Control (DENRC) launched a
series of studies. In July 2007, DPH issued a report concerning a cancer cluster investigation in
the Indian River area of Sussex County. The D PH study confirmed the existence of a statistical cancer cluster, but did not identify any increased rate of unusual cancers or cancer incidence among young people. DPH stated that, without further information, it was not possible to assign a cause to the cancer cluster

. 9

In May 2008, t he Air Surveillance Branch issued a report on a short

- term study using portable battery

- operated monitors to determine PM2.5 concentrations in the Indian River area. 10 The final report concluded that a lthough the study peri od was too brief to fully investigate the relationship of concentrations to wind directions, Hysplit 11 was used to examine the track of the air parcels on the five highest PM 2.5 concentration days. The results were consistent w ith strong regional source inf luence, and didn’t support a strong local source. A follow up

, Nov ember 2009 study concluded that when considered as a whole, findings from the study do not rule out tobacco use and occupational exposure as contributing factors to the elevated lung cancer rate in the Indian River area. 12

7 Citizens for Clean Power (CCP), comment to the proposed CCR rule docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 0358.

8 CCP, ibid.

9 Cancer Cluster Investigation, Indian River Area , Delaware Health and Social Services Division of Public Health, 7/17/2007 : http://dhss.delaware.gov /dph/dpc/files/irrpt071707.pdf

. 10 Between 12/2/ 2007 and 3/7/2008, with 26 scheduled sampling days

. 11 Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model.

12 < Regardless of lung cancer status, Indian River participants were significantly more lik ely than non

- Indian River participants to be heavy smokers and to have worked in a high

- risk industry. Thus, baseline prevalence rates suggest that the Indian River community may have a unique lung cancer risk factor profile. When considered as a whole, f indings from the IRCLS do not rule out tobacco use and occupational exposure as contributing factors to the elevated lung cancer rate in the Indian River area. Given the magnitude of odds ratios, tobacco use is the major factor that explains the original f inding of the elevated lung cancer rate in the Indian River area of Sussex County,
Delaware.>Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

10 On May 28, 2013, the State of Delaware issued a final report: The f all 2011 and f all 2012 sample collection periods included 32 participants recruited from the vicinity of the NRG Energy power plant in Sussex County, Del aware. The participants allowed personal, indoor residential and outdoor residential particulate matter samples to be collected over 3 consecutive days. 13 Data demonstrated that ambient background PM2.5 concentrations in southern Delaware are driven by long

- range airborne transport from neighboring upwind states and metropolitan areas. These findings were criticized as the result of a faulty study, which used too small of a sample and by design, didn't capture the impact of long

- term exposure to pollution. 14



### Regulatory and Legal Response: According to citizen Advocacy groups, Current permits and state regulations are ineffective other than to record reported dusting complaints. The State does not monitor PM downwind of the facility, as for its size only one s ampler is needed for Sussex County (in Seaford, D elaware , 19 miles to the WNW).

A citizen suit brought by CCP for 6,304 documented violations of the CAA and the facility’s own Title V state operating permit between 2004 and 2008. Before CCP’s suit made it to court, DNREC filed a complaint against NRG Energy and the two settled out of court (NRG Energy paid $5,000 for its violations and had to purchase a $60,000 air quality monitor for the Department.) CCP charged DNERC was trying to preempt its lawsuit an d alleged DNERC was not pursuing meaningful penalties or enforcing the law. The court held the state acted within its authority and “its DENRC and not the citizens, who is principally responsible for enforcing the law.”



### References:

Out of Control: Moun ting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste. Environmental Integrity Project and Earth J ustice. February 24, 2010. Case #1. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

C itizens for Clean Power (C CP ), comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 0358

.

Cancer Cluster Investigation, Indian River Area , Delaware He alth and Social Services Division of Public Health, 7/17/2007 : http://dhss.delaware.gov/dph/dpc/files/irrpt071707.pdf

.

Delaware Air Quality Management PM 2.5 Indian River MiniVol Study, Final Report

. Betsy Frey, Air Surveillance Branch, Air Quality Management Section, Division of Air and Waste

13 During the fall 2011 season, the NRG Energy power plant was not operating while engineering upgrades designed to reduce pollutant emissions were installed. The fall 2012 sampling period was conducted while the power plant was operational, though not at 100% capacity

. 14 Critic chides cancer study: Indian River plant results called lame. Delawareonline, May 28, 2013: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130528/NEWS/305280081/Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

11 Management, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

, May 21,
2008

. Delaware Air Quality Management PM2.5 Indian River MiniVol Study

Lung Cancer in Sussex County, Delaware: Findings from the Ind ian River Community

- Level Survey (IRCLS)

. Delaware Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, November 2009. http://dhss.delaware.gov/dph/dpc/files/ircls_finalreport.pd f

Millsboro Inhalation Exposure and Biomonitoring Study. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Prepared by RTI International for State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and E nvironmental Control

, Department of Heal th and Social
Services

, Dover, DE

, May 28, 2013

. http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Admin/Documents/Millsboro_Inhalation_ Exposure_and_Biom onitoring_Study_Final_Repor_05282013.pdf

Millsboro Inhalation and Biomonitoring Report finds air pollution coming into Delaware problematic; “Personal air,” indoor sources contributed most to toxic exposure

. Delaware.gov, May 29th, 2013

. http://news.delaware.g ov/2013/05/29/millsboro

- inhalation

- and

- biomonitoring

- report

- finds

- air

- pollution

coming

- into

- delaware

- problematic

- %E2%80%9Cpersonal

- air%E2%80%9D

- indoor

- sources

- contributed

- most

to

- toxic

- exposure/



# First Energy’s Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, Little Blue Ru n Impoundment, Shippingport, Greene Township,
P ennsylvania

Implicated Activity: Disposal, Little Blue Run S urface I mpoundment (a proven damage case
on account of groundwater contamination )

.



### Description: A history of recurring particulate emission incide nts and fugitive dust violations.



### Status: Active (Impoundment slated to become inactive and start closure on January 1, 2017.)



### Impact Summary: Records provided by FirstEnergy showed that the Bruce Mansfield plant released harmful and illegal air pollutio n at least 257 times between November 22, 2002 and March 29, 2007. A s takeholder who lives within one mile of First Energy's Little Blue Run Fly Ash Impoundment testified:Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

12 ’We had a dry spell in 1993. First Energy employees knocked on our door and told us to make sure we washed the vegetables from our garden and to stay indoors as much as possible. It seemed that because of the dry, cold weather and low water level in the impoundment, the fly ash, normally in a wet slurry form, had dried to a fine powder a nd blown through the air covering Hookstown and Georgetown in a layer of dust.’ 15

“In (March) 2009, dry conditions on the surface of the I mpoundment covered nearby residents’ homes in a layer of coal ash fugitive dust, prompting a NOV

. ”



### Study : Analyses of the exposed CCR collected on February 2

, 1993 from the surface of the Impoundment , yielded, among others 18 ppm arsenic, 33 ppm chromium, 3.2 ppm lead, 18 ppm nickel, and 1.5 ppm selenium.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: PADEP issued several NOVs for groundwater contamination and fugitive dust; the earliest NOV on hand is a March 8, 1993 PA Air Quality Control/DENR letter to the Bruce Mansfield Power Company indicating violations of Sections 6.1 (a), 6.1(b) and 8 of the Air Pollution Control Act, and v iolations of 25 Pa Code $$123.1(a) and 123.2, that have occurred in the I mpoundment, between January 30 and February 4, 1993. Subfreezing temperatures combined with strong winds lifted up CCR (gypsum, lime, limestone, and possibly, calcium sulfite) from an elevated bar in the Impoundment , generating heavy dust clouds that settled on adjacent properties, barns and range areas. It lead state and local officials to issue an air advisory f or Greene Township and Hookstown. The advisory recommended that people st ay indoors, especially those with respiratory problems, and those that have to be outdoors, protect themselves with a mask to avoid breathing in the dust. FirstEnergy responded by raising the water levels in the impoundment and by spraying a dust

- inhibitin g chemical on the sludge. The Company also said it is willing to provide lodging or other assistance for
affected residents.

On March 12, 2009, Waste Management SW Region/DENR issued another NOV alleging violation, on March 4

, 2009, of §§ 289.271(a)(7); a nd the Solid Waste Management Act, July 7, 1980, P.L. 380, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 6018.101

- 6018.1003, for a repeat of the 1993 dust dispersion event under similar circumstances (subfreezing temperatures combined with high winds, resulting in settling of si gnificant amounts of CCRs on the ground, houses, lawns, decks, and automobiles). First Energy applied wetting of the Impoundment and latex soil cementing agent for mitigation/control. PADEP required First Energy to modify its permitted nuisance control pla n and submit regular documentation on inspections and corrective actions to reduce dusting potential, and a $24,500 penalty was imposed. In addition, PA DEP required a

15 David Sulkowski’s testimonial: CCR proposed rule Pittsburgh Public Hearing, September 21, 2010, Pp. 81

- 83. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/transcripts/transcript

- pittsburgh

- pa.pdfDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

13 modification of the permit requiring more frequent inspections by FirstEnergy to reduce
d usting potential. FirstEnergy responded to the NOV and corrected the situation

. 16 The Consent Decree issued by PADEP against FirstEnergy on July 26, 2012 required, among others, that FirstEnergy conduct monitoring sufficient to ensure that operation of the Impoundment will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of Ambient Air Quality Standards, in accordance with Section 131.1 of PADEP’s regulations, 25 Pa. Code § 131.3. 17



### References:

Arlington , VA, P ublic Hearing , August 30, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Pittsburgh , PA, Public Hearing

, September 21, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

In Harm’s Way: Lack o

f Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment, Thirty

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

. Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26,

2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity .org/news_reports/08_26_10.php

Lisa Evans , EarthJustice, May 18

, 2011 email to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER

.

PADEP’s comment to the 2011 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0201

.

16 PADEP’s comment to the 2011 NODA docket, EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0201 : Commonwea lth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Southwest Region: Review of the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club Report: 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 August 26, 2010; Page 26.

17 http://www.environmenta lintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/FirstEnergyConsentDecreeFinal1.pdf , section (k). ‘ No later than ninety (90) days following entry of this Consent Decree, FirstEnergy shall submit for approval by the Department a plan for the establishment of a fugiti ve particulate monitoring system for the Impoundment. The plan shall propose monitoring site locations of sufficient number and spatial distribution to accurately determine the rates at which particulate emissions from the Impoundment are deposited in peri pheral areas, and that
monitors shall be constructed in conformance with the standards of ASTM D 1739

- 98. The location of the monitoring sites shall be initially based on a wind rose of the area derived from climatological data recorded at the
nearest Nati onal Weather Service weather station. The plan shall further propose specifications for, and a location for the installation of, a meteorological monitoring station near the Impoundment that conforms to the provisions of “Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications”, EPA

- 454/R

- 99

- 005, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 2000. FirstEnergy shall prepare and submit to the Department a quarterly report of all particulate monitoring results, no later than the last day of April, July, October and January of each year. Upon completion of one calendar year of meteorological monitoring data collection, FirstEnergy shall submit to the Department a re

evaluati on of the fugitive particulate monitoring system based on the site

- specific data.’Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

14 

# Mitchell Power Station, Allegheny Energy, Courtney,
P ennsylvania

Implicated Act ivity: Disposal (l andfill )

.



### Description: None available.



### Status: Active (issue addressed?) ( A potential damage case on account of groundwater

contamination ).



### Impact Summary: Unknown.



### Study : None.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: In 2001, PADEP issued a N OV for failure to minimize fugitive dust emissions from a Landfill NW of the power plant. Once the power plant improved its dust suppression methods, monitoring requirements for fugitive dust emissions were
discontinued in 2004. There are no current admini strative rulings or court decisions associated
with the site.



### References:

Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

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

Pr oject and EarthJustice. February 24, 2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php



# La Belle, Luzerne Township, Fayette County, P ennsylvan ia

Implicated Activity: Haulage and off

- site disposal in a minefill and impoundment in a c oal

r efuse and CCR d isposal a rea , abandoned coal strip mine . ( In addition, e xceedance of the applicable groundwater and surface water standards.)



### Description: Thr ee foci of fugitive dust issues: (1) barge haul and downloading at the La Belle dock; (2) trucking from the dock to the reclaimed mine disposal site; and (3) airborne dust from
the reclamation site.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

15 Rejected coal and coarse and fine refuse was deposited at this site for an unknown number of years until the coal preparation plant ceased operation in 1994. It is estimated that approximately 40 million tons of coal waste material has been dumped on a 300‐acre site in depths of up to 150 feet. 18 “The fine coal refuse was deposited in two large impoundments that are contained by massive embankments of coarse coal refuse. When operations ceased, the site was left in an abandoned, partially reclaimed condition with stability problems concerning
one of the fine coa l refuse impoundments. 19 In 1996, Matt Canastrale Contracting, Inc. (MCC) purchased the bankrupted LaBelle coal refuse landfill. T he final sale was contingent upon site
reclamation. It was decided to utilize coal ash in order to stabilized the impoundment a nd address the issues of water pollution.

The disposal site 20 accepts material from Allegheny Energy's Hatfield's Ferry coal

- fired power plant in Greene County and from other power plants: Mitchell (FGD sulfite), Hatfield, and Elrama power plants, as well as from the Fayette and Greensburg thermal plants. In addition, First Energy, the operator of a power plant 75 miles north, plans to deposit more than 3 million tons of additional coal ash here every year starting in 2017, when its 1,300

- acre Little Blue R un coal ash impoundment in Beaver County closes.



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: Both the General Permit WMGR052 and the Coal Refuse Mining Permit #26970702 strictly prohibit fugitive dust emissions from leaving the site : “[a]ll trucks which
transport c oal ash shall be covered with a suitable covering to minimize dust emissions during transit from each generating station to the disposal site.” However, residents have not seen any trucks covered since the start of the coal ash dumping at the LaBelle site in 1998. And recently the LaBelle site excavator, Richard Lawson, admitted at a community meeting that he chose not to tarp any of the trucks believing that the tarps created more dust. 21

18 According to a BNA (March 2013) article, the site contains two vast piles of coal processing waste, known as “gob piles,’’ with 40 million tons of refuse

. 19 The impoundmen t of concern has a footprint of approximately 24 acres and a contributing drainage area of approximately 87 acres. Compariso n of pre‐landfill mapping, post‐1994 aerial photography, and drilling at various dates results in an impoundment depth range from 60 to 100 feet, averaging 74 feet. Several feet of standing water, contributed by precipitation falling on the surface of the drainage area, are present at all times in the impoundment and this water is loading the fine coal refuse and the laterally‐confining coarse refuse. As early as 1984, the eastern slope of the coarse refuse embankment began to show signs of movement and var ious engineering plans were designed and implemented to some degree before the site was abandoned in 1994

. 20 The site comprises 361.5 ‐ acres as coal refuse disposal area and 145.2 ‐ acres as support area

– coal ash and FGD disposal/reprocessing.

21 Communi ty Meeting at the Luzerne Township Volunteer Fire Hall, October 28, 2010

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

16 Large loads of fly ash arrive in open , uncovered barges

, 22 are unloa ded onto trucks, with the crane sometimes dropping the ash onto the shoreline of the Monongahela River. Loaded trucks motor near a La Belle neighborhood in Luzerne Township without anything covering the fly ash as it's taken to a hilltop where it is dumped and left uncovered.

Instead of decreasing the fugitive dust emissions as the operator and his experts predicted, the emissions from the disposal site have actually increased as the low permeability cementitious (LPC) coal ash has been dumped. H undreds of acres of coal ash are allowed to dry, over time, especially during hot, summer months. The dried ash becomes airborne and blankets the local communities in clouds of grey coal ash. 23 W inters wind s carr y the coal ash off the hilltop onto
residents’ propert i es

.

Up the hill from the barge

- unloading facility, LaBelle residents complain often about dust that settles on their properties and hangs in the air. Downwind from the dump site in Sauerkraut Hill residents say there are nine cases of cancer in the 18 hou ses , and in LaBelle there is a prevalence of pulmonary sicknesses

. In La Belle

, ash

- like powder accumulate s on window sills of
houses

, on appliances inside garage s, and on apples trees in the yards. In summer months

, swimming

- pool filter cartridge s have to be changed daily, instead of every two weeks, as
recommended , because th e previous day's filter s are stained black.



### Study : A sample of fly ash taken from the La Belle d isposal site and tested by a local company, R.J. Lee Group, shows presence of arsenic and several heavy metals, most significantly lead. These represent levels in the actual ash, and not amounts found in the air or on neighboring properties. While there's no scientific proof that fly ash or other forms of pollution are causing health probl ems, Luzerne Township has elevated mortality levels for diseases that have been linked to pollution exposure, according to the Post

- Gazette ecological study on mortality rates.
Luzerne had 170 heart

- disease deaths from 2000 through 2008 , or 26 percent high er than the national average, which would project 135 deaths.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: Uncovered trucks are a clear violation of the existing permits , a nd yet there have been no violations or fines issued by the PADEP. A petitions signed by 93 La Be lle

- area residents was sent to PADEP to seek an investigation and force the owner to clean up the process. PADEP officials investigated and ordered the company to dampen roads
to reduce dust. Local residents believe , however, that PADEP's actions, to date, have been insufficient to correct the problems and protect the public. In October 2010, PADEP and concerned citizens toured the fly ash depot.

22 In May 2006, a barge, presumably with a coal ash shipment from the Mitchell power plant sunk at the docking site, releasing tons of fly ash into the Monongahela River (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0443 and EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2009

- 0640

- 8243, page 17 .)

23 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 8243 , pp. 14

- 17

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

17 A Notice of Violations and Notice of Intent to Sue was issued on March 13, 2013 by EIP for
Citizens Coal Counc il against MCC for Violations of the Clean Streams Law, Air Pollution Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, and Pennsylvania's Law Implementing the Requirements of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act at the LaBelle, PA Coal Waste Mine Dump in Luzerne Township, PA. The lawsuit would be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and would ask the court to require MCC to abate the alleged violations. In addition, Citizens Coal Council woul d ask the court to bar future violations and to impose civil penalties and award attorneys' fees. 24 On June 26, 2013, Public Justice and Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), representing Citizens Coal Council, filed a citizens' suit against (MCC). 25 In Sep tember 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania rejected the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, Matt Canestrale Contracting, Inc. ("MCC"), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 26



### References:

‘Large loads in La Belle’, December 16, 2010, Pittsburgh Post

- Gazette: http://www.post

gazette.com/pg/10350/1109211

- 114.stm#ixzz18Ik sbbG A ;

G. Kuklish, comment EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 824 3; ‘Large loads in La Belle’, March 29, 2012, Pittsburgh Post

- Gazette: http://www.post

- gazette.com/stories/news/health/large

- loads

- in

- la

belle

- 277904/

Notice o f Violation and Notice of Intent to Sue Matt Can e stralle Contracting, Inc., March 23,

2013: http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/docum ents/LabelleNoticeLetter2013031 3.pdf

24 PA Contractor Faces Possible Lawsuit for Violations of Federal & State Pollution Laws at Coal Mine Dump , EIP News and Reports, March 13, 2013 : http://environmentalintegrity.org/archives/6130

25 Citizens Coal Council v. Matt Canestrale Contracting, Inc. Public Justice. Complaint filed June 26, 2013: http://publicjustice.net/content/citizens

- coal

- council

- v

- matt

- canestrale

- contracting

- inc and http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/2013_06_26_FINAL_CCC%20Canestrale%20Co mplaint.pdf

26 Citizens Coal Council, Plaintiff, V. Matt Canestrale Contracting, Inc., Defendant. LEAGLE: http://leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020141006940/CITIZENS%20COAL%20COUNCIL%20v.%20MATT%20CAN ESTRALE%20CONTRACTING,%20INC . Plaintiff, Citizens Coal Council ("CCC"), brought this action under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §6972(a)(1)(B) ("RCRA"), to abate an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment allegedly caused by soli d waste located on the LaBelle Coal Refuse Disposal Area, currently owned and operated by MCC. Plaintiff also asserts violations of various Pennsylvania statutes by MCC. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendant's motion to
dismiss. The Co urt found that the Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts to show that Plaintiff has asserted a plausible claim under ISE citizen suit provision of the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6972(a)(1)(B), to withstand MCC's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). An appropr iate order will follow

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

18 http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=29991193&vname=dennotallissu es&jd=a 0d6x4x2x1&split=0



# Rostosky Ridge Road C ollapse of CCR Pile , Forward Township, Allegheny County, P e n nsylvania

Implicated Activity: Piling for beneficial use.



### Description: Fly ash and “bottom ash” were removed from Allegheny Energy’s Mitchell Power
Plan t and dispose of at River Hill Road in Forward Township to be used by the PA DOT for the maintenance of River Hill Road, and specifically as structural material for construction of the roadway, its embankment, and adjacent slope. A collapse of the ash pile was triggered by a
break in the water main under River Hill Road. On January 25, 2005, thousands of tons of fly ash slid down a hillside and flowed into a creek and through a neighborhood located on Rostosky Ridge Road

. 27 Approximately nine homes, a busine ss (restaurant), and a mile of the creek were directly impacted by the landslide, which deposited large piles of fly ash in residential yards, flower beds, culverts, play areas, around garages and along the creek banks. Cleanup immediately following the sl ide in 2005 included removal and disposal of 1,500 tons of ash from the public parking lot at Gallatin Sunnyside Park, the commercial and affected residential properties on Rostosky Ridge Road, a s well as from roadways, culverts, and creek banks. During th e first week after the landslide, residents used township equipment to remove some of the fly ash from driveways, walkways, parking lots, and roadways, generally w/o the use of any protective gear. An uncovered dump truck transported the fly ash to a nearb y ball field. The local fire department helped with wetting the streets to keep down dust levels.

Following this initial removal effort, PADEP contracted to remove the fly ash from the affected neighborhood yards, roadways, creek banks, and ball field. F rom January 2006 through August 2006, the DEP removed 40,000 tons of ash from the embankment, eliminating any risk of another release of fly ash from the slide area. When feasible, the PADEP contractor removed the fly ash with a vacuum truck and small equi pment such as skid

- loaders, mini

- excavators, and backhoes. Hand tools such as rakes, shovels, and hoes were also used to remove the fly ash. The affected areas near the creek banks and culverts were flushed with water, allowing the fly

27 The slide occurred when the old coal ash embankment adjacent to River Hill Road collapsed and temporarily dammed the stream at the embankment's base. When the ash dam failed, the ground broke loose and water, slurry and tree branc hes rushed down the hill onto Rostosky Ridge Road, just off Route 136. Some water and debris from the slide spilled onto Route 136 near Rapp's Restaurant

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

19 ash deposits to ente r the creek water. Nearly five years after the coal ash slide incident , work was expected to begin to remove the final remains of that slide. 28



### Status: Inactive (a one

- time incident

. )



### Impact Summary: Following the landslide, residents stated that they we re ill with a variety
of flu

- like symptoms, including sore throat, cough, fever, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, and
headaches.



### Study : Based on a petition for a public health evaluation of the fly ash landslide, in March 2005, ATSDR conducted a preliminary rev iew of available data, on the basis of which ATSDR classified the landslide site as a potential health hazard and made several recommendations, among which were removal of the remaining fly ash from the affected neighborhood and post

removal confirmatory s ampling. ATSDR also agreed to complete a formal written health consultation evaluating all available data following the post

- removal confirmatory sampling. 29

Eleven samples were measured for PM10 in outdoor air. Because samples were not necessarily
collec ted during fly ash removal activities, results may not represent peak exposure levels. The

maximum PM10 24

- hour average air concentration was 36.4 μg/m 3 , which is below EPA’s PM10

24

- hour average NAAQS of 150 μg/m 3

. It is not know n what levels of PM2.5 wer e associated with measured PM10 levels. However, even assuming all of the particulate matter was <2.5 microns, the measured levels are also below EPA’s PM2.5 24

- hour average NAAQS of 65 μg/m 3

. The limited air data suggests exposures to PM10 levels are not likely to be harmful to human
health.

However, past exposures to fine particulate matter immediately following the landslide and during removal activities may have been at levels of health concern. Many epidemiologic
studies have found consistent associa tions between exposure and harmful health effects for
short

- term, or acute, exposures (usually measured in days) to fine particulate matter. Acute exposures to fine particulate matter may also aggravate pre

- existing respiratory conditions in
sensitive indi viduals. Although measured PM10 levels from the one residential yard were below NAAQS values, the air measurements were not necessarily collected during peak exposure periods when residents were shoveling and removing fly ash from their yards. ATSDR consid ers it plausible that fine particles in the fly ash may have acted as a respiratory irritant in exposed adults and children during that time.

Following the landslide, fly ash could have been brought into vehicles and homes on the feet of family members an d pets. In fact, during a February 2005 site visit, ATSDR staff

28 Final fly ash clean

- up begins

- Pittsburgh Tribune

- Review , January 18, 2010. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/news/s_662812.html#ix zz1mDyrFKOx

29 AT S DR Health Consultation: Coal Fly Ash Landslide, Forward Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania , June 1,
2006 : http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/H AC/pha/CoalFlyAshLandslide/CoalFlyAshLandslideHC060106.pdfDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

20 witnessed fly ash dust and indoor tracking of dirt into homes and cars in the affected neighborhood. Suspended fly ash particles in outdoor air could have entered a home through indoor

- outdoor air exchange. A young child playing on a home’s floor will have the maximum opportunity for ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure to dust. An environmental services company engaged by legal counsel representing the affected
residents conducted an in terior home sampling investigation. In February, March, and April 2005, interior dust wipe samples from the surface of carpets, countertops, tables, windowsills, fans, furnace filters, and vacuum cleaner bags were collected by residents and sent for arseni c analysis. Arsenic was detected in some of the samples. Follow

- up sampling in July 2005 also detected arsenic in dust wipe samples. Detections of arsenic in dust wipe samples are an indication that arsenic was, at some point, distributed throughout the ho me and was accessible to the occupants.

Results of the analysis of the urinary arsenic levels measured indicate that the participants were not exposed to high levels of arsenic two to three days prior to their urine collection. However, the urinary sampl ing time does not represent the time of peak exposure levels. None of the arsenic concentrations in toenails or fingernails exceeded the published reference ranges. However, because of the length of time required for nail growth, the
results from the nail samples did not reflect peak exposure times at the site.

In July 2005, the Allegheny County Health Department issued a study, based on information and samples collected in March

- April of that year

. 30 The study tested for arsenic in urine, hair,
and nai l samples collected from potentially affected residents between February 5 and early April, 2005.

Overall, the biological testing of both studies was conducted to address community concerns about arsenic exposures following the landslide event. However, the timing of the biological testing does not allow these community concerns to be addressed.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: In October 2006, residents along Rostosky Ridge Road and a portion of Rainbow Run Road filed a lawsuit in Allegheny County Court i n an effort to
force PADEP to clean the site. The suit claimed the PA DEP violated the Clean Streams Act, the Air Pollution and Control Act and the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act and created a private and public nuisance. 31

30 Results of the Health Investigation Following Fly Ash Contamination in Forward Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: http://academics.rmu.edu/faculty/short/research/arsenic/ACHD

- Arsenic

- 2005.pdf

. 31 The suit also named as defendants: Allegheny Energy, owner of the fly ash that had been generated at the company's Mitchell Power Station; the state Depar tment of Transportation, for using fly ash to stabilize River Hill Road and maintaining the hazardous substance within its right

- of

- way and/or embankment supporting the road; the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC) , because its water main rup tured, bringing the fly ash hillside down into the neighborhood; and Weavertown Environmental Group, because of alleged "negligent remediation at the site, which caused further harm .”Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

21 The state maintained that tests pre viously conducted by the Allegheny County Department of
Health found low levels of arsenic

- consistent with an area where coal is burned to produce electricity. The agreement 32 called for more than $3 million in claims and damages to be paid to
the commonw ealth and to 25 residents on or near Rostosky Ridge Road. The commonwealth received approximately $1.8 million for cleanup costs and monitoring, with the rest going to the residents for compensation and damages

.



### References:

Barbara J. Diess c omment to the 2007 NODA docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0424

.

Health Consultation: C oal Fly Ash Landslide, Forward Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania : ATSDR

, J une 1, 2006

.



# East End Landfill (aka East End Resource Recovery)

, 1820 Darbytown Road, Henrico County , V irginia

Implicated Activity: L andfill d isposal and structural fill

.



### Description: A landfill permitted only for C&D debris has been stockpiling and disposing of coal ash for nearly two years without a permit from the county. The landfill, o perating si nce 1987 and located about 200 m from the closest residential area, accepts C&D debris from
within a 150

- mile radius of Richmond.

As of July 2009, the company (“TEEL”), however, had approval from the Virginia DEQ to use the materials as embankment, dail y cover and firebreak material, as well as a structural fill to stabilize the 108 acres former, old Richmond City landfill while it is being excavated as part of a remediation process; after the company's petition for a 180

- day trial to use the material, i n March 2010 DEQ approved the landfill's request for permanent use 33

. Under previous
violation s, the company was fined more than $100,000 by the DEQ “in the previous year”.

32 September 15, 2009: http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/36312281/

33 DEQ also approved incinerator fly ash, bottom ash, nonhazardous contaminated soil and petroleum

contaminated soil as acceptable cover materials and shredded tires as a drainage material. The use of CCBs is exempt from Virginia’s Solid Waste management regulations when used in combination with a cementitious
binder.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

22 In December 2010, the Henrico County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a permit to depo sit coal
ash at the landfill. 34 After that decision, however, the company continued to bring more ash to
the site.



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: Residents near the landfill have raised many concerns about coal ash being dumped near their homes, which ha s caused unsafe levels of dust and potential groundwater contamination. F rom 2008 to 2011, neighbors complained about a persistent

rotten

- egg smell, potential health hazards from coal ash stored at the landfill being blown into neighborhoods, and mud being tracked by trucks onto nearby roads.

Paragraph (19) of the County’s late April 2011 filing of a complaint against TEEL at the Circuit Court of the County of Henrico states: “There is clearly observable harm from TEEL’s continued receipt, storage and us e of these materials (CCBs) at the property. See, e.g., Exhibit 8 (April 4,2011 video shot by County inspector showing massive quantities of fly ash blowing from the site)

. ”



### Study : None.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: In 2009, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality penalized the landfill’s operator more than $100,000 for numerous site violations. 35

In February 2011, the East End Landfill was issued a zoning violation. In April 2011, the Henrico County Board of Zoning upheld the zoning board NOV that orders the removal of piles of coal ash by June 30, 2011. Henrico County officials also filed a complaint against the landfill, initiating a process to obtain a temporary injunction to get the company to stop taking more
coal ash at the site and to f ind a way to keep the ash from being spread by wind. 36

34 http://www2.time sdispatch.com/news/2010/dec/16/henrico

- panel

- denies

- landfill

- permit

- coal

- ash

- ar

- 720607/
and http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/201 0/dec/17/TDMAIN01

- henrico

- panel

- denies

- landfill

- permit

- for

-- ar

721709 /

35 Henrico landfill looks to expand. Timesdispatch.com, June 27, 2013: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/henrico/henrico

- landfill

- looks

- to

- expand/article_6c2a2505

- d94a

- 54cc

86f6

- 668befe023ff.html

36 Complaint attached to original email message from Lisa Evans, EarthJustice. See also http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/apr/28/1/henrico

- board

- denies

- landfills

- petition

- to

- take

- co

- ar

1002839/Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

23 In June 2013, the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals voted to grant an expansion of the site’s waste disposal area despite sizable opposition from neighbors, claiming a turnaround in the quality of the site’s management since it has changed hands in 2011. 37



### References:

May 19, 2011 e mail from Lisa Evans, EarthJustice, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.



# Fort Martin Power Plant, Fort Martin, W est V irginia

Implicated Activity: Disposal and h aulage.



### Descriptio n: Clouds of coal dust and fly ash blowing in the wind and dispersed by 50 coal ash trucks per hour on the highway from disposal and haul age

. All four nearby streams are polluted by CCRs.



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: No information.



### Study : None.



### Reg ulatory and Legal Response: “ WVDEP did not respond to any complaint letters nor have they taken any action. ” WVDEP responded that they are aware of the issues that are in the complaint. WVDEP stated that they have followed up on all the complaints that the y have received for this area. WVDEP has not observed an impact from coal combustion residuals at
this time. There are berms on the highway in the area, which do not contain coal combustion
residuals that have been observed to create dust clouds when truck s run into them. This information has been passed to the Department of Highway. 38



### References:

37 Henrico zoning boar d OKs expansion for landfill. Times Dispatch.com, June 29, 2013. http://www.timesdispatch.com/n ews/local/henrico/henrico

- zoning

- board

- oks

- expansion

- for

landfill/article_431f8880

- 40b3

- 5ea4

- 973f

- 6337665bf5b8.html

38 August 29 , 20 11 email from Rick Rogers, EPA R3 to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

24 Pittsburgh , PA, September 21, 2010 P ublic H earing : http://www.e pa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

August 29 , 2011 email from Rick Rogers, EPA R3 to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.



### EPA Region 4



# Arrowhead Landfill, Uniontown, Perry County, A labama

Implicated Activity: Disposal ( l andfill ) a nd b eneficial u se; haul age

.



### Description: The Arrowhead landfill has been t aking TVA Kingston’s 2008 ash spill waste , and using it as a landfill cover

. Concern s were raised over fugitive dust and drinking water wells from waste disposal ; it is also an env ironmental justice issue , as there is no air monitoring in the poor, black

- American community, whereas respirators are used by workers at the CCR source location ( in Kingston , TN). According to Earthjustice “...the ash was dumped in mounds as high
as 60’ wit hout nothing covering them

. ” Whereas shipments of TVA ash waste to the Perry County L andfill ended in late 2010, the residents are experiencing health problems that they believe are due to the improper disposal of the ash. “Levels of arsenic at more than 8 0 times the safe drinking water standards have been found in runoff near the LF.” 39 Similar evidence was recorded by the Institute for Southern Studies. 40



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: According to the May 2013 complaint, the impacts resulting from the activities authorized by Permit No. 53

- 03 include odors; increased populations of flies in and around the homes of many of the Complainants that are bothersome and that may be carriers of dozens of infectious viruses, bacteria, and parasites; increased pop ulations of birds around the homes of many of the Complainants that deposit droppings and that may be carriers of dozens of infectious viruses, bacteria, and parasites; increased noise from operation of heavy machinery; decreased property values of many of the Complainants; and the frequent emission of fugitive dust from the landfill that causes particulate deposition on personal and real property of many of the Complainants, including homes, porches, vehicles, laundry, and

39 February 10

, 2012 blog post: http://earthjustice.org/blog/2012

- february/tr

- ash

- talk

- dumping

- a

- civil

- rights

- issue

40 Complaint cites health threats at Alabama dump taking TVA's spilled coal ash. Facing South, February 17, 2010: http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/02/complaint

- cites

- health

- threats

- at

- alabama

- dump

- taking

- tvas

- spilled

coal

- ash .htmlDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

25 plantings. Dust and odors from th e landfill caused residents of Uniontown to experience health problems, including respiratory illness, headaches, dizziness, nausea and vomiting. 41



### Study : None.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: On January 3, 2012, 54 individuals from Perry County
filed a Ti tle VI Complaint

, 42 concern ed that environmental injustice incurred through permitting the disposal of 15,000 ton/day (municipal, non

- hazardous commercial, and industrial) from 35 states; specifically, CCRs from Kingston, TN, a white majority, middle

- class C ounty, for disposal in a poor, high

- minority population county in Alabama. This operation results, among others, in bad odors, noise, and frequent emissions of fugitive dust that causes particulate deposition on personal and real property of many Complain ants, including homes, porches, vehicles, laundry, and plantings

, all resulting in lowering of property values. 43 The complaint asks EPA to revoke funds that it gave to ADEM for its discriminatory actions, though the overall removal plan was authorized by E PA under Superfund.

On May 30, 2013, a complaint was filed by the law firm David A. Ludder, representing 34 complainants, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d

- 7, and 40 C.F.R. Part 7, alleging that the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) violated Title VI and EPA’s implementing regulations by reissuing and modifying, on September 27, 2011 and February 3, 2012 respectively, Solid Waste Disposal Facility Permit No.

53

- 03 authorizing Perry County Associates, LLC to construct and operate the Arrowhead Landfill, a municipal solid waste landfill in Perry County, Alabama which has the effect of adversely and disparately impacting African

- American residents in the adjacent community. 44
If a violation is found and ADEM is unable to demonstrate a substantial, legitimate justification for its action and to voluntarily implement a less discriminatory alternative that is practicable, Complainants petition EPA to initiate proceedings to deny, annul, suspend, or terminate EPA
financial assistance to ADEM. 45

41 Ash in Lungs: How Breathing Coal Ash is Hazardous to Your Health . Alan H. Lockwood and Lisa Evans, Physicians for Social Responsibility and EarthJustice. August 1, 2014 : http://www.psr.org/news

- events/homepage

- story

- archive.html?page=2

42 Alabama faces civil rights complaint over landfill taking waste from TVA coal ash disaster . Facing South, January 5, 2012 : http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/01/alabama

- faces

- civil

- rights

- complaint

- over

- landfill

- taking

- waste

- from

tva

- coal

- ash

- disaster.h . Title VI prohibits recipients of fe deral funds from engaging in discriminatory activity. Alabama Department of Environmental Management Permitting of Arrowhead Landfill in Arrowhead County

, submitted to EPA’s Office of Civil Rights on 1/12/2012 : http://insideepa.com/iwpfile.html?file=feb2012%2Fepa2012_0293a.pdf

. 43 Exhibit F: Dust video, at http://www.enviro

- lawyer.com/News

- LandOfficeNews.html

44 While the Harriman, Tennessee, community where the Kingston spill occurred is almost entirely white (91 percent) and middle class (median income $36,031), Uniontown is 90 percent African American, and 45.2 percent of its citizens live below the poverty line (median income $17,473). Ash in Lungs, ibid.

45 http://insideepa.com/iwpfile.html?file=jul2013%2Fepa2013_1199b.pdfDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

26 According to the complaint, the first alleged discriminatory act is the reissuance (renewal) of Solid Waste Disposal Facility Permit No. 53

- 03 by ADEM to Perry County Associates, LLC on September 27, 2011. Th e second alleged discriminatory act is the modification of Permit No.

53

- 03 by ADEM on February 3, 2012. The permit modification authorizes Perry County Associates, LLC to expand the disposal area at the Arrowhead Landfill by 169.179 acres (66%). In 2010, certain residents of Perry County filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Northern Division, against Phill

- Con Services, LLC, the operator of the Arrowhead Landfill, to enforce an emission standard or limitatio n under the Clean Air Act,

42 U.S.C. 7401

– 7671q, and to enforce a standard, regulation, requirement, or prohibition under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901

- 6992k.

On September 26, 2012, EPA dismissed the September 27, 2011 and February 3, 2012 complaints without prejudice to refiling “within 60 days following termination or conclusion of” the aforesaid litigation. The foregoing litigation was terminated on April 16, 2013. EPA
determined that ADEM has ample authority to regulate and control fugit ive dust emissions
from landfills. Although ADEM’s fugitive dust rule was declared to be unconstitutional by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ross Neely Express, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management , 437 So.2d 82 (Ala. 1983), Alabama has neit her repealed the rule nor sought or obtained EPA approval of a revision of the State Implementation Plan. Accordingly, the rule continues to be included in the “applicable implementation plan” under the Clean Air Act.

In the complaints filed on January 6, 2012 and February 21, 2012, Complainants also alleged “the frequent tracking of dirt and other solids from the landfill onto County Road 1 where through traffic causes the dirt and other solids to become airborne particulates resulting in particulate depo sition on personal and real property of many of the Complainants, including homes, porches, vehicles, laundry, and plantings.” Subsequently, the Arrowhead Landfill relocated its entrance to Tayloe Road off U.S. Highway 82. This relocation has eliminated

tr acking of dirt on County Road 1.



### References:

Arlington , VA, P ublic H earing , August 30, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule /ccr

- hearing.htm



# Duke Energy’s Riverbend Steam Plant, Mt. Holly, Mecklenburg CO., N orth C arolina

Implicated Activity: Piling for b eneficial u se.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

27 

### Description: Pond

- dredged ash piles on side of road are a source of fugitive dust

. Ash also
used for str uctural fill and various road uses

.



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: Complaint: “Three years ago Duke dredged out the ponds, generating much fugitive dust that impacted the Stonewater development. The ash was heaped in a large,
unmonitored mound beside th e Horseshoe Bend Beach Road, the only access to the peninsula. It is a source of fugitive dust (ash accumulating on cars, houses), and presumably

– of leaching to groundwater, which potentially risks many of the peninsula residents’ drinking water wells.” Response: “DWQ was not aware of the concern. DWQ is currently looking into the concern to see if any action is needed.” 46



### Study : None

.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: No information.



### References:

Charlotte , NC, Public Hearing , September 14, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm



# Progress Energy, Asheville (Arden), N orth C arolina

Implicated Activity: Benefici al u se. (A potential damage case on account of groundwater contamination.)



### Description: According to Progress Energy’s response letter (February 9, 2009) to the January 22, 2009 NOV, the source area is an NPDES permitted surface impoundment rather than a stockpile area, hence no permit conditions are violated. The fugitive dust comprises cenospheres that in spite of the application of dust suppressing measures (mulch with dust suppressant, straw and wetting) become airborne during extended periods of winte r subfreezing temperatures, when their harvesting from the top of the frozen pond is halted. In response to the NOV, Progress Energy stated that they are evaluating the establishment of an

46 EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0267, North Carolina Departme nt of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR):Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

28 alternate harvesting area that has more wind buffer, as well as wi nd break options at the existing harvesting area.



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: Coal ash from waste disposal blowing and covering houses, garages and

cars in the Lake Julian Trails housing development. One of the residents stated that after one
bad in cident Progress Energy washed everyone's house and had someone specially vacuum people's homes. He also stated that there was little or no enforcement, until the community started pushing someone to do something about it. The residents finally were able to get their state aquifer protection branch to issue an NOV. The power plant is supposed to be putting up an air monitoring system and com e up with a plan to reduce dust. The power plant already came up with one plan to spray more and planted trees and shru bs for additional buffering

.



### Study : An analysis of a sample scraped off a resident’s window sill in the Julian Lake Trails housing development ( October 5, 2010) yielded the following, selected results (all in mg/Kg):

arsenic : 37.7; chromium : 18.2; lead : 8 .2; n i ckel : 8.2; s e lenium : 2.8; mercury : 0.047.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: NC’s Division of Water Quality issued ( January 22

, 2009) a NOV of Permit WQ0000020 for failing to take adequate provisions to prevent wind erosion
and surface runoff from conv eying ash from stockpile/storage areas onto adjacent property or into any surface waters. This resulted in the deposition of ash on property adjacent to Progress Energy’s ash storage pond: ash from the ash pond had blown and accumulated on several
propert ies (homes, cars and lawns) in the Lake Julian Trails housing development.



### References:

Charlotte, NC, Public Hearing , September 14, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/ osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste. Environmental Integrity Project and Ear thJustice. February 24, 2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

May 19, 2011 and May 21, 2011 emails from Lisa Evans , EarthJustice, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

2 9 

# Swift Creek Structural Fill Site, ReUse Technology, Inc. / Full Circle Solutions, Inc., Rocky Mount, N orth C arolina

Implicated Activity: Beneficial u se ( s tructural fill) . (A proven damage case on account of groundwater contaminati on.)



### Description: A 25

- acre beneficial use structural fill received CCRs from six N orth C arolina and

V irginia power plants, operated from 1991 through at least 2001. The site did not require a permit from NC DENR. CCR was placed only one foot above the wa ter table and into a wetland, contaminating off

- site groundwater and causing off

- site coal ash dust impacts to adjacent
property.



### Status: Inactive

.



### Impact Summary: None available.



### Study : None

.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: In its comment to the docket 47 , NCDEQ conceded that Out of Control’s damage assessment for the Swift Creek site “appears essentially accurate.” A
NOV and a Compliance Order were issued, but for violations unrelated to fugitive dust.



### References:

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice. February 24, 2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php



# Harlan County, K entucky

Implicated Activity: Unauthorized (?) d isposal (‘ s tructural f ill s ’?)

.



### Description: A large number of open, illegal coal ash dumps thro ughout the state. Residents of Harlan County, Kentucky report open dumps of CCR that are compacted with bulldozers and covered with dirt. The illegal CCR dumps he is referring to are located within a couple of

47 North Carolina DENR: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 9282.2, p 11

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

30 hundred feet of the Poore Fork of the Cumberla nd River and adjacent to US 119, the main road that links the city of Harlan and the Tri

- Cities communities of Cumberland, Benham and Lynch. 48



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: One observer said, “ T he workers who dump it and compact it do not use
any protec tive equipment. Dust from it is flying around all the time.”



### Study : None

.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: None



### References:

K.A. Owens, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC) comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

2009

- 0640

- 3934

.



# Louisville G as & E lectri c Cane Run Power Plant, 5252 Cane Run Rd., Louisville, K entucky 40216

Implicated Activity: Disposal (surface impoundments

, landfill)

, o n

- site processing ( a sh

t reatment b asin, s ludge p rocessing p lant), s torage ( a sh s ilo and s tacks), haul age (trucks and

ro ads.)



### Description: During the over 50 years the Cane Run plant has been in operation, LG&E has constructed an unlined wet coal ash containment that is less than 100 yards from a residential neighborhood. Residents’ homes are covered continually with a lay er of dust from fly ash. 49 The current “Ash Mountain” is projected to reach capacity in 3

- years. LG&E has applied for a new, 60

- acres/160’

- high landfill , to be located 800’ from the closest residences

. Currently residents are holding community meetings on a regular basis, and the Kentucky State Legislature is planning to hold hearings in the community to hear residents’ concerns. Some

48 According to SourceWatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index. php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants , the closest
coal

- fired power plants (<50 miles of US 119/Harlan

- Tri City route) are: Eastman’s Kingsport PP (Eastman Chemical Co.), Kingsport, TN; John Sevier Fossil Plant, TN; and Cooper Power Station, KY. This is not to suggest that any of these plants are implicated in the cited activity

. 49 Neig hbors of Cane Run plant worry about health impact of coal ash Courier

- Journal, April 19, 2011: http://www.courier

- journal.com/article/20110419/GREEN/304190120/Neighbors

- Cane

- Run

- plant

- worry

- about

health

- impact

- coal

- ash?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cimg%7CHomeDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

31 residents said they believe LG&E officials know their plant causes ash and soot problems because the company has sometimes provided them with vouchers to pay for car washes. LG&E’s representative acknowledged the company has paid for car washing, but only rarely, after an unusual incident at the plant. U nder its permit, the company is allowed to emit fly ash
from its smokestac k, but if ash is leaving the landfill the company can be told to fix the problem. 50 The plant is scheduled to close by 2016 : LG&E is planning to build a cleaner natural gas powered plant on its Cane Run property.



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: The resid ents experience fugitive dust from coal ash on a daily basis. Health problems and respiratory illnesses abound, and there are high rates of cancer.



### Study : In February 2011, a Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District inspector swabbed
the outside si lls on the front of the Little's house, about 150’ from the eastern wall of the ash pond, and just down the block from the black face of the ash dump. A laboratory analysis confirmed fly ash in three samples. Air district spokesman Matt Stull confirmed tha t investigation.

On the other hand, a preliminary round of testing in March by the state at five locations in Claremont Acres, east of the plant, and Riverside Gardens to the north, “did not show significant levels of fly ash” on homes, Hubbard (Assistant Director of the Kentucky Division of Waste Management, which regulates the dump) said, adding that inspectors would like to
return “when conditions are drier.”

A study to evaluate surface dust samples deposited unto adjacent properties, ordered by LG&E
f rom the RJ LEE Group, used adhesive lift samplers to collect six samples from three houses near the PP (4/18/2011). The SEM characterization identified significant, but variable amounts of fly ash and bottom ash in each of the samples, including untreated Hopper Ash and Pozotec (the former predominated by silicon

- aluminum, and the latter

- also with elevated calcium

sulfur). Based on backscattered electron images and X

- ray maps, the PP concluded that they found ‘nothing harmful in the results

. ’ 51

In a foll ow up study

, 52 a multi

- day sampling approach was employed to monitor particle deposition over time and to gain knowledge on the amount of time necessary to achieve an

50 According to WFPL News, July 13, 2011 : http://www.wfpl.org/2011/07/13/lge

- report

- finds

- coal

- ash

- on

- area

homes/

51 Ash on residences study (July 8, 2011): TLH104154

- Nuisance

- dust

- report

- 7

- 8

- 11

- FINAL.pdf at http://archives.wfpl.org/wp

- content/uploads/2011/07/

. Note that the analytical techniques used are too

insensitive for the detection of trace metal amounts

. 52 TLH104154

- Passive

- Sampling

- Report_FINAL_July

- 13.pdf at http://archives.wfpl.org/wp

content/uploads/2011/07/Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

32 appropriate particle loading for detailed individual particle analysis. The UNC passive ae rosol sampler was de ployed . The UNC passive sampler is unique in it s ability to estimate ambient concentrations ( μ g/m 3 ).

The CC (computer

- controlled) SEM individual particle data were processed via the Wagner

- Leith
model to estimate ambient concentration s. Based on this process, the PM10 concentrations ranged from 9.4 to 14.7 μ g/m 3 (average over sampling period). 53 In summary, the number of fly ash/bottom ash on the passive deposition samples and the UNC passive aerosol samples

appear ed to correlate well w ith the passive deposition samplers in that fly ash/bottom ash was a small component of the particulate matter collected on the initial set of samples. However, the results from the passive monitoring program d id not correlate with the surface dust sample results. Given this discrepancy, it wa s recommended that sampling continue on an ongoing basis with the passive deposition samplers and the UNC passive samplers.

Regulatory and Legal Response: O n July 20

, 2011, the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)

, L ouisville, K entucky , issued a NOV accompanied by a $4,000 fine to LG&E for allowing particulates to move outside the plant’s property and settle on adjacent residential properties, first in December 2010, then in February and April 2011. The NOV requires L G&E to submit, by August 26 , 201 1, a compliance plan for control of ash emissions from the plant and for remediation of particulate fallout on neighboring properties. 54

On April 18, 2012, LG&E reached a settlement with the Louisville Metro APCD regarding several air emissions and fugitive dust violations in 2011 that resulted in two NOV. The Settlement stipulates, among others, that the Company shall submit to the District by April 30, 2012 a proposed plan for the application of dust suppressant to inactiv e open areas of the landfill. After notification from the District of its approval of the plan, Company shall comply with the plan. 55

E quipment malfunction kept occur ring at the Cane Run plant that release clouds of coal ash. A malfunction of the sludge processing plant ( SPP, July 30

- 31, 2011) at the LG&E Cane Run power plant has sent a billowing cloud of ash into the air. On September 13, 2012, t he SPP
malfunctioned again . Th e SPP mixes the coal ash with other materials to turn it into Poz

- O

- Tec,

a cemen titious substance, so it can be put into the landfill. A video 56 shot by a resident who

53 The UNC passive sampler has recently been used by the US Environmental Protection Agency to monitor coarse particles (PM10

- 2.5) in the Cleveland, Ohio area. Note, howeve r, that in this study PM 2.5 was not measured.

54 According to an August 1 st , 2011 posting of the Courier : Air Pollution Control District, Louisville, Kentucky: Notice of Violation Letter 02246 : http://blogs.courier

- journal.com/watchdogearth/files/2011/08/LGECaneRunNOV7

- 2011.pdf

55 A list of LG&E’s violations and resulting penalties between August 2011 and August 2013 can be accessed at: LG&E Fined $65,000 for Odor Problems at Cane Run Power Plant . The News for Louisville, August 5, 2013: http://wfpl.org/post/lge

- fined

- 65000

- odor

- problems

- cane

- run

- power

- plant

56 Multiple relea se are documented in a series of videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/kaeterina1 ; Cane Run Sludge Plant Malfunction September 13, 2012 . Youtube, September 16, 2012 :Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

33 lives across the street shows clouds of ash rising above the plant

- and over the dust screen the company installed in April. A Plant representative said the ash was act ively being released for seven minutes, before the plant was shut down. 57

On September 6, 2013, Hagens Bergman submitted, on behalf of Greg Walker and Kathy Little, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, intend to file a citizen su it against Louisville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E) and its owners (collectively, the Cane Run Defendants), pursuant to: ( 1 )

. 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(l)(A), for past and continuing RCRA violations; ( 2 ) . 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(l)(B), for past and continuing violat ions of RCRA by having contributed and/or contributing to the handling, storage, hauling or disposal of solid and hazardous wastes at the Cane Run site in a manner that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to health or the environment ; and (3). 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(l), for past and continuing violations of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

The Intent to Sue claims that s ince at least 2008, the Cane Run Defendants have generated, handled, stored, treated, transported, and disposed of solid and hazardous wastes at the Cane Run site. These wastes are stored outdoors on the Cane Run site, including in a massive landfill

, an Ash Treatment Basin, and as many as four ash ponds, which are at least partially dry and, thus, contain dry solid and hazardo us wastes. The Cane Run plant has three active stacks, dedicated to three steam generators used in the production of electric power; a Sludge Processing Plant (SPP), which is used to process fly ash before storing it in the L andfill; and an Ash Silo, which is used to store fly ash for processing by the SPP.

None of these sources of fly ash, bottom ash, toxic metals, and other coal combustion particulates located on the Cane Run site (the Landfill, the Ash Treatment Basin, the Ponds, the SPP, the Ash Silo, trucks operated by the Cane Run Defendants, roads on the Cane Run site, and the Stacks) have adequate controls for insuring that these solid and hazardous wastes are not emitted into the atmosphere and deposited on the residential areas surrounding the sit e. As a result, the Cane Run Defendants have regularly and frequently released significant amounts of fly ash, bottom ash, toxic metals, and other coal combustion particulates, often in the form of dust clouds and storm water runoff, into the atmosphere an d over ground. These releases have traveled for miles off of the site and, because of the Cane Run site's lack of controls, these releases are continuing. The solid and hazardous wastes released from the site have settled on the exteriors of surrounding ho mes and buildings, as well as on playgrounds, parks, lawns, pools, ponds, recreational items, and vehicles. These solid and hazardous wastes have also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPgQCYsErGY ; Ash blowing from cane run plant 8 16 12. Youtube, Aug ust 18,
2012: https://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=ze0LNF7MNyI&index=4&list=UUwIapnG8JXDG0rCle0_HAFQ

57 Cane Run residents report more blowing ash. C ourier

- journal, September 14, 2012: http://blogs.courier

journal.com/watchdogearth/2012/09/14/cane

- run

- residents

- report

- more

- blowing

- ash/ ; http://blogs.courier

journal.com/watchdogea rth/2012/10/12/epa

- reviews

- cane

- run

- ash

- problem/ and http://wfpl.org/post/coal

- ash

problems

- continue

- cane

- run

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

34 migrated inside surrounding homes and buildings, where they settle in interior living and working spaces.

The Cane Run site is adjacent to residential neighborhoods containing thousands of homes. It is also in close proximity to parks, schools, roads, restaurants, and shopping areas. Residents of the areas surrounding the Cane Run site have complained to cou nty, state, and federal officials regarding health problems stemming from exposure to particulates released from the Cane Run site, including respiratory ailments, severe eye irritation, sensitivity to strong sulfur odors, and
elevated cancer rates.

The A PCD is the Jefferson County agency charged with enforcing the District's environmental regulations, which are promulgated pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 77. Many of the APCD environmental regulations have been adopted by the USEPA, pursuant to Kentucky's State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the CAA. Violations of the APCD regulations adopted as part of Kentucky's SIP are therefore violations of the CAA. The APCD has repeatedly cited LG&E for violations of the District's environmental regula tions relating to the Cane Run site's release of fly ash and other particulates into the surrounding community, as well as failing to control the strong sulfur odors produced by the Cane Run site's generation and storage of coal combustion by

- products.

T he Cane Run Defendants' activities have violated and are continuing to violate the Cane Run site's Operating Permit, issued pursuant to Title V of the CAA, and regulations which are part of Kentucky's SIP under the CAA. Between July 2011 and August 2013, f ive NOVs were issued for violations by Cane Run Defendant LG&E of scores of APCD regulations

. Examples include

“ Visible Fugitive Emissions beyond the Property line settling onto surrounding neighborhood properties (December 2010, and February and April, 20 11);" "On June 21, July 29, and August 4, 11, 12, and 22, 2011, source emitted clouds of dust into the atmosphere from its sludge processing plant that caused nuisance and annoyance to the residents of the neighborhood that surround it;" "The source allowe d visible fugitive dust emissions to travel from the ash landfill, an in

- plant road, and the SPP and to cross the plant's property line onto the neighboring residential area

. "

Substantially similar violations to those that are the subject of the APCD NOV' s are continuing on at least a weekly basis at the Cane Run site because the Cane Run Defendants have failed to implement measures to control the emission of fly ash and its constituent toxic metals, bottom ash, and other particulates produced by the coal combustion process from the Landfill, the Ash Treatment Basin, the Ponds, the SPP, the Ash Silo, roads on the Cane Run site, and the Stacks at the Cane Run site, as well from trucks operated by the Cane Run Defendants.

The Cane Run site's Operating Permit does not allow particulate emissions from the Cane Run site's Landfill, Ash Treatment Basin, Ponds, roads on the Cane Run site, or from trucks operated by the Cane Run Defendants. As a result, particulate emissions from these sources are also
violations o f the CAA and are continuing on at least a weekly basis.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

35 In November 2013, LG&E agreed to pay $113,250 penalty and comply with a pollution control and maintenance plan adopted in April

— on top of $33,000 in other ash

- related fines since

2011.

In July 20 14, a federal court ruled that a class of residents alleging that Kentucky’ Cane Run power plant covered their properties with coal ash may proceed with state tort law claims . The
federal court ruled , on July 17 , that the claims aren't preempted by the Cle an Air Act ( Little v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co., 2014 BL 198330, W.D. Ky., No. 13

- 1214, 7/17/14). R esidents

a lleged dust and coal ash emitted from the plant coat their homes and properties in violation of the CAA and RCRA. They also brought state law c laims of nuisance, trespass and negligence

. The defendants, Louisville Gas & Electric Co. and PPL Corp., moved to dismiss the state law claims as preempted by the Clean Air Act. The court found the plaintiffs' arguments persuasive : t he court
dismissed from the lawsuit the plaintiffs' claims under RCRA, and all but one of their claims under the CAA, saying that only the state law claims and one CAA claim for alleged operation of the Cane Run plant without a valid permit remain.

R ecently

, LG&E settled a laws uit for fugitive dust, negligence, and nuisance in Monika Burkhead, et al v. Louisville Gas and Electric Company , U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky at Louisville
, which involved over a hundred residents in the community of Riverside
Gardens . Terms of the settlement are confidential.



### References:

May 18, 2011 and July 14, 2011 emails w ith attachments from Lisa Evans , EarthJustice, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.

Cane Run residents report more blowing ash /September 14, 2012: courier

- Journal.com

EPA reviews Cane Run ash problem /October 12, 2012: courier

- Journal.com

A letter of Intent to Sue LG&E Cane Run , Sept ember 16, 2013, an attachment in a November 4,

2013 e mail from Pete Raack , EPA/OECA to A. Livnat, EPA /OSWER.

Louisville faces concerns on coal ash: LG&E has agreed to pay fines for problems at Cane Run power plant , Courierjournal.com, Dec. 21, 2013. 58

Coal Ash Claims Not Preempted by Air Act, Court Rules in Tort Suit against Power Plant

. 59

58 http://www.courier

- journal.com/article/20131221/GREEN/312210038/Louisville

- faces

- concerns

- coal

ash?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

59 Bloomberg BNA Daily Environment Report, July 21, 2014: http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=50244297&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0f3p2v8j1Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

36 

### EPA Region 5



# Duke Energy’s Gibson Generating Sta tion, Somerville & Mount Carmel Area, I ndiana

Implicated Activity: Disposal ( surface impoundment ) . (Also, a proven damage case on account of groundwater impact.)



### Description: Residen ces of the ten trailers in East Mt. Carmel are blanketed regularly with coal ash dust blowing from the near full ash ponds in the summer; f ugitive dust from waste disposal causes medical issues and covering cars with coal ash dust

. Impact extends also to
communities across the Wabash River in Illinois

. 

### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: No information.



### Study : None.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: None.



### References:

Knoxville , TN, P ublic H earing, October 27, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/ osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Louisville , KY

, Public Hearing, September 2 8 , 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/spe cial/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste. Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice. February 24, 2 010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

&split=0 ; The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky's opinion in Little v. Louisville Gas & Electric

Co. : http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ public/document/Little_v_Louisville_Gas__Electric_Co_CIVIL_ACTION_NO_313CV

01214JHDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

37 EarthJustice

, comment to the docket : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 6315

.



# Hoosier Energy Merom Station, Merom, West Old 54, Sullivan County, I ndiana

Implicated Activity: Disposal (l andfill )

. (A lso, a p otential damage case on account of groundwater impact

. )



### Description: Hoosier Energy disposes of its CCRs in landfills on

- site. According to Hoosier Energy, the volume of waste disposed is approximately 2,050 cubic yards per day. The largest
volume waste stream is fixated scrubber sludge (a mixture of fly ash, scrubber sludge and lime). The area surrounding the Merom generating facility includes residences (the closest: about 800’ away from the active landfill cell) 60 and farm land. Dust blowing off the landfill has been a chronic problem, and has become worse over the last several years as the height of the current landfill, which is reaching capacity, has i ncreased.

A permit for a new third landfill on

- site has been recently issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The new landfill will be the larger in both footprint (112 acres) and height than the previous two landfills and is much c loser to surrounding homes. It has an estimated life of 19 years. Although the new permit includes more dust control requirements than previous landfill permits, continued dust problems are anticipated because of the nature of the material and the disposa l method.



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: The nearby residents’ lives have been seriously impacted by the fugitive dust. The coal ash dust coats their homes, cars, outdoor furniture, toys, equipment and vegetable gardens. They must clean the outsides of their homes and windows frequently. They are forced to keep their windows and doors closed at all times. Nevertheless, coal ash dust gets into their homes and settles on the furniture and floors. Several nearby residents have infants, toddlers and yo ung children or grandchildren and they worry about exposure to the dust both indoors and outdoors. They restrict outdoor play and must clean indoor surfaces frequently to try to minimize exposure.

Another neighbor, Mike Eslinger, testified that there ar e days that he cannot take his children outside to play because of the fugitive dust and the blue plume from the smoke stack is so bad.
His house is covered with dust from the plant. 61 There have been problems reported with

60 EPA measurement, Google Maps

. 61 In the Louisville Public Hearing, September 28, 2010. A July 26, 2010, consent decree between Hoosier EnergyDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

38 unexplained illessnesses/deaths o f livestock in the area and residents are concerned these problems may be associated with the coal ash dust, which settles on pastures where the
livestock feed.



### Study : Wipe dust samples from two of the neighbors kids toys showed lead at 1340 μg/wipe
and a rsenic at 2720 μg/wipe; lead on one of the resident’s dressers in a bedroom was 886 μg/wipe. The same family (Miller) have had their daughter tested for lead and the results confirm lead exposure.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: Mike Blann, a Hoosier Energ y employee and neighbor, testified at the same hearing: “Personally over the years I have seen how the State of Indiana has regulated the power plant landfill in our backyards and can honestly say it is without doubt NOT working!”

The attorney representin g the nearby, fugitive dust impacted residents ( Rosemary G. Spalding, Spalding & Hilmes), reported that since July 2010, they have been engaged in making comments on behalf of their client group on a variety of Hoosier Energy

- Merom (HE) environmental permi ts. These include a request for IDEM to enforce the permit for the current landfill, FP77

- 03, and public comments on HE’s permit application for a new landfill, FP77

- 04. As a result of their endeavors, the IDEM revoked the variance for daily cover in FP77

- 03 (state operational rules requiring daily cover on the working face of the landfill (329 Indiana
Administrative Code 10

- 28

- 11 and 12) and the variance request was denied in the FP77

- 04 application.



### References:

Knoxville, TN, Public Hearing, October 27, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Louisville, KY

, Public Hearing, September 2 8 , 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments , July 2007 : http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

May 24, 2011 email, with attached documents and photos , from Lisa Evans , EarthJustice, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.

and EPA requires Hoosier Energ y to address , among others, a ‘blue plume’ composed of sulfuric acid mist that has been emitted from the plant for several years and documented extensively by its neighbors.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

39 Spalding & H ilmes, PC, Law Firm. Commenter: Rosemary G. Spalding and Kathryn A. Watson, on behalf of Springer family et al. , comment to the docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10019

.



# Ameren Coffeen Power Station and US Minerals, Coffeen,
Illinois

Implicated Activity: Be neficial u se

.



### Description: Complaints about fly ash from disposal on cars, homes, yards . According to

IEPA

, 62 its air program is not aware of any permitting issues/complaints concerning Coffeen Power Plant. Apparently, there is a company called US Minerals in Coffeen that processes boiler slag from the Coffeen Power Plant. IEPA had many complaints back in 2004 from citizens in Coffeen about blowing coal ash dust. The company installed fabric filters on the process and the complaints stopped.

U.S. Minerals

, Montgomery County

- U.S. Minerals is located on the south side of Coffeen and receives boiler slag from the Coffeen Power Plant, grinds and sizes the granules and ships them to facilities that make asphalt roofing shingles and blasting media. IEPA receive d dust complaints from Coffeen citizens in 2004, 2005, 2006 and a violation notification letter (VNL) was sent in 2006. The company installed bag houses on the process and the facility currently has a Bureau of Air (BOA) state operating permit. IEPA has no t received recently any complaints about operations at this location

. 63 U.S. Minerals uses the bottom ash from Coffeen Power Station for making construction materials. Coal ash is stored in large piles at the industrial site,
a half mile north of Coffeen Po wer Station. The piles of coal ash do not have liners, covers, windbreaks, or silt fences to prevent erosion and release of pollutants to air and water.



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: R esidents living next to U.S. Minerals have complained to Prairie Riv ers Network personnel about lung and eye irritation, breathing problems and constant coating of their homes and vehicles with coal ash dust. The coal ash piles are still sitting on the ground without any air or water pollution controls in place.”



### Study : N one.

62 IEPA’s response

, 8/16/2011

. 63 IEPA, Other Coal Ash Sites, Case #6, September 20 11: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

impoundment/documents/other

- coal

- ash

- sites.pdfDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

40 

### Regulatory and Legal Response: OSHA fined U

. S

. Minerals nearly $400,000 on December

7

, 2010 for more than two dozen safety violations endangering workers with dangerously high levels of hazardous ash dust without proper breathing equipment and traini ng

. 64



### References:

Chicago , IL, P ublic H earing

, September 16, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Coal Com bustion Waste Damage Case Assessments , July 2007. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

Email correspondence between J ulie Gev renov , EPA R5 and A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER: September

27

, 2011 email to A. Livnat ; September 2 9, 2011 and November 8

, 2011 email s to J. Gevrenov.



# Rocky Acres Coal Combustion By

- Product Disposal Site

– Bunge Corp., Oakwood, Vermilion County, I llinois 65



### Im plicated Activity: Beneficial u se ( s tructural f ill). (Also, groundwater contamination

. )



### Description: 380,000 tons of CCR from FBC coal

- fired boilers at the Bunge N. America Co., which operates a dry corn mill in Dansville, Ill deposited on a 25

- ac. site over a 10

- year period in a ravine adjacent to the Grays Siding neighborhood. The subdivision is a rural community of 30 homes that all draw their drinking water from groundwater. The CCR fill site has been encroaching on residential property, and the resid ential community is adversely affected by uncontrolled fugitive dust from the site.



### Status: Inactive.



### Impact Summary: Fugitive dust reported as uncontrolled from ‘ waste disposal .’ Several residents registered “citizen pollutant complaints” with IEPA due to the dust ( February 26

, 2002).



### Study : None.

64 Illinois at Risk, page 9, August 2011: http://prairierivers.org/wp

- content/uploads/2011/08/Illinois

- at

- Risk.pdf ; Specific information on OSHA’s citations and penalty: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=18918

65 Site known also as Gray Si dings

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

41 

### Regulatory and Legal Response: IEPA notified O/O that site was illegal open dump in 2006. Site owner declared bankruptcy; Bunge refuses liability. Bunge installed IEPA

- requested GW monitoring wells, submitte d GW Investigation Work Plan in 2007. Bunge is undertaking voluntary GW investigation. The site is now inactive.

Bills were proposed to tighten requirements for structural fill projects, requiring, among others, covering fly

- ash by a 12” soil cover within 30 days of its placement or end of project. 66



### References:

Chicago, IL, Public Hearing, September 16, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/f ossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste. Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice. February 24, 2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

May 22, 2011 email, with attached documents and photos, from Lisa Evans, EarthJustice, to A. Livnat, EP A/OSWER.



# Electric Energy, Inc., Met

- South Coal Combustion Waste

D isposal F acility, Joppa, Illinois

Implicated Activity: Disposal or b eneficial u se ; haul age

.



### Description: Coal Ash placed on roads, resulting in being stirred up by each passing vehicle

. 

### Status: Active (?)



### Impact Summary: Fugitive dust from waste disposal causes chronic and acute respiratory problems

. Coal Ash spreading to nearby houses and yards, causing serious health problems.

66 On February 15

, 2008

, SB2567 (2007

- 08) was proposed , in the 95 th General Assembly by Mike Frerichs, D

Champaign, and House Bill 4172 was proposed by Bill Black, R

- Danville : http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=9&SessionID=51&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=2567&LegI D=&SpecSess=&Session =Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

42 

### Study : IEPA’s response to EPA R5 (August 16, 2011): IEPA is not aware of any citizen complaints of damage cases concerning Electric Energy, Inc., nor is their air program aware of any permitting issues.

From Scott Arnold, IEPA (August 17, 2011): “ I checked this same complaint out about three years ago. It is a bogus complaint. EEI does NOT stack any ash at all. They haven't in since the 70's. The ash handling system stores the ash in silos and it is pneumatically moved to retention ponds.

The road in question, Liberty Ridge Road was black topped in the mid 80 's. Any coal ash that was ever applied to that road has been encapsulated for roughly 30 years now. There is no potential for air pollution at either site. And BOL decided over three years ago, they weren't going to do anything about Liberty Road. There is no "clean up" on going. I was down in Joppa yesterday and confirmed all of the above.”



### Regulatory and Legal Response: None.



### References:

Louisville , KY, P ublic H earing , September 28, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Chicago, IL, Public Hearing, September 16, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm



### EPA Region 6



# Clean Hydro Reclamation (formerly: Making Money Having
Fun

, LLC ) Landfill, Bokoshe, Le Flore County, O klahoma

Implicated Activity: R eclamation of an o pe n coal pit mine/ l andfilling ; haul age

. (Also, surface

water contamination

. )



### Description: Making Money, Having Fun (renamed: Clean Hydro Reclamation), a coal ash company, has been dumping coal ash in Bokoshe from the coal

- fired AES Shady Point power plant i n nearby Panama, Oklahoma (7 miles east). Oklahoma law prohibits locating a coal ash dump any closer than 3 miles from an incorporated city : when Making Money Having FunDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

43 ( MMHF ) applied to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission for a permit to dispose ‘commerc ial waste’, they left the 100

- year old, incorporated town of Bokoshe off their maps

. MMHF is building a coal ash wall at least 50’ high and growing, dump ing the ash first and only add ing oil/gas wastewater later to reclaim the abandoned strip mine. 67 MMHF

, in deni al that there is a town (incorporated since 1899) of less than 20,000 within a 1 .2 mile from the fill area

, have been operating since 2001 without any intervention by a regulatory authority.

“ Significant amounts of fugitive ash were seen every time a load of ash was dumped into the recirculating water stream. The fugitive ash lingered in the air and did not disperse quickly. Oklahoma’s requirements (Title 45 § 11.913.14) are that dust control measures shall be taken where dust significantly reduces visibility of equipment operators. Haulage roads shall be wet down as necessary unless dust is controlled adequately by other methods. Dust control measures are also specifically mentioned in the permit. ODEQ has jurisdiction over fugitive dust
and issues Air Quality Permits in that regard.” 68



### Status: Active.



### Impact Summary: The coal ash flies out of 80, 25

- ton trucks /day as fugitive dust on their daily trips to Bokoshe. A video shows dust billowing hundreds of feet up in the air. Sometimes
school busses d rive through it. The coal ash then leaks mercury, arsenic and other metals into the groundwater that supplies drinking water and then runs down the 50 foot hill onto the neighbors’ property. Over half of the school kids have asthma . The calves are stillbor n. Fourteen of the 20 families living at the vicinity of the disposal site have/had at least one cancer case per family

, including a toddler with leukemia, an 8th grade boy with breast cancer

, and a

35

- year

- old teacher who has had cancer twice. Several of her same

- age exercise buddies are
dead from cancer

. 69



### Study : None.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: Following a n April 15

, 2009 meeting of concerned residents with the Air Quality Advisory Council/OKDEQ, they found that MMHF has been

67 Two Clean Water Act Administrative orders were issued by EPA R6: (i ) on Dec. 10, 2009 (Docket CWA#06

- 2010

- 1748), for discharging pollutants (900 to 4200 ppm TDS) to a tributary of the Buck creek; and (ii) on Feb. 22, 2010,
another cease

- and

- Desist order. Due to lack of compliance (including requirements to eliminate the d ischarge of the pollutant water, and within 30 days, document and describe the corrective actions taken to eliminate the unauthorized discharge and provide a plan explaining how future waste stream will be managed)

. L ate in 2010, the
case was forwarded to DOJ. Because of surface water contamination problems, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission prohibited MMHF in 2010 from accepting water from oil and gas wells that was mixed with the fly ash

. 68 The earliest reference to a fugitive dust issue, in MMHF’s Recl amation Pit #2 . Cited from U.S. EPA Site Visit Report Coal Combustion Waste Minefill Management Practices

- Oklahoma

- Draft Final Report, September 9,

2 002 : http:/ /www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/sites/ok

- visit.pdf

69 ABC News: Oklahoma Town Fears Cancer, Asthma May Be Linked to Dump Site (March 29, 2011): http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma

- town

- fears

- cancer

- asthma

- linked

- dump

- site/story?id=13240312Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

44 committing 5 separate v iolations of the CAA for seven years. However, in the subsequent

C onsent O rder between OKDEQ and MMHF, there were no fines, penalties, or findings of
violation.

On October 6

, 2011, residents of Bokoshe 70 filed, in LeFlore County District Court, a lawsuit

a gainst AES Shady Point PP, MMHF LLC and its fly

- ash operators individually, Thumbs Up Ranch, GCI Mining, Mountain Minerals and several trucking companies (overall, 24 defendants), “for their creation of a noxious and harmful nuisance, pollution and contami nation, trespass, diminution of property values and business interest, and personal injury

. ” According to the plaintiffs, people living in more than half of the homes near the fly

- ash pit have had cancer, and they believe that the high number of respirator y illnesses

– including asthma in children

– among area residents is caused by dust blowing from the fly

- ash pit. The lawsuit asks the court to force the defendants to stop the dumping, clean up the site, and pay for current and future fly

- ash

- related illn esses and property damage. The plaintiffs are asking more than $75,000 each in compensatory and punitive damages. 71

In October 2012, the six Bokoshe plaintiffs in a class

- action lawsuit that was filed in Oct ober 2011 against AES Corp. and the businesses serving its nearby AES Shady Point plant filed an amended petition

, 72 adding 48 defendants that use t he same disposal pit site. Summons were issued to the new defendants on October 10, 2012. A jury trial had been set for November 29,

2012.



### References:

Dallas , TX, P ublic H earing , September 8, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

70 Bokoshe residents William and Diane Reese, Herman Tolbert, Tim Tanksley, Susan Holmes and Charles Tackett: http://swtimes.com/sections/news/dozens

- defendants

- added

- class

- action

- coal

- dust

- lawsuit.html

71 http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleid=20111102_12_A11_CUTLIN672607&subjectid=11

72 Dozens Of Defendants Added To Class

- Action Coal Dust Lawsuit : Times Record, Oct. 19, 2012: http://swtimes.com/sections/news/dozens

- defendants

- added

- class

- action

- coal

- dust

- lawsuit.html

. Among others, the amended petition adds oil and gas producers who also use the MMHF, aka Making Money Having Fun, Clean Hydro Reclamation and Clean Hydro Evacuation disposal pit site to dispose of their produced fluids, including saltwater and other contaminants, from oil and gas well drill sites and production sites. The amended petition alleges th e transport of the produced fluids to the disposal pit has resulted in the release of hundreds of millions of gallons of contaminants into creeks, streams, rivers and other surface water drainages and impoundments, and specifically
onto and under the homes , businesses and properties of the plaintiffs and their fellow class members. The lawsuit contends that more than 450 residents in and around Bokoshe have been affected by the businesses’ actions.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

45 Denver , CO, Public Hearing , September 2, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Comment to the docket submitted by Jody Harlan, Chapter Vice Chair, Sierra Club Oklahoma : EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 2401

May 4, 2011 m eeting between Susan Holmes

, B.E .Cause and Lisa Evans , EarthJustice, with EPA/OSWER.

Tulsa World, 11/2/2011

Coal Ash chronicles, 2014: http://www.coalashchronicles.com/in

- your

- backyard/oklahoma



# Arizona Public Service San Juan Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant, N ew M exico

Implicated Activity: Disposal ( surface impoundments ) and b eneficial u se (minefill ing ) (Also, groundwater and surface water cont amination caused by minefill ing

. )



### Description: In addition to the contamination of groundwater and surface water from the surface impoundments , APS does not control fugitive dust resulting from its disposal activities. The arid climate and often windy co nditions on the Navajo R eservation make airborne ash from
the uncovered and not reclaimed impoundment s a serious problem. APS’s decades

- long failure to contain windblown ash has resulted in contamination of soil in areas surrounding the impoundment s.

APS claims that active measures (dust suppressants, wetting, and compaction) are undertaken to control fugitive dust, and that Four Corners has been approached by the Navajo Nation to ask for application of CCPs on soils of the NAPI (irrigated agriculture) Pro ject

. 73



### Status: Active

.



### Impact Summary: Apparently associated with higher

- than

- normal rates of cancer (leukemia) and respiratory ailments attacking otherwise healthy, young Navajo residents in the Shiprock
downwind area

73 USWAG’s comment to the 2007 NODA docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

46 

### Study : None.



### Regulatory and Lega l Response: N ew M exico does not require daily cover at disposal

sites

.



### References:

Denver , CO, P ublic H earing , September 2, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonha z/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm

Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste. Environmental Integrity Project and EarthJustice . February 24, 2010. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

Comment to the docket submitted by Marty Rustan on behalf of Lisa Evans, EarthJus tice: EPA

HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0446

.

A n October 24, 2006 complaint by a Navajo Reservation resident to Susan Bodine, the AA for OSWER, in a meeting at EPA HQs in Washington, DC.



### EPA Region 8



# Valmont Coal Plant, Boulder

, C olorado

Implicated Activity: Hau lage for d isposal (conveyer belt)

.



### Description: Fugitive dust blowing off plant (conveyer belt) as a result of high winds

.



### Status: Active.



### Impact Summary: No information.



### Study : None.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: None.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

47 

### References:

Denver , CO, Publ ic Hearing , September 2, 2010: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr

- rule/ccr

- hearing.htm



### EPA Region 9


# Nevada Energy, Reid Gardner Generating Station, Moapa,
N evada

Implicated Activity: Disposal, Class III industrial l andfill

, s urface i mpoundments and ash
haul age

. (Also, a proven damage case on account of groundwater and surface water contamination.)



### Description: The waste disposal site, directly adjacent to the power plant, is a 91

- acre unlined landfill, less than one mile from the Moapa Band of Paiutes Tribal community on the Moapa
River Indian Reservation in Southern Nevada. There are t wo major types of CCR management
that seem t o generate most of the fugitive dust that blows to the community of the Moapa
Band of Paiutes : (i) Fly ash from the surface impoundments that is scooped out periodically and heaped for haulage to the coal ash landfill. There are also pond

- solids, forming on the sides of the impoundments as liquid evaporates, entrained in droplets as liquid evaporates, or made air

borne by blowing wind, all being carried from the wastewater ponds; (ii) Some twenty uncovered trucks of coal ash per day are trucked from the as h ponds to the landfill over unpaved haul roads. The landfill is also higher in elevation and southeasterly of the tribal community. CCR dust is generated when the landfill surface is dry, disturbed by landfill activities, driven upon by haul trucks, or wh en ash escapes or is blown from the haul trucks. Winds in the vicinity of the power plant are frequently southern or southeasterly, so that ash mobilized by the winds frequently blows in the Moapa community. During high wind events,
residents of the Reserv ation have observed dust from the vicinity of the landfill sweeping
towards them. 74



### Status: Active.



### Impact Summary: None available.

74 Between 2008 and 2012, this occurred on September 19, 2008; April 14, 2009; April 23, 2009; April 20, 2010; December 13, 2010; June 30, 2010; April 7, 2011; and February 13, 2012Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

48 

### Study : Early in 2012, EPA R9 launched a fugitive dust study: “ Region 9 is in the process of evaluating the dust/odor issue s associated with the Reid Gardner (RG) facility. We are in the process of information gathering: Environmental permits and EIS documents and associated public comments; Meteorological data; Historic and current RG dust and odor complaint data;
Effective engineering and process controls to minimize dust/odors from the management of CCRs; Damage case related information related to the management of CCR waste; RG analytical data for both slurried and landfilled CCR wastes; and on and off

- site soil data, if a vailable; to determine if the area has been adversely impacted from CCR related heavy metals.” 75 Based on
a recent feedback from EPA R9

, it seems that Nevada Energy has put in place work practices in the recent two years to address both the odor and fugitiv e dust issues associated with the Plant’s operations. 76



### Regulatory and Legal Response: Tribal community has complained for years about blowing dust from landfill area, aggravating respiratory ailments, and smells emanating from wastewater ponds. When NV En ergy applied for the landfill expansion in 2006, 77 more than fifty comments from tribal members were generated against the expansion, which were all dismissed by BLM. More recently complaints have been documented in photos (April 2010, July 2010, April 2011 , and May 2011). Complaints have been registered with the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), NV Energy, Southern Nevada Health District, and the Clark County Department of Air Quality. To this date (mid

- 2011), no written record or
report on complaints has been provided to the Tribal community or Sierra Club.

Tribal members have commented on cultural life

- ways being abrogated by the landfill’s operation, such as the harvesting and hunting of local plants and small game, as well as the
abi lity to conduct ceremonies and traditional religious observances outdoors. There is also no record of response to these complaints. During a dust storm 4

- 5 years ago, Tribal Member Calvin Meyers was told he “did not have the authority” to call in a complai nt.

According to a June 24, 2010 Notice of Decision on a public comment period on the pending NDEP’s issuance of groundwater permit number NEV91022, Nevada Energy, Inc., Reid Gardner Station (RGS), one of the letters submitted by the Paiutes addressed air emissions. The letter recommended conducting a health feasibility study to look at health consequences of living near RGS, to be paid for by NV Energy; and a tribal lifestyle study to identify exposure and risk. A public hearing was conducted on June 3, 2010, where “much of the comments dealt with issues outside the scope of the permit or regulations and authority of the Bureau of Water Pollution Control.” The groundwater permit was granted and became effective June 25, 2010.

75 A January 31, 2012 email from J. Schofield, EPA R9, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER

. 76 Nov ember 12, 2013 email from J. Schofield , EPA R9, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.

77 NV Energy received a tentative approv al for a single

- lined

, 24

- acre expansion of their coal ash landfill on BLM
land

.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

49 The Solid Waste Authority f or Southern Nevada is the Southern Nevada Health District. 347 letters were submitted to the Southern Nevada Health District opposing the landfill. Of these letters, seven include complaints of blowing dust, asthma, and falsified reports. To this date (mi d

- 2011), there is no record of compliance violations or enforcement actions on the dry coal
ash landfill at Reid Gardner.

On December 16, 2010, The Moapa Band of Paiutes et al sued U.S. BLM for violating NEPA when allowing the LF expansion on public land

. 78 On October 6, 2011, in the case of the Moapa Band of Paiutes et al v. U.S. BLM et al and Nevada Power Co., the US District Court of Nevada denied the plaintiffs’ request for Summary Judgment concerning BLM’s failure to prepare an EIS, following FONSI in its Environmental Assessment regarding Nevada Energy’s request for relocating its CCR evaporation ponds and expanding the landfill. Among others, the court stated (P. 11): “The BLM properly determined that the standards for fugitive dust and hydrogen
sul fide fell within the range of National and State Ambient Quality Standards” (AR at 100

- 101), and that “BLM complied with its obligations under NEPA in determining that the Expansion would have no significant impact on air quality.”

The September 9

, 2011

, South Nevada District Board of Health issued CCR landfill operation permit contains two sections on controlling fugitive dust (8g and 8h), and indicates that the installation of PM10 continuous monitoring was completed prior to March 1, 2011. While a signi ficant step forward, the permit does not include any reporting requirement to the permitting authority, which obviates the enforcement aspect of this measure.

The April 8

, 2011 Nevada Energy draft dust suppression plan for high

- wind (>15 miles/h ou r)

eve nt days, developed by Nevada Energy as part of the permit requirements, does not spell out what additional measures, other than ceasing the disturbance of the coal and coal ash piles during high wind event days, would be undertaken to control excessive fug itive dust emissions

On October 10, 2011, the Moapa Band of Paiutes and the Sierra Club submitted a law suit against the S. Nevada Health Board, who had granted Nevada Energy a permit to expand the CCR LF. “When the wind blows from the south, the ash blow s into the homes and the hair and food of my clients...State law is clear: The Board of Health is not entitled to license a public

nuisance

. ” 79

On February 8, 2013 , a 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, was submitted by the Law

78 High Country News, Case No. 2:10

- CV

- 02021

- KJD

- LRL: http://www.hcn.org/greenjustice/blog/sierra

- club

- and

- a

small

- tribe

- sue

- the

- blm

- to

- stop

- the

- expansion

- o f

- a

- coal

- ash

- landfill

79 Lawsuit aims to block expansion of NV Energy landfill ; Las Vegas Review

- Journal, October 10, 2011: http://www.lvrj.com/new s/lawsuit

- aims

- to

- block

- expansion

- of

- nv

- energy

- landfill

- 131491113.htmlDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

50 Offices of Charles M. Tebbutt, P.C., Eugene, Oregon, to NV Energy and the California Department of Water Resources. 80

These and similar complaints were included in Appendix A of t he August 8, 2013 Sierra Club and
the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians citizen suit in federal court against Nevada Energy and the California Department of Water Resources, seeking cleanup of contaminated lands and waters surrounding the Reid Gardner plant. 81 Considering fugitive dust from Reid Gardner’s facility, <Plaintiffs’ members in the community center of the Triba l reservation live within a mile or two of the Reid Gardner facility, including its landfill, wastewater ponds, the generating station itself, its adjacent coal piles, and the facility’s other sources of pollutants and contaminants. Plaintiffs’ members are reasonably concerned about harm to their health from breathing air contaminated with particulates from the coal ash landfill, solids from the wastewater evaporation ponds, coal dust, and other contaminants blown into the reservation from the Reid
Gardner facility . Plaintiffs’ members are also concerned about the threat to their health caused by needing to shutter themselves indoors, including during hot weather, so as to avoid exposure to southerly winds that entrain contaminants from the facility.>

<Plai ntiffs’ members utilize the land and river in the area near the Reid Gardner facility for religious purposes and spiritual practice. CCW dust and associated fumes and gases from the Reid Gardner facility, including from the coal ash landfill and CCW ponds, impair Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue these practices and undermines the quality of the experience. Plaintiffs also attempt to grow vegetables in their home gardens, and plaintiffs are reasonably concerned that toxic dust from the Reid Gardner facility dep osited on their soil and vegetables renders their produce unsafe or otherwise impairs its quality.>

<Plaintiffs’ members, volunteers and staff have seen and smelled the coal ash landfill and wastewater ponds, including the dust clouds they generate during periods of high wind and the odors that may be especially intense during hot periods.>



### References:

80 EPA Correspondence Management Control Number AX

- 13

- 000

- 2093; File Code 401_127_a General Correspondence Files Record copy ( An April 29, 2013 email attachment from P. Raack , EPA/OECA to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER )

. 81 BNA 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. The suit said that NV Energy reported “over 7,000 exceedances of state action levels
for cont aminants of concern” to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection since 2008, covering several pollutants including chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, arsenic, boron, chromium, manganese, magnesium, molybdenum, selenium, and sodium. “Groundwa ter monitoring data also indicates that, in the period 2008

- 2012, there were additional exceedances of federal standards for toxic contaminants beyond those identified as
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.pdfDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

51 May 12, 2011 email

, with attachments of petitions and photos

, from Lisa Evans , EarthJustice, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.

E mail exchanges between J. Schofiel d , EPA R9 , with A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER (August 25

, 2011 ; November 2, 2011; and November 13, 2013.)

October 10 p ress article on Paiute/Sierra Club suit to block L andfill expansion, 10/10/2011

April 29, 2013 email

, with attachment

, from P. Raack , EPA/OECA to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.



### EPA Region 10


# College Peat and Landscaping and Alaska Industrial Support, Inc., Fairbanks, A laska

Implicated Activity: Storage and haul age for disposal and b eneficial u se

.



### Description: In Fairbanks, Alaska, two coal‐fired pow er plants have no designated CCR landfill in the area. Power plants operated by Aurora Energy, LLC and the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) use a contractor to dispose of their coal ash. The UAF produces 1 to 2 dump truck loads of coal ash daily. Unti l just a few years ago, this waste was used exclusively on campus as filler material for numerous construction projects such as roads, buildings, parking lots, and sports fields, and even for winter traction on icy roads and sidewalks. Today, coal ash
is s tockpiled at a local landscaping company until it is used as fill in local areas such as public spaces, roads, and residential neighborhoods. The landscaping company was recently notified of a violation of air pollution regulations in reference to coal ash disposal.



### Status: Active.



### Impact Summary: In June 2010, Local Fairbanks resident and Farmer’s Market vendor Mary
Zalar commented: ‘Last spring, while selling our handcrafted wood bowls at our local Farmer's Market, a strong north wind blew coal ash int o the market from where it is stored on adjacent property ( College Peat & Landscaping stockpile next to the Farmer’s Market) . Our product was coated with a very obnoxious, persistent and pervasive black ash that was difficult to remove. My concern increase d when I discovered there is no regular testing or regulation of the disposal of coal ash in our community. ’Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

52 

### Study : At the request of local residents, a sampling project was conducted in June 2010 in the Fairbanks area to determine the toxicity in local s ources of coal ash. Samples of coal ash from local power plants, waste disposal sites and reuse sites were found to contain a range of toxic heavy metals. In almost every case, the levels of toxic chemicals were found to be much higher than background soil samples from Fairbanks. In the coal ash samples, levels of arsenic and vanadium were found at concentrations that may harm human health . Two samples from the UAF coal fired power plant show arsenic concentrations more than 100 times higher than the
standa rd for residential soils set by the EPA. Lastly, mercury was found at levels 70 times higher than background soils , and at levels high enough to be a concern if inhaled in the form of
windblown dust.



### Regulatory and Legal Response: In June 2010, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) sent a compliance letter to College Peat & Landscaping, citing concerns about fugitive dust emissions from its property onto the neighboring Farmer’s Market. ADEC’s inspection showed “excessive dust coming f rom a coal ash pile that was uncovered and was spreading dust & ash all over the tables at the Farmer’s Market” in violation of 18 AAC 50.045(d) and 18 AAC 50.110: Air Pollution Prohibited , creating a health concern for the vendors
and customers. The cite d entity was requested to take appropriate precautionary steps to prevent fugitive dust from coal ash storage piles and coal ash handling activities.

In August and September 2010, ADEC issued a letter alleging Possible Violation of Solid Waste Transport Regulation and a Confirmed Violation of Solid Waste Transport Regulation, respectively, alleging citizen complaints, then actual observation of Alaska Industrial Support, Inc. (AIS) trucks hauling uncovered loads of coal ash from the UAF power plant to the College Peat site, in violation of 18 AAC 60.015. The second letter forewarned that was another truck to be seen uncovered, ADEC would begin a formal enforcement action against AIS.

On May 16, 2011, a citizen (Teresa de Lima) submitted a CERCLA petition to EPA R10 to conduct a preliminary assessment of the suspected release of CCW at the owners parents’ residential property and neighboring properties in Fairbank, AK, due to 8

- 10 daily trips of CCR hauling trucks from Aurora Energy’s PP to a landfill, wit h inadequately covered load. The wetted load
releases CCR

- laden sooty water, leaving a CCRs trail in the streets and sidewalks. All her prior efforts to contact local and state authorities remained inadequately

- or not addressed. 82

Teresa de Lima (Affecte d Citizens in Fairbanks, Alaska HR2273) cites EPA’s response to her May 2011 filing of a citizen’s petition to EPA R10, accompanied by four photos documenting the fallout on her ailing parents’ house : 83 I n September 2011, EPA conducted soil testing on homes

82 Petition referenced in Aurora En ergy Coal Power Plant preliminary Assessment, Fairbanks, AK , TD: 11

- 06

- 0004, prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc., for USEPA, Seattle, Washington, January 2012: http://groundtruthtrekking.org/static/uploads/files/EPA

- PA

- Fairbanks

- Coal.pdfGOqKVt/EPA

- PA

- Fairbanks

- Coal.pdf

83 Her mother has very severe Rheumatoid Arthritis, Alzheimer, Cardiac and Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GER D). Her father, Parkinson; she cites scientists and doctors of the Physicians for Social Responsibility that these ailments can be directly linked to exposure. She also cites exposure of the residents on Van Horn Road, CollegeDamage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

53 in the immediate area of the dirty polluter on First Avenue (the Aurora Energy power plant, which is owned by the Usibelli Coal Mine). 84 In an enclosed email April 18, 2012 message, she prods Erik Elram, the environmental liaison of Alaska’s representative Don Young, to oppose the passage of HR2273 because of the adverse side effects of using CCW as road fill.



### References:

Two emails ( May 10, 2011 and May 11, 2011 ), with attached documents and photos

, from Lisa

Evans , Earthjustice, to A. Livnat, EPA/OSWER.

April 18, 2012 l etters from Teresa de Lima

, Affected Citizens in Fairbanks, Alaska to Lisa P. Jackson, EPA’s Administrator, and to Erik Elam, the environmental liaison of Representative Don Young , U

. S

. Congress.

Estates to fugitive dust, in cluding’ significant health problems that have striken four individuals after having lived in close proximity to the coal (combustion) piles

– i.e., respiratory ailments and Saircoidosis (a disease in which inflammation occurs in the lymph nodes, lungs, li ver, eyes, skin, or other tissues).

84 Remembering Don and Rose de Lima; Northern Line, Summer 2013, page 11: http:// northern.org/media

library/document

- archive/northern

- line/2013/summer

- 2013

- high

- resolution

- file

- 6

- mb/at_download/fileDamage Cases: Docu mented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

54 

# Fugitive Dust Cases: Summary Table 85

Case State, Region LF SI Minefill Structural Fill Road Application Haulage Captive Waste Plant Operation Active Resolved Inactive Partially Active Dust Only Dust & Other Media Air Dispersion Study Particle Study Health Study State

/Gov Action Public Hear

ing Damage Case

86 Comment to

D ockt Court case

, Intent to Sue , Settlement

AES Guayama,

PR PR

R2     

Vitale Fly Ash Pit, Beverly MA

R2    

Gambrills MD

R3     

Mirant Brandywin

e LF MD

R3    

Indian River,
Millsboro DE

R3         

Case State, Region LF SI Minefill Structural Fill Road Application Haulage Captive Waste Plant Operation Active Resolved Inactive Partially Active Dust Only Dust & Other Me dia Air Dispersion Study Particle Study Health Study State

/Gov Action Public Hearing Damage Case

87 Comment to

D ockt Court case

, Intent to Sue , Settlement

Bruce Mansfield PA

R3        

85 Entry marked only when parameter is relevant specifically to fugitive dust.

86 Recognized or alleged damage case based on groundwater and/or surface water impact.

87 Recognized or alleged damage case based on groundwater and/or surface water impact.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

55 Shippingp

ort Mitchell PP, Courtney La Belle,

Luzerne

T ownship PA

R3

PA
R3 

  

  ?

  

 

Rostosky Ridge Rd. PA

R3      

East End LF, H enrico
Co. VA

R3  

88

Battlefield
Golf

Course VA

R3       

Case State, Region LF SI Minefill Structural Fill Road Application Haulage Captive Waste Plant Operation Active Resolved Inactive Partially Active Dust Only Dust & Other Media Air Dispersion Study Particle Study Health Study State

/Gov Acti on Public Hearing Damage Case

89 Comment to Dock

e t Court case

, Intent to Sue

, Settlem

e ent

Fort Martin PP,
F. Martin WV

R3 ?   ? 

Arrowhea d LF,
Uniontow

n AL

R4      

88 State endorsed site activities, but County issued a NOV for permit violation.

89 R ecognized or alleged damage case based on groundwater and/or surface water impact.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

56 Riverbend Steam P., Mt. Holly NC

R4       

PE
Asheville NC

R4       

Swift
Creek Rocky

Mount NC

R4    

Harlan Co., Off US

119 KY

R4 ? ?   

Case State, Region LF SI Minefill Structural Fill Road Application Haulage Captive Waste Plant Oper

ation Active Resolved Inactive Partially Active Dust Only Dust & Other Media Air Dispersion Study Particle Study Health Study State

/Gov Action Public Hearing Damage Case

90 Comment to

D ockt Court case

, Intent to Sue , Settlement

Louisville
G&E Cane

Run KY

R4         

91

Duke Energy’s Gibson,
Somerville /Mt.
Carmel IN

R5 ?     

Hoosier Energy
Merom IN

R5         

92 

93

90 Recognized or alleged damage case based on groundwater and/or surface water impact.

91 (i) Settlement between LG &E and over 100 residents of the community of Riverside G ardens for fugitive dust, negligence and nuisance; (ii) Intent to Sue (9/6/2013).

92 Proposed Rule Docket: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10019.

93 NOV (8/2009); CO (7/2010) between Hoosier Energy and IEPA, $95K penalty and upgrade of pollution control technology.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

57 Ameren Coffeen/

US
Miner als IL

R5    

94  

Case State, Region LF SI Minefill Structural Fill Road Application Haulage Captive Waste Plant Operation Active Resolved Inactive Partially Active Dust Only Dust & Other Media Air Dispersion Study Particle Study Health Study State

/Gov Action Public Hearing Damage Case

95 Comment to

D ockt Court case

, Intent to Sue , Settlement

Rocky

Acres
CCBP Disposal site, Bunge Corp.,
Oakwood IL

R5       

Met

- South

CCW Disposal Facility, Joppa IL

R5 ? ?    

MMHF LF,
Bokoshe OK

R6  96

        

97

San Juan
G. Stat io n/

4 Corners NM

R6     

94 OSHA fined US Minerals $400 K in Dec. 2012 for endangering their workers on multiple occasions with hazardous ash dust.

95 Recognized or alleged damage case based on groundwater and/or surface water impact

97 A class action Lawsuit against AES Shady point a nd additional 23 defendants, Oct. 2011, amended Oct. 2012.Damage Cases: Documented Fugitive Dust Impact Final CCR Management Rule December 2014

58 Case State, Region LF SI Minefill Structural Fill Road Application Haulage Captive Waste Plant Operation Active Resolved Inactive Partially Active Dust Only Dust & Other Media Air Dispersion Study Particle

Study Health Study State

/Gov Action Public Hearing Damage Case

98 Comment to

D ockt Court case

, Intent to Sue , Settlement

Valmont Coal Plant,
Boulder CO

R8    

Nevada Energy
Reid Gardner, Moapa NV

R9     

99 

100  

101

Col lege
Peat & Landscapi ng, AIS,
Fairbanks AK

R10       

102

98 Recognized or alleged damage case based on groundwater and/or surface water impact.

99 In 2012, EPA R9 launched a study to evaluate the dust/odor issues associated with the power plant.

100 EPA R9 conducted a fact

- finding visit to Reid Gardner and the Paiute Indians (Sep. 26, 2012), based on which findings’ it has not pursued any enforce ment
action.

101 (i) Against the Bureau of Land Management (Dec. 2010) for failing to prepare an EIS as a condition for authorizing a CCR LF expansion on public land; plaintiff’s request denied (Oct. 2011); (ii) Lawsuit, Moapa Band of Paiutes and the Sierra Club against the S. Nevada Health Board (permitting agency), Oct. 2011; (iii) Intent to Sue, Moapa Band of Paiutes and the Sierra Club against Nevada Energy and the California Department of Water Resources (Feb., 2013).

102 A City resident submitted (5/2011) a CERCLA petition to EPA R10 for assessment of fugitive dust releases on her parents’ prop erty next to the trucks ’ CCR hauling route. EPA R10 responded it would conduct soil testing at the impacted property.