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

1) Flint Creek Power Plant

, American Electric Power

- SWEPCO Gentry, AR

................................ ..... 1 2) Independence Steam Station

, Entergy

- AP & L Newark, AR

................................ ........................... 3 3) Montville Generating Station

, NRG Energy / Montville Power Montville, CT

............................... 5 4) CD McIntosh Jr. Power Plant

, City of Lakeland Lakeland, FL

................................ ........................ 8 5) George Neal Station North Landfill

, MidAmerican Energy Company Sergeant B luff, IA

............. 10 6) George Neal Station South Ash Monofill

, MidAmerican Energy Company Salix, IA

................... 12 7) Lansing Station Ash Ponds and Landfill

, Alliant Energy

– IP&L Lansing, IA

.............................. 14 8) Joliet Generating Station 9

– Lincoln Stone Quarry Landfill

, Midwest Generation Joliet, IL

....... 16 9) Marion Plant, Southern Illinois Power Cooperative Marion, IL

................................ ...................... 19 10) Venice Power Station

, Union Electric Company/Ameren Energy

– AmerenUE Venice, IL

.......... 21 11) Mill Creek Station

, Louisville Gas and Electric Louisville, KY

................................ ...................... 24 12) Shawnee Fossil Plant

, Tennessee Valley Authority Paducah, KY

................................ ................... 26 13) Spurlock Power Station

, Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative Maysville, KY

............................. 28 14) Big Cajun 2 Power Plant

, NRG Energy

- Louisia na Generating, LLC New Roads, LA

................. 30 15) Dolet Hills Power Station

, CLECO Power LLC Mansfield, LA

................................ ..................... 32 16) Rodemacher Power Stati on
, CLECO Power, LLC Lena, LA

................................ .......................... 34 17) JR Whiting Generating Plant

, CMS Energy

– Consumers Energy Erie, MI

................................ .... 36 18) Dan River Stea m Station

, Duke Energy Eden, NC

................................ ................................ .......... 38 19) Antelope Valley Station

, Basin Electric Power Cooperative Beulah, ND

................................ ....... 40 20) Leland Olds Station

, Basin Electric Power Cooperative Stanton, ND

................................ ............. 42 21) Sheldon Station

, Nebraska Public Power District Hallam, NE

................................ ........................ 44

22 ) Cayuga Coal Ash Disposal Landfill

, AES Lansing, NY

................................ ................................ .. 46 23) Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir s, American Electric Power Brilliant, OH

................................ ............ 48 24) General James M. Gavin Power Plant

, AEP

- Ohio Power Company Cheshire, OH

....................... 50 25) Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site Uniontown, OH

................................ ................... 52 26) Muskingum River Plant

, AEP

- Ohio Power Company Beverly, OH

................................ ............... 54 27) Northeastern Station Ash Landfill

, AEP

- Public Service Company of Oklahoma Oologah, OK

.... 56 28) Boardman Plant

, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) Boardman, OR

................................ . 58 29) Bruce Mansfield Power Station

, FirstEnergy Shippi ngport, PA

................................ ...................... 60 30) Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station

, Allegheny Energy Supply Company Masontown, PA

.................. 62 31) Big Stone Power Plant

, O tter Tail Power Big Stone City, SD

................................ ......................... 65 32) Cumberland Steam Plant

, Tennessee Valley Authority Cumberland City, TN

............................... 67 33) Gallat in Fossil Plant, Tennessee Valley Authority Gallatin, TN

................................ ..................... 69 34) Johnsonville Fossil Plant

, Tennessee Valley Authority New Johnsonville, TN

.............................. 71 35) Fayette Power Project (Sam Seymour)

, Lower Colorado River Authority La Grange, TX

............. 73 36) Clinch River Plant

, AEP

– Appalachian Power Company Cleveland, VA

................................ ...... 75 37) Glen Lyn Plant

, AEP

– Appalachian Power Company Glen Lyn, VA

................................ ............ 77 38) Columbia Energy Center

, Alliant Energy

– Wisconsin Power and Light Pardeeville, WI

............... 79 39) Oak Creek Power Plant Wisconsin Energy

– Wisconsin Electric Power Oak Creek, WI

............. 81APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 1 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 1) Flint Creek Power Plant

American Electric Powe r

- Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) Gentry, AR

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combust ion Waste

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill and Surface Impoundments

Background and Description

The Flint Creek Power Plant site contains a 40

- acre landfill which has been in operation since

1978 but was only permitted in 1994. The current landfill permit allows for disposal of dried fly ash and dredged bottom ash. It is unknown whether the landfill is lined. The site also contains a

30

- acre primary ash pond and a 3.2

- acre secondary ash pond locat ed south of the plant operations area. Surface impoundments at Arkansas power plants are used for storage, not disposal, of CCR. The SWEPCO ponds at Flint Creek are managed for an exempted reuse of coal bottom ash; the ponds are dredged for re

- use of the s olids and/or their disposal elsewhere. The ponds and their dredged materials are exempt from regulation under the “use of recovered materials” provision in ADEQ Regulation 22. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) required the facility to start monitoring in 2005 due to statistically significant increases in selenium, sulfate, pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS). The first groundwater monitoring at the site was undertaken in 1994, and in 2005 the ADEQ began to require

assessment monitorin g at the site; however, no offsite groundwater data is available. The plant has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit ( No. AR0037842. )

Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 Report indicates that onsite groundwater i s contaminated with barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium at levels greater than EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Arkansas Groundwater Protection Standards (GWPSs); levels of iron, manganese, and silver above the GWPS; and pH, sulfate, an d TDS exceeding EPA secondary MCLs (SMCLs).

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 Report also notes that surface water samples of the landfill leachate have

found a number of elevated contaminant concentrations.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Ev aluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA MCLs for barium, cadmium, chromium, lead

and selenium.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA SMCLs for pH, sulfate, and TDS.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 2 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 The main ash pond also receives pr ocess wastewater and stormwater runoff.

 Since 2007, the landfill permit has required that SWEPCO collect leachate samples from the discharge point, when present, at the southeast corner of the landfill.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Ground water exceedances of the primary EPA MCLs for barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium, and the SMCLs for pH, sulfate, and TDS have been found onsite. Leachate samples from the landfill contain elevated levels of barium, boron, chromium, lead, seleniu m, sulfate and TDS; however, there is no scientific study available that explicitly documents evidence of damage to human health or the

environment . ADEQ issued an NOD to SWEPCO and requested installation of a leachate collection system; however this also does not have an explicit finding of specific damage.



### Additional Sources

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, SWEPCO Flint Creek Power Plant , Accessed

Online Oct 2010. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000452910

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  Surface water samples of leachate collected from a discharge point at the southeast

corner of the landfill contain elevated levels of barium, boron, chromium, lead, selenium, sulfate, and TDS and have alkaline pH readings

Criterion 3 :  ADEQ issued a Notice of Deficien cy (NOD) to SWEPCO in 2008 due to an

uncontrolled discharge of CCR leachate and requested AEP install a leachate collection system. As of March 2010, no leachate collection system has been installed.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 3 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 2) Independence Steam Station Enterg y
- Ar kansas Power and Light (AP & L) Newark, AR

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill and Wastewater Recycle and Surge Ponds

Background and Description

The Independence Steam Station site contains a fly ash and bottom ash landfill, two wastewater recycle ponds, a surge pond, and a coal storage pile. The landfill and surge pond are each nearly 3⁄4

- mile long. A Class 3N Landfill permit was issued in 2002 for the landfill containing coal combustion residuals (CCRs) which has been in operation since at least 1990. The permit required that AP & L establish baseline water quality condi tions. AP & L has also applied for a landfill expansion and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) will require that the lateral expansion to the east of the existing landfill have a leachate collection system. The leachate is to be dispo sed of in the surge pond. There are reportedly 25 irrigation wells and three drinking water wells within a two

- mile radius of the landfill. Several wells are immediately adjacent to the plant property; however, no offsite groundwater monitoring

data is ava ilable. The plant has an National Pollutant Discha rge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit ( AR0037451 .)



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 Report indicates that onsite groundwater is contaminated with arsenic, cadmium, and lead occurring at le vels greater than EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), and iron, manganese, pH, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeding EPA secondary MCLs (SMCLs). Additionally, the report asserts that strontium concentrations have been detected as high as 2.72 mg/L, nearing the EPA’s current Lifetime Health Advisory Level of 4.0 mg/L. The report also notes that a number of wells right on the plant property line have shown exceedances of SMCLs, noting that this would indicate offsite contamination, though AD EQ has not undertaken any action to correct or investigate this contamination. The report does note that in 2002 the permit on the landfill required groundwater monitoring. However, as of 2007, the conditions of the permit’s monitoring had yet to be

met.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA MCLs for arsenic, cadmium, and lead.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA SMCLs for iron, manganese, pH, sulfate, and

TDS.

 No offsite groundw ater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 4 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 The landfill permit issued in 2002 required that groundwater samples be collected to monitor 28 heavy metal and indicator parameters, and that s tatistical analyses of i ncreases in concentrations

should serve as a basis for corrective actions. AP & L has recently stopped sampling 26 wells at the surge pond and plant areas without objection from ADEQ.

 NPDES Permit ( AR0037451 ) focused on runoff from coal piles and various n on

- CCR waste

stream including metal waste cleaning wastes, sanitary landfill, and cooling tower blowdown

outfalls.

 Along with CCRs, the surge pond and the recycle ponds handle various process wastewaters.

 Much of the local area is used for farming and it is noted that irrigation of surrounding farms does affect the groundwater flow underneath the plant, possibly affecting the migration of

contaminants.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCLs for arsenic , cadmium, and lead, and the SMCLs for iron, manganese, sulfate, pH, and TDS have been found onsite. 

### There are no administrative rulings or

court decisions associated with the site.

Additional Sources

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Repo rt, http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000452705 accessed

10/15/10

NPDES Permit AR0037451 , June 30, 2 006, http://www.epa

- echo.gov/cgi

bin/npdespdf.cgi?filetype=P&npdes=AR0037451 accessed 10/20/10APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 5 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 3) Montville Generating Station NRG Energy / Montville Power, LLC

Montv ille, CT

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjus tice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Impoundments, Ash Settling Ponds, Coal and Ash Storage Area



### Background and Description

Montville Generating Station is a power plant sitting on a 50

- acre site that began service in 1919. The plant operated as a coal plant until 1971 when it converted to oil. During the 52 years of its operation, coal ash and slurry was placed throughout the site including into a number of settling ponds and disposal lagoon

. The ash disposal sites have all been inactive since the plant switched to oil. US EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) investigations at the site identified 14 Areas of Concern (AOCs) , with only the Coal Ash Settling Ponds and Disposal Lagoon AOC related to coal ash

contamination. The station lies on the Thames River and near populous areas

. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) estimat es that there are over 300 private wells within

2

- miles of the station. The plant has a National Pollutant Discha rge Elimination System (NPDE S) permit (No. CT0003115.)



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport claims groundwater contamination is related to CCRs although only

the coal ash settling ponds and disposal lagoon are impacted primarily by CCR. T he CTDEP has designated groundwater in the western part of the station as GA/GAA 1 ( currently cl a ssified as GA or suitable for drinking water without treatment with a goal of improvement to GAA which is intended for high volume public water supplies) while g roundwater in the easte rn part is designated as GB

. The report notes that arsenic and beryllium concentrations exceed ed the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) at monitoring wells in both sections of the station. The report also notes iron, manganese

, and pH

above their secondary EPA MCL (SMCL) in both sections.

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport mentions that because groundwater from the site discharges into the Thames River, comparison to CTDEP’s Surface Water Protection Criteria (SWPC) is relevant. This comparison iden tified cadmium, copper, nickel

, zinc

, arsenic

, and beryllium as exceeding the SWPC.

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport also noted that soil samples in some of the AOC’s exceeded the Industrial/Commercial Direct Exposure Criteria (IC DEC) for arsenic

, beryl lium

, and other unidentified

metals

.

1 Connecticut Water Quality Stan dard and Criteria (WQS) classifies surface and groundwater based on existing water quality, anticipated water quality needs, and proximity to other nearby zones to protect water resources. Groundwater is classified from GAA, GA, GB, GC, and GD in decreasin g expectation of groundwater quality. Most discharges are severely limited in GA and GAA classified areas. Classification GB groundwater requires treatment before consumption and allows some greater flexibility in discharge limits.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 6 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 Finally, t he EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport mentions that in the late 1960’s the plant disposed of coal ash outside the station boundary in the Hunts Brook watershed

, which significantly degraded the surface

water with levels of iron, sulfate

, and total dissolved solids (TDS) well above the SMCL downstream from the disposed coal ash.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 US EPA made a final determination that current human exposure is under control in 2001. The

p roposed RAP focused on soil removal in AOCs unrelated to CCRs.

 US EPA made a final determination that migration of contaminated groundwater is under control

in 200 0

.

 Discharges to Thames River area is considered unlikely based on EPA report on migration of contaminated groundwater. However, even if such migration were possible, the Thames River in the vicinity of Montville, CT, is saline and is classified as unsuitable for shellfish harvesting, or as a fish/shellfish habitat. Furthermore, flow calculati ons indicate that, due to the high base flow in the Thames River, it is highly unlikely that groundwater contaminated in excess of SWPC would adversely impact the Thames River.

 Soils in the former coal ash settling pond and disposal lagoons marginally exce eded CT Industrial Direct Exposure Criteria guidance only for arsenic, which was determined to not cause a risk due to incomplete exposure pathways.

 Some AOC’s on the site are primary related to non

- CCR disposal, including fuel storage and

other sources of contamination associated with the plants operation as an oil facility.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic and beryllium and the SMCL for iron,

manganese
, and pH have been found on site with no indication of migration

. Arsenic in soil potentially related to CCRs was determined to not cause a risk. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions

associated with the site that found specific damage related to the CCRs.



### Additional Sou rces Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCLs for ar senic and beryllium.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded SMCLs for iron, manganese

, and pH.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  A partial Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was designed to achieve compliance and

reduce potential ecological risk from two AOC’s through excavation of soils that had arsenic, beryllium, and other metals contamination above the IC DEC.

 Disposal of coal ash outside the station boundary and in the Hunt’s Brook watershed
was noted in the late 1960s, which significantly d egraded the surface water with levels of iron, sulfate

, and total dissolved solids (TDS) well above the SMCL

downstream

. Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 7 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 US EPA, Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse in New England, RCRA Corrective Action, Montville Station, http://yosemite.epa.gov/r 1/npl_pad.nsf/701b6886f189ceae85256bd20014e93d/41776e12ca0d77fe85256c 2c00726568!OpenDocument A ccessed O nline October 2010. Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination, RCRA Corrective Action, Current Human Exposure Under Control, Final May 16, 2001, http://www.epa.gov/ne/cleanup/rcra/780.pdf , accessed

10/18/10 Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination, RCRA Corrective Action, Migration of

Contaminated Groundwater Under Contro l, Final September 29, 2000, http://www.epa.gov/ne/cleanup/rcra/781.pdf accessed 10/18/10APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 8 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 4) CD McIntosh Jr. Power Plant City of Lakeland Lakeland, FL

Source Document

In Harm’s Way: Lack Of Fed eral 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



### Type

Landfill s (One on top of a phosphate mine pit), Sludge Dewatering Area and Process Wastewater

Ponds

Background and Description

The C.D. McIntosh Jr. Power Plant became operational in 1981 on the shore of Lake Parker, a well populated lake often used for recreation purposes. Because of the populated lake, approximately 20 commercial and municipal wells are located within two miles of the plant. The site contains two unlined Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) landfills

, as well as a coal storage area , process wastewater ponds and a sludge dewatering area. The southern landfill was built on top of an abandoned phosphate mine pit which likely has some influence on groundwater flow under the site. The site has over 41 monitoring wells,

however not all have available data bec ause the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) only requires some wells to be tested. No offsite monitoring data is available. The plant has a Nation al Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit ( No. FL0026301 ; expired 2005, and

FLR05A184 .)



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport indicates that a 2001 FDEP C onsent O rder identified arsenic, lead, manganese, selenium, cadmium, vanadium, nitrate

, and t otal d issolved s olids (TDS) above the EPA

Maximum Contaminant Le vel (MCL) and Secondary EPA MCL (SMCL) on the site.

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport also notes that sampling in 2010 identified arsenic concentrations that exceed the primary EPA MCL at 14 different wells that monitor the CCR landfills on the site. The report also notes that iron, sulfate

, and TDS were above the SMCLs in 32 on

- site wells.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

cadmium, and sele nium.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded secondary MCLs for iron, sulfate, TDS,

manganese
, and nitrate.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  FDEP issued a Consent Order in 2001 because of impacts to groundwater and

r equired additional monitoring

, though no offsite monitoring . The C onsent O rderAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 9 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 The site also has process wastewater ponds, a sludge dewatering area, sluice pond overflow, cooling to wer blowdown, and various chemical waste streams. It is constructed on an abandon phosphate mine.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL s for arsenic , lead, cadmium, and selenium and the SMCLs for iron, sulfate, TDS, manganese, and nitrate have been found onsite. The

FDEP issued a C onsent O rder because of groundwater impacts that required additional monitoring; however, there was no explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the

environment.

Additional Sources

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, CD McIntosh JR Power Plant, Accessed

Online Oct 2010. http://oaspub.epa. gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000364882

City Of Lakeland, C.D. Mcintosh, Jr. Power Plant, Units 3 And 5, Case No. Pa 74

- 06p, Conditions Of Certification, Modified 11/24/08

, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/files/certification/pa74_06_2008_P.pdf

accessed 10/18/10 included approximately $ 180,000 in civil penalties.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 10 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 5) George Neal Station North Landfill Berkshire Hathaway

- MidAmerican Energy Company Sergeant Bluff, IA

Source Documen t

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, Au gust 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill and surface impoundments

Background and Description

The George Neal North plant has placed c oal c ombustion r esidual (CCR) into a monofill since 1978. The landfill is currently unlined and was originally permitted in 1997 and re

- permitted in 2001. The landfill

has two sections : a 32

- acre west area which receives mostly fly ash

, and a 50

- acre east area which

receives other CCR s . Permits for expansion are currently under review. The site also contains three surface impoundments, co vering a total of about 116 acres. The plant lies in a rural area next to the Missouri River, though no offsite monitoring data is available. The west area of the landfill is capped and closed with the east area of the landfill anticipated to be closed by October 2010. The plant has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit ( No. IA0004103 ) and Iowa Landfill permit ( 97

- SDP

- 12

- 95P .)



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport indicates that average arsenic groundwater co ncentrations from the

landfill were above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite monitoring wells. The report also notes that iron, manganese

, and sulfate were above secondary EPA MCLs (SMCL s ) at various onsite groundwater monitoring wel ls.

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport notes that some up gradient wells, particularly in the deep aquifer,

also indicate contam ination by arsenic. Mid American Energy suggested that th is upgradient

contamination was due to upgradient sources of contaminatio n , and is not CCR

- related . The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport counters that some of the up gradient wells are improperly classified as upgradient

because groundwater does flow from the monofill towards these wells, and because the impoundments

may also contri bute (though this could not be confirmed as there is no monitoring data available for the impoundments) . The report also notes that downgradient concentrations are on average higher than the upgradient levels , even within the same groundwater path, indicat ing some of the contamination is likely

from the landfill.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater da ta exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA S MCLs for iron, sulfate, and manganese.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  N oneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 11 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 Iowa Depa rtment of Natural Resources ( DNR) has requested MidAmerican Energy to provide

more evidence that the arsenic contamin atio n comes from an offsite source and the issue is still

under consideration.

 The area off plant property in the same direction as the listed “upgradient” wells is mostly

farmland.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic and the EPA SMCL s for iron, sulfate, and manganese have been found onsite. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated

with the site.



### Additional Sources

Koger, Nina. 2010. Telephone Conversation with Ni na Koger, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Permitting Department (October 25, 2010).

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, MidAmerican Energy Co Neal North,

Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110001323318

State documents accessed at Solid Waste Database hyperlink at http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/index.html includ ing

MWH Annual Water Quality Report, 2009. MidAmerican Energy Company, Neal North CCR Monofill. Accessed Online Oct 2010. Through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspx MidAmerican Energy, Neal Energy Center Solid Byproduct Management Plan, Sept 2009. Accessed Online Oct 2010. Through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspx MWH Special Water Quality Report, Results above UCLs and MCLs. Prepared for MidAmerican Energy, Neal North CCR Monofill 2009. Accessed Online Oct 2010. Through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspx

MWH Risk Evaluation for Arsenic in Groundwater 2006. Prepared for MidAmerican Energy Company,

Neal North CCR Mono fill. Accessed Online Oct 2010. Through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspx MWH Hydrogeological Investigation Report 2006. Prepared for MidAmerica n Energy Company, Neal North CCR Monofill. Accessed Online Oct 2010. Through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspx Criterion 3:  N oneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 12 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 6) George Neal Station South As h Monofill Berkshire Hathaway

- MidAmerican Energy Company

Salix , IA

Source Document

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 Co al Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill

Background and Description

The George Neal South plant has placed c oal combustion residual (CCR) into an onsite monofill since the early 198 0s. The landfill was issued a state permit in 2000, approximately 20 years after it was first used

. The landfill covers 30 acres and is at a generally higher elevation than the surrounding area . The plant lies in a rural area next to the Missouri River, so uth of Sioux City, Iowa; it began groundwater monitoring

around the landfill in 2000. The plant has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit ( No. IA0061859 .)



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport indicates that average arsenic concentrations from the landfill were above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in on site downgradient monitoring wells

. The report also notes that average concentrations of iron, manganese

, and sulfate were above secondary

EPA MCLs (SMCL s ) at various onsite groundwater monitoring wells.

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport also notes that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) uses Upgradient Control Limits (UCLs) to determine the spread of contaminants based on historical upgradient monitoring well concentrations. The report indicates that barium, selenium, and zinc have all exceeded the UCLs in wells downgradient of the landfill, indicating the migration of contaminants.

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport notes that high levels of iron, manganese, and sulfate in the upgradient well are likely affected by the landfill because of groundwater mounding within the monofill, though not enough wells existed to determine if mounding has actually occurred.



### Evaluation against Prove n Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater da ta exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA S MCLs for iron, sulfate, and manganese.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  N one

Criterion 3:  N oneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 13 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 In 2005 the Iowa DNR requested that future groundwater reports from MidAmerican Energy discuss the potential for groundwater mounding under the landfill, evaluate if the listed wells are truly “upgradient”, and discuss the potential for migration and possible receptors. MidAmerican’s 2008 groundwater report did not address these questions.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic and the SMCL for iron , sulfate

, and manganese have been found onsite. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with

the site.



### Additional Sources

Koger, Nina. 2010. Telephone Conversation with Nina Koger, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Permitting Department (October 25, 2010).

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, MidAmerican Energy Co Neal South

, Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000414114

State documents accessed at Solid Waste Database hyperlink at http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/index.html including

MWH Annual Water Quality Report, 2009. Prepared for MidAmerican Energy Company, Neal South CCR Monofill. Accessed Online Oct 2010. Through https://programs.iowadnr. gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspx MidAmerican Energy, Neal Energy Center Solid Byproduct Management Plan, Sept 2009. Accessed Online Oct 2010. Through https://programs.i owadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspx MidAmerican Energy 2001 Baseline Water Quality Report. Accessed Online Oct 2010. Through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste /reports/DocumentDNA.aspx Montgomery Watson Hydrogeological Investigation, Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Baseline Groundwater Quality Report, December 1999, Prepared for MidAmerican Energy Company, Neal South

Ash Landfill. Accessed Online Oct 2010. Th rough https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspxAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 14 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 7) Lansing Station Ash Ponds and Landfill Alliant Energy

- Interstate Power and Light Lansing, IA

S ource Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Si erra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill and Surface impoundments

Background and Description

The Lansing Power Station was first constructed in 1948, with additional units added in 1957 and 1976.

The site contains an ash landfill which first received coal combustion residuals (CCRs) around 1985, as

well as a15

- acre main ash pond and a 0.2 acre lower ash pond. All the units are currently active. Groundwater monitoring is required for the landfill but not the ponds. The plant is located in a rural area

near the Mississippi River with an estimated 33 private wells within a 2 mile radius. However, no offsite monitoring data is available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/SC August 2010 R eport indicates that arsenic concentrations were measured onsite in one

w ell (MW11) above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). The report also notes that

concentrations of iron, manganese

, and sulfate in this same well w ere above secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs). The well which measured the exceedances is between the CCR landfill and the ponds, so the

source of contamination could be from either area.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The only well with observed MCL exceedances (MW11) is screened within the interval of

seasonal fluctua tions of the water table, thus allowing only three (3) samples to be taken out of 10 attempts. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) required that the difficulty in sampling the well be evaluated and that it be replaced if the well continues to be dry.

 The general groundwater gradient flows to north or northeast toward the river with the only well containing exceedances being the most eastern well Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exce eded EPA S MCLs for iron, sulfate, and manganese.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  N one

Criterion 3:  N oneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 15 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Classification

Inadequate Information



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL f or arsenic and the EPA SMCL s for iron, sulfate

, and manganese have been found onsite in only one well (MW11) during limited rounds . H owever, the ability of this well to provide representative groundwater samples is in question as it has been dry for all

bu t 3 of the past 11 sample collection rounds . Therefore, there is inadequate information to determine if the observed sporadic groundwater contaminant concentrations are attributable to CCRs

. While the Iowa DNR has required an evaluation of MW11, t here are no administrative rulings or court decisions

associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Koger, Nina. 2010. Telephone Conversation with Nina Koger, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Permitting Department (October 25, 2010).

State documents accessed at Solid Waste Database hyperlink at http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/index.html including

BT2 Incorporated, Annual Water Quality Report, 2009, Alliant Energy / Interstate Power and Light, Lansing Powe r Station CCR Landfill. Accessed Online Oct 2010 through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspx

BT2 Incorporated, Annual Water Quality Report, 2008, Alliant Energy / Interstate Power and Light, Lansing Power Station CCR Landfill. Accessed Online Oct 2010 through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.a spx

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Interstate Power and Light Company

- Coal Combustion Residue Landfill, Review of 2006

- 2009 Annual Water Quality Reports. Accessed Online Oct 2010 through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspx

Lansing Power Station, Annual Ash Plan 2009. Interstate Power and Light Company. Accessed Online Oct 2010 through https://programs.iowadnr.gov/solidwaste/reports/DocumentDNA.aspxAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 16 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 8) Joliet Generating Station 9

– Lincoln Stone Quarry Landfill

Midwest Generation Joliet, IL

Source Document

In Harm’s Way: Lack Of Federal Coal Ash Regulati ons 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



### Type

Landfill ( i n former q uarry) an d s urface i mpoundments



### Background and Description

Midwest Generation (under parent company Edison International) operates the Joliet 9 and Joliet 29 generating stations which have disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) in the Lincoln Quarry

landfill since 1962. The quarry operates under a landfill permit; however the site also includes two surface impoundments for the slurry water used to move CCR from the generating stations to the landfill. The landfill and surface impoundments are unlined and most of the site remains active. In 1996 the landfill became exempt from Illinois Class 1 Groundwater Protection standards and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) applied relaxed standards to a number of contaminants. IEPA identified 94 private drinking water wells within one mile of the landfill.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that groundwater has been contaminated by the landfill
since the mid 1990’s and that neither Midwest Generation nor IEPA actions have effectively addressed the problem. The report cites a number of permit and engineering reports that indicated groundwater damage from the landfill dating back to 1994. The report also notes studies undertaken by Midwest Generation’s consultants, which ind icated that the Lincoln Quarry landfill was losing its “inward” gradient. The report also notes that dewatering of another nearby quarry has altered the subsurface gradient to encourage flow southeast from the landfill. A proposal to dewater a third quarry directly east of the Lincoln Quarry landfill was denied by the IEPA because of concern groundwater would also begin

to flow east from the landfill.

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report also notes that Midwest Generation undertook sampling of 18 private

well s near the landfill. The only ash

- related contaminant examined in the wells was boron, which was found up to 5 times above background concentrations in 8 of the wells south of the landfill (the other wells were to the east or “upgradient”). The EIJ/EP/SC A ugust 2010 Report indicates that this would indicate other contamination from the landfill would likely affect these downgradient wells. After the sampling, Midwest Generation offered to either buy out the properties or drill new deeper wells for these

res idences south of the landfill.

The report also identified a number of instances of groundwater contamination in the monitoring wells around the landfill, noting reports from 2007, 2008 and 2009. The report notes a total of 50 different

exceedances of the IEPA Applicable Groundwater Quality Standards (AGQSs

– the relaxed standards imposed by the IEPA in 1996) at 10 different wells, 8 of which are over 150 feet from the landfill. The AGQSs are generally at or above the Illinois Class 1 Groundwater standard w hich often matches the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). The contamination indicated includes arsenic above the primary EPA MCL at two wells located to the southeast, as well as sulfate, total dissolved solids (TDS), and pH above secondary EPA MCLs (SMC Ls) in various wells. There is also contamination of ammonia, aboveAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 17 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 the AGQS, boron above the AGQS and EPA Child Health Advisory, and molybdenum above the AGQS and EPA Lifetime Health Advisory. Exceedances of selenium and cadmium above the primary EPA MCL were also noted in earlier reports at unknown groundwater monitoring locations. The report also notes exceedances of the AGQSs at the plant’s NPDES permitted outfall, though there were no noted

exceedances of the NPDES limits.



### Evaluation against Proven Dam age Criteria

Other Considerations

 The plant has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, No.

IL0002216

 The o ffsite sampling of private wells found detectable boron concentrations, however the

EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report did not suggest that the boron concentrations exceeded any health

- based limit s

.

 IEPA has given a variance to the plant on the Class 1 Groundwater standards, resulting in the AGQS, and has approved expansion of the facility.

 Quarry de

- watering both in the main quarry and other nearby quarries is noted to have a significant effect on the migration of groundwater and associated contamination.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, selenium, and cadmium ; the IEPA’s AGQS for ammonium, boron, and molybdenum ; and the EPA SMCL s for sulfate, TDS, and pH have

been found onsite. E levated boron was found in eight nearby private wells ; however the concentrations did not exceed any health

- based standards. AGQS exceedances were also note d in NPDES outfall discharge; however

, there is no scientific study available that explicitly documents evidence of damage to

human health or the environment from these effluent dis charges. The IEPA has also issued a NOV to
Midwestern Generation ; however

, this was for failure to correctly operate their leachate collection system, and does not indicate a finding of specific damage. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCLs for arsenic , selenium, and

cadmium

.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the IEPA AGQSs for ammonium, boron, and molybdenum.

 Onsite groundwater data exceede d EPA S MCLs for sulfate, TDS, and pH

. Criterion 2:  Boron was found elevated in some sampled private wells, prompting Midwestern

Generation to offer to buy the properties or provide a new deeper drinking well.

 AGQS exceedances were noted in the discharge at the plant’s NPDES permitted

outfall.

Criterion 3:  IEPA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) for “failure to operate a leachate collection

and management system that assures the protection of Class 1 potable resource groundwater” citing a number of AGCS exceedances, including some at the NPDES permitted discharge.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 18 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Additional Sources

Buscher, Bill. 2010. Telephone Co nversation with Bill Buscher, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water, (October 21, 2010).

Hardke, Dave. 2010. Telephone Conversation with Dave Hardke, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Office, (October 22, 2010).

Hood , Joel. Report Alleges Contamination of Private Wells in Joliet. Chicago Breaking News, Aug 26

2010. Accessed Online October 2010. http:/ /www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/report

- alleges

- contamination

- of

- private

- wells

- in

joliet.html

Thompson, Gwyneth. 2010. Telephone Conversation with Gwyneth Thompson, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land (October 25, 2010).

US EPA , Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, Midwest Generation, Joliet 9 Accessed Online

Oct 2010. http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl. disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000432773APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 19 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 9) Marion Plant Southern Illinois Power Cooperative Marion, IL

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Ca ses of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill and Surface Impoundments

Background and Description

The Southern Illinois Power Cooperative ( SIPC) has placed coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from the Marion Power Plant into seven ponds and a landfill on the plant’s site since 1963. Only one of the seven ponds is lined. The approximate 1.1 million cubic yard landfill, located between two forks o f the Saline Creek, is also unlined. The plant lies in a rural area of Illinois. It began onsite groundwater monitoring in 1994; however, no offsite monitoring data is available. The plant has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) perm it ( No. IL0004316 .)



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that groundwater monitoring (which only looked for boron cadmium, iron, and sulfate) showed multiple instances of onsite contamination. Cadmium was found above the prim ary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in three wells. The report also notes that iron exceeded the secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) and the Illinois Class 1 Groundwater Standard in most sampling events. Some relatively higher concentrations of iron were recent ly found in two of the wells, which the SIPC attributes to rusting well covers. The report also notes that sulfate occasionally exceeded

the EPA SMCL and boron occasional exceeded the Illinois Class 1 Groundwater Standard since monitoring began.

The EIJ/ EP/S C August 2010 Report notes that the wells with the most significant contamination are those which lie between the CCR sites and Saline Creek, to which the shallow groundwater discharges. It also notes that effluent samples from one ash pond which has a n NPDES permitted discharge into the creek indicated aluminum over the EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), as well as boron over the EPA’s criteria for sensitive crop irrigation.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criter ion 1:  Onsite groundwater da ta exceeded the primary EPA MCL for cadmium

.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA S MCLs for iron and sulfate, and the

Illinois Class 1 Groundwater Standard for iron and boron

.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

C riterion 2:  Effluent samples from a pond which discharges to the Saline Creek indicated

aluminum over the EPA AWQC and boron over the EPA’s criteria for sensitive crop irrigation.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 20 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 While EPA AWQCs were exceeded in the effluent, there is no indication of NPDES criteria

exceedance.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for cadmium and the SMCL for iron and sulfate

have been found onsite. While there were exceedanc es in the effluent which discharges into surface water, there is no study with a specific finding of damage to human health or the environment . There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Buscher, Bil l. 2010. Telephone Conversation with Bill Buscher, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water, (October 21, 2010).

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, Southern Illinois Power

- Marion Accessed

Online Oct 2010. http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110017420049 Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 21 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 10) Venice Power Station Union Electric Company/Ameren Energ y

– AmerenUE Venice, IL

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity P roject, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundments

Background and Description

The Venice Power Plant was a 500

- MW coal burning plant until it converted to burning oil in the late 1970’s. The plant lowered capacity in the 1980’ s but was reconditioned and reopened in 1995. Its current operator, AmerenUE, was formed in 1998 by the merger of Union Electric and Illinois Public Service. A fire in 2003 closed the original building; however, three additional units came online in 2005 a nd are used sporadically as a peak load facility. A series of unlined ash ponds was constructed in the 1950’s and received sluiced coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from the plant as well as wastewater from the boilers and water treatment plant. The pond st opped receiving CCRs in 1977 when the plant switched to oil, but continued to receive process wastewater until 2005. The ponds have been inactive since 2005; ponds 2 and 3 are designated for closure in 2011 by capping with a synthetic liner, with the CCR left in place. As part of its re

- permitting in 1995, the plant was required to investigate the groundwater impact of the ash ponds, and has installed 17 monitoring wells in and around the ash pond system. The plant lies near the City of Venice and Village of Brooklyn, both of which prohibit the use of groundwater as a potable water supply because pre

- existing as well as current industrial facilities in the area, including the Venice Power Plant, provide multiple potential sources of contamination.



### Impact a nd Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that groundwater monitoring showed multiple instances of contamination in groundwater. Arsenic concentrations exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) at a number of wells, includi ng two wells which are about 400 feet east of the ponds and off the plant property. The report also noted exceedances of the Illinois Class 1 Groundwater Standard for boron at a number of wells, though all onsite. A brief exceedance of the primary EPA MCL for cadmium was reported at one of the wells, as well as secondary EPA MCL (SMCL) exceedances for iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids (TDS) in a number of wells onsite, and one of the offsite wells

for iron.

A Hydrogeological Assessment undertake n by Natural Resource Technology (NRT), an AmerenUE consultant, determined that the ash ponds are not the primary source of arsenic in groundwater. The

EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report counters, that differences in how boron and arsenic interact with the aquif er would allow for little correlation between the two in individual samples. It also notes, and the NRT Memorandum 6 concurs (page 4) that seasonal water stage fluctuation in the Mississippi River would cause changes in the gradient and that during the hig h stage the two offsite wells to the east could be downgradient from the pond system. It also notes that while boron did not exceed a standard in the offsite wells, it was elevated and could indicate these wells were affected by the ash ponds.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 22 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluat ion against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 A Hydrogeological Assessment undertaken by an AmerenUE consultant (Natural Resource Technology) determined that lack of boron and arsenic correlation in the w ells and the fact that leachate samples from the ash ponds have lower arsenic than the groundwater indicate that the ash ponds are not the primary source of arsenic in groundwater. The assessment also determined

that even simulating the seasonal fluctuatio n of the river, the offsite wells where arsenic was found above the MCL would be considered upgradient, further indicating that the ash ponds are not the primary source of arsenic.

 The Natural Resource Technology assessment concluded that boron and mangane se onsite were higher than the Illinois Class 1 Groundwater Standards (and SMCL for manganese) and would be attributable to the coal ash ponds. The assessment also concluded that other contaminants, including arsenic, iron and TDS would not be attributable to leachate from the ash ponds; for arsenic, creosote wood treatment plants formerly located upgradient of the monitoring wells area,

cannot be excluded as potential sources (NRT Memorandum 2).

 As part of the final closure plan for the ash ponds, AmerenU E proposed a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) for containing the contaminant plumes, which extends 450 feet south from the ponds, covering all boron exceedances. However, it does not cover the two offsite wells where arsenic exceeded the primary EPA MCL.

 Since the plant switched to oil in 1977 the pond system continued to receive process waste water

from the non

- coal plant for approximately 30 years.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCLs for arsenic and cadmium, the EPA SMCL for iron, manganese, and TDS, and the Illinois Class 1 Groundwater Standard for boron have been found onsite

. While offsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, these (and other) offsite

exceedances c ould n ot be directly attributed to the coal ash ponds. There are no administrative rulings or

court decisions associated with the site. Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA S MCLs for iron, manganese, and TDS, as

well as the Illinois Class 1 Gr oundwater Standard and EPA Child Health Advisory for

boron

.

 Offsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic and the SMCL for iron. Other sources of arsenic, such as creosote wood treatment plants formerly located upgradient of the monitor ing wells area, cannot be excluded.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 23 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Additional Sources

Dunaway, Lynn. 2010. Telephone Conversation with Lynn Dunaway, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bur eau of Water, (October 22, 2010).

Hennings, Brian and Hensel, Bruce, Natural Resource Technology, Technical Memorandum No. 1 Potable Well Survey, Hydrogeologic Assessment, and Modifications to the Groundwater Monitoring Program, Venice Ash Impoundment , S eptember 17, 2009. Accessed Online Oct

2010. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/ameren

- venice

- station/tech

- memo1.pdf

Hennings, Brian and Hen sel, Bruce, Natural Resource Technology, Technical Memorandum No. 2. Supplemental Hydrogeological Assessment, Venice Ash Ponds

, March 3, 2010. Accessed Online Oct

2010. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/ameren

- venice

- station/tech

- memo2.pdf

Hennings, Brian and Hensel, Bruce, Natural Resource Technology, Technical Memorandum No. 6. Groundwater Modeling of Venice Former Ash Ponds, March 12 2010 . Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/ameren

- venice

- station/tech

- memo6.pdf

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency , Ash Impoundment Strategy, AmerenUE Venice Station Ash Pond Closure, Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/ameren

venice

- s tation/index.html

Memo to Bill Buscher from Ameren Services, March 25, 2010. Ash Pond Closures at AmerenUE’s

Venice Plant. Accessed Online October 2010. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash

- impoundment/ameren

- venice

- station/pond

- closure.pdfAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 24 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 11) Mill Creek Station

Louisville Gas and Electric Louisville, KY

Source Document

In Harm’s Way: Lack Of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans An d T heir Environment, Thirty

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill , surface impoundment, and FGD processing ponds



### Bac kground and Description

The Mill Creek Plant located in Louisville, Kentucky, has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from Louisville Gas and Electric (LG&E) in landfills since 1972. The first two phases of the landfill were unlined since they wer e permitted as “inert” by the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM). In 2009, a third phase was constructed with a clay liner, and the total area of the landfill reached 185 acres. Additionally, there is a 79 acre ash pond and four flue gas desulfur ization (FGD) processing ponds (each 2 acrs or less) located onsite. The landfill is located approximately 175 feet from the Ohio River. Groundwater has been monitored onsite since 1994; however, no offsite assessment or monitoring has been required. T he a sh pond discharges ultimately outfall to the Ohio River under KPDES permit #

KY0003221.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwat er. Additionally, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) in onsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates that nine wells onsite have groundwater parameters that exceed one or more drinking wate r standards and that the horizontal extent of contamination is one

mile wide. However, no data is provided to support these claims.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary E PA MCL for arsenic.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA SMCLs for sulfate and TDS.

 Nine wells onsite have parameters that exceed one or more drinking water standards.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 25 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Othe r Considerations

 The CCR landfill permit issued by KDWM requires that onsite monitoring occur semi

- annually; however, no offsite investigations have been required.

 There are reportedly 15 private wells within a two

- mile radius and four public wells within a five

mile radius of the landfill.

 The 79 acre fly ash pond is rated a high hazard by EPA due to its close proximity to a residential development and a school. The embankment failed in 1978 during a flood; however, no release of

CCRs occurred.



### Classifi cation

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found onsite. Additionally, several other groundwater parameters have exceeded drinking water standards onsite. There has not been any assessment of grou ndwater or surface water offsite and there are no other impact or damage claims. Onsite monitoring is required semi

- annually; however, there are no other regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the landfill

.



### Additional Sources

Final Report Dam Safety Assessment Report of CCW Impoundments LG&E Mill Creek Station,

Lockheed Martin as Contractor for the US EPA , Dec. 2009 accessed 10/28/10 at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/mill

- creek

- final.pdfAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 26 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 12) Shawnee Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Paducah, KY

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfills and Surface Impoundmen ts



### Background and Description

The Shawnee Fossil Plant located in Paducah, Kentucky has disposed of coal combustion residual (CCR) from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in two unlined surface impoundments, one of which was commissioned in the 1950s; an d two unlined landfills since the 1980s. Recently, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM) permitted the expansion of the landfills without a liner, which are designated as “special waste landfills.” The landfills and fly ash ponds are located app roximately 500

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

2003. Groundwater has been assessed onsite; however, no offsite groundwater data are available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic and selenium exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in onsite groundwater. Additiona lly, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCL), and boron exceeded the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory Level in onsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates a reddish leachate has been seeping into Li ttle Bayou Creek onsite, which discharges into the Ohio River a few hundred feet downstream.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite gr oundwater data exceeded EPA SMCLs for sulfate and TDS.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory Level for

boron.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  A reddish leachate has been observed seeping into Little Bayou Creek located onsite,

which discharges into the Ohio River downstream.

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 27 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 There are reportedly 24 private wells within a two

- mile radius of the site.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exc eedances of primary and secondary MCLs, as well as EPA’s Lifetime Health Advisory Level have been found onsite. While reddish leachate has been observed seeping into surface water onsite, there are no data to support that this is causing damage to human he alth or the environment. There are no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

TVA. 2009. TVA Disposal Facility Assessment: Phase 1 Plant Summary, Shawnee Fossil Plant (SHF) (Ju ne 2009) http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/ky/rpt_005_appndx_c_shf_171468118.pdfAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 28 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 13) Spurlock Power Station Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative Maysville

, KY

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill and Surface impoundment



### Background and Description

The Spurlock Power Station is located in Maysville, Kentucky, and has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from the Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) in a landfill since the 1970s. The landfill was permitted as an “inert landfill” in 1979 a nd a construction/operation permit was issued in 1982, and renewed in 1996. It is unknown if a liner is present at the original phases, however a 389 acre expansion in 1996 was lined with two feet of clay. A 57 acre bottom ash pond with a capacity of 1,750 ,000 cubic yards is also present at Spurlock Station. The site is located approximately one mile from the Ohio River. Groundwater has been evaluated at the site, but not offsite.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that lev els of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, sulfate and TDS exceeded the secondary EPA MCL (SMCL) in onsite groundwater. The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report claims that the exceedances in ground water are located 750 feet beyond the coal ash landfill boundary, which is later described as 750 feet beyond the permitted area at IW

- 7. However, later in the EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report, IW

- 7 is described as being an onsite well. It appears that althoug h IW

- 7 might be beyond permitted boundaries, it is still within the property limits and is therefore onsite.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 There are reportedly 25 private wells within a two

- mile radius and three public wells wit hin a

five

- mile radius of the Spurlock Power Station.

 The site is located over a karst limestone area, suggesting that groundwater flow could be rapid and in many directions. Criteria Evaluation

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

 Ons ite groundwater data exceeded EPA SMCLs for sulfate and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 29 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Although the EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that exceedances of primary and secondary MCLs had occurred offsite, it is apparent that these exceedances actually occur at well IW

- 7, which is located onsite. Therefore, there has not been any assessment of groundwater or surface water o ffsite and there are no other impact or damage claims. There are no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or

court decisions associated with the landfill.



### Additional SourcesAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 30 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 14) Big Cajun 2 Power Plant NRG Energy

- Louisiana Generatin g, LLC New Roads, LA

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Proj ec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface impoundments, surge and treatment ponds



### Background and Description

The Big Cajun 2 Power Plant , located in New Roads, Louisiana, has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from NRG Ener gy d/b/a Louisiana Generating in ash ponds since 1980. There are five ponds that span over one mile on the disposal site: a 175 acre fly ash pond, a 66 acre bottom ash pond, a surge pond, and two treatment ponds (25.4 acres and 7.1 acres, respectively). As of 2009, the fly ash pond was 65 percent full and the bottom ash pond was 54 percent full. The ash ponds are located approximately one mile from the Mississippi River, although groundwater may flow away from the river. Groundwater

has been monitored onsit e since 1989; however, no offsite assessment or monitoring has been performed.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of selenium exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater. Addi tionally, total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded the secondary MCL (SMCL) in onsite groundwater. The report claims that there is a statistically significant increase of calcium concentrations in the groundwater, which is an indicator of CCR leachate.

The E IP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Protection (LDEQ) issued a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) to NRG during permit renewal. LDEQ found that the groundwater monitoring system of five wells was inadequate for monitoring the ash ponds and required NRG to install ten additional downgradient wells.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The MCL exceedances described in the EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report are old, dating back to

the 1990s. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary MCL for selenium.

 Onsite groundwater data ex ceeded the secondary MCL for TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  LDEQ issued a NOD to NRG with regards to the inadequacy of the monitoring well

system and required that ten additional downgradient wells be i nstalled.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 31 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1  There are reportedly 11 public drinking water sources within five miles of the site, each of which

serves at least 60 citi zens. There are also reportedly three private drinking water wells within two

miles of the site.

 The power plant recently recognized that some groundwater flow may be moving towards surface water, which is contradictory to old data suggesting that groundwa ter flows away from the Mississippi River.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found onsite. There has not been any assessment of groundwater or surface water offsite and there are no other impact or damage claims. LDEQ issued a NOD to install additional downgradient monitoring wells onsite; however, there are no other regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the ash ponds.



### Additional Sources

Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/nrg

- cajun.pdfAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 32 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 15) Dolet Hills Power Station

CLECO Power LLC Mansfield, LA

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 201 0



### Type

Landfill and Surface impoundments



### Background and Description

The Dolet Hills Power Station, located in Mansfield, Louisiana, has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from CLECO Power LLC since 1986. There are ten disposal units onsite inclu ding one landfill, three bottom ash ponds, three surge ponds, a metal cleaning waste pond, a plant discharge collection pond, and a limestone runoff pond. Groundwater has been monitored onsite at 36 wells and piezometers at six of the disposal units. No of fsite assessment or monitoring has been required.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic, lead, and selenium exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded the secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) in onsite groundwater. Sulfate also exceeded the EPA Health Advisory Level. The report claims that there is low pH, and statistically significant changes in specific conductan ce, alkalinity, and calcium, all are indicative of CCR leachate.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) required assessment monitoring of the disposal units in 2008; however, no offsit e evaluation was required.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 LDEQ required assessment monitoring of the disposal units in 2008.

 There are reportedly two private drinking water wells within a two mile radius and one public drinking water well within five miles of the site. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, lead, and

selenium.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA SMCLs for sulfate and TDS.

 Ons ite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Health Advisory Level for sulfate.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 33 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1  Although the landfill and ponds are separate units, co

- managed wastes such as the limestone runoff pond, the lignite run off pond, and the metal cleaning waste pond are located onsite and could have an effect on groundwater beneath other CCR disposal units.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found onsite. There has not been any assessment of groundwater or surface water offsite and there are no other impact or damage claims. Onsite monitoring has been required by LDEQ; however, there are no other regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings , or court decisions associated with the landfill and ash ponds.



### Additional Sources

Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/cleco.pdfAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 34 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 16) Rodemacher Po wer Station CLECO Power, LLC Lena, LA

Source Document

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

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

, Environmen tal Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill, ash ponds, and coal pile



### Background and Description

The Rodemacher Power Station located in Lena, Louisiana has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CC Rs ) from CLECO Pow er, LLC in landfills and ash ponds since 1982. The site consists of a coal pile,

as well as se veral disposal units including a 109 acre fly ash pond, a 36 acre bottom ash pond, a landfill, two metal cleaning waste ponds, a coal sedimentation pond, a landfi ll leachate collection pond, and an unpermitted clarifier sludge sedimentation pond. The overall disposal area exp tends over about 0.75 of a mile. Surface water is present approximately fifty feet offsite at Lake Rodemacher and the Red River and Bayou de J ean nearby. Groundwater has been monitored onsite since 1983; however, no offsite

assessment or monitoring has been required.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic and lead exceeded primary EPA

M aximum C ontaminant L evels (MCLs) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, chloride, pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) in onsite groundwater. The report

claims that there have been statistically significant changes in specific co nductance and chloride and

sulfate concentrations , which are indicative of CC R leachate.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) required complete assessment monitoring at the site.



### Eva luation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 LDEQ required a complete assessment of groundwater onsite. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic and lead.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded EPA SMCLs for chloride, pH, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criter ion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 35 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1  There are reportedly 36 registered wells within a one mile radius, 12 private drinking water wells within a two mile radius, and three public drinking water sources within a five mile radius of the

site.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found onsite. There has not been any assessment of groundwater or surface water of fsite and there are no other impact or damage claims. Onsite monitoring was required by LDEQ; however, there are no other regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the landfill, ash ponds, or coal pile.



### Addi tional Sources

Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/cleco

- rod.pdfAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 36 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 17) JR Whiting Generating Plant CMS Energy

– Consumers Energy Erie, MI

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Imprope rly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundments



### Background and Description

The JR Whiting Plant, owned by Consumers Energy, went online in 1952 and since then has constructed six impoundments to receive coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from the plant. These impoundments also

receive co

- disposed liquid wastes regulated by the plant’s NPDES permit (MIO001864). These wastes include low volume plant wastes, treated boi ler cleaning waste, and treated sewage waste from the plant’s sanitary sewage treatment facility. Impoundments 3, 4, and 5 received fly ash and wastewaters until 2008. Since that year they have only received fly ash and are the primary focus of the damage claims. Ponds 3 and 4 were built in 1959, while pond 5 was built in 1974, and the three cover a total of 82 acres. Final closure of the ponds was approved in 2005 and is still under way. In recent years, fly ash disposal at the plant has been minimal, with most being sold for reuse by cement manufacturers.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that effluent discharges from the impoundments caused ecological damage to aquatic life. The report cites a study undertaken in the ear ly 1980s (Hatcher 1992)

, which looked at discharges from the impoundments into Lake Erie. The study examined toxic elements in sediment, fish, and invertebrates near the impoundments and made comparisons to references points nearly 2 miles away. The study found arsenic, cobalt, selenium, and nickel to be elevated in sediments near the outfall; however, they were not above Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) criteria for soil cleanup. The study found that arsenic, selenium, and bromine were f ound at elevated concentrations in oligochaetes (freshwater worms) near the coal ash basin. The study also found that there were consistently less dense populations of the oligochaetes near the outfall compared to the reference

sites suggesting that such o rganisms may be incapable of sustaining high population densities in the face of these trace coal ash elements. Selenium, bromine, cobalt, nickel, and chromium were also found at elevated concentrations in some fish types, particularly younger fish, near t he outfall.

The study reportedly determined that discharges from impoundments to the environment lead to the elevated contaminant levels in the sediments and aquatic biota. It determined that chronic exposure to these concentrations could undermine the p opulation fitness for various biota particularly those with limited mobility such as freshwater worms or fish in the early stages of life. The final determination of the study was that placing coal ash impoundments near the shoreline and use of CCRs as a c onstituent for the artificial reef creating blocks should be reevaluated.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 37 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 EPA rejected this as a damage case in 2007 because evidence did not confirm CCRs as the source of contamination, though the EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report counters that the study was designed to specifically evaluate the e ffects of discharges from the CCR impoundments and that transport of CCR did lead to the elevated concentrations within biota and in sediments.

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

.



### Classification

Inadequate Information Pending Access to the Original Report (Hatcher, 1992)



### Rationale

While scientific studies did indicate elevated levels of contaminants in sedim ent and aquatic biota and reduced population densities of biota near the site outfalls relative to reference location, specific data linking the damage to CCR contamination is not currently available.



### Additional Sources

Coal Combustion Waste, Damage Case Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, July 9 2007. No. 76, Lake Erie, Ohio. Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

.

Hatcher, C. O., R. E. Ogawa, T.P. Poe and J. R. P. French, III. 1992. Trace Elements in Lake Sediment

, Macrozoobenthos, and Fish Near a Coal Ash Disposal Basin, J. Freshwater Ecol. 7:257

- 269 (1992) Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  None

Criterion 2:  S tudy (Hatcher, 1992) determined that discharges from the impoundment had lead t o

elevated levels of contaminants within the sediment and some aquatic biota. It concluded that chronic exposure to higher concentrations of these contaminants could undermine population fitness particularly for organisms with restricted mobility.

Criter ion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 38 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 18) Dan River S t eam Station Duke Energy Eden, NC

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundments and landfill

Background and Description

The Dan River Steam Station began operation in 1949. The original coal combustion residuals (CCRs) impoundment was built in 1956 and has had its embankment walls raised twice, in 1967 and 1977. A dike was also built across the impoundment to divide it into the two units that still exist today. The two unlined impoundments cover a total of 39 acres with a storage capacity of 664 acre feet. The impoundments are occasionally dredged with the dredged CCR stored in an unlined landfill north of the ponds. The landfill

ha s been capped and is now inactive, and the rest of the plant is expected to be decommissioned soon. The plant began voluntary groundwater monitoring in 1993; however, no offsite monitoring data is

available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that groundwater monitoring has found contamination in onsite wells at various times since monitoring began in 1993. The report notes that lead was above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), chromium and silver were above state groundwater criteria, and iron and sulfate were above the secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs). The report notes that because the impoundment is on the edge of the river, downgradient monitoring is difficult and testing occurs within or on the edge of the impo undment. Only the impoundments have been subject to groundwater monitoring, and no data is available for the landfill.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwate r data exceeded primary EPA MCL for lead.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA SMCL for iron and sulfate, as well as the

state criteria for chromium and silver.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 39 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 The state criteria, which were exceeded by chromium and silver, are not specifically health

- or risk

- based standards.

 The state reports that they will not require action until contamination is outside the “compliance boundary”; however, monitoring outside the boundary is not required.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for lead and the SMCLs for iron and sulfate

have been found onsite. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with

the site.

Additional So urcesAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 40 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 19) Antelope Valley Station Basin Electric Power Cooperative Beulah, ND

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperl y Disposed Coal Combustion Waste

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill s (and non

- implicated) surface impoundments



### Background and Description

The Antelope Valley Station located in Beulah, North Dakot a, has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from the Basin Electric Power Cooperative since 1984. The landfill (Solid Waste Permit #SP

- 02) is lined with clay and has been inactive since 1998. The site was constructed on a reclaimed coal mine.

The Antelope Valley Station also contains an active coal ash landfill and two ash ponds; however, these were not assessed in the EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite monitoring has been required. There are no surface water bodies nearby.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 Groundwater quality at the site may be influenced by the reclaimed coal mine.

 There are reportedly two public water supplies within five miles of the site. The area surrounding Antelope Valley Station is agricultural and there are a number privately owned wells used for irrigation.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found onsite. There has not been any assessment of groundwater or surface water offsite and there are no other impact or damage claims. There are no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions as sociated

with the site. Criteria Ev aluation

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

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 41 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Additional Sources

Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/basin

- elect.pdfAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 42 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 20) Leland Olds Station Basin Electric Power Cooperat ive Stanton, ND

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundments



### Background and Description

Leland Olds Station, located in Stanton, North Dakota, has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from Basin Electric Power Cooperative in five clay

- l ined ash ponds dating back to 1966, when the first pond (Pond 1) was commissioned. Ponds 2 and 3 followed in 1975, Pond 4 in 1985, and Pond 5

- at an unspecified date. In 1996, Ponds 4 and 5 were decommissioned and capped. Prior to closure, fly ash from

Po nds 1 and 2 was moved to Ponds 4 and 5. The site holds two permits, SP

- 038 for onsite disposal and

SP

- 143 for offsite disposal at Glenharold Mine. The total permit area is 364.6 acres with a 2.7 million cubic yard capacity. Surface water is present near th e Leland Olds Station at the Missouri River, approximately 250 feet from Ponds 3 and 5, and Alderin Creek connects the disposal sites to the River. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite assessment or monitoring has been required.



### Impa ct and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that arsenic and lead exceeded primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) i n onsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates detections of boron and selenium in onsite groundwater; however, the selenium concentrations did not exceed primary EPA MCLs and only an unspecified state groundwater standard was refe rred to for boron.

Surface water was sampled quarterly, although it is not specified where and no data were provided.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 There are reportedly three municipal drinking water wells within five miles of the site. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic a nd lead.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded EPA SMCLs for sulfate and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 43 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found onsite. There has not been any assessment of groundwater or surface water offsite. There are no regulatory corrective actions,

admin istrative rulings, or court decisions associated with these ash ponds.



### Additional SourcesAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 44 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 21) Sheldon Station

Nebraska Public Power District Hallam, NE

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill



### Background and Description

Sheldon Station, located i n Hallam, Nebraska, has been a disposal site of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) since the early 1990s. After nine years of disposal, the landfill was closed in 1999 and is now in a post

- closure groundwater mo nitoring phase. There are other active landfills onsite; however, these were not assessed in the EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report. The landfill, called Ash Pit #3, is clay

- lined and has a total capacity of 350,000 cubic yards. There

is no mention of surface wa ter nearby. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite since 1999; however, no offsite assessment or monitoring has been required.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of selenium exceeded the primary EPA

Maximum Cont aminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, sulfate exceeded the secondary EPA MCL (SMCL) in onsite groundwater. The report claims that there are increasing levels of chloride and sulfate in the groundwater, which are indicative of CCR leachat e.

After closure of the landfill in 1999, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) required groundwater monitoring for ten years. In 2009, NDEQ extended the post

- closure groundwater monitoring period through 2014 due to evidence of contami nation and requested that additional wells be installed to further delineate the plume.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater exceeded the primary EPA MCL for selenium.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded t he EPA SMCL for sulfate.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  NDEQ has required NPPD to install additional wells and extended the post

- closure

groundwater monitoring period from 10 years to 15 years due to evidence of

contamination.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 45 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 NPPD argues that the selenium levels are from naturally occurring sources since the selenium levels in detected laboratory coal ash leachate tests were an order of magnitude less than those found in onsite groundwate r.

 There is one irrigation

- well reportedly located within a mile of Sheldon Station.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary MCLs have been found onsite. There has not been any assessment of groundwater offsite and there are no other impact or damage claims. Additional well installation and post

- closure groundwater monitoring was extended by five additional years by NDEQ due to evidence of contamination; however, there are not other regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the landfill.



### Additional SourcesAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 46 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 22) Cayuga Coal Ash Disposal Landfill

AES Lansing, NY

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill and CCR leachate pond



### Background and Description

Th e Cayuga Coal Ash Disposal Landfill, located in Lansing, New York, has received coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from AES dating back to the 1980s. The landfill consists of two sections, Phase I and Phase II. Phase I was unlined and had a series of pipes t o collect leachate in a pond, which was then discharged to Cayuga Lake. Phase II covers an area of 50 acres and is currently active. The Phase II landfill is lined with leachate collection and leak detection systems. Cayuga Lake, located next to the

landfi ll, receives discharge from the CCR leachate pond via Outfall 013 under SPDES permit NY

- 000

- 1333. In 2008, the AES power plant disposed of 108,330 tons of fly ash at the landfill and discharged 19 million gallons of CCR leachate pond water from Outfall 013 . Groundwater has been monitored onsite as early as 2000. Additionally, groundwater has been monitored offsite in a former private residential well, which was acquired by AES and is now under their ownership. Although discharge to Cayuga Lake has

been eval uated, the lake’s water quality itself has not.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic, cadmium, and selenium exceeded primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, a luminum, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs); arsenic and selenium exceeded New York groundwater standards; and aluminum, arsenic, boron, cadmium, manganese, selenium, sulfate, and TDS exceeded federal g roundwater standards. Furthermore, the EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of iron, lead, manganese, selenium, and TDS exceeded state and/or federal groundwater standards in a well located offsite, which was acquired by AES

and is now under their ownership.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates that discharge water via Outfall 013 exceeded federal water quality criteria. Specifically, arsenic exceeded the standard for protection of human health from surface water ingestion and fish consumption, cadmium exceeded the acute toxicity standard for aquatic life, and selenium exceeded the chronic toxicity standard for aquatic life. However, the SPDES permit for Outfall 013 does not have limits for these parameters. It is important to note that these exceedances are in the discharge water and do not account for dilution in Cayuga Lake.

In 2009, the New York State Department of Conservation issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) due to the facility exceeding the permitted volume limit of coal a sh that can be disposed of at the landfill.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 47 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 There are several homes and farms within 0.03

- 0.1 miles from the landfill and many homes along

the lake.

 Cayuga Lake is a major destination for fishing and water recreation.



### Classification

Potential D amage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found onsite. Additionally, groundwater exceedances of state and/or federal criteria have been found both onsite and offsite; however, the offsite data was gathered from a former private residential well now owned by AES. Although discharge water into Cayuga Lake via Outfall 013 exceeded various federal water criteria, it did not exceed any SPDES permit criteria and there is no scientific study available that explicitly do cuments evidence of damage to human health or the environment . Additionally, no assessment of the actual lake water has occurred. The New York Department of Conservation issued a NOV to AES for exceeded permit requirements regarding the quantity of coal as h disposed. However, this Order did not have an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment. There are no other regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the landfill.



### Additional So urces

Gashler, Krisy. Ithaca Journal: Environment groups cite Lansing power plant for coal ash pollution (September 2010). Article accessed on October 8, 2010 at http://www.theithacajournal.com/article /

20100909/NEWS01/9090432/Environment

- groups

- cite

- Lansing

- power

- plant

- for

- coal

- ash

- pollution Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, cadmium, and

selenium.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded EPA SMCLs for aluminum, m anganese, sulfate, and

TDS.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded federal and/or state standards for aluminum, arsenic, boron, cadmium, manganese, selenium, sulfate, and TDS.

 Groundwater in a well previously offsite, but acquired by AES, exceeded federal

and/or sta te standards for iron, lead, manganese, selenium, and TDS.

Criterion 2 :  Discharge into Cayuga Lake via Outfall 013 exceeded various federal water criteria

for arsenic, cadmium, and selenium, including the standard for protection of human

health from surf

ace water ingestion and fish consumption, the acute standard for aquatic life, and the chronic toxicity standard for aquatic life.

Criterion 3 :  In 2009, the New York Department of Conservation issued a NOV in response to the

facility’s permit violations for volume of coal ash disposed.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 48 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 23) Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir (FAR) 1 and 2

American Electric Power Brilliant, OH

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill and Surface Impoundments



### Backgr ound and Description

The Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir (FAR) 1 and 2 ash ponds, located in Brilliant, Ohio, has received coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from American Electric Power (AEP). Both reservoirs are unlined and in 2000, FAR 1 was closed and ash was transferred to FAR 2. FAR 2 is still currently active and a flue gas

desulfurization (FGD) landfill with a synthetic liner was built on top of FAR 1. The site overlooks the Ohio River and an area known as Block House Hollow, which was dammed to create the ash ponds. Discharge water via Outfall 019 discharged into Block House Hollow is covered by a NPDES permit. Groundwater and surface discharge water have been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite assessment or monitoring has been required.



### Impact and Dama ge Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for onsite groundwater. Additionally, boron exceeded the EPA Child Health Advisory and molybdenum exceeded the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory in onsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates that detectable levels of arsenic and molybdenum are being discharged into Block House Hollow via NPDES

- permitted Outfall 019. No criteria are cited and the NPDES perm it has no limit on these constituents.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OH EPA) placed four wells under assessment monitoring due to groundwater contamination. Assessment monitoring requires AEP to determine the extent and rate of groundwater co ntamination and address the contamination.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater exceeded the EPA Child Health Advisory for boron and th e EPA Lifetime Health Advisory for molybdenum.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  Detectable levels of arsenic and molybdenum have been observed in the discharge

water into Block House Hollow via Outfall 019.

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 49 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### O ther Considerations

 AEP asserts that groundwater contamination was due to previous mining and other sources of pollution.

 Shallow well S

- 2 is designated as an upgradient well.

 There are reportedly at least nine private drinking water wells approximately 2, 000 feet from the

site.

 In its 2007 Damage Case Assessment Report, US EPA rejected the Cardinal Fly Ash sites as damage cases with no evidence of onsite or offsite exceedances but more recent data indicated the exceedances and OH EPA required groundwater m onitoring.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary EPA MCLs for arsenic have been found onsite. Additionally, other EPA advisory levels for boron and molybdenum have been exceeded onsite. T here is no evidence or

stud ies of surface water discharges damage to human health or the environment

. Onsite assessment monitoring has been required by the OH EPA; however, there are no other regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with t he ash ponds or landfill.



### Additional Sources

US EPA . 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ), Office of Solid Waste

. Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9 2007. Cases No. 59 and 60

, Cardinal PFBC Monofill and Cardinal Fly Ash Re servoir II Impoundment. Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 50 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 24) General James M. Gavin Power Plant

American Electric Power

- Ohio Power Company Cheshire, OH

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill s and Surface Impoundment



### Background and Desc ription

The General James M. Gavin Power Plant, located in Cheshire, Ohio, has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from American Electric Power d/b/a Ohio Power Company (AEP) in landfills since 1994. The landfill is approximately 255 acres and sit s along the Ohio River and its tributaries. The original landfills included Phase A (80 acres), Phase B (50 acres), and Phase C (111 acres), which are now decommissioned. Currently, Phase D, Phase E, and Phase F are active and all inactive/active landfills are lined with one foot of clay and a 30

- mil geosynthetic liner. In addition, there is a 300 acre decommissioned, but still uncapped, ash pond located approximately 1,500 feet northwest of the site. There are several NPDES permitted outfalls onsite discha rging into surface water bodies including tributaries to the Ohio River. Groundwater has been monitored onsite, and surface water from outfalls and

offsite has been monitored as well.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates tha t levels of arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, and gross alpha exceeded primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, chloride, manganese, and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) and molybdenum exceeded the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory level in onsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates that levels of boron exceeded NPDES permit criteria at Outfall 007 and that levels of aluminum, nickel, and zinc exceeded either acute or chronic exposure water quality criteria. Additionally, when laboratory tested, surface water receiving discharge from Outfall 001 and Outfall 008 have shown acute toxicity to the aquatic insect Ceriodaphnia dubia with a 100% mortality rate in the discha rge water and 50% mortality rate in the mixing zone at both outfalls. Outfall 008 also showed acute toxicity to the fathead minnow, with a 100% mortality rate in the discharge water and 15% mortality rate in the mixing zone.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Rep ort indicates that assessment monitoring has been required by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OH EPA) as part of the closure process . This includes determining the extent and rate of contamination, followed by a plan to address the contamination.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 51 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 OH EPA increased the plant’s allowable daily maximum concentration for boron in 2009 so concentrations of boron no longer exceed NPDES requirements.

 In its 2007 Damage Case Assessment Report, US EPA rejected the Gavin impoundments as damage cases with no ev idence of onsite or offsite groundwater exceedances available at the time. OH EPA required monitoring as part of closure process indicated the exceedances.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MC Ls have been found onsite. NPDES permit and water quality criteria exceedances have been reported in discharge water but laboratory toxicity testing of indicator species is not a direct indicator of ecological damage. The OH EPA required

assessment monitor ing is not being driven by an administrative ruling or court decision that has an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment.



### Additional Sources

US EPA . 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ), Office of Solid Waste

. Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9 2007. Cases No. 74, Gavin Impoundments 59 and

60 , Cardinal PFBC Monofill and Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment . Docket Number EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, barium, cadmium,

lead, and gross alpha.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded EPA SMCLs for chloride, manganese, and TDS and the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory level for molybdenum.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  Boron exceeded NPDES permit limits at Outfall 007.

 Aluminum, nickel, and zinc exceeded water quality criteria in discharge water at the

outfalls

.

 Outfall 001 and Outfall 008 showed mortality in laboratory toxicity testing.

Criterion 3 :  The OH EPA has required assessment monitoring onsite to determine the extent and

rate of contamination and to address the contamination.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 52 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 2 5 ) Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site Hyman Budoff/Merle & Charles Kittinger Uniontown, OH

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Co al Combustion Waste

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill in a Sand and Gravel Mine



### Background and Description

The Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site located in Uniontown, Ohio began r eceiving wastes in the early 1960s. The landfill area covers approximately 30 acres and was a sand and gravel mine prior to 1959. It is estimated that one million tons of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) were disposed of in the

landfill in the mid

- 1960s, a nd then in the late 1960s through the 1970s, approximately one million gallons of industrial organic chemical liquid wastes were dumped into an evaporation lagoon constructed onsite. In addition to the industrial wastes, hospital wastes, septic tank wastes , and general public wastes were disposed of in the landfill. Chemical wastes were no longer dumped after 1972 and the landfill was closed in 1980 and covered with sand and gravel. In 1986, the site was listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL) as a Superfund site. Groundwater has been monitored both onsite and offsite.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, radium, and thallium excee ded primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in both onsite and offsite groundwater. Additionally, several other constituents exceeded federal standards and/or action levels in both onsite and offsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report al so indicates that cancer rates in neighborhoods around the site show a high incidence, with one neighborhood reporting cancer in nearly every home.

Complaints began as early as 1971 when the public voiced concerns about pollution. In 1986, the EPA

added the landfill to the NPL as a Superfund site, and in 1987 the EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) to supply public water supply hook

- ups to over 100 homes for free. The EPA signed a second ROD in 1989 to clean up the site, and remedial action was deemed c omplete in 2005.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 53 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The landfill contains a significant amount of other than CCR wastes, including industrial organic chemical liquid wastes, hospital wastes, septic tank wastes, and general public wastes.

 There are reportedly 3,912 registe red private wells within a two mile radius of the site.

 Tens of thousands of people live within three miles of the site, with several thousand living

within one mile.

 It is estimated that 30% of residents near the site still use private wells.



### Classific ation

Not a Damage Case



### Rationale Although there are numerous exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs in both onsite and offsite groundwater, high incidences of cancer in the surrounding neighborhoods, and several regulatory actions, there are no e xplicit indications that CCRs are solely responsible for the damages. Large quantities of other non

- CCR wastes have been co

- managed at the landfill since the 1960’s.



### Additional Sources

US EPA. Region 5 Cleanup Sites. Accessed October 11, 2010 at http://www.epa.gov/Region5/sites/iel/index.htm

Hardy Road Landfill and Industrial Excess Landfill, A Superfund Site

, Jim L. Jackson, James R. Bauder, James Hardy, And Mark S. Kennedy

, Field Studies: Cent er for Environmental Studies, The University of

Akron https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/23315/1/V089N3_045.pdf last accessed 10/30/10 Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Offsite groundwater exceeded primary EPA MCLs for antimony, arsenic, barium,

beryllium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, radium, and thallium.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded primary MCLs for antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, radium, and thallium.

Criterion 2 :  The surrounding neighborhoods have shown a high cancer incidence rate and one

neighborhood has reported cancer in nearly every home.

Criterion 3 :  The EPA added the site to the NPL as a Superfund site in 1986.

 The EPA signed a ROD in 1987 to supply free public water to over 100 homes.

 The EPA signed a second ROD in 1989 to clean up the site and deemed remedial actions compl ete in 2005.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 54 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 2 6 ) Muskingum River Plant

Amer ican Electric Power

- Ohio Power Company Beverly, OH

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Was te

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundment



### Background and Description

The Muskingum River Plant located in Beverly, Ohio receives coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from

American Electric Powe r (AEP) d/b/a Ohio Power Company. The site consists of a fly ash reservoir along the Muskingum River, which eventually discharges into the Ohio River. Groundwater and seepage water have been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite assessment or monitoring ha s been required.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of barium and gross alpha exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, iron, sulfate, and total

dissolved sol ids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) in onsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates that levels of arsenic, barium, and mercury exceeded primary EPA MCLs in seepage from the fly ash reservoir dam. Additionally, sulfate ex ceeded the EPA SMCLs in seepage from the fly ash reservoir dam. It should be noted, however, that MCL criteria are not applicable to surface waters. Furthermore, high conductivity in wells has been detected in onsite groundwater outside of the expected acc eptable range suitable for certain species of fish and macro

invertebrates.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OH EPA) mandated AEP to implement a groundwater monitoring plan and install 15 groundwater monitoring wells, four groundwater elevation monitoring wells, and five piezometers.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite groundwater exceeded the primary EPA MCLs for barium and gross alpha.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded EPA SMCLs for iron, sulfate, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  Onsite seepage from the fly ash reservoir dam found concentrations of arsenic,

barium, mercury, and sulfate.

 High conductivity was detected in two onsite wells, which exceeded the acceptable

ra nge suitable for certain species of fish or macro invertebrates.

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 55 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 There are reportedly 70 private drinking water wells within a two mile radius of the fly ash

reservoir.

 In its 2007 Damage Case Assessment Report, US EPA rejected the Muskingam Plant as a damage case with no evidence of onsite or offsite groundwater exceedances available at the time. OH EPA required monitoring indicated the exceedances.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceeda nces of primary (barium and gross alpha) and secondary MCLs (iron, sulfate, and TDS) have been reported onsite. There has not been any assessment of groundwater or surface water offsite and there are no other impact or damage claims. Groundwater monitoring is required by the OH EPA; however, these actions are not being driven by an administrative ruling or court decision that has an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment.



### Additional Sources

US EPA . 2007. U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency ( US EPA ), Office of Solid Waste

. Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9 2007. Case s No. 59 and 60 77

, Muskingum River

Power Plant Cardinal PFBC Monofill and Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment. Docket Number

EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 56 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 27) Northeastern Station Ash Landfill

American Electric Power

- Public Service Company of Oklahoma Oologah, OK

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill and Surface Impoundment



### Background and Description

Northeastern Station, loc ated in Oologah, Oklahoma, has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from American Electric Power (AEP) in a landfill since 1978. The landfill is located approximately 75 feet from the Verdigris River. It occupies 65 acres, is unlined, and operates under Oklahoma State Department of Health permit FA3566010. Although CCRs have been disposed of onsite since 1978, site monitoring did not begin until 2008. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite for the landfill; however, no

offsite assessment or monitori ng has been required. There is also a 69 acre bottom ash impoundment onsite but it has not been subject to groundwater monitoring.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, selenium, and thallium exceeded primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, sulfate and pH exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) and vanadium exceeded state

health

- based standards in onsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 20 10 Report also indicates that the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) required AEP to establish a groundwater monitoring program at the landfill. As a result of this program, ODEQ concluded that due to the relatively high flow of groundwate r through limestone and the proximity to the river, the plume might have reached the Verdigris River. This prompted ODEQ to require further investigation and possible remedial action.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterio n 1 :  Onsite groundwater exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, barium, chromium,

lead, selenium, and thallium.

 Onsite groundwater exceeded EPA SMCLs for sulfate and pH and state health

- based

standards for vanadium.

 No offsite groundwater data are availabl e.

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  ODEQ required AEP to establish a groundwater monitoring program and later

required further investigation and possible remedial action.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 57 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 There are six private drinking water wells in the town of Oo lagah, and three public drinking water

wells within a five mile radius of the site.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs, as well as state health

- based standards

have been found onsite. Ther e has not been any assessment of groundwater or surface water offsite and there are no other impact or da mage claims. AEP is required to monitor groundwater quarterly and may be required to remediate the site ; however

, these actions are not being driven by an administrative ruling or court decision that has an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment.



### Additional Sources

Hampton, Joy. Claremore Daily Progress, DEQ: Public drinking water in Oologah is safe. (September 2010). Acc essed October 12, 2010 at http://claremoreprogress.com/local/x955423905/DEQ

- Public

drinking

- water

- in

- Oologah

- is

- safeAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 58 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 28) Boardman Plant Portland General Electric Company (PGE) Boardman, OR

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill, cooling water rese rvoir, and wastewater ponds



### Background and Description

The Boardman Plant, located in Boardman, Oregon, has received coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from the Portland General Electric Company (PGE) since the mid

- 1970s. The site contains several CCR dispos al areas, including a lined 40 acre landfill, a 1,500 acre closed

- loop cooling water reservoir, and six industrial wastewater ponds, two of which are lined. The reservoir is approximately 3 miles long and also accepts liquid industrial wastes. Groundwater and surface water have been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite assessment or monitoring has been required.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MC L) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded the secondary EPA MCL (SMCL); selenium and TDS exceeded the Oregon Numerical Groundwater Quality Reference Levels, and vanadium exceeded health

- based standards (from Florida and Minnesota) in onsite groundwater.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 It should b e noted that the EPA MCL exceedances for arsenic were observed across the reservoir away from the landfill and wastewater ponds, and could be a related to farming/livestock/agricultural activity rather than CCR

- related sources.

 The reservoir accepts also industrial liquid wastes. Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater exceeded the EPA SMCL for TDS, the Oregon Numerical

Groundwater Quality Reference Levels for selenium and TDS, and health

- based standards ( from Florida and Minnesota) for vanadium in onsite groundwater.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2 :  None

Criterion 3 :  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 59 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1  Groundwater in the area is used for commercial irrigation and water supply. There are reportedly 14 wells for irrigation, 19 wells for private water supply, and 18 wells for livestock watering

within five miles of the site.

 Num erical Groundwater Quality Reference Levels are not health

- based, and the health

- based standard for vanadium cited in the EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report is not applicable to the state of Oregon, where the site is located.



### Classification

Inadequate Informati on



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found onsite but at distance and upgradient from CCR materials. There is inadequate information to determine whether exceedances

are site

- related, from offsite sources, or from on

- site but non

- CCR sources. There has not been any assessment of groundwater or surface water offsite and there are no other impact or damage claims. There are no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated wi th the coal ash disposal units.



### Additional SourcesAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 60 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 29) Bruce Mansfield Power Station FirstEnergy Shippingport, PA

Source Document

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

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

, Environmental Integrity Projec t, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface impoundment



### Background and Description

The Bruce Mansfield Power Station, located in Shippin gport, Pennsylvania, has disposed of approximately 1

- 3 million gallons per day of coal ash from FirstEnergy into the Little Blue Run surface impoundment that is located near the Ohio River. The coal ash slurry is transported from the Bruce

Mansfield Power Plant to the surface impoundment via a 7.5 mile pipe. The impoundment is unlined, covers an area of approximately 900

- 1300 acres, and spans across both Pennsylvania and West Virginia, with an earthen dam immediately across from Ohio. The 400 foot high eart hen dam is the the largest of its kind east of the Mississippi. FirstEnergy holds various permits for the site, including NPDES discharge permits (PA0027260) for the outfalls as well as a Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law permit (PA0027481)

and a Solid Waste permit (300558). Groundwater and surface water have been monitored both onsite and offsite. Many of the offsite wells have been acquired by FirstEnergy. In 2007, the Plant was sued by residents in its vicinity due to violations of air emissions that resu lted in documented health impacts, and the suit was resolved in 2009 through a Partial Consent Decree.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic, barium, cadmium, fluoride, lead, and turbidity exceeded prima ry EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in both onsite and offsite groundwater. Additionally, aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, sulfate, pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) in both onsite and offsite groundwater. It is important to note that although exceedances were found in offsite groundwater, these wells have since been acquired by FirstEnergy.

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report also indicates that levels of arsenic, antimony, boron, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, selenium, and thallium exceeded Pennsylvania water quality criteria (PA WQC) in both onsite and offsite surface waters. Additionally, several constituents exceeded criteria continuous concentrations (CCCs) and criteria maximum concentrations (CMCs).

The EIP/EJ/SC August 2010 Report cites numerous incidents that have occurred at or near the Bruce Mansfield Power Station, including coal ash fugitive dust covering homes, rotten eggs’ odor, and various unregulated discharge issues including 800 gallons o f scrubber sludge, 100 gallons of CCR slurry, and discolored waters. Additionally, many permit violations have occurred at outfalls located around the site.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has issued a number of Notices of Violation (NOV) regarding fugitive dust, discolored water, groundwater contamination, etc.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 61 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Consideratio ns

 At least 22 private wells have been contaminated and acquired by FirstEnergy. The impacted residents have been supplied alternate drinking water.

 There is no public water supply in Greene Township, where all residents are on private wells.

 Data is unav ailable for the West Virginia side of the impoundment.



### Classification

Proven Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary and secondary EPA MCLs have been found both onsite and offsite, although FirstEnergy has acquired contaminated wells located offsite. Surface water exceedances of PA WQC, CCC, and CMC have been found both onsite and offsite. Several impacts to the surrounding area have occurred, including dust, odor, and discharge issues. PADEP has issued several NOVs to FirstEnergy for reasons including dust, discolored water, and groundwater contamination.



### Additional Sources

Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/first

- mansfield.pdf

Environ mental News Service. Polluting Pennsylvania Power Plant Sued by Neighbors (October 2007). Accessed on October 12, 2010 at http://www.ens

- newswire.com/ens/oct2007/2007

- 10

- 18

- 092.html

PennFuture Legal Cases/Current Cases, accessed on October 25, 2010: http://www.pennfuture.org/legal_detail.aspx?Type=C&LegalCaseID=47 Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1 :  Onsite and offsite groundwater exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, barium,

cadmium, fluoride, lead, and turbidity.

 Onsite and offsite groundwater exceeded EPA SMCLs for aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, sulfate, pH, and TDS.

 Offsite wells have since been acquired by FirstEnergy.

Criterion 2 :  Onsite and offsite surface waters exceeded PA WQCs, CCCs, and/or CMCs for

arsenic, antimony, boron, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, selenium, and

thallium.

 Incidents have occurred near the site including coal ash fugitive dust covering homes, rotten eggs’ odor, and various unregulated discharg e issues including 800 gallons of scrubber sludge, 100 gallons of CCR slurry, and discolored waters.

Criterion 3 :  PADEP has issued several NOVs concerning fugitive dust, discolored water from

discharge, and groundwater contamination.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 62 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 30) Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station Allegheny Energy Supply Company Masontown, PA

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### T ype Landfill, Surface Impoundment, and a minefill



### Background and Description

The Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station began operation in 1969, with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issuing a coal combustion residuals (CCRs) landfil l permit in 1984.

The first landfill was a 40

- acre unlined area designated as Phase 1 and Phase 2. These two units were also built with a leachate collection system and under

- drain system to collect groundwater in the coal ash. Until 2001, leachate and was tewater were discharged directly to an earthen impoundment and then into a tributary of Little Whitely Creek. In 2001, the PADEP determined this discharge was in violation of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit ( No. PA0002941 ) , following which the operator implemented a passive wetland treatment system for the leachate. This system includes an equalization basin, four wetland cells, five rock drain cells, and a sedimentation pond. In 1998, the

PADEP also re

- permitted the site, expanding it to 187

- acres. In 2009, PADEP also approved the Phase 3 expansion for a 110 acre disposal site planned with a composite liner. Groundwater monitoring is required on site, and surface water samples have also been taken in the discharge tributar y and a downstream location. The Hartley strip mine, located on a neighboring property to the south, is also used for the disposal of CCRs.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that onsite groundwater monitoring since 2005 h as shown contamination of groundwater related to the CCR disposal areas. Exceedances have included arsenic above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL); boron and molybdenum above the EPA’s Lifetime Health Advisory; and manganese, sulfate, total d issolved solids (TDS), and aluminum above EPA secondary MCLs (SMCLs). These exceedances occurred at a number of monitoring wells around the Phase 1 and 2 landfills, the new Phase 3 landfill, the leachate collection sump, and the Hartley mine disposal area. The report also notes that because of differing groundwater flows in different aquifers, some of the wells monitored as upgradient do not actually meet the criteria for upgradient and do show contamination from the CCRs disposal in the area.

The EIJ/EP/ S C August 2010 Report also notes that discharges from the leachate collection system into nearby tributaries have polluted surface water offsite and in Whiteley Creek. The report notes that even after the NPDES permit violation was noted in 2001, there wer e continued violations of aluminum, manganese, and thallium over permit effluent limits, resulting in a PADEP Consent Order. The report specifies that surface water monitoring in the nearby tributary, and downstream in Whiteley Creek show

elevated levels f

or a number of constituents over their upstream values, including Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria (WQC) exceedances for boron in the tributary. The report notes that these elevated concentrations generally mirror the elevated concentrations measured di rectly in the discharge sump as well as the groundwater concentrations. The report also notes that a 2006 habitat and stream survey undertaken by a third party consultant (GAI Consultants) indicated that CCR leachate degraded the twoAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 63 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 streams closest to the landfill. It notes that the tributary which receives the leachate discharge (previously untreated) and the closest tributary to the Phase 2 landfill both have had impaired benthic macroinvertebrate populations, and now have populations only of organisms r esistant to pollution. The

consultants concluded that the studies indicate a disturbed habitat in both tributaries.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

There are 7 private drinking water wells and one public drinking water well within a two

- mile radius of the Hatfield’s Ferry CCW disposal areas.



### Classification

Potential Damage Pending Access to the Original Report (GAI Consultants) for consideration of proven ecological damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory for boron and molybdenum, and the SMCL for sulfate, manganese and TDS have been found onsite.

A lthough a habitat and stream survey undertaken by a third party consultant indicate d impaired benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the two tributaries nearest the landfill ( one of which receives leachate discharge ), the study could not be located and reviewed

. The PADEP entered a COA with Allegheny Energy because of violations of NPDES limits for three contaminants and required corrective actions ; however the COA did not indicate a finding of specific damage to human health or the environment.



### Additional Sources

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, Hatfield Power Station , Accessed Online Oct

2010. http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl .disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110017437148 Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory for boron and molybdenum.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA S MCLs for sulfate, manganese, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Surface water monitoring in dicates elevated levels of contaminants compared to

upstream values, including boron over the PA WQC.

 Effluent samples from the wetland treatment system indicate violations of aluminum, manganese, and thallium over NPDES permit effluent limits.

 A habitat and stream survey found that the two tributaries closest to the landfills, one of which receives the leachate discharge, had impacted populations of benthic

macroinvertebrates.

Criterion 3:  PADEP entered into a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) with All egheny Energy

in 2008 because of violations of the NPDES permit effluent limits for aluminum, manganese, and thallium. The COA required a corrective action plan and once approved allows two years to implement corrective actions for the illegal discharges.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 64 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 Quirindongo, Mayra. Coal Combustion Waste in Pennsylvania: The Case of the Hatfield’s Ferry Landfill.

Natural Resource Defense Council. 2007. Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/coal/coalpa.pdfAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 65 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 31) Big Stone Power Plant

Otter Tail Power Big Stone City, SD

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Landfill, Surface Impoundments, and Cooling and Evaporation ponds



### Backgr ound and Description

The Big Stone Power Plant is located in a rural area near Big Stone Lake, approximately one mile from Big Stone City, South Dakota. The plant consists of a coal combustion residuals (CCR) landfill, a bottom ash pond, and seven other wa ste disposal ponds. The landfill, which receives mostly dry fly ash and some dredged CCRs, also has an associated unlined ash pond for storm water runoff. The landfill and ash pond, along with two lined brine ponds, two unlined lime sludge water softener p onds, and an inert construction debris landfill are all under the plant’s solid waste permit. The site also has a cooling pond, an evaporation pond, a holding pond, and a sluiced bottom ash settling pond, all of which are not managed

under the solid waste permit. The brine ponds, cooling ponds, evaporation pond, and holding pond form a closed loop of water. Both the cooling and evaporation ponds are each nearly a mile wide. Groundwater monitoring on the site consists of 25 wells, though the lime sludge pond s and the northern and eastern edges of the cooling or evaporation ponds are not monitored. No offsite groundwater data is available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that monitoring onsite found groundwater contaminatio n in 21 of 25 monitoring wells which screen the shallow and intermediate aquifers. The report indicated that arsenic and lead were both found in multiple wells above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), most commonly in wells near the brine pon ds. The report also notes boron above the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory in eight wells, and sulfate, chloride, and total dissolved solids (TDS) above the secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) in a number of wells. Strontium was also found in two wells above the

EPA Li fetime Health Advisory. The report notes that South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) officials insist contamination comes from water softener in the brine wastes.

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report counters that sulfate, boron, a nd strontium concentrations all generally correspond with the lead and arsenic exceedances. Under the DENR permit, boron, sulfate and strontium are designated as ash monitoring parameters, indicating CCR is a significant source of the pollution.

The EIJ/ EP/S C August 2010 Report also indicates that for a number of reasons, current monitoring is insufficient and cannot define the extent of contamination. For example, it notes that the cooling pond causes considerable groundwater contamination and shares a b order with the plant property line; no monitoring wells, however, exist on this perimeter. It also notes that the closed loop of water, including the brine ponds, does not have a permitted surface discharge which means evaporation and leaching into

the sha llow groundwater are the only exit routes from the system.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 66 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The South Dakota DENR allege s that all the groundwater contamination reported is related to the water treatment process and not to CCR disposal. They indicate that monitoring around the ash

landfill does not show contamination.

 The South Dakota DENR also refute the EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report claim of elevated sulfate and metals indicating CCR damage, noting that ambient groundwater quality in the glacial till area is highly mineralized, including elevated sulfate in ambient concentrations.



### Classification

Not a Damage Case



### Ration ale Although there are exceedances of primary EPA MCLs, EPA Lifetime Health Advisories, and EPA SMCLs in onsite groundwater, the exceedances generally occur near the brine ponds and are possibly related to the water softening and treatment process: CCRs c annot be directly implicated as a source of the contamination. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Waste Management Program

– Coal Ash. South Dakota DENR. Correspondence with Environmental

I ntegrity Project. Accessed Online, Oct 2010. http://denr.sd.gov/coalash.aspx#Correspondence

Jim Wendte, Mark Quarles. Email Correspondence between Earthjustice and South Dakota DENR. July 6 to July 15 Emails. Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://denr.sd.gov/des/wm/coalash/ccreip2.pdf

Jim Wendte, Mark Quarles. Email Correspondence between Earthjustice and South Dakota DENR. May 6

to Jun e 25 Emails. Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://denr.sd.gov/des/wm/coalash/ccreip1.pdf

Jim Wendte, Mark Quarles. Email Correspondence between Earthjustice and South Dakota DENR and

attached data. J uly 16 to July 21 Emails. Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://denr.sd.gov/des/wm/coalash/ccreip3.pdf Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Lif etime Health Advisory for boron and

strontium.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA S MCLs for sulfate, chloride, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 67 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 32) Cumberland Steam Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Cumberland City, TN

Source Documen t

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, Au gust 26, 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundments and ash stack



### Background and Description

The Cumberland Fossil Plant has two coal

- fired generating units, consuming approximately 20,000 tons of coal per day. Construction of the plant began in 1968, and the plant c ame online in 1973. The plant has three coal combustion residual (CCR) disposal/storage areas on site. A gypsum storage area covers 170 acres and was built in 1996 on top of the plant’s original ash pond (circa 1969). Another ash pond covers

50 acres and w as built in 1969, requiring the movement of Wells Creek. A dry ash stack that covers 110 acres was also started in 1969, has a maximum height of approximately 35 feet, and is being built over a sluiced ash disposal area. The plant is located in a rural are a with approximately 440 houses within 3 miles, the majority of which use groundwater as a drinking source. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) collects groundwater from a number of downgradient wells and a few upgradient wells; however, no offsite groundwate r data is available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that monitoring onsite found groundwater contamination in downgradient wells including arsenic and selenium above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs); bo ron exceeding the EPA’s Health Advisory for Children; and aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeding their secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs). The report also notes that for all these contaminants, the upgradient sampl es were generally at lower concentrations or below the detection limit, indicating that the CCR disposal sites are the primary source

of contamination.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data ex ceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic and selenium.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Health Advisory for Children for boron.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA S MCLs for aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, sulfate, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwate r data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 68 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic and selenium, the EPA Child Health Advisory for boron, and the SMCL for aluminum, chloride, iron, sulfate manganese

, and TDS have been found onsite. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Stantec. 2009. TVA Disposal Facility Assessment. Phase 1 Plant Summary

- C umberland Fossil Plant (CUF). Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/tn/rpt_001_tn_report_171468118.pdf (Report) http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/tn/rpt_006_appndx_d_cuf_171468118.pdf (Appendix)APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 69 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 33) Gallatin Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Gallatin, TN

Source Document

In Harm’s Way: Lack Of Federal C oal 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



### Type

Closed and Act ive Surface Impoundment



### Background and Description

The Gallatin Fossil Plant, located on the Cumberland River northeast of Nashville, Tennessee, was opened in 1959. The plant has three coal combustion residual (CCR) disposal areas onsite. The first is an unlined bottom ash impoundment which covers approximately 248 acres. The second is an unlined fly ash impoundment which covers approximately 167 acres. The third is an unlined ash impoundment which covers approximately 73 acres and was the first of the thr ee sites, opening in the late 1950s. CCRs were sluiced into this area until 1970 when the area was abandoned. A closure plan was approved in 1997, with the work completed in 1998. Treated water from the Cumberland River is a common municipal water supply s ource in the area, including for the Gallatin Water Department which is located just over a mile downstream from the impoundments. However, no offsite monitoring data is available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that m onitoring onsite around the closed ash impoundment found exceedances of the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and secondary EPA MCL (SMCL) for a variety of constituents. The report notes that beryllium and cadmium exceeded the primary

EPA MCL in a number of onsite samples, while nickel exceeded the Tennessee state groundwater MCL and boron exceeded the EPA Health Advisory Level for Children. The report notes that upgradient concentrations for these chemicals were consistently lower than downgradie nt concentrations, and were often below the detection limit. The report also notes that sulfate, manganese, iron, and total dissolved solids (TDS) were above their SMCLs in downgradient wells and followed similar pattern of having much lower values upgradi ent from the impoundments. The report indicates that hydrogeologic studies indicate the shallow groundwater near the closed ash area is moving towards and discharging into the Cumberland River. The report notes that surface water monitoring data for the tw o active ponds is not

available.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for cadmium and beryllium.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Health Advisory for Childr en for boron and the Tennessee groundwater MCL for nickel.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA S MCLs for iron, manganese, sulfate, and

TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 70 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

Classifi cation

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for cadmium and beryllium, the EPA Child Health

A dvisory for boron, the Tennessee groundwater MCL for nickel

, and the EPA SMCL for iron, sulfate

manganese
, and TDS have been found onsite. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions

associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Stantec 2009. TVA Disposal Facility As sessment, Gallatin Fossil Plant. Accessed Online Oct 2010 http://www.tennessee.gov/environment/kingston/pdf/tva/StantecGallatinAnalysisE.pdf http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/tn/ rpt_001_tn_report_171468118.pdf (Report) http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/tn/rpt_007_appndx_e_gaf_171468118.pdf (Appendix) http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/tn/rpt_002_all_11x17_aerials_171468118_tn.pdf (aerial image) Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 71 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 34) Johnsonville Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority New Johnsonville, TN

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26 , 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundments and Landfills



### Background and Description

The Johnsonville Fossil Plant, opened in 1952, has 10 coal generating units and is the oldest coal plant in

Tennessee

. The plant lies on the Tennessee River near Kentucky Lake, bot h of which are popular recreation areas. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the operator, has four ash disposal areas at this plant. Three units (a 35

- acre former pond for dredged ash, a 95

- acre former landfill, and a 45

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

- acre unlined coal combustion residual (CCR) disposal area known as Areas 2 & 3, and is located on an island in the Tennessee River. Groundwater monitoring began at the site in 1990; however, TVA did not mo nitor continuously so only data from select years are available at any of the given units. There are estimated to be over 1,000 households within a 3 mile radius, some using groundwater as a drinking source. In addition, both New Johnsonville and the City of Camden intake their municipal water supplies from the Tennessee River near the Johnsonville’s plant outfalls. No offsite groundwater data is available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that monitoring onsite found exc eedances of the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) for a variety of constituents at the four CCR disposal areas. The report notes that the active island area had primary EPA MCL exceedances for arsenic, cadmium and lead; boron and molybdenum above their EPA Lifetime Health Advisory levels; and aluminum, iron, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) above their EPA SMCLs. The report also notes similar exceedances for primary and secondary MCLs at Area A, and similar EPA SMCL exceedances at the two other disposal areas. The report also notes that groundwater under these disposal areas generally flows south west and ultimately discharges to the

Tennessee River. It also notes that some of these chemicals wer e also measured at the water intake point in the Tennessee River at levels above EPA Water Quality Criteria for Human Health, most noticeably manganese, iron, and aluminum.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 72 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The highest g roundwater exceedances occurred on the island disposal site, though the exact location of these monitoring wells could not be verified.

 Groundwater data as presented in the EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report is only available from the late 1980’s and early 1990 ’s, as the plant stopped monitoring in 1994.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic , cadmium, and lead; the SMCL for aluminum, iron, manganese, sulfate

, and TDS; and the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory levels for boron and molybdenum have been found onsite. While WQC exceedances were found in offsite surface water, there is no scientific study available that explicitly documents evidence of damage to human health or the

environment. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Stantec 2009. TVA Disposal Facility As sessment, Johnsonville Fossil Plant. Accessed Online Oct 2010 http://www.tennessee.gov/environment/kingston/pdf/tva/StantecJohnsonvilleAnalysisG.pdf http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/tn/rpt_001_tn_rep ort_171468118.pdf (Report) http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/tn/rpt_007_appndx_e_gaf_171468118.pdf (Appendix) http://www.tva.gov/power/stantec/tn/rpt_002_all_11x17_aerials_171468118_tn.pdf (aerial image) Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsi te groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, cadmium, and

lead.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory levels for boron and molybdenum.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA S MCLs for aluminum, iron, manganese,

sulf ate, and TDS

.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Surface water measurements in the Tennessee River indicate manganese, iron, and

aluminum above the EPAs Water Quality Criteria.

Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 73 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 35) Fayette Power Project (Sam Seymour) Lower Colorado River Authority La Grange, TX

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### T ype Surface Impoundments and landfill s


### Background and Description

The Fayette Power Project has four waste management units onsite which are currently active. The coal ash pond , which receives c oal c ombustion r esidual s (CCR s ) from U nits 1 and 2, began oper ation in 1979, has a clay liner, and storage capacity of 3.7 million cubic yards. Half of the pond was closed down in

1988. The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) has submitted plans to completely close the c oal ash pond. The site also has a reclaim pon d, a coal ash landfill

, and a class 2 sanitary landfill. The reclaim pond includes CCR materials (FGD byproduct, sludge from the reaction tank, and fly ash particulate entrained in water from the coal ash pond) along with other miscellaneous lower volume w astewater. The facility discharges are NPDES permitted Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. WQ00020105 (TX0073121) issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on April 25, 2005. The Class 2 landfill opened in 1 979 and accepted non

- CCR wastes such as construction materials, blast media, insulation

- , cleaning

- and painting waste, fluorescent lamps and more. The CCR landfill is used for dry handling of CCR materials

, primarily FGD gypsum. The plan t is located on L ake Fayette, which is a popular recreational lake for fishing and boating in central Texas. In addition to the recreational and camping areas, there are reportedly 42 private drinking wells within 2 miles of the site. Groundwater from the site generally di scharges into Ced ar Creek or Baylor Creek nearby; however

, no offsite groundwater monitoring data is available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that groundwater monitoring in 2009 found multiple

instances of onsite cont amination at levels above the Texas Protective Contamination Levels (PCLs) and primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Cobalt above both the residential and commercial PCL was found downgradient of the CCR landfill, and molybdenum above the resident ial PCL was found downgradient of the coal ash pond. Selenium was also found above the primary EPA MCL (and PCLs) near the reclaim pond. In 2005, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) required a selenium assessment at the ash pond as the lik ely source of selenium, though investigations remain underway.

Monitoring also found aluminum, chloride, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) above secondary EPA MCLs (SMCLs) at various monitoring wells located downgradient from all the w aste management units at the site.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for selenium

.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 74 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 In addition to CCRs, the reclaim pond also receives wastewa ter treatment sludge and waste metal cleaning solution.

 Arsenic was also detected on the site above the primary EPA MCL downgradient from the Class 2 landfill in an aquifer not impacted by the CCR disposal sites. The source of arsenic is not

confirmed as t he class 2 landfill, though the CCR disposal units are not likely the cause. Distance and relative low waste volume compared to the reclaim pond and coal ash pond suggest the Class

2 landfill is not the source of selenium and selected other contaminants in wells near the CCR

units.

 As a result of measured contamination, the TCEQ notified two neighboring landowners of possible molybdenum contamination in groundwater.

 TCEQ PCLs are not specifically health

- based criteria for groundwater.



### Classification

Pot ential Damage



### Rationale Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for selenium, and the SMCL for aluminum, chloride, manganese, sulfate, and TDS have been found onsite. There are no administrative rulings or court

decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Fayette Power Project Technical Specifications for Ash Pond Closure Units 1 and 2, September 2010, URS for Lower Colorado River Authority http://www.lcra.org/library/media/public/docs/rfps/2010/5.7629RFP.Technical.Specifications09

- 23

- 10.pdf last accessed 10/30/10

Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results for Coal Ash Pond http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/lower

- co

- river.pdf

Response to EPA Request for Information, Coal Ash Impoundment Survey Results for Re claim Pond http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/lower

- co

- river2.pdf TRRP Protective Concentration Levels, Texas Commission on En vironmental Quality. Accessed Online

Oct 2010 http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/trrp/trrppcls.html

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the Texas PCL for cobalt and molybdenum.

 Onsi te groundwater data exceeded EPA S MCLs for aluminum, chloride, manganese, sulfate, and TDS

.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 75 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 36) Clinch River Plant

American Electric Power

– Appalachian Power Compan y Cleveland, VA

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundments and landfill



### Background and Description

The Clinch River plant has two ash ponds and a fly ash landfill. The two ash ponds were commissioned in 1964, with capacities of 1

, 240 and 1

, 33 2 acre

- feet

, respectively. Pond Area 1 and the fly ash landfill are currently active. Pond Area 2 was closed in 1998. The plant lies in a rural area, on the Clinch River, to which effluent from the ponds is discharged. The plant has a National Pollutant Di sch arge Elimination System (NPDES) No. VA0001015.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that a dike failure on Pond Area 1 in June 1967 released

about 400 acre

- feet of ash slurry into Dump’s Creek (which joins Clinch River a half mile downstream) in under an hour. The spill equaled approximately 40% of the daily flow for Clinch River, blocked flow for several minutes and raised the water level by several meters, forcing some waste nearly a half mile upstream. The report notes that studies of the spill determined the high pH as one source of toxicity in the released slurry. It also noted that the spill killed approximately 162,000 fish for nearly 66 miles down the Clinch River in Virginia and another 55,000 over 24 miles into Te nnessee. Studies also noted that benthic macroinvertebrates were completely eliminated for nearly 4 miles below the spill, while snails and mussels (for which the river is well known and contains multiple species listed as endangered, threatened or of spec ial concern) were eliminated for nearly 11 miles downstream of the plant. A study nearly 5 years later noted that mollusk communities still had significantly reduced numbers for about 18 miles downstream, though a smaller acidic spill in 1970 could also ha ve had effect on population recovery.

Studies later in the 1980s also noted that populations of biota nearer to the discharge point remained impaired. They noted that besides the toxic spill, metal concentrations in the effluent for copper and

aluminum e xceeded EPA's Water Quality Criteria (WQC), though copper levels were reduced following process modifications in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Recent studies in 2000 and 2002 found that the current damages to biota were likely caused by effluent discharg es and were less prominent outside the area immediately near the discharge point.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 76 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 This case was listed as a documented case in the EPA’s 1988 Report to Congress and identified as a damage case in 1993. However, i n the 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments (EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015) the case was rejected citing “no evidence of comanagement” based on the 1999 Report to Congress. However, while indeed outside the scope of the 1999 Report to Congress due to l ack of co

- management issues, the case should not have been rejected in the 2007 damage case assessment.



### Classification

Proven Damage



### Rationale

S cientific stud ies have indicated documented ecological damage in the form of fish, mollusk, and

macroinverteb rate population damage downstream from the CCR effluent discharge and from the dike

failure in 1967

.



### Additional Sources

US EPA. 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Solid Waste

. Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9 2007. Cases No. 59 and 60

, Cardinal PFBC Monofill and Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment. Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2006

- 0796

- 0015

.

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, American Electric Power

– Clinch River Plant,

Accessed On line Oct 2010. http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000585581 Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  None

Criterion 2:  A dike failure in 1967 resulted in a large spill of ash slurry into the Cli nch River.

Studies of the spill found severe damage to fish, mollusk, and macroinvertebrate populations over considerable distances downstream of the spill. Follow

- up studies noted some lasting effect on populations from this spill, as well as continuing d amage to biota in the area immediately near the ash pond effluent discharge.

Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 7 7 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 37) Glen Lyn Plant

American Electric Power

– Appalachian Power Company Glen Lyn, VA

Source Document

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,

E nvironmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundments



### Background and Description

The Glen Lyn Power Plant has two onsite ponds for management of c oal c ombustion r esidu als (CCRs). One is a fly ash pond com missioned in 1965 and covering 7.6 acres . The other is a multi

- unit bottom ash pond commissioned in 1963 and covering 5.1 acres. Some other wastewaters are treated in contiguous units of the bottom ash pond. Effluent was discharged from these ponds into a receiving stream which then flowed into the New River, until discharges stopped in 1980. The ponds, however, remain active. The plant has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No. WI0002780

.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/ S C August 2010 Report claims that a number of scientific studies examined these impacts at the Glen Lyn Plant in the late 1970’s until the discharges stopped in 1980. The report i ndicates that effluent discharges from the ponds impacted the biota in the st ream, reducing the taxon richness and diversity, particularly for macroinvertebrates based on the specific study ( Structural, Functional and Recovery Responses of Stream In vertebrates to Fly Ash Effluent, Specht 1984). Th is study is reported to

demonstrate that along with thermal discharges, elevated total suspended solids (TSS) and pH, there were also trace elements (cadmium and selenium) in the effluent above the Virginia Water Quality Criteria (WQC) that lead to the ecological damage such as reduction of the mayfly population. Another study noted that contaminants such as cadmium and nickel bioaccumulated to very high levels in duckweed, which while not toxic to the plant, could be a source of contaminants rather than an endpoint. Another study also noted that the bacterial community was altered by the level of effluent discharge.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The study of duckweed bioaccumulation did not pr ovide any indication of ecological harm from

the bioaccumulation Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  None

Criterion 2:  A number of studies undertaken in the late 1970’s and 1980’s determined that eff luent discharge from the CCR impoundments had an impact on the biota in the stream, affecting the diversity of macroinvertebrate, mayfly, and bacterial populations.

Criterion 3:  NoneAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 78 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1  The study of heterotrophic bacteria population shifts demonstrates potential impact in the ash

basins but does not demonstrate meaningful shifts beyond the immediate outfall, suggest an impor tant role of thermal impacts (due to the plant but not due to CCRs), and does not adequately account for differences in reference areas and multiple water sources.

 The original Specht study from 1984 was not reviewed but subsequent work referencing the sam e data set established the critical importance of the thermal discharge to benthic macroinvertebrate populations. Thermal discharges from the plant are not a hazardous constituent of CCRs and are not capable of triggering a proven damage case claim.



### Classi fication

Not a Damage Case Pending Access to the Original Report ( Specht 1984 )



### Rationale While scientific studies did indicate ecological damage in the stream near this site, specific data linking the damage to CCR contamination is not available.



### Additi onal Sources

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, Appalachian Power Glen Lyn Power Plant,

Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://iaspub .epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000585518

Cherry, D.S., R.J. Currie, and D.J. Soucek. 2000. Review of the Global Adverse Environmental Impacts to Ground Water and Aquatic Ecosystems from Coal Combustion Wastes. Prepar ed for the Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens Coal Council (Mar. 28, 2000), available at http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/A_REVIEW _OF_THE_ADVERSE_ENVIRONMENTAL_IMPACT S_OF_COAL_COMBUS.htm

Clark, J. R., J. H. Van Hassel, R. B. Nicholson, D. S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. 1981. Accumulation and Depuration of Metals by Duckweed ( Lemna perpusilla ). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 5 :87

- 96. Larrick, S. R., J. R. Clark, D. S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. 1981. Structural and Functional Changes of Aquatic Heterotrophic Bacteria to Thermal, Heavy and Fly Ash Effluents. Water Res. 15:875

- 880.

Lynde, S.R,Techniques For Evaluating Power Pla nt Discharges Using In

- Situ Leaf Breakdown And

Flow

- Through Laboratory Sediment Bioassays, 1994

Rowe, C.L., W.A. Hopkins and J.D. Congdon. 2002. Ecotoxicological Implications of Aquatic Disposal

of Coal Combustion Residues in the United States: A Review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

80:207

- 276.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 79 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 38) Columbia Energy Center Alliant Energy

– Wisconsin Power and Light Company Pardeeville, WI

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Type

Surface Impoundments



### Background and Description

The Columbia Power St ation has three currently active ash impoundments on site, all officially commissioned in 1975, though plant operations and coal combustion residual (CCR) storage and discharge began in 1974. The three ponds consist of an 8.5

- acre primary ash pond, a 16

- ac re secondary ash pond, and a 1

- acre polishing pond. Since the plants opening in 1975, CCRs have been slurried into this series of impoundments and sulfuric acid added to reduce the alkalinity. The effluent is then discharged into a stream which subsequentl y flows into Rocky Run Creek. The plant has a non

- major National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. WI0002780 , and is also regulated with a state WPDES permit.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that efflu ent discharges from the impoundments damaged stream habitat and had severe impact on populations of aquatic communities downstream from the discharge point. The report notes that a number of studies were undertaken between 1974 and 1980 by the

US EPA’s Env ironmental Research Laboratory and the University of Wisconsin

- Madison’s Institute for Environmental Studies. These studies indicated that along with increased total dissolved and total suspended solids (TDS and TSS, respectively), a number of heavy metals had increased concentrations downstream, though these were not reported. The report also notes that one of the studies identified contaminants in the ash pond drainage over the EPA’s Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), including cadmium and copper.

Th e EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 also notes that using conductivity as a measurement of effluent strength, these late 1970’s studies found that areas with high effluent conductivity had damaged habitats and damaged populations of biota, particularly macroinvertebra tes. The studies noted that in 1977, the downstream monitoring point reached a maximum conductivity and the biota were the most impacted in comparison to an upstream reference site. It notes that when process changes reduced the conductivity of

the effluen t in 1980, a study indicated that biota downstream had returned (though modified in relative abundance) to pre

- discharge levels, indicating the CCR as a source of contamination.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 80 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

Classification

Proven Damage



### Rationale

S cientific stud ies indicated documented ecological damage in the form of population damage downstream from the CCR effluent discharge.



### Additional Sources

US EPA, Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report, WPL

– Columbia Energy Center , Accessed

Online Oct 2010. http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_reg istry_id=110000420385

Magnuson, J. J., Forbes, A. M., Harrell, D. M. and Schwarzmeier, J. D. 1980. Responses of Stream Invertebrates to an Ash Pit Effluent, Wisconsin Power Plant Impact Study. EPA

- 600/ 3

- 80

- 081, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cinc innati, OH. Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://books.google.com/books?id=UdG2efq19PcC&ots=r04mkckWNh&dq=Responses%20of%20Strea m%20Invertebrates%20to%20an%20Ashpit%20Effluent%2C%20Wisconsin%20Power%20Plant%20Im pact%20Study.&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Webster, K.E., Anne M. Forbes, and John J. Magnuson. 1986. An Evaluation of Environmental Stress Imposed by a Coal Ash Effluent. EPA/600/S3

- 85/045. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth,

MN. Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000TMJ7.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=198 1%20Thru%201985&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&T ocEntry=&QField=pubnumber%5E%22600S385045%22&QFieldYe ar=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=& UseQField=pubnumber&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5

CINDEX%20DATA%5C81THRU85%5CTXT%5C00000010%5C2000TMJ7.txt&User=ANONYMOUS &Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C

- &MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQu ality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display= p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page ’ Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  None

Criterion 2:  A number of studies undertaken in the late 1970s determined that effluent discharge

from the CCR impoundments had an impact on downstream habitats and caused considerable damage to populations of macroinvertebrates.

Criterion 3:  Non eAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 81 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 

### 39) Oak Creek Power Plant Wisconsin Energy

– Wisconsin Electric Power Company Oak Creek, WI

Source Document

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

- nine New Damage Cases of Contamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, August 26, 2010



### Typ e

Landfills



### Background and Description

The Oak Creek Power plant has been in operation since the 1950s . Its onsite waste units consist of the active Caledonia landfill as well as two inactive landfills, Oak Creek North and Oak Creek South. Oak

Creek North began operating in the mid 1960s and closed in the late 1970s. Oak Creek S outh opened in 1974 and was capped and closed with a gravity leachate collection drain in 1992. The active Caledonia

landfill is approximately 45 acres with a clay liner and leachat e collection system. Caledonia receives coal combustion residual (CCR) and wastewater treatment solids from five power plants operated by Wisconsin Energy. There are a number of residences near the landfill, and while most receive public

water from Lake Mi chigan, there are private drinking water wells in the area, some within 1,500 feet of

the landfills.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report indicates that 12 offsite private wells found contamination related to CCRs. Two clusters of priv ate wells, the Douglas Avenue Cluster and the Botting Avenue Cluster, lie within 1,500 feet of the closed Oak Creek South landfill and the Caledonia Landfill, respectively. The report notes that monitoring at these wells has been undertaken since 1989, par t of a Wisconsin Energy agreement with the city, though only data from 2002 onward was available. The report notes that molybdenum in many of the wells in these clusters had shown exceedances of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) NR140 En forcement Standard (ES) of 0.04 mg/L, which is also the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory level. The report also notes that boron exceeded its Wisconsin Preventive Action Limit (PAL) of 0.19 mg/L at a number of these offsite wells. The contamination was first r eported to the residents in August 2009, at which time Wisconsin Energy voluntarily began to supply bottled water to several dozen residents in the area, though Wisconsin Energy did not claim responsibility for the

contamination.

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report also notes that molybdenum, manganese, and sulfate were above the WDNR ES and arsenic, boron, fluoride, and mercury were above the PALs in onsite wells.

The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report also notes that National Resource Technologies, who were

con sulting for Wisconsin Energy, determined that molybdenum in the private wells was not coming from

CCR in the landfills. The EIJ/EP/S C August 2010 Report counters, for a number of reasons, that the landfills are the primary source. These reasons include sig nificant ES exceedances for molybdenum and boron in the landfill leachate, as well as smaller exceedances in onsite groundwater monitoring near the landfills. The report also notes a groundwater monitoring well that has been placed “upgradient” of the priv ate wells (which is the opposite direction of the landfills). Concentrations from this “upgradient” well are much lower for molybdenum and boron (below the ES) and would indicate there is not an upgradient source of this contamination. The report also note s that while the general gradient in groundwater near theAPPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 82 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 landfills is away from the private wells, the aquifer is a fractured system where groundwater will often not follow a hydraulic

- gradient based flow direction.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Crit eria

Other Considerations

 Hunts Disposal Landfill, a Superfund site and municipal landfill, is located about 1.5 miles west of these CCR landfills. Molybdenum, however, is not listed as a contaminant of concern for the site, and the constituents of concern such arsenic were not detected at elevated levels in the

residential wells.

 Wisconsin DNR officials are investigating possible sources of the contamination, including the CCR landfills, Hunts landfills, and other natural or historical causes, though no determination has been made, and State representatives claim it could be up to 5 years before the source is

determined.

 WDNR NR 140 Enforcement Standards are listed as “health

- based,” while preventive action limits (PALs) are lower standards and not specifically health

- based.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the WDNR Enforcement Stan dards (ES) for molybdenum, manganese, and

sulfate have been found onsite. G roundwater exceedances of molybdenum was found in offsite private drinking wells that appear to be upgradient of the landfill although investigations are underway to better

establis h local background and gradients to determine if the CCRs are the source

. There are no administrative ruling or court decision s

.



### Additional Sources

Won, Christine. Report: We Energies landfills likely source of groundwater contamination. The Journal

Times . Aug 26 2010. Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_ef8a0a86

- b135

- 11df

- a466

- 001cc4c03286.html

Content, Thomas . Taint ed wells anger resident s. JS Online, Milwaukee

- Wiscon sin Journal Sentinel. Sept

6 2010. Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://www.jsonline.com/business/102313819.html Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Offsite groundwater in residential drinking water wells exceeded the health

- based

WDNR Enforcement Standards (ES) for molybdenum, and the Wisconsin Preventive Action Limit (PAL) for boron.

 Onsite groundwater also ex ceeded the WDNR ES for molybdenum, manganese, and sulfate, as well as the PALs for arsenic, boron, fluoride, and mercury.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  Wisconsin Energy voluntarily began to supply bottled w ater to several dozen residents

in the area in 2009, though they did not claim responsibility for the contamination. To date WDNR has taken no regulatory enforcement action at the site

.APPENDIX C

- Assessment of August 2010 Alleged Damage Cases Oct ober 2010

Draft

– Do Not Cite or Quote 83 DamageCaseEval_AppendixC_Final_v1 Groundwater & Drinking Water Qu ality, Health Standards/Advisories. Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources. Accessed Online Oct 2010. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr140.pdf