### Appendix B: Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases

Table of Contents

1) Indian River Power Plant NRG Energy Millsboro, DE

................................ ................................ . 1 2) Curtis Stanton Energy Center Orlando Utility Commission (OUC) Orlando, FL

................. 3 3) Seminole Generating Station Seminole Electric Cooperative Palatka, FL

.......................... 5 4) Big Bend Station Tampa Electric Company Apollo Beach, FL

................................ ............ 7 5) Rocky Acres Coal Combustion By

- Product Disposal Site Bung e Corporation Oakwood, IL

........ 9 6) Gibson Generating Station Plant Duke Energy Princeton, IN

................................ ....................... 11 7) Clifty Creek Station Indiana Ken tucky Electric Corporation (IKEC) Madison, IN

.................... 13 8) Brandywine Coal Ash Landfill Mirant Mid

- Atlantic, LLC Brandywine, MD

.............................. 15 9) Karn/Weadock Generating Facility Consumer Energy Saginaw, MI

................................ ............ 17 10) Colstrip Power Plant PPL Montana Colstrip, MT

................................ ................................ ......... 19 11) Sutton Steam Plant Progress Energy Wilmington, NC

................................ ................................ .. 21 12) Lee Steam Plant Progress Energy Goldsboro, NC

................................ ................................ ......... 23 13) Cape Fear Steam Plant P rogress Energy Moncure, NC

................................ ................................ . 25 14) Swift Creek Structural Fill Site ReUse Technology, Inc. / Full Circle Solutions, Inc. Rocky
Mount, NC

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 27 15) Belews Creek Steam Station Duke Energy Belews Creek, NC

................................ ..................... 29 16) Asheville Steam Electric Plant Progress Energy Arden, NC

................................ ......................... 31 17) Four Corners Power Plant Arizona Public Service Fruitland, NM

................................ ................ 33 18) Reid Gardner Generating Facility NV Energy Moapa, NV

................................ ........................... 36 19) Mitchell Power Station Allegheny Energy Courtney, PA

................................ ............................. 38 20) Phillips Power Plant Duquesne Light Company Crescent Township, PA

................................ ..... 40 21) Seward Generating Station RRI Energy, Inc. (Formerly Reliant Energy, Inc.) New Florence, PA

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 42 22) Fern Valley Landfill Orion Power Holdings, Inc. Elrama, PA

................................ ...................... 44 23) Hunlock Power Station UGI Development Company Hunlock Creek, PA

................................ ... 46 24) Portland Generating Station's Bangor Quarry Ash Dispo sal Site RRI Energy, Inc. (formerly Reliant Energy, Inc.) Bangor, PA

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 48 25) Wateree Station South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) Eastover, SC

................................ ... 50 26) Urquhart Station South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) Beech Island, SC

............. 52 27) Grainger Generating Station South Carolina Public Service Authority (SCPSA) Co nway, SC

.... 54 28) John Sevier Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Rogersville, TN

................................ ......... 56 29) Coal Combustion Waste Landfill Tran s

- Ash, Inc. Camden, TN

................................ ................... 58 30) John Amos Power Plant Appalachian Power Winfield, WV

................................ ......................... 60 31) Mitchell Generating Station Ohio Pow er Company Moundsville, WV

................................ ........ 62

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 1 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 1) Indian River Power Plant NRG Energy Millsboro, DE

Source Document

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

- one New Damage Cases of Contamination from Im

properly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type
Disposal area (Burton Island) and landfills (mainland)

Background and Description

Between 1957 and 1980 coal ash from the Indian River Powe r Plant was sluiced i nto the Burton Island disposal area which was originally tidal marsh. The Burton Island disposal area was unlined and berms were built using ash and dredge spoils. Approximately 144 acres were covered with coal ash to a 15

- foot

thickne ss before a new mainland landfill was built. In 2005, after erosion of the ash was observed by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control ( DNREC), a voluntary cleanup program was agreed upon between NRG Energy (The Owner) and DN REC, dividing the site into three operable units (OU). A final remedial action plan for OU 1 ( shoreline, intertidal zone and vicinity) and OU 3 (subtidal sediments and waters seaward of berms) was developed and approved by DNREC in July

2008. The final rem edial action plan for OU 1 and OU 3 focuses mainly on stabilization and erosion

control. OU 2 (landfill/land areas and the berms) is currently the subject of a remedial investigation, including a full Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) and Natural Resource D amage Assessment (NRDA).



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic, chromium, and thallium in onsite groundwater exceeded their primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The report also notes that

aluminum and iron were found in offsite surface water above Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). Aluminum, arsenic, barium, and iron were also reported to exceed DNREC Uniform Risk

- Based Standards (URS) in surface water and sediment samples.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report noted that in 2005, erosion of the ash berms into the river was observed by a DNREC scientist.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

thallium.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Aluminum, arsenic, barium, and iron above DNREC URS in surface water samples.

 Arsenic and barium were found above DNREC URS in shoreline and offshore sediment samples.

 A risk assessm ent is ongoing to determine whether detected contaminants pose a potential risk to human health or the environment.

Criterion 3:  Assessment and remediation performed under the DNREC Voluntary Cleanup

Program (VCP).

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 2 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

A final remedial action plan focusing on stabilization and erosion control for OU 1 and OU 3 was approved by DNREC in July 2008.



### Classification

Potential Damage

Rationale Groundwater exceedances of primary EPA MCLs have been found on site. While exceedances of AWQC

an d URS criteria have been documented in surface water and sediment, the risk assessment for OU 2 (landfill and berms) is still underway to determine if there is a potential risk from the detected contamination. A final remedial action plan was prepared and approved under the DNREC VCP, not under an administrative ruling or court decision.



### Additional Sources

Burton Island Ash Disposal Area, DNREC SIRB activities, Presentation by Greg Decowsky DNREC, http://www.awm.delaware.gov/SIRB/Documents/Burton%20I%20overview%20for%20public%2009042 8.pdf last accessed 10/29/10

Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Air & Waste Management

Industrial Site Information

, http://www.awm.delaware.gov/Info/Pages/NRGIndianRiver.aspx

Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Facility Navigat or, http://www.nav.dnrec.delaware.gov/DEN3/Detail/FacilityDetail.aspx?id=10000019 last accessed

10/28/10

Proposed Plan Of Remedial Action, Burton Island Old Ash Landfill Site Operable Units 1 and 3 Sussex County, Delaware DNREC Project No. DE

- 1399 , April 2008

, http://www.dnrec.state.de.us /DNREC2000/Divisions/AWM/sirb/Proposed_Plans/Proposed%20Plan%20 Burton%20Island.pdf last accessed 10/29/10

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 3 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 2) Curtis Stanton Energy Center Orlando Utility Commission (OUC) Orlando, FL

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill and runoff ponds



### Background and Description

The Curtis Stanton Energy Center site contains an active coal combustion residual (CCR) landfill (in which coal ash is initially hardened with lime and bottom ash is dewatered), CCR and coal storage area runoff ponds, a recycled water pond, and a plant wastewater pond. The E IP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that all of these units are supposed to be lined. The site is located near residential areas east of Orlando. Since 2003, the site has reportedly been non

- compliant with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F DEP) ground and surface water monitoring criteria, and operational requirements. The Orlando Utility Commission (OUC) has agreed to investigate the extent of groundwater contamination at the site; however no off

- site groundwater or surface water monitoring has been required.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that onsite groundwater monitoring data exceeded the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for gross alpha. On

- site groundwater data also exceeded FDEP

Groundwater Clean

- up Target Levels (CTLs) for several constituents, including gross alpha, radium

- 226, aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, sodium, sulfate, vanadium, total dissolved solids (TDS), and pH.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report noted that onsite data from surfac e water discharges had five constituents above FDEP Surface Water CTLs, including aluminum, sodium, chloride, sulfate, and gross alpha.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report noted that FDEP inspections of the Curtis Stanton Energy Center since

2008 have reveale d compliance problems such as: the CCR landfill was operating without a required permit, inadequate freeboard in ash ponds, unpermitted discharge of pollutants to a wetland, failure to collect stormwater samples, and water discharges of pH 4.0. A FDEP data review identified groundwater impacts from CCR landfill leachate in wells located along the eastern side of the landfill. FDEP has reportedly required upgrades to the facility, additional monitoring of the landfill, and determination of waste type (Class I or Class III); however OUC has not fully addressed FDEP’s requests.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for gross alpha radiation.

 Onsite groundwater data exceed ed FDEP Groundwater CTLs for several constituents.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Onsite surface water data exceeded FDEP Surface Water CTLs for aluminum,

sodium, chloride, sulfate, and gross alpha

.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 4 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

Classification
Potential Damage

Rationale

Ground water exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for gross alpha ha ve been found on site. While

o nsite surface water samples have exceeded FDEP Surface Water CTLs, there is no risk assessment or scientific study available that explicitly documents evidence of damage to human health or the

environment. The status of enforc ement activities is unclear, and there are no administrative rulings or

court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

State Of Florida Department Of Environmental Protection Orlando Utilities Commission Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center Units 1 & 2, Combined Cycle Units A And Unit B PA 81

- 14K Supplemental

Conditions Of Certification Modified 07/24/08

, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/files/certification/p a81_14_2008_K.pdf last accessed 10/29/10 Criterion 3:  FDEP has repor tedly required various operational and monitoring actions associated

with compliance problem identified during inspections.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 5 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 3) Seminole Generating Station Seminole Electric Cooperative Palatka, FL

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill and runoff ponds



### Background and Description

The Seminole Generating Station site contains an active flue gas desulfurization (FGD) landfill, three

pr ocess wastewater ponds, and two storm water runoff ponds. The FGD landfill is unlined while the ponds are a mix of lined and unlined. The FGD sludge is dewatered and stabilized with lime and fly ash. Excess water from the FGD system is c ollected in the process wastewater ponds. The site is located

within one

- half mile of the St. Johns River. As part of an Interim Remedial Action Plan approved by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in 2004, Seminole Electric Cooperative w as required to construct a contaminated groundwater capture system and perform groundwater monitoring. The groundwater monitoring is ongoing since 2004 with results reported quarterly to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).



### Impact and Da mage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report identified instances of groundwater and surface water contamination on site. While the onsite data suggest that contamination may have migrated, data from offsite groundwater or surface monitoring locations are n ot available.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicated that arsenic and lead were found onsite in wells near the FGD landfill at concentrations above the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). A number of other constituents in onsite ground water were fou nd to exceed Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) or EPA SMCL s. Some of these other constituents [including chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids (TDS), boron, and iron] were detected up

to one mile from the FGD landfill at concentrations exceeding FDEP Groundwater CTLs.

The EIP/EJ February Report 2010 also indicates that historical surface water data exceeded FDEP benchmarks for boron, aluminum, and arsenic.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded FDEP Groundwater CTLs for a number of

constituents.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Surface water data exceed FDEP benchmarks boron, aluminum, and arsenic.

Criterion 3:  A FDEP

- required groundwater capture system was constructed in 2004 and remedial

monitoring is ongoing.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 6 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

Classification
Potential Damage

Ratio nale

Ground water exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic and lead have been found on site near

the landfill. While surface water samples have exceeded FDEP benchmarks for boron, aluminum, and arsenic, there is no risk assessment or scientific study available that explicitly documents evidence of damage to human health or the environment. Ongoing remedial action and monitoring is not being driven by an administrative ruling or court decision.



### Additional Sources

Florida DEP Site documents available at http://appprod.dep.state.fl.us/WWW_WACS/REPORTS/SW_Facility_Docs.asp?wacsid=94790

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 7 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 4) Big Bend Station Tampa Electric Company Apollo Beach, FL

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill and ponds (impoundments)



### Background and Description

The Big Bend Station site contains several coal combustion residual (CCR) disposal areas including bottom and fly ash ponds, a bottom ash dry storage unit, a wastewater recycling pond, a flue gas

desulfurizat ion (FGD) gypsum by

- product pond, and a waste disposal management unit. The plant was built in 1968 on two dredge

- filled peninsulas and is currently owned by the Tampa Electric Company (TECO). Most disposal units on the property remain active though some m ay have been discontinued.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates a number of instances of groundwater contamination including onsite primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) exceedances of thallium and arsenic,

as well as a thallium primary EPA MCL exceedance on a property offsite, which was subsequently purchased by TECO. The report also notes that manganese, sulfate, and chloride were found above EPA

SMCL s at this same offsite location. A number of other constituents were f ound in groundwater above

EPA SMCL s or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Groundwater Clean

- up Target Levels (CTLs).

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also indicates that a FDEP review in the late 1990’s identified

exceedances of flow an d total suspended solid (TSS) effluent limits at a recycled wastewater pond. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report noted that the 2001 FDEP Consent Order [Office of General Counsel ( OGC 0 File No. 1275 ] reported that surface water samples collected in February 20 00 from ditches on

site, from a seepage location, from a process water pond, and from a recycled wastewater pond indicated violations of state surface water standards for iron and boron above guidance criteria.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Cr iteria Evaluation

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

exceed FDEP Groundwater CTLs or EPA S MCLs for a number of other constituents.

 No o ffsite groundwater data available

Criterion 2:  Discharge from recycled wastewater pond reportedly exceeded unspecified effluent

limits for TSS and flow.

 Surface water samples reportedly exceeded unspecified state surface water standards

or iron and boron.

Criterion 3:  FDEP issued a Consent Order (OGC File No . 1275) in April 2001 because of

identified contamination. The Consent Order required assessment and remedial

measures but without sxplicit finding of specific damage

. Under the Consent Order

TECO developed a Remedial Action Plan and groundwater monitoring plan approved

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 8 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 The U tilit y Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) response to the EIP/EJ February 2010 Report clarifies that the groundwater assessment performed in 2001 and 2002 included temporary

microwells that were placed “directly within or adjacent to” the waste management units at the site. None of the wells were placed at or beyond the property boundary of the Big Bend Station. USWAG contests the claim made in the EIP/EJ February 2010 Report that there is ev idence of offsite ground water contamination.

 Prominent Intertidal canals position across Big Bend S tation limits potential discharge to human

receptors

 Claims of thallium offsite exceedance could not be verified. Claimed results from preliminary

report c ould not be verified despite access to all site related groundwater data



### Classification

Potential Damage

Rationale

Onsite groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic and thallium. While discharge and surface water samples reportedly exceed efflu ent limits and state guidelines, respectively, there is no scientific study available that explicitly documents evidence of damage to human health or the environment. A Consent Order was issued for repair/replacement of the liner systems on the waste

manag ement units; however without an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the

environment.



### Additional Sources

Florida DEP Site documents available at http://appprod.dep.state.fl.us/WWW_WACS/REPORTS/SW_Facility_Docs.asp?wacsid=95345

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Consent Order OGC File No. 1275, Tampa Electric Company (Apr. 10, 2001).

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Consent Order OGC File No. 1275, Tampa Electric Company (Jan. 24, 2007). Remedial Action Plan approved

by FDEP January 2007.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 9 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 5) Rocky Acres Coal Combustion By

- Product Disposal Site Bunge Corporation Oakwood, IL

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

S tructural fill



### Background and Description

The Rocky Acres Coal Combustion By

- Product Disposal Site contains approximately 380,000 tons of

coal combustion residual ( CCR ) generated by Bunge Corporation’s coal plant. CCR was deposited over approximately 25 acres in a ravine near the Grays Siding (Rocky Acres) neighborhood between 1995 and 2006. Grays Siding neighborhood is a rural housing subdivision, consisting of 30 homes which all draw their drinking water from local groundwater. In 2006 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) determined the site was an illegal dump, to which site owners (Mr. Jack Salts and Mr. Robert Porter) responded that it was a beneficial use site and eventually a building would be constructed on the site. The site owner has since declared bankruptcy and the Bunge Corporation refuses liability for any damage caused by CCR disposal at this site. Upon IEPA request, Bunge Corporation installe d groundwater monitoring wells and submitted a Groundwater Investigation Work Plan in August 2007. Bunge Corporation has installed three (3) groundwater wells and is undertaking a voluntary study to

determine if the contamination is related to the fill.



### Im pact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that two offsite private drinking water wells were impacted with lead, iron, and manganese at levels above state groundwater standards. The report indicates that

IEPA advised the residents of these homes to stop drinking the well water; though at the time of writing no alternative source was provided. The report also indicates that 2009 onsite groundwater testing found arsenic, barium, chromium, and lead above the EPA Maximum Containment Level s (MCLs), as well as iron, lead, manganese, arsenic, barium, nickel, and chromium at levels that exceeded Illinois groundwater quality standards.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also notes that no action has been taken to control fugitive dust from

expose d coal ash at the site, reportedly adversely affecting the nearby residential community. The report also notes that surface water drainage from the site flows into Number Six Lake at Kickapoo State Park, and may cause degradation, though no surface water t esting has been undertaken.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

chromium, and lead.

 Onsite groundwater data exceed Illinois groundwater quality standards for iron, lead, manganese, arsenic, barium, nickel, and chromium.

 Offsite groundwater in two residential drinking water wells exceeded state groundwater standards for lead, iron, and manganese.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 10 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 The study indicated lead and other observed metals were likely due to turbidity in the samples and found that filtering of the samples largely eliminated the exceedances.

 Lead exceedances of s tate standard (0.0075 mg/L) but not the MC L were found in two of 11 private drinking water wells could also be related to lead contained in the domestic piping of the homes, as samples were taken at the tap. Bunge r e

- test ing of the two private wells that reported

contamination resulted in substan tially lower lead results that did not exceed state criteria

.

 The extent of groundwater contamination at the site is not conclusive, in part because of incomplete understanding of the sites hydrogeology.

 Illinois groundwater standards are not entirely ri sk based . Certain criteria (such as iron and manganese) are not risk based but based on aesthetics similar to SMCLs.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, barium, chromium, and lead have been

found on site. Offsite groundwater exceedances could not be verified or are not exceedances of risk based

standards. Claims of fugitive dust adversely impacting the residential community and surface water drainage degrading a lake a re not supported with s ite

- specific data, scientific study. The groundwater investigation undertaken by Bunge Corporation is voluntary, and is not being driven by an administrative ruling or court decision.



### Additional Sources

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

Turner, Jeff. 2010. Telephone Conversation with Jeff Turner, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water, (October 25, 2010). Criterion 2:  Fugitive dust from the site was repor ted as uncontrolled

 Surface water drainage from the site enters a lake in nearby Kickapoo State Park which may degrade surface water quality in the park.

Criterion 3:  The IEPA sent notice to the owners/operator that the site was an illegal open dump.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 11 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 6) Gibson Generating Station Plant Duke Energy Princeton, IN

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustic e. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface impoundments, cooling pond, and landfill



### Background and Description

Duke Energy’s Gibson Generating Station contains the generating station; five unlined surface impoundments; a 3,490

- acre lake that supplies all of the p lant’s cooling water; and a Type II restricted waste ( CCR ) landfill. The landfill consists of an approximately 94

- acre older portion built in the 1970’s
which is unlined, as well as a newer 43

- acre portion built around 2002 which has a composite liner and leachate collection system. CCR generated by the Gibson Generating Station is sluiced into on

- site impoundments. Excess water is discharged into the cooling pond, so the impoundments do not have National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) perm its. CC R is periodically dredged out of the impoundments and sent to the on

- site CC R landfill. A sizeable wetland is adjacent to the site, and both the cooling lake and wetland are part of a designated Important Bird Area.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP /EJ February 2010 Report indicates onsite groundwater contamination with arsenic above its primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), as well as iron and manganese above their secondary MCLs and boron above the EPA’s Child Health Advisory. The report als o indicates offsite groundwater contamination having reached the nearby community of East Mt. Carmel. Nine (9) private residential wells sampled in the fall of 2007 by Duke Energy and the fall of 2008 by the Natural Resources Defense

Council were found to contain boron above the EPA Child Health Advisory and manganese above its secondary MCL. The 2008 sampling found levels of sodium exceeding the EPA’s Drinking Water Advisory for healthy levels of sodium in water. Duke Energy reportedly accepted responsibil ity for this contamination and is voluntarily supplying town residents with bottled water.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also noted elevated levels of metals (particularly selenium, arsenic, and boron) in water samples from the East Ash Impoundment Syst em and the cooling lake. The cooling lake had formerly been used by the public for fishing, but it was closed to the public due to concerns with the high levels of selenium. The cooling lake also discharged into the Cane Ridge Wildlife area, and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reports indicate contamination of surface water and impact on biota as a result of selenium contamination. USFWS reported that least tern eggs gathered at the site in 1996 and 2004 had rising selenium levels over time and hatch ling mortality was high. According to a preliminary assessment by a U.S. Forest Service (USFS) scientist, the surface water quality associated with the impoundments and the cooling lake are “a definite hazard to aquatic life.”



### Evaluation against Proven Da mage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

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

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 12 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 Gro undwater monitoring near the impoundments is restricted to a single piezometer located near the impoundments, and results from this are not reported to the state.



### Classification

Proven Damage



### Rationale

A USFWS report indicated that selenium from cooling la ke discharge has impacted water quality and biota in the Cane Ridge Wildlife Area. The cooling lake has been closed to the public due to concerns with elevated selenium levels. Ground water exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been

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



### Additional Sources

Harmless, Marty. 2010. Telephone Conversation Marty Harmless, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Land Use Department (October 22, 2010).

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

- gibson.pdf

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

Criterion 2:  Elevated levels of selenium in surface water samples from the cooling lake led to

closure of the lake to the public.

 A USFWS report indicated that cooling lake discharges into Cane Ridge Wildlife Area impacted the surface water quality and the biota because of selenium

contamination.

Criterion 3:  Duke Energy voluntarily agreed to supply bottled drinking water to homes w ith

affected wells. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is satisfied with the voluntary action taken by Duke Energy and has not taken any official action with regard to the contamination of drinking water wells.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 13 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 7) Clifty Creek St ation Indiana Kentucky Electric Corporation (IKEC) Madison, IN

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrit y Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill and Surface Impoundment



### Background and Description

The Clifty Creek power plant was built in 1955 on the Ohio River, directly beside the Clifty Falls State Park. Along with the power plant, the s ite contains the landfill and unlined surface impoundments. The waste management units consist of the West Bottom Ash Pond, an active 58 acre surface impoundment,

and the South Fly Ash Pond currently used for stormwater management. In the northern

- most reg ion of the former South Fly Ash Pond, an active Type III restricted waste (CC R ) unlined landfill was constructed in 1992 as the facility began to process dry fly ash. Currently the landfill is being redesigned to be permitted as a Type I landfill to accept flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum along with the dry fly ash. The landfill has three (3) onsite downgradient monitoring wells and one well located within the old fly ash impoundment. No offsite groundwater monitoring data is available. The Indiana Dep artment of Environmental Management (IDEM) approved a permit for the construction of a Type I Restricted waste landfill on top of this existing landfill, however citizen groups are appealing this permit, requesting additional monitoring, and installation o f a liner during future construction. IKEC and IDEM rejected the proposed changes, but the appeal is being disputed in court.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates onsite groundwater with manganese above the secondary

EPA Maxim

um Contaminant Level (MCL) and boron above the EPA’s Child Health Advisory. The report also notes elevated levels of iron and sulfates in onsite groundwater. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report mentions that groundwater studies of the area indicate groundwater is flowing north out of the landfill where it could potentially reach city municipal wells, however no monitoring wells are available

to confirm this.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 According to the Utilit y Solid Waste Activities Group (U SWAG) response, IDEM rejected the report that groundwater could be flowing north out of the landfill and possibly to municipal wells on “multiple deficiencies.” This was verified with IDEM. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exc eeded the secondary MCL for manganese, and exceeded

the EPA Child Health Advisory for boron.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  None

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 14 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1  A 2004 hydrogeological report found that groundwater contaminated by the landfill was discharged towards the Ohio River, flowing away from municipal wells and expected to be quickly diluted.



### Classification

Not a Damage Case



### Rationale

There are no onsite or offsite groundwater exceedances of EPA MCLs. Onsite SMCL exceed ed for manganese only with no indication of other primary MCL contaminants exceedances. As manganese may be leached from soil under any landfill condition alone it is not enough to specifically implicate CCR in

health risk.



### Additional Sources

Harmless, Ma rty. 2010. Telephone Conversation Marty Harmless, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Land Use Department (October 22, 2010).

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 15 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 8) Brandywine Coal Ash Landfill

Mirant Mid

- Atlantic, LLC Brandywine, MD

Source Document

Out of Control: Mounting D amages From Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill and wastewater ponds



### Background and Descriptio n The Brandywine Coal Ash Landfill site contains an active coal ash landfill operated by Mirant MD Ash Management that receives fly and bottom ash from Chalk Point power plant. Most disposal pits are unlined, some have leachate collection systems and one h as a synthetic liner. There is also wastewater treatment on the site consisting of four settling ponds that collect and treat the leachate which is discharge from four outfalls into Mataponi Creek. Shallow groundwater on the site also discharges to Matapon i Creek. Citizens groups and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) have filed intents to sue Mirant for violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The organizations claim that Mirant is discharging pollutants into groundwater without a permit, as well as discharging contaminants to surface water via outfalls without proper permits.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that there is contamination of onsite groundwater, including cadmium above its primary EPA Maximum Con taminant Level (MCL)

, as well as aluminum, chlorides, iron, manganese, sulfates and total dissolved solids (TDS) above secondary MCLs.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also notes contamination of offsite surface water in Mataponi Creek

with cadmium and le ad above water quality criteria downstream of the site. Selenium levels in discharge from outfalls were noted to consistently exceed water quality criteria between 2006 and 2008.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA SMCL s for iron, aluminum, manganese, sulfates, chlorides and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Cadmium and lead were found offs ite surface water in Mataponi Creek at levels

above unspecified water quality criteria.

 Selenium was above water quality criteria in outfall discharges from the site, though it does not appear to be monitored in other offsite surface water.

Criterion 3:  In late 2009 and early 2010, citizen groups and MDE sent notices of intent to sue

Mirant MD Ash Management and Mirant Mid

- Atlantic for violations of the CWA.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 16 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for cadmium have been found on site. While offsite surface water and outfall discharges exceeded unspecified water quality criteria, 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, however, notices of intent to sue have been filed by citizen groups and MDE.



### Additional Sources
Letter from Maryland Dept. of the Environment to Mirant, Jan 15, 2010

, Intent to Bring Suit http://www.newageblastmedia.com/MDE_OS_Mirant_Notice_Letter_fin01152010sw.pdf last

accessed 10/29/10

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 17 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 9) Karn/Weadock Generating Facil ity Consumer Energy Saginaw, MI

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. Febru ary 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface i mpoundments (regulated as l andfills)



### Background and Description

The Karn and Weadock landfills are t wo large surface impoundments located near the Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron that receive coal ash from Consumer E nergy’s Karn/Weadock Generating Facility. The two active impoundments are regulated as landfills. The sites were built in 1959 and 1961 and cover 174 acres with a capacity of 4,175,000 cubic yards. Ash was previously sluiced into the impoundments but one o f the landfills is now transitioning to a dry ash system. The area in Saginaw Bay where the river enters has been designated an Area of Concern (AOC) by the International Joint Commission, the designation a result of multiple sources of contamination.



### Imp act and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that there is contamination of onsite groundwater with arsenic above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and high levels of boron. The report also

notes arsenic was found above the primary EPA MCL in a well in Lake Huron (and outside of the power plant property). This well monitors the quality of groundwater discharging into the lake.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also indicates that the Saginaw Bay area was designated an AOC by the Joint International Commission for reasons including potential damage to fish or wildlife populations and/or drinking water restrictions. It mentions that the AOC designation is a result of multiple contamination sources, though it also notes a 2005 Mi chigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) report that determines the Karn and Weadock landfills are major contributors to arsenic

contamination in the AOC.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The St ate later admitted a miscalculation and ruled that the offsite arsenic exceedance in Lake Huron well does not clearly implicate this site or CCR at this site. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundw ater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic.

 Offsite groundwater data at one well located in Lake Huron had arsenic above the primary EPA MCL, but did not clearly implicate CCP from the landfills as the source.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  MDEQ a nd Consumer Energy are negotiating a consent decree that will require slurry

walls to be built to stop landfill leakage. The project is already underway

– one slurry wall has been completed and the other is under construction.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 18 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1  An Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) report evaluated 18 major sites

for impacts to this Lake Huron AOC but did not include the Karn and Weadock landfills.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with the site; however MDEQ and Consumer Energy are negotiating a consent decree to address landfill leakage. Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found on site. Arsenic was also found exceeding the primary EPA MCL in an offsite well in Lake Huron, however the State ruled that the exceed ance did not clearly implicate the Karn and Weadock landfills or the CCR at the site as the source.



### Additional Sources

“State says Saginaw Bay coal ash landfills are safe” Jeff Kart Published: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 http://www.mlive.com/news/bay

- city/index.ssf/2009/10/state_says_saginaw_bay_coal_as.html last

accessed 10/29/10

Human Health Risk Assessment Summary for the Consumers Energy Karn/Wead ock Generating Complex Proposed Modifications (PTI Application # 341

- 07) January 30, 2009

, http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/download s/permits/PubNotice/341

- 07/341

- 07%20Cumulative%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf last accessed 10/29/10

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2009a. DEQ CE Karn Weadock Ground Water Monitoring, available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GSI_MZ_Monitoring_298496_7.pdf

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 19 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 10) Colstrip Power Plant

PPL Montana Colstrip, MT

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Temporary and permanent disposal ponds



### Background and Description

This Colstrip Steam Electric Station in Col strip, Montana contains four power units, two built in the 1970s and two more built in the 1980s. Ash slurry from these units is piped to the coal combustion residual (CCR) disposal ponds where ash settles and clean water is piped back for reuse. These per manent disposal ponds located to the northwest of Colstrip include the now inactive and unlined Stage I Evaporation Pond and the active 176

- acre Stage II Evaporation Pond, which opened in 1992 and was lined and fitted with a leachate collection system in 2 006. The site also contains a number of other temporary CCR ponds

, some built with Units 1 & 2 in the 1970’s

, as well as others built with Units 3 & 4 in the 1980’s. All the ponds were originally unlined, some have since been closed, and some of the active ponds have since been lined. The 367

- acre Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding Pond (EHP) is located approximately 3 miles to the southeast of Colstrip and was opened in 1983.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report claims that contaminated grou ndwater was moving offsite and affected shallow groundwater in a residential area offsite where wells were used for drinking water. The report notes one well at the Moose Lodge which was contaminated with boron above the EPA Child Health Advisory and other drinking water standards (e.g., European Union, World Health Organization, and Minnesota Department of Health). The Moose Lodge well also had sulfate above EPA’s Drinking Water Advisory and EPA SMCL , as well as total dissolved solids (TDS) above the EPA S MCL . The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report notes that the Moose Lodge well was replaced following these finding but also claims that members of Moose Lodge had been made ill by drinking the water before they stopped using

it.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report al so indicates that there is contamination of “ waters in the various CCW disposal areas” with levels of selenium above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Offsite groun dwater data exceeded the EPA Child Health Advisory for boron.

 Waters in the CCR disposal areas exceeded the primary EPA MCL for selenium, but

the EIP/EJ February 2010 Report does not confirm that these “waters” are in fact groundwater.

Criterion 2:  Non e

Criterion 3:  Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) proposed an Administrative

Order on Consent that requires investigation and remediation of seepage of

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 20 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

Classification

Proven Damage



### Rationale The Montana DEQ proposed an Administrative Order on Consent which requires the investigation and remediation of releases from the Colstrip Power Plant. Additionally, a lawsuit filed by Colstrip residents was settled for previous damages to groundwater and the environment. Offsite groundwater

data exceede d the EPA Child Health Advisory for boron, but not primary EPA MCLs. Waters in the CCR disposal areas exceeded the primary EPA MCL for selenium, but there is no information presented that these “waters” are in fact groundwater.



### Additional Sources

Montan a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Proposed Administrative Order on Consent (February 2010) http://www.deq.mt.gov/mfs/ColstripSteam ElectricStation/default.mcpx

.

wastewater into groundwater and soil in a number of areas.

 A lawsuit filed by Colstrip residents claiming damages for groundwater contamination, subsurface subsidence, and remediation damages was settled in 2008 for $25 million.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 21 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 11) Sutton Steam Plant Progress Energy Wilmington, NC

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface i mpoundments



### Background and Description

The Sutton Steam Plant site is an active 600 MW coal plant built in 1949. The impoundment consists of two unlined ash ponds built in 1972 and 1982, encompassing over 135 acres. New Hanover County operates public water supply wells on property immediately to the south of the plant property. Progress Energy conducts voluntary groundwater monitoring at the plant, though offsite groundwater data is

unavailable.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that there is contamination of onsite groundwater, with arsenic above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and boron, manganese, and iron

above the North C arolina 2L Groundwater Standards. It also notes that groundwater contamination has spread over 500 feet from the impoundment and outside of the state

- designated compliance boundary and claims this indicates the contamination is moving offsite.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 Arsenic is only reported at the MW

- 2 well near the waste site boundary Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standards for iron, manganese, and boron.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  Because the contamination spread beyond the 500 foot compliance boundary, the

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) and requested cor rective action.

 NPDES permit in place and a closure plan is being evaluated.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 22 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary E PA MCL for arsenic have been found beyond the compliance boundary, but still on site. The North Carolina DENR issued a NOV and requested corrective action for MCL exceedances beyond the compliance boundary; however Progress Energy is performing the

correct ive action work voluntarily

.



### Additional Sources

Sutton Steam Plant NPDES Permit Modification Permit Number NC0001422, http://www.epa.gov/npdescan/NC0001422FS.pdf and renewal at http://www.epa.gov/npdescan/nc0001422fp.pdf last accessed 10/29/10

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. NC0001422 Progress Energy, Voluntary Monitoring

Data.

Progress Energy Sutton Plant Coal Ash Voluntary Monitoring Data 8

- 2009.xls

Progress Energy Map, Sutton Ash Pond Figure 1 4

- 23

- 09.pdf

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 23 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 12) Lee Steam Plant Progress Energy Goldsboro, NC

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface i mpoundment



### Background and Description

The Lee Steam Plant was constructed in 1951 and has a capacity of 397 MW. The plant has one active unlined ash impoundment covering 143 acres and a capacity of 1,980 acre

- feet. The impoundment lies less than 250 feet from the plant property boundary and the Neuse River. No offsite groundwater data is

available as there are no reported monitoring wells outside the plant property line.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that onsite groundwater monitoring data exceeded the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead and arsenic. On

- site groundwat er data also exceeded North Carolina Code 2L Groundwater Standards for boron, manganese, and iron. The report 

### also claims that onsite downgradient wells show contamination migrating toward neighboring properties.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standards for boron, manganese, and iron.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  North Caroline DENR has not required any 

### corrective action and has no plans to

take any regulatory action until groundwater contamination reaches the compliance boundary.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 24 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Classification

Potential Da mage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic and lead have been found on site. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources Department of Environment and Natural Resource s. ( NC DENR ) . Progress Energy, Voluntary Monitoring Data.

Progress Energy Lee Plant

– Coal Ash Voluntary Monitoring Data 8

- 2009.xls

Progress Energy, LEE_GW_Monitoring_Map_2009_FINAL.jpg

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 25 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 13) Cape Fear Steam Plant Progress Energy Moncure, NC

Source Docum ent

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface i mpoundments



### Back ground and Description

The Cape Fear Steam Plant was constructed in 1923 and has 316 MW of coal fired capacity. The coal plant operates four unlined ash impoundments, one active and three inactive. The impoundments cover a

total area of 153 acres and the a ctive impoundment has a capacity of 1764 acre

- feet. Voluntary groundwater monitoring began in 2007 from piezometers next to the impoundments; however no offsite groundwater data is available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indica tes that onsite groundwater monitoring data exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead. On

- site groundwater data also exceeded

North Carolina Code 2L Groundwater Standards and EPA SMCL s for boron, chromium, iron, manganese, and sulfa te.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The onsite groundwater exceedance for lead occurred as a single exceedance in one piezometer, which also had high total dissolved solids (TDS). This may suggest that this sole lead exceeda nce was associated with particulate matter in the sample matrix, and not representative of the aquifer

conditions. Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standards (boron, chromium, iron, manganese, and sulf ate) and EPA S MCLs ( iron, manganese, and

sulfate )

.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  North Caroline DENR has not required any 

### corrective action and has no plans to

take any regulatory action until groundwater con tamination reaches the compliance boundary.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 26 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedance of the primary EPA MCL for lead was found in a single sample from one ons ite piezometer

. Onsite groundwater also exceeded North Carolina Code 2L Groundwater Standards and/or

EPA SMCL s. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Department of Environment and Natural Reso urces. Progress Energy, Voluntary Monitoring Data.

Progress Energy, Cape Fear Steam

– Coal Ash Pond Voluntary Monitoring Data 8

- 2009.xls.

Progress Energy, Cape Fear_GW_Monitoring_Map_2009_FINAL.jpg.

Progress Energy Carolinas Cape Fear Plant, Assessment of Dam Safety Coal Combustion Surface Impoundments (Task 3) Final Report , (Sept. 14, 2009).

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 27 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 14) Swift Creek Structural Fill Site ReUse Technology, Inc. / Full Circle Solutions, Inc. Rocky Mount, NC

Source Document

Out of Control: Mounting Damages From C oal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Structural fil l



### Background and Description

Swift Creek is a 25

- acre structural fill site that operated between 1991 and 2001, and accepted coal combustion residual (CCR) from six different power plants in North Carolina and Virginia. The site contains mostly fly ash which was placed above a shallow water table and at times placed directly into an onsite wetland. The site was classified as beneficial use site and did not require a permit from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR). A subsurface drainpipe system

was installed in 2008 as a corrective action measure to intercept groundwater and lower groundwater

elevation in contact with CCR.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)

for lead and arsenic was exceed ed in offsite groundwater downgradient of the fill site. The report also notes sulfate exceeded the North Carolina Code 2L Groundwater Standard in offsite groundwater. The report indicates onsite primary EPA MCL exceedances were observed for lead and arsen ic, as well as

sulfate above the North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standard.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report mentions that a NC DENR inspection in the mid

- 1990’s found that CCR had been placed too close to surface water, the seasonal high groundwater table, and to the property line, all of which were in violation of the approved plan. In August 2001, the NC DENR determined that coal ash had been placed into a wetland on site.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

the North Carolina Code 2L Groundwater Standard for sulfate

.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCLs for lead and arsenic, and

the North Carolina Code 2L Groundwater S tandard for sulfate.

Criterion 2:  NC DENR determined in 2001 that coal ash had been placed directly into a wetland

on site.

Criterion 3:  NC DENR issued a Notice of Violation in 2002 for failure to bring the fill area into

compliance with an original pl an for waste placement. A Compliance Order was subsequently issued in 2006, which included a fine and a requirement to delineate the nature and extent of groundwater sand surface water contamination.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 28 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 According to a 2006 NC DENR Compl iance Order, the NC DENR collected coal ash samples in 2004 from the plants where the ash at Swift Creek originated, and found “elevated levels of lead, arsenic, and sulfates.” This may suggest that the constituents found in the groundwater at Swift

Creek are related to the ash it received from the plants.



### Classification

Proven Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic and lead have been found on site and off

site. The North Carolina DENR issued a NOV and subsequent Compli ance Order to delineate groundwater and surface water contamination; however this Order did not have an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the environment.



### Additional Sources

NC DENR, solid waste database (Jan. 25, 2010) available at www.wastenotnc.org/sw/swpenalties.asp

last accessed 10/29/10

.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 29 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 15) Belews Creek Steam Station Duke Energy Belews Creek, NC

Note: This site overlaps with the 11) Belews Lake in Appendix A. Eva luated below only as to recent alleged damage.

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and

Ear thjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface impoundment and landfills



### Background and Description

The Belews Creek Steam Station was constructed in 1974 and has 2,240 megawatts of coal

- fired capacity.

The Belews Steam Station includes three landfills and a s urface impoundment: Pine Hall Road Fly Ash Landfill (NC Permit #85

- 03); Craig Road Fly Ash Landfill (NC Permit #85

- 04); FGD Residue Landfill (NC Permit #85

- 05); and an ash impoundment. All landfills are active currently except the 40 acre Pine

Hall Road Fl y Ash Landfill which was initiated closure in 2007 with an NC DENR approved Closure Plan. The site has no offsite groundwater monitoring locations but regular groundwater monitoring is performed in the vicinity of the landfills.



### Impact and Damage Claims

T he EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that selected onsite wells have indicated on site exceedances of MCLs (lead, arsenic, selenium)

, along with exceedances of SMCLs (boron, iron, manganese, pH, nitrate, sulfate) and state guidelines.



### Evaluation agains t Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 Thi s site overlaps with the Belews Lake damage case in Appendix A (site #11

. ) Ecological damage claims were previously discussed under Belews Lake /site #11

. The e valuat ion here

addresses only recent alleged damage pertaining to different waste units

. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  No offsite groundwater exceedances of MCLs

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCLs for lead, arsenic, and

selenium

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  None

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 30 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Class ification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, lead, and selenium have been found on

site.



### Additional Sources

Duke Energy, Belews Creek Steam Station Coal Ash Pond Voluntary monitoring Data, 2009.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 31 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 16) Asheville Steam Electric Plant Progress Energy Arden, NC

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Proje ct and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface i mpoundment s


### Background and Description

The Asheville Steam Electric Plant has two coal ash impoundments that accept coal combustion residual (CCR) from the Asheville Plant. One is actively being used fo r wet storage of coal combustion waste and has a capacity of 1,400 acre

- feet. The other is being used to dry store material dredged from the wet pond and has a capacity of 1,380 acre

- feet. The impoundments lie less than 250 feet from the property line,

an d in 2007 the operator began voluntary groundwater monitoring at the site. However, no offsite monitoring data is available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that onsite groundwater monitoring data exceeded North

Carolina Code 2L Groundwater Standards and/or secondary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for boron, chromium, iron, and manganese. The detected chromium did not exceed its primary EPA

MCL.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

Classification

Potential Damage



### Rat ionale

There are no exceedances of primary EPA MCLs in onsite or offsite groundwater ; however there are

onsite exceedances of North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standards and /or EPA SMCL s

. There are no administrative rulings or court decisions associated with t he site. Criteria Evaluation

Criter ion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standards (boron,

chromium, iron, and manganese) and EPA SMCL s ( iron and manganese )

.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  North Carolina Departm ent of Environment and Natural Resources ( DENR) has not

required any 

### corrective action and has no plans to take any regulatory action until groundwater contamination reaches the compliance boundary.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 32 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Additional Sources

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Progress Energy, Voluntary Monitoring Data.

Progress Energy, Asheville Steam Electric Plant Coal Ash Voluntary Monitoring Data, 2009.

“Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Dam Ass essment Report Site 7 1982 Pond &1964 Pond Progress Energy Carolinas Asheville, North Carolina” Prepared By: Dewberry & Davis, Inc. for Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. (Sept. 11, 2009)

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 33 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 17) Four Corners Power Plant

Arizona Public Service Fruitland, NM

Sourc e Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill and surfa ce impoundment s


### Background and Description

The Four Corners Power Plant is a 2,040 MW power plant located west of Farmington, New Mexico on Navajo Land that has been operating since 1963. The plant has five units which produce around 2 million

tons of coal combustion residual (CCR) per year. Approximately half the CCR is sluiced into surface impoundments on site, while another portion is backfilled into the Navajo Mine which has supplied coal to the plant since 1968. The site contains six now inactive unlin ed impoundments, a new synthetically lined active ash impoundment built in 2003, an active and lined water impoundment, and a dry fly ash disposal landfill. The site operator began voluntary groundwater monitoring around and downgradient of the impoundment s, however , he has been unwilling to share the data with the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA), the regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over environmental regulations at the site.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 R eport indicates that two separate statistical analyses of surface water quality in the Chaco Wash have shown degradation of water quality. One study (Zimmerman 2005) notes levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), selenium, sulfate, and boron at higher conce ntrations in offsite locations downstream from the CCR impoundments and mine than in locations upstream of the site. The other study (Ross 2007) found statistically significant increases in five metals downstream from the CCR disposal area

– including boro n, copper, lead, zinc, and mercury.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that the Navajo Nation water quality standards list the Chaco Wash as used for wildlife and livestock watering, aquatic habitat, and secondary human contact. The

report notes c opper and lead above the NNEPA recommended livestock water quality levels, as well as selenium and zinc above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ambient water quality criteria (AWQC).

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also notes that water fr om the impoundments has seeped out at various instances and has surfaced on the Chaco Wash banks. It is also noted that levels of many metals are the highest in the ash within the impoundments compared to other source material in the area, and that a sing le well in the disposal area (in contact with CCR and representative of a combination of ash pore water and groundwater) had arsenic above the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and boron above the EPA Child Health Advisory.



### Evaluation against Pr oven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite water sample from a single “well” in the disposal area (in contact with CCR)

had arsenic above the primary EPA MCL and boron above the EPA Child Health

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 34 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### O ther Considerations

 The results of the studies finding damage are questioned based on the data used to characterize the wash, and other improper analysis.

 The site co

- manages CCR and coal mining wastes. The studies that observed the downstream

surface wat er degradation do not specifically implicate CCRs as a cause.



### Classification

Not a Damage Case



### Rationale

CCR is managed alongside mining wastes on the site, and the studies presented do not specifically implicate CCRs as a cause for contamination. The on site water sample from a “well” in the CCR disposal area which had arsenic above the primary EPA MCL and boron above the EPA Child Health Advisory is arguably not a groundwater sample, but more representative of an ash pore water sample. While the

statisti cal analyses of surface water data claim there is degradation of water quality downstream of the site, there is no risk assessment or scientific study available that explicitly documents evidence of damage

to human health or the environment.



### Additional Sou rces

EPA Region 9 Response To Comments BHP Billiton Navajo Coal Company

- Navajo Mine NPDES

Permit No. NN0028193 http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/npd es/pdf/navajo/navajo

- resp

- comments

- 2

- 14

- 08

- final.pdf last accessed 10/29/10

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No NN0028193, http:/ /www.epa.gov/region9/water/npdes/pdf/navajo/bhp

- navajo

- final

- permit

- 02

- 13

- 08.pdf las t accessed

10/29/10

Ross, L. 2007. Effects of Four Corner Power Plant Coal Combustion Waste Disposal on Surface and Groundwater Quality. Glenrose Engineering, Austin TX. Submitted to Lisa Evans, Earthjustice (August 2007).

Technical Review of a Report Prepared by D.A. Zimmerman (2005) entitled ‘A Preliminary Evaluation of the Potential for Surface Water Quality Impacts from Fly Ash Disposal at the Navajo Mine, New

Mexico’ , Norwest Applied Hydrology prepared for BHP Navajo Coal Company, October 2007, http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/npdes/pdf/navajo/bhp

- comments.pdf last accessed 10/29/10

Z immerman, D.A. 2005. A Preliminary Evaluation of the Potential for Surface Water Quality Impacts from Fly Ash Disposal at the Navajo Mine, New Mexico. Prepared for Submission to the National

Advisory.

 The operator performs voluntar y groundwater monitoring, but has not been willing to share the data with regulatory authorities.

Criterion 2:  Two statistical analyses of surface water data from the Chaco Wash have shown

higher concentrations of various metals downstream from the impou ndments compared to surface water upstream from the impoundments.

 Copper and lead were found in downstream surface water at levels above the NNEPA recommended livestock water quality criteria, as well as selenium and zinc above AWQC.

Criterion 3:  None

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 35 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 Academy of Sciences Committee on Mine Placement of Coal Combustio n Wastes. SETA, Inc. Cedar Crest NM (May 25, 2005).

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 36 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 18) Reid Gardner Generating Facility NV Energy Moapa, NV

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface impoundments (settling and evaporation ponds)



### Background and Description

The Reid Gardner Generating Facility site is located in Moapa, NV at the Nava jo Mine. Fly ash and flue gas desulfurization waste produced by the site is sluiced into one of three unlined surface impoundments. The impoundments were originally unlined, but were either closed or had double liners installed in

accordance with a closure plan. Wastewater from the active waste impoundments is discharged to one of five evaporation ponds. The operation is designed to be a closed system for recycling of the cooling water, and no surface water is discharged from the site. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite and

offsite.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic, chromium, nitrate, and selenium exceeded primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in onsite groundwater. Additionally,

arsenic ex ceeded the primary EPA MCL in offsite groundwater.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The plant maintains a permitted solid waste disposal facility; however, there is little mention of the solid waste causing the contamination. NDEP action in response to observed groundwater has focused on the coal combustion pro duct (CCP) units.

 In June 2010, the NPDES permit was reissued by Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and immediately challenged in court by citizens groups. Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, chromium, nitrate,

and selenium.

 Offsite groundwater data exceed ed the primary EPA MCL for arsenic.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  In 1997, the NDEP issued an Administrative Order of Consent to repair, line, or

replace evaporation ponds impacting groundwater

. Corrective actions have been completed and approved by N DEP.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 37 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Classification

Proven Damage



### Rationale

Offsite groundwater exceeded the primar y EPA MCL for arsenic, and onsite groundwater exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, chromium, nitrate, and selenium. The NDEP issued an Administrative

Order of Consent to repair and update evaporation ponds to prevent groundwater impact but with no

exp licit finding of specific damages.

.



### Additional Sources

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2009. Nevada Power Company

- Reid Gardner Station,

available at http://ndep.nv.gov/BCA/reid_gardner.htm (last visited Oct

. 7

, 2010 ).

Nevada Division of En vironmental Protection. 2008. Reid Gardner Station Closure Plan. available at http://ndep.nv.gov/BCA/file/reid_final_closure_plan.pdf .

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Permit No. NEV91022. 

### http://www.sec.nv.gov/appeal_docs/permit_nev91022.pdf last accessed 10/29/10



### Notice Of Decision, Permit Number Nev91022, Nv Energy, Inc. Reid Gardner Station June 24, 2010, http://ndep.nv.gov/docs_10/nod_nev91022_p10.pdf last accessed 10/29/10

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 38 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 19) Mitchell Power Station Allegheny Energy Courtney, PA

Source Document

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

- one New Damage Cases of

Contaminatio n from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill and wastewater lagoons/ surface impoundments



### Background and Description

The Mitchell Power Station site is located in Courtn ey, PA near the Monongahela River and operates a

70

- acre unlined coal combustion residual (CCR) landfill with a capacity of 5.6 million cubic yards. The site also has two wastewater treatment lagoons which cover approximately one acre, and are constructed with concrete sides and a compacted soil base that is covered with one foot of bottom ash . The landfill is used for a mix of fly ash and bottom ash, while the lagoons are for process wastewater and discharge under a NPDES permit. Allegheny Power began grou ndwater investigations at the site in 1998. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite groundwater data are available. Surface water has not been evaluated onsite or offsite, although the Monongahela River is nearby.



### Impact and Damage Clai ms The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, boron exceeded the EPA Child Health Advisory in onsite groundwater. Elevated levels of molybde num, nickel, and manganese were also reportedly detected in some downgradient monitoring wells

. 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) claims that the data should be more appropriately compared to Pennsylvania Statewide Health Standards of medium specific concentrations (MSCs) for non

- residential, non

- use aquifers rather than drinking water MCLs. The Pennsylvania MSCs for non

- residential, non

- use aquifers have not been exceeded.

 Permit No. 300809 w as reissued on March 28, 2002 with a change of ownership and modification of the Waste Acceptance Plan to allow acceptance of fly ash and bottom ash from Hatfield's Ferry Power Station.

 Permit ID No. 300809 for the Mitchell Power Station CCB Landfill was r enewed August 2008. Criteria Evaluation

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

Chil d Health Advisory for boron.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  None

Criterion 3:  In 2001, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issued a

Notice of Violation (NOV) to Allegheny Power for failure to minimiz e fugitive dust emissions from the landfill. Monitoring requirements for fugitive dust emissions were discontinued in 2004.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 39 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found on site. PADEP issued an NOV in 2001 related to fugitive dusts, however the monitoring requirements were discontinued in

2004. There are no current administrative rulings or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 40 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 20) Phillips Power Plant Duquesne Light Company Crescent Township, PA

Source Document

Out of Control: Mounting Damages From Coal Ash Was te Sites, Thirty

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill and surface impoundments



### Background and Description

The Phillips Power Plant is located in South Heights, Pennsylvania and consists of two ash ponds with capacities of 13.5 and 9 million gallons, as well as a 157 acre coal ash and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) landfill. Fifty acres of the landfill were used for the disposal of coal combustion residual (CCR) from

1969 until 1991. The two ponds were decommissioned in the early 1990s and the landfill was

decommissioned in the late 1990s. The power plant itself was acquired by Duquesne Light Company in late 1990s and fully decom missioned in 2002. About 75 percent of the landfill is in Allegheny County and 25 percent is in Beaver County. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite groundwater data are available. Although surface water is present nearby, no data are available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of aluminum, chloride, fluoride, manganese, and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded secondary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in onsite groundwater.

The EIP /EJ February 2010 Report claims that in the late 1980’s several public supply wells in Beaver County, Pennsylvania were contaminated with elevated levels of TDS (above EPA SMCL s) from the two coal ash ponds at the Phillips Power Plant. The report also clai ms that residences located offsite experienced failure of their hot water heaters and had to frequently replace them (e.g., once per year) due to TDS in the groundwater.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) filed a complaint agains t the Duquesne Light Company for violations of total suspended solids (TSS) limits at a NPDES outfall and for adversely impacting the groundwater aquifer used by the public drinking water supply wells. A subsequent Consent Order and Agreement (COA) was sig ned in 1990 which ordered the Duquesne Light Company to stop contamination from the ash pond and provided several options for the to remediate the source of contamination. The COA led to the closure of the ponds and landfill. As part of the closure plan fo r the Landfill, PADEP required quarterly groundwater monitoring due to evidence of groundwater degradation.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA SMCL s for aluminum, chloride, fluoride,

manganese, and TDS.

 Offsite groundwater data exceeded the secondary MCL for TDS.

Criterion 2:  Presumably, d ue to elevated TDS in offsite groundwater, resident’s hot water heaters

were being ruined and had to be replaced frequently.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 41 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that 50 acres of the 157 acre landfill i s CCR, but the wastes contained in the remaining 107 acres are unspecified. 

### In 1975, the Duquesne Light Company received Solid Waste Disposal Permit No. 300440 from PADEP.

 The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) claims that since no primary EPA MC Ls are exceeded, this should not be considered a damage case.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

There are no exceedances of primary EPA MCLs in onsite or offsite groundwater ; however there are

onsite and offsite exceedances of EPA SMCL s

. Damage to resident’s hot water heaters does not constitute a scientific study that provides documented evidence of damage to human health or the environment. While there was a COA issued in 1990, the agreement did not have an explicit finding of specific damage

to human health or the environment

.



### Additional Sources

SE Technologies, Inc. (SET). 1994. Closure Plan, PADEP Solid Waste Permit NO. 300440, Phillips Ash Disposal Site, Duquesne Light Company, Crescent Twp. Allegheny County, Hopewell Twp. Beaver County, P ennsylvania (Approved by PADEP Feb. 9, 1998). Criterion 3 :  A COA was signed in 1990 providing several options to remediate the source of

contamination and included a $50,000 penalty for discharge violations.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 42 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 21) Seward Generating Station RRI Energy, Inc. (Formerly Reliant Energy, Inc.) New Florence, PA

Source Document

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

- one New Damage Cases of

Contam ination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Ash pit and closed piles



### Background and Description

Coal ash has been disposed of at the Seward Generating Station in New Flor ence, PA since 1954. Disposal went unpermitted for many years and was not contained in either landfills or impoundments. There are two previously closed unlined ash disposal sites (No. 1 and No. 2), as well as an unlined co

disposed coal ash and coal refus e pit which is no longer active. The Seward Generating Station was rebuilt in 2004 over the coal ash and coal refuse pit. The Seward Generating Station is a fluidized bed combustion (FBC) plant that burns waste coal. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite groundwater data are available. Surface water has been evaluated offsite in the Conemaugh River.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates groundwater monitoring data have exceeded primary and secondary EPA Max imum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) since at least 2004. In onsite groundwater, levels of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium exceeded their primary EPA MCLs. Additionally, aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, nickel, sulfate, zinc, and TDS exceeded secondary MCLs in onsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also indicates that aluminum, nickel, and zinc exceeded 

### Pennsylvania’s Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for Fish and Aquatic Life in surface water downstream

of the ash sites in the Conemaugh River.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also claims that aluminum, iron, manganese, and pH exceeded NPDES permit limits in the effluent discharge from the coal ash/coal refuse pile (Outfall 012) into the Conemaugh River monthly for the past five years.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded secondary EPAMCLs f or aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, nickel, sulfate, zinc, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Aluminum, nickel, and zinc exceeded Pennsylvania WQC for Fish and Aquatic Life

in the Conemaugh River downstream of the ash s ites.

 Aluminum, iron, manganese, and pH exceeded NPDES permit limits in effluent water discharge into the Conemaugh River offsite for the past five years.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 43 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 Coal refuse had been co

- managed at the site after 2004.

 Consent orders primarily involved correction of NPDES discharge exceedance s of iron, aluminum, manganese, pH, temperature, and TDS. PADEP recently revised the NPDES permitting levels indicating no likely environmental damage.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Ground water exceedances of the primary EPA MCLs for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,

and selenium have been found on site. While surface water samples downgradient of the ash site have exceeded Pennsylvania WQC, there is no risk assessment or scientific study available that explicitly

documents evidence o f damage to human health or the environment. Consent orders do not indicate explicit findings of specific damage.



### Additional Sources Criterion 3:  A 1982 Consent Order and Agreement (COA) between the Pennsylvania Department

of Enviro nmental Protection (PADEP) and RRI Energy ordered the closure of the No. 1 ash site, cessation of ash disposal at Seward, and a $308,000 fine 

### for violations of the Solid Waste Management Act.

 A 2000 COA was issued by PADEP and resulted in capping of the No . 1 ash site with

three feet of flowable fill. 

### RRI filed its Notice of Intent in November 2001 to remediate the site, which included placing a deed restriction on the property to prohibit future use of groundwater for human consumption or other human expos ure.

 

### RRI has reportedly been subject to several COAs to cease discharging pollutants

from Outfall 012.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 44 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 22) Fern Valley Landfill Orion Power Holdings, Inc. Elrama, PA

Source Document

Out of Control: Mounting Damages From Co al Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill



### Background and Description

The Fern Valley landfill is locat ed in Elrama, PA and sits along the Monongahela River. The landfill accepted coal ash from Elrama Power Plant from 1989 to 2003. The landfill is lined with a 3

- foot thick layer of low permeability cementious material. There were several Pennsylvania Depart ment of Environmental Protection (PADEP) violations in 2002 for placement of waste beyond permitted boundaries, and water quality assessments have been required due to citizen and regulatory concerns. The

landfill was closed in 2007. Groundwater has been e valuated onsite; however, no offsite groundwater data are available. Surface water has been evaluated offsite in the Monongahela River.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maxim um Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater. Additionally, boron, chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) regularly exceeded health advisory limits or EPA SMCL s in onsite groundwater.

EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also notes that selenium concentrations in surface water downstream of the landfill have exceeded Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria (WQC) , and other constituents (including arsenic, chloride, sulfate, and TDS) were found at concentrations higher than in a sampling location

upstr eam of the landfill.

A benthic study commissioned by the operator in 1995 found that the downstream sampling location was degraded relative to the upstream sampling location. This report also noted a number of serious deficiencies in the NPDES permit and discharge from the landfill.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also claims that PADEP violations were issued several times in 2002 due to placement of landfill wastes outside of permitted boundaries. In addition, water quality assessments have been requir ed and will continue through 2017.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded health advisory limits or secondary MCLs for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Selenium in surface water downstream of the landfill exceeded Pennsylvania WQC.

 A benthic study found a decrease in species diversity of aquatic animals has occu rred in the downstream tributary.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 45 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

Classification

Proven Damage



### Ratio nale

A documented study found degradation of the benthic community downstream of the landfill relative to the upstream location. Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found

on site. There are no current regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the site; however, notices of violation were issued by PADEP in the past.



### Additional Sources Criterion 3:  Due to placement of waste outside of the permitted landfill boundaries and failure to

report monitoring data, PADEP issued several noticed of violation in 2002.

 Water quality assessments have been required and will continue through 2017 in response to citizen and regulatory concerns.

 Actions and responses by the operator 

### have satisfied regulators resulting in no further corrective regulatory actions.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 46 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 23) Hunlock Power Station UGI Development Company Hunlock Creek, PA

Source Document

Out o f Control: Mounting Damages From Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface impoundment



### Background and Description

The Hunlock Power Station is a small power plant along the Susquehanna River located in Hunlock Creek, PA. Since 1959, most of the coal combustion residues (CCRs) have been shipped offsite for placement in undisclosed landfills and Pennsylvani a coal mines. Originally, two small coal ash basins existed at the site, one containing fly ash (204,400 cubic yards) and one containing bottom ash (154,500 cubic yards). However, due to the slurrying operations over time, the two units became a single co

managed surface impoundment. 

### There is a natural clay liner of unknown thickness at the site; however parts of it have reportedly been excavated. The facility does not have a solid waste permit but is regulated under the Pennsylvania Residual Waste Regulati ons for storage facilities. Effluent from the impoundment outfall is discharged under a NPDES permit.

Onsite groundwater contamination led the state to require an assessment to delineate the source and extent

of contamination. 

### Additional monitoring wells were installed and sampled starting in 2009. The facility planned to close in May, 2010 and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( 

### PADEP) staff are assessing monitoring data to determine if they have sufficient information to determine groun dwater impacts in order to determine the scope of abatement necessary under

closure. There is no offsite groundwater or surface water monitoring for the site; however, PADEP staff

have indicated that no 

### public water supply intakes or private wells are loca ted along the Susquehanna River downstream of the facility.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic have exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater for at least 10 years. Additionally, levels of iron and manganese exceeded EPA SMCL s in onsite groundwater.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report claims that groundwater contamination is discharging from the impoundment to the Susquehanna River, and may contribute to arsenic loading in downstream surface

waters. One of the onsite monitoring wells that is located approximately 240 feet downgradient of the waste boundary and near the Susquehanna River has consistently had arsenic concentrations exceeding primary EPA MCLs since samples were first taken from the well in April 2009. Additionally, effluent discharge samples from the impoundment outfall (Outfall 005) to the Susquehanna River contained arsenic. And while the concentrations of arsenic were under surface water quality standards that protect aquatic life, the large flow authorized/permitted from the outfall (1,500 gallons per minute) could also contribute to arsenic loading in the river.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 47 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Ground water exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found on site. The E IP/EJ February 2010 Report claims that the site may have caused arsenic loading to the Susquehanna River; however no data are available to support the claim and there is no scientific study available that explicitly documents evidence of damage to human he alth or the environment. The groundwater assessment and monitoring performed by UGI Development Company 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.



### Ad ditional Sources Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwa ter data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA SMCL s for iron and manganese.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Contaminated groundwater discharge to the Susquehanna River and effluent dis charge

from the impoundment may have caused arsenic loading downstream of the impoundment; however, no surface water data from the Susquehanna River are available to support this claim.

Criterion 3:  In January 2008, PADEP ordered UGI Development Company to conduct a

groundwater assessment of the site to delineate the source and extent of

contamination.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 48 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 24) Portland Generating Station's Bangor Quarry Ash Disposal Site RRI Energy, Inc. (formerly Reliant Energy, Inc.) Bangor, PA

Source Document

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

- one New Damage Cases of

Con tamination from Improperly Disposed Coal Combustion Waste

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill



### Background and Description

The Portland Generating Station's Bangor Quarry Ash Disposal Site is a lined landfill c onstructed in a quarry located in Bangor, Pennsylvania. The wastes disposed of in the landfill include fly ash, bottom ash, and “Trona Test Ash” which is ash produced during a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)

- approved trial burn at the Portland Generating Station utilizing the injection of a

substance intended to reduce air emissions. The liner is constructed of a synthetic geo

- membrane over a

6

- inch fly ash sub base. Leachate from above the liner drains into an ash leachate pond where it is drained into an open channel and then into Brushy Meadow Creek, if it meets acceptable criteria following analysis. The site also has a stormwater sedimentation pond. Both ponds discharge under NPDES permitted outfalls. Groundwater has been eva luated onsite; however, no offsite groundwater data are available. Surface water has been evaluated offsite at Brushy Meadow Creek.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)

have been exceeded although there are no constituents mentioned or data given to support this claim. EPA

SMCL s
, however, have been exceeded for aluminum, fluoride, iron, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS). The report also indicate s that incre asing trends were found for a number of constituents (including arsenic, boron, potassium, and others) in downgradient wells, but there is no

mention of exceedances of criteria or standards for these constituents.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that boron, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and selenium in outfall discharges to Brushy Meadow Creek have exceeded Pennsylvania’s Water Quality Criteria (WQC) due to unpermitted discharges from both outfalls at the site.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report al so claims that ash that has been dumped at the landfill, specifically the trona ash (or test ash), has been more toxic than permitted by regulations. Two of the nine composite samples collected of the trona ash had concentrations of leachable arsenic that exceeded Pennsylvania

Class II landfill limits.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded EPA SMCL s for aluminum, fluoride, iron,

manganese, sulfate, and TDS.

 No offsite groundwater data a re available.

Criterion 2:  Boron, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and selenium exceeded 

### Pennsylvania’s

WQC in effluent discharge into Brushy Meadow Creek from both outfalls at the site.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 49 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 There are two public water s upply wells within 3⁄4 mile of the site.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

There are no documented exceedances of primary EPA MCLs in onsite or offsite groundwater ; however

there are onsite exceedances of EPA SMCL s . While there are exceedances of Pen nsylvania WQC in effluent discharge from the site, there is no scientific study that links the exceedances to evidence of damage to human health or the environment. There are no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions asso ciated with the site.



### Additional Sources

PADEP, NPDES Permit No. PA0063606 for Bangor Quarry Ash Disposal Facility (issued to RRI on Jan. 8, 2003).

PADEP, Flow Diagrams of NPDES Permit No. PA00063606 Outfalls 001 and 002. Criterion 3:  None

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 50 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 25) Wateree Station

South Caroli na Electric and Gas (SCE&G) Eastover, SC

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjusti ce. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface impoundment



### Background and Description

Coal combustion residuals (CCRs) produced at the Wateree Station are placed into an unlined 80

- acre coal ash surface impoundment s located in Eastover, South Carolina near the Watere e River. The active impoundment has a capacity of 52,272,000 cubic feet. Ash Ponds 1and 2 were commissioned in the early 1970's and have received waste to the present. •.A•sh Ponds 1.and 2· act as the primary settling pond and polishing pond, respectively, for ash sluicing operations. In addition the site has coal pile runoff pond and two low volume waste ponds for wastewater treatment. The site is located upstream of the Congaree National Park, which is reported to have one of the largest contiguous sectio ns of floodplain forest in

North America. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite and private testing has occurred offsite. Surface

water has been evaluated offsite at the Wateree River.



### Impact and Damage Claims

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

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also mentions that private testing at a nearby farm property indicated

that levels of arsenic in seeps coming off the ash i mpoundment exceeded the “state standard”. These results were reported in local newspapers, The State and The Post and Courier.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also claims that elevated arsenic levels have been found in fish living

in the Wateree River ne ar the facility when compared to upstream and downstream concentrations. The report mentions that one catfish was found to have elevated levels of arsenic in its tissue.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Private testing at a nearby farm property found arsenic levels above unspecified “state

standards” in seeps leaking offsite.

 Elevated fish t issue arsenic concentrations have been reported in a single catfish near the site in comparison to concentrations found upstream and downstream of the Site.

Criterion 3:  Neighboring landowners have filed lawsuits to stop contamination from reaching their

property.

 The Wateree Station plant was cited in 2001 by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) for violations related to arsenic exceedances of state standards in groundwater. However, no regulatory action was

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 51 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 The sources listed in the EIP/EJ February 2010 Report are limited to newspaper reports and no primary data sources.

 DHEC approved a mixing zo ne and compliance boundary in 2001.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found on site. While the EIP/EJ February 2010 Report claims exceedances of unspecified “state standards” in o ffsite seepage water and elevated arsenic concentrations in fish tissue, there is no scientific study presented that links these claims to evidence of damage to human health or the environment. A lawsuit has been filed by neighboring landowners, but there are currently no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings,

or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

“Lawyer details SCE&G water pollution” Sammy Fretwell, The State, Oct 7, 2009, http://www.thestate.com/2009/10/07/973941/lawyers

- detail

- sceg

- water

- pollution.html last accessed

10/29/10 taken by D HEC after the site owner agreed to take action to reduce contamination

from the impoundment.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 52 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 26) Urquhart Station South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) Beech Island, SC

Sour ce Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Landfill and sett ling basins



### Background and Description

Coal ash produced at the Urquhart Station is disposed of in an active landfill and two settling basins along the Savannah River in Beech Island, South Carolina. Disposal at this landfill dates back to the late 1980s. The landfill is 300 feet from the river, and the two settling basins are 100 feet from the river. Localized groundwater flow is assumed to be towards the river. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite and wetland contamination has been inferred; however, due to the sporadic nature of contaminants at the site, no formal assessment or offsite investigation has occurred. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) 

### has indicated that no offsite monitoring has been required since

resul ts in well s near the river have not exceeded drinking water standards.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater associated with the landfill and the ash settling basins. Additionally, arsenic and nickel have exceeded South Carolina drinking water standards in onsite groundwater associated with the landfill.

EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also claims that contaminated shallow ground water discharges into the adjacent wetland, and that drilling activities for a replacement well near the wetland revealed that coal ash wastes were placed into the wetland.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Other Considerations

 Contaminant concentrations have been sporadic. Criteria Evaluation

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

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded South Carolina drinking water standards for

arsenic and nickel.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Ash was discovered in a replacement wel l near the wetlands, suggesting that coal ash

waste were placed into the wetland.

Criterion 3:  SCG&E completed a Comprehensive Groundwater Assessment for the landfill area,

and they are currently 

### assessing the nature and extent of the contamination

assoc iated with the ash settling basins. According to DHEC personnel these activities are considered to be “informal” actions, and no violations or orders have

been issued to the owner.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 53 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1  SCE&G claims that elevated levels of arsenic are due to monitoring wells 

### being placed in ash disposal areas and wells that were improperly constructed, and requested that the replacement well in the wetland area be abandoned. South Carolina DHEC denied the reque st.



### Classification

Inadequate Information



### Rationale

Sporadic groundwater exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic have been found on site. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report claims that coal ash wastes have been disposed of in the wetland area,

however there is no scientific study that provides documented evidence of damage to human health or the environment. Previous and ongoing assessment activities are “informal” and there are currently no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or cou rt decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), Groundwater Contamination Inventory, 2008, available at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/gwci/gwci.pdf.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 54 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 27) Grainge r Generating Station South Carolina Public Service Authority (SCPSA) Conway, SC

Source Document

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

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

. Environ mental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface i mpoundments



### Background and Description

Grainger Generating Station is located along the Waccamaw River in Conway, South Carolina and uses two fly ash ponds to dispose of coal combu stion residuals (CCRs). The nature and extent of contamination at the site is now being studied

, ten years after arsenic was found in groundwater near the river. Localized groundwater flow is assumed to be towards the Waccamaw River, and South Carolina Dep artment of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) personnel believe that the river acts as a discharge boundary and that offsite migration beyond the river is not likely. 

### Discharge from the two fly ash ponds is covered under an NPDES permit. Groundwater i s being evaluated onsite; however, no offsite groundwater data are available. Surface water has been evaluated offsite.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic exceeded the primary EPA Maximum

Contaminant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater at two wells during one monitoring event in 2000.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that offsite surface water sampling events conducted in 2001 and 2006 did not find that arsenic was leaching into 

### Waccamaw River

. However, the report argues that results from these events were not compared to appropriate standards for protection of human health by consumption of contaminated water and organisms, since 

### the Waccamaw River in the area of the Grainger Station has a “Fr eshwater” designated use

. 

### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Onsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic at two wells

during one event in 2000.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

C riterion 2:  The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report argues that surface water data from the Waccamaw

River were not compared to appropriate standards, and that the South Carolina DHEC’s finding that arsenic was not leaching into the river is flawed.

Criterion 3 :  The 

### South Carolina Public Service Authority ( SCPSA) is currently responsible for

determining the nature and extent of contamination associated with the ash ponds, including if offsite impacts are likely. South Carolina DHEC personnel have indicated

that the no remediation of the ponds is being conducted, that ongoing assessment activities are “informal,” and that no violations or orders have been issued to the site

owner.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 55 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 Arsenic was found in one well above MCLs in 2000 and since t hen no exceedances have been found. Ongoing g 

### roundwater monitoring is a condition of the sites NPDES permit.



### Classification

Inadequate Information



### Rationale

There have only been two onsite exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, both of which

occur red in 2000. Subsequent NPDES

- required groundwater monitoring has not found any additional exceedances over the last 10 years. Additionally, an investigation associated with the ponds is ongoing to determining the nature and extent of contamination and if offsite impacts are likely. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report argues that surface water data from the Waccamaw River were not compared to appropriate standards, however no specific data comparisons are provided to support the claim and there is no

scientific study that provides documented evidence of damage to human health or the environment. Ongoing assessment activities are “informal” and there are currently no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the sit e.



### Additional Sources

SC DHEC, Groundwater Contamination Inventory, 2008, available at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/gwci/gwci.pdf.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 56 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 28) John Sevier Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Rogersville, TN

Source Document

Out of Control: Mount ing Damages From Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface impoundment



### Background and Description

The John Sevier Fossil Plant site consists of an active 90

- acre unlined surface impoundment located along the Holston River in Rogersville, TN. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) built the impoundment in the 1950’s for disposal of combustion residuals (CCR) from the co

- located coal plant. Since 1987, dry CCR (bottom ash and fly ash) has been stacked on top of the existing 90

- acre dewatered ash pond. Groundwater at the site discharges to offsite surface water such as Holston River and its local tributaries (D odson Creek and Polly Branch). A public water supply intake on the Holston River is located less than

two miles downstream from John Sevier Fossil Plant. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite at monitoring wells which are located between the impoundment an d the river. No offsite groundwater or

surface water data are available.

The John Sevier Fossil Plant also operates another unlined 41

- acre CCR pond for its bottom ash and fly ash. Twenty

- six (26) acres of the pond are an active disposal site ; however, th ere is no landfill permit for this impoundment. Data about the environmental conditions of this impoundment are not available.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of cadmium exceeded the primary EPA Maximum

Contam inant Level (MCL) in onsite groundwater wells located on the banks of the Holston River. Additionally, aluminum, manganese, and sulfate exceeded EPA SMCL s in onsite groundwater, and boron and strontium exceeded various other benchmarks. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that TVA states that its impoundments are upgradient from the Holston River (and its local tributaries) and that groundwater from the site discharges directly into these surface waters.

No surface water data for the site are availa ble. However, in Tennessee, groundwater that enters a surface water body is subject to surface water criteria. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that cadmium levels in groundwater wells located along the banks of the Holston River exceeded both chr onic and acute EPA Water Quality Criteria (WQC) levels for freshwater aquatic life, and that arsenic and manganese exceeded EPA’s human health criteria for consumption of fish.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  On site groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for cadmium.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded the EPA SMCL s for aluminum, manganese, and

sulfate

.

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Cadmium, arsenic, and manganese levels in groun dwater wells located on the banks

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 57 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 There are 18 private wells located within a one mile radius of the surface impoundment.



### Classification

Potential Damage



### Rationale

Groundwat er exceedances of the primary EPA MCL for cadmium have been found on site. While groundwater wells located on the banks of the Holston River exceeded EPA WQC for surface waters, there is no scientific study that provides documented evidence of damage to hu man health or the environment. There are currently no regulatory corrective actions, administrative rulings, or court

decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), John Sevier Dry Ash Stacking Facility, Groundwate r Assessment Monitoring Reports (May 2009; December 2008). http://www.state.tn.us/environment/kingston/pdf/tva/StantecJohnSevierAnalysisF.pdf last accessed

10/29/10 of the Holston River exceeded EPA WQC.

Criterion 3:  None

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 58 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 29) Coal Combustion Waste Landfill

Trans

- Ash, Inc. Camden, TN

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental I ntegrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Gravel p it serving as a l andfill



### Background and Description

Since 2002, Trans

- Ash has disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) at a former gravel

- mined quarry (Bivens Quarry) in Camden, Tenness ee. The CCRs in the landfill consist of fly ash and bottom ash generated at the 

### Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Johnsonville Fossil Plant. The landfill is currently active, and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) 

### recently

appro 2 € an expansion of the landfill. Due to previous gravel mining activities penetrating into groundwater, Trans

- Ash was required to install a lining throughout the landfill; however they failed to do so, resulting in coal ash in direct contact with groundwa ter. 

### Sixteen private wells are located within a

one

- mile radius of the landfill, and at least eight wells supply nearby residents with drinking water.

Groundwater has been evaluated both onsite and offsite.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of mercury exceeded the primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in groundwater at two offsite residential wells (“Gibson wells”). Additionally, arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury exceeded their primary EPA MCLs in onsite groundwater. The report also claims that downgradient monitoring wells have exhibited increasing trends in boron and sulfate concentrations over the last two years, indicating that groundwater quality is likely being

influenced by landfill leachate.

The EIP/EJ Report also claims that surface water and sediment have been impacted by the Trans

- Ash landfill. The report indicates that TDEC data show that the highest sediment mercury concentration was from the sediment pond at the landfill. TDEC’s Division of Water Pollution Control reportedly issued three Notices of Violation (NOV) to Trans

- Ash for releasing CCR in an unlined portion of the landfill; releasing CCR into an unnamed tributary to Cypress Creek; and failure to report violations or take

corrective action.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  Offsite groundwater data exceeded the primary EPA MCL for mercury in two

residential wells.

 Onsite groundwater data exceeded primary EPA MCLs for arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury.

Criterion 2:  TDEC has issued an NOV to Trans

- Ash for releasing CCR into an unnamed tributary

to Cypress Creek. The EIP/EJ Report claims that surface water and sediment have been impacted by the Trans

- Ash landfill; however n o specific data to support these claims was provided.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 59 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 One woman, Nalgene Gibson, complained of burning skin when bathing in her residential well water. Her wells were those that exceeded primary EPA MCLs for mercury.

 There are 16 private wells within a one mile radius of the landfill, eight of which supply drinking

water.

 Trans

- Ash argued that the mercury contamination is not from their landfill and cites several claims including: the CCR does not contain mercury as indicated from leaching results, the wells with exceedances are upgra dient of the landfill, and the mercury is naturally occurring.



### Classification

Proven Damage



### Rationale

Offsite groundwater exceeded the primary EPA MCL for mercury, and onsite groundwater exceeded the primary EPA MCL for arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercur y. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report claims that surface water and sediment have been impacted by the Trans

- Ash landfill, however there is no scientific study that provides documented evidence of damage to human health or the environment. The

TDEC issued a C ommissioners Order to address landfill violations and EPA implemented an Emergency

Removal Action to address contaminated offsite residential wells.



### Additional Sources Criterion 3:  In 2005, TDEC issued a Commissioners Order and assessed a $160,000 penalty

against Trans

- Ash for not installing a liner in the entire landfill and improperly installing a liner in portions of the landfill.

 In 2009, in response to a complaint from a resident with two private wells (“Gibson well”) and subsequent TDEC sampling of the well, EPA implemented an Emergency Removal Action that involved the connection of the Gibson residence to the city water supply

.

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 60 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 30) John Amos Power Plant Appalachian Power Winfield, WV

Source Document

Out of Cont rol: Mounting Damages From Coal Ash Waste Sites, Thirty

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface impoundment s



### Background and Desc ription

The John Amos Power Plant located in Winfield, West Virginia disposes of coal ash waste in the Little Scary Creek surface impoundment. The impoundment is an active, unlined 175

- acre fly ash impoundment owned by Appalachian Power with a storage capa city is 11,160 acre

- feet and a dam height of 223 feet. Five additional impoundments used to store bottom ash are located at the power plant. These impoundments were commissioned in 1971, cover approximately 30 acres; and have a total storage capacity of 35 7 acre

- feet. A recently constructed and permitted landfill is also located on the power plant

property. Surface water discharge from the impoundments into Little Scary Creek has exceeded NPDES permit criteria several times in the past; however the state h as granted variances for surface water criteria. Effluent discharge is planned to be rerouted into the Kanawha River to avoid Little Scary Creek in the future. There are no onsite or offsite groundwater data available. Surface water has been evaluated onsi te
and offsite.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of selenium in effluent water discharge from the site have exceeded NPDES permit limits. The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also indicates that levels of

selenium in surface water samples from Little Scary Creek exceeded West Virginia’s acute and chronic water quality standards for the protection of aquatic life.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that selenium concentrations in September 2006 fish tissue

d ata (average concentration 58.02 mg/kg, as reported by Janes 2009) exceeded EPA’s proposed selenium

fish tissue criterion ( 7.91 mg/kg, EPA 2004 ) and a threshold value established by a selenium expert at the

USDA Forest Service (4 mg/kg, Lemly 2002) . The re port also suggests that the average concentration of selenium in fish tissue associate with the site should trigger a West Virginia fish consumption advisory.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage Criteria

Criteria Evaluation

Criterion 1:  None

Criterion 2:  Selenium exceeded NPDES permit limits in effluent discharge from the

impoundment.

 Selenium detected in surface water samples from Little Scary Creek exceeded West Virginia’s water quality standards for protection of aquatic life.

 Selenium concentrations in both species reported, Creek Chub fish tissue data (average 50.82 mg/kg) and Green Sunfish (average 11.72 mg/kg dry weight) exceeded EPA’s proposed selenium fish tissue criterion (7.91 mg/kg, EPA 2004) and a

threshold value established by a selenium exper t at the USDA Forest Service (4

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 61 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 West Virginia granted site

- specific variances from the statewide numeric NPDES criteria for selenium and copper for Little Scary Creek impoundment discharges.

 N o study documents damage to the environment from the selenium levels and direct implication of CCRs given prevalence of selenium laden effluents from othe sources including coal mining.

 Despite elevated levels in fish tissue, there is no documentation of h uman health risk in part as fish in study were primarily Creek Chubs which are minnow sized fish unlikely to be directly eaten by humans. The concentrations are likely to accumulate in the foodchain but no study documents the damage in this case.

 Fish anal ysis performed by two separate laboratories and three different sample collection events generally confirm results.



### Classification

Not a Damage Case



### Rationale

There are no documented exceedances of primary EPA MCLs in onsite or offsite groundwater. While

t here are limited and sporadic exceedances of selenium NPDES permit limits in the discharge from the impoundment, the state granted variances on the statewide numeric criteria for selenium. Similarly, while surface water and fish tissue samples from Little Scary Creek had selenium concentrations above various comparison criteria, there is no scientific study that links these exceedances to evidence of damage to

human health or the environment and implicates CCRs

. There are no regulatory corrective actions,

a dministrative rulings, or court decisions associated with the site.



### Additional Sources

Selenium Bioaccumulation Among Select Stream and Lake Fisheries in West Virginia, West Virginia Dept. of Environmental Protection, February 2009

Lemly, Dennis, A. 200 2. Selenium Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems, A Guide for Hazard Evaluation and Water Quality Criteria . Springer. New York.

TVA. 2002. Final Environmental Assessment, Johnsonville Fossil Plant: Development of a Long

- Term Ash Management Strategy (February 2002).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. Aquatic Life Criteria for Selenium

- Draft Criteria, Fact Sheet; December 2004. Accessed at:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/selenium/fs.cfm

mg/kg, Lemly 2002)

. Criterion 3:  None

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 62 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### 31) Mitchell Generating Station Ohio Power Company Moundsville, WV

Source Document

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

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

. Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice. February 24, 2010.



### Type

Surface impoundments



### Background and Description

The Mitchell Generating Station is located in Moundsville, West Virginia along the Ohio River and operates two impoundments. The 71

- acre, unlined Conner Run f ly ash impoundment was commissioned in 1971, has a capacity of 13,500 acre

- feet, and holds 48 million cubic yards of fly ash. The 17.5

- acre bottom ash pond was commissioned in 1975. The two impoundments r eceive ash fly ash and bottom ash

from two American Electric Power (AEP) plants (Mitchell and Kammer), as well as unspecified “coal mining wastes” from the Consol McElroy Mine . Surface water discharges from the fly ash impoundment into Conner Run Creek and has exceeded NPDES permit limits several times in the past. Groundwater has been evaluated onsite; however, no offsite groundwater data are available. Surface water has been

evaluated onsite and offsite.



### Impact and Damage Claims

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of arsenic and antimony exceeded their primary EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in onsite groundwater associated with the Conner Run fly ash impoundment. The report also claims previous onsite groundwater exceedances of sodium, sulfate, and zinc; however, criteria and conce ntrations are not reported.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report indicates that levels of selenium in effluent water discharge from the Conner Run fly ash impoundment have exceeded NPDES 

### variance permit limit and EPA’s Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). T he EIP/EJ February 2010 Report also indicates that levels of selenium in surface water samples from Conner Run Creek exceeded West Virginia’s acute and chronic water quality standards for the protection of aquatic life.

The EIP/EJ February 2010 Report in dicates that selenium concentrations in fish tissue data from Conner

Run Creek (average of 31.5 mg/kg as reported in Janes 2009) exceeded EPA’s proposed selenium fish

tissue criterion (7.91 mg/kg, EPA 2004) and a threshold value established by a selenium expert at the

USDA Forest Service (4 mg/kg, Lemly 2002) . The report also suggests that the average concentration of selenium in fish tissue associate with the site should trigger a West Virginia fish consumption advisory.



### Evaluation against Proven Damage C riteria

Criteria Evaluation

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

 No offsite groundwater data are available.

Criterion 2:  Selenium exceeded NPDES permit limits in effluent discharge from the fly ash

im poundment.

 Selenium detected in surface water samples from Conner Run Creek exceeded West

### APPENDIX B

- Assessment of February 2010 Alleged Damage Cases October 2010

Do Not Cite or Quote 63 DamageCaseEval_AppendixB_Final_v1 

### Other Considerations

 According to the WVDE P 2009 report on status of fly ash dams and landfills, approximately 60 percent of the wastes received at the site are “unspecified coal mining wastes” from the Consol McElroy Mine. The remaining 40 percent consists of fly ash and bottom ash from two diffe rent AEP plants.

 

### Groundwater monitoring at the site is required by an NPDES permit.

 The WVDEP, in its November 2009 Fly Ash Dam/Landfill Condition Evaluation Report, noted a major seepage zone in the natural hillside on the left side of the impoundment th at discharges to

Fish Creek.



### Classification

Not a Damage Case



### Rationale

The site is reported to co

- manage CCR and unspecified “coal mining wastes”; therefore the claim does not specifically implicate CCRs as a cause of damage to human health or the envir onment.



### Additional Sources

Selenium Bioaccumulation Among Select Stream and Lake Fisheries in West Virginia, West Virginia Dept. of Environmental Protection, February 2009

Lemly, Dennis, A. 2002. Selenium Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems, A Guide for Ha zard Evaluation and Water Quality Criteria . Springer. New York.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. Aquatic Life Criteria for Selenium

- Draft Criteria, Fact Sheet; December 2004. Accessed at:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/st andards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/selenium/fs.cfm

WVDEP, Division of Waste Management, Fly Ash Dam / Landfill Conditions Evaluation (Nov. 2009), http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/ee/ds/Documents/Status_WV_Fly_Ash_Dams_Landfills_Nov609.pdf

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

- mitchel l.pdf last accessed

10/29/10 Virginia’s water quality standards for protection of aquatic life.

 Selenium concentrations in four species fish tissue data from Conner Run Creek (average of 23.1 mg/ kg) exceeded EPA’s proposed selenium fish tissue criterion (7.91 mg/kg, EPA 2004) and a threshold value established by a selenium expert at the

USDA Forest Service (4 mg/kg, Lemly 2002).

. Criterion 3:  None.