Document No. EPA-AO-024 

Kingston Ash Recovery Project 

Non-Time-Critical Removal Action 

Embayment/Dredge Cell 

Action Memorandum

Prepared by: 

Jacobs 

for the Tennessee Valley Authority 

Revision Description Date 

1 Draft AM for TVA Review 02 February 2010 

2 Draft AM for EPA/TDEC Review 12 April 2010 

3 Final AM for Public Comment 18 May 2010 

 
This page intentionally left blank
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

1 

ACTION MEMORANDUM 

I. PURPOSE 

The purpose of this Action Memorandum is to request and document approval of the proposed Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA) non-time-critical removal action for the Swan Pond Embayment and Dredge Cell 

described herein for the TVA Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant (KIF) Release Site in Roane County, Tennessee. 

On May 11, 2009, TVA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into an 

Administrative Order and Agreement on Consent (AOC) under Sections 104(a), 106(a), and 107 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, pursuant 

to which TVA will perform the removal action described herein (EPA 2009). Ash in the Emory River 

and the easternmost portion of the Swan Pond Embayment is currently being removed under a timecritical removal action (TVA 2009a). 

This non-time-critical removal action involves the removal, processing, and disposal of the remaining ash 

material that was released into the Swan Pond Embayment from the KIF. This removal action also 

involves the closure of the Dredge Cell and adjacent Ash Pond. Under CERCLA, the ash spill constitutes 

a release, as well as a potential for continued releases of hazardous substances into the environment. The 

release of hazardous substances at the Site poses a threat to public health and the environment pursuant to 

Section 104(a) of CERCLA and the conditions at the Site meet the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), Section 300.415(b)(2) criteria for removal actions. 

II. SITE CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND 

ID Number: TN8640006682 

Site Specific ID Number: A4XP 

Removal Category: Non-Time-Critical Removal Action 

A. SITE DESCRIPTION 

This section of the Action Memorandum provides a description of the Site conditions and relevant 

background information. 

1. Removal Site Evaluation 

KIF is located at Emory River Mile (ERM) 2.6 and is at the headwaters of Watts Bar Reservoir near the 

confluence of the Clinch and Emory Rivers. Construction of the plant began in 1951 and was completed 

in 1955. KIF generates 10 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity a year, enough to supply the needs of more 

than 700,000 homes in the Tennessee Valley. 

On Monday, December 22, 2008, a containment dike surrounding a portion of the Class II landfill for ash 

from the operation of the power plant failed, releasing about 5.4 million cubic yards (cy) of ash. Ash was 

released from about 60 acres of the 127-acre Dredge Cell complex. The spilled material covered about 

300 acres of adjacent parts of Watts Bar Reservoir, including most of Swan Pond Embayment and 

reservoir shorelands. Most of the ash which spilled onto land was on property managed by TVA. 

Coal, in its natural state, contains various naturally-occurring metals and radionuclides that can be 

concentrated and retained in the ash after burning the coal for power production. The specific chemical 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

2 

composition of fly ash depends on the source of the coal. KIF mostly burns eastern bituminous coal but 

also has used coal from Illinois and blends low-sulfur Western coal to reduce emissions. The principal 

components of fly ash are those that are typical of rock and soil. Oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, and 

calcium, chemically combined in an amorphous form, comprise 95 to 99% of fly ash. Ash also contains 

variable amounts of magnesium, titanium, sulfur, sodium, and potassium (TVA 2001). Although the main 

chemical constituent of ash is silicon dioxide, the material may contain trace amounts of constituents that 

occur naturally in coal (TVA 2009a). The ash has therefore been tested for naturally-occurring metals and 

radionuclides. The constituents of interest in fly ash include arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, 

nickel, selenium, thallium, vanadium, zinc, and the naturally-occurring radionuclides, specifically 

isotopes of potassium, radium, thorium, uranium, and their short-lived daughter products. The fly ash 

contains cenospheres, which are inert, hollow balls of sand-like material. 

2. Physical Location 

The Site is located just off of Swan Pond Road in Roane County, Tennessee. Roane County had a total 

population of 53,399 in 2007. The county is primarily rural with about 60% of the population outside of 

incorporated cities and towns. Most of the 300 acres directly affected by the release was TVA property, 

although 40 non-TVA owned properties, constituting a total of 8 acres, were affected. TVA has since 

purchased 156 of the properties affected by the release or that may be affected by the response actions. 

Drinking water in the immediate area has historically been primarily by residential groundwater wells. 

Over 400 wells were tested by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) 

immediately after the event and were found to be within required drinking water limits (TVA 2009b). 

TVA is currently installing a new water distribution system to provide City of Kingston water to area 

residents. 

3. Site Characteristics 

Failure of the Dredge Cell filled most of the Swan Pond Embayment. The ash deposits are typically 20 to 

40 ft thick, although thicker piles of ash have been constructed in the embayment area during time-critical 

removal actions. Residual ash in the Emory, Clinch, and Tennessee River system following the timecritical dredging activities will be addressed under a separate non-time-critical removal action. Further 

sampling and analysis of biotic and abiotic media is planned for the river system, which will be used to 

assess potential human health and ecological risks associated with the river system. 

4. Release or Threatened Release into the Environment of a Hazardous Substance, Pollutant or 

Contaminant 

The ash material at the Site contains naturally-occurring metals such as arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, 

mercury, nickel, selenium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc, which are hazardous substances as defined by 

CERCLA Section 101(14). The ash material also contains naturally-occurring radionuclides, which are 

also hazardous substances as defined by CERCLA Section 101(14). 

More than 50 samples of the ash have been collected and analyzed for metals (excluding mercury); 11 

samples have been analyzed for organic chemicals, mercury, and radionuclides. Metals, primarily 

arsenic, have been the focus of this monitoring. Arsenic is present in the ash at an average concentration 

of approximately 65 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which is above EPA’s residential Regional 

Screening Level (RSL) of 0.39 mg/kg and above EPA’s industrial RSL of 1.6 mg/kg for the hazardous 

substance. 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

3 

The EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) uses acid digestion to provide an indication 

of the potential for leaching metals and is used to define if a material will be considered a hazardous 

waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Several ash samples collected during 

the time-critical removal action were sent for TCLP analysis and all indicate that the ash is not considered 

a hazardous waste under RCRA. 

Surface water samples have been collected from clean water ditches and settling basins constructed within 

the embayment area. More than 170 samples have been collected and analyzed by TVA since the clean 

water ditches were completed. As of March 11, 2010, the total arsenic concentration in surface water 

from the embayment area has averaged approximately 0.0278 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is 

greater than TDEC’s Ambient Water Quality Criterion (AWQC) of 0.010 mg/L. In addition, several 

concentrations of antimony and selenium have also exceeded water quality criteria. 

Groundwater samples have been collected semiannually from monitoring wells surrounding the Dredge 

Cell in accordance with its industrial waste landfill permit requirements. Wells have been routinely 

analyzed for 16 metals and flouride. Currently, 6 wells are present in the Dredge Cell area. Arsenic was 

detected at concentrations exceeding the TDEC Water Quality Criteria for Domestic Water Supplies 

maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.010 mg/L in 2 out of 40 samples from these 6 wells since the 

ash release. Arsenic was detected in June 2009 at a maximum of 0.0297 mg/L in well AD-2. Results of 

subsequent monthly sampling through March 8, 2010, indicate that arsenic concentrations in well AD-2 

have dropped to 0.00254 mg/L, below its MCL. Historically, arsenic concentrations in well 6A have 

remained less than 0.014 mg/L, which slightly exceeds its MCL; concentrations do not indicate either an 

increasing or decreasing trend. Arsenic concentrations in other wells have not exceeded the MCL. 

Historically, silver has occasionally been detected in one well (6A) at concentrations that exceed its MCL 

of 0.10 mg/L. However, in 2007 TDEC granted a site-specific standard of 0.18 mg/L for silver in 

recognition of the fact that silver is present in natural soil and groundwater sources, but is absent in ash. 

5. NPL Status 

The Site is not on the National Priority List, although, pursuant to the AOC, a preliminary assessment will 

be conducted at the Site at the completion of removal activities. 

6. Maps, Pictures, and Other Graphic Representations 

All removal file information, including maps and aerial photos of the Site, will be maintained by TVA 

and the EPA On-Scene Coordinator and released to the EPA record center, and the Administrative Record 

for inclusion in the Site files. A figure showing the key features of the Site is attached (Figure 1 in 

Attachment A). 

B. OTHER ACTIONS TO DATE 

1. Previous Actions 

Immediately following the ash spill, an Incident Command Center was established and emergency 

measures were implemented to ensure safety of people in the area, contain and evaluate the damage, and 

plan for recovery of the ash. Several environmental monitoring programs were put in place to monitor 

river water, drinking water, and air quality. Road, railroads, and utilities were repaired and replaced. 

Dikes and weirs, both on land and in the water, were constructed to control the ash movement; Dike 2 

was constructed to contain ash within the Swan Pond Embayment to the west. Dust control activities 

were implemented and are ongoing. Storm water management systems, such as clean water diversion 

ditches and ash water collection and settling basins, were constructed. 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

4 

On August 4, 2009, an Action Memorandum was approved for removing ash from the river east of Dike 2 

under a time-critical removal action (TVA 2009c). The decision was made to remove ash from the river 

using hydraulic or mechanical dredging and from dry land areas east of Dike 2 using land-based 

equipment and then process, transport, and dispose of the ash recovered. The purpose of removing the ash 

from the river and from dry land areas east of Dike 2 was to limit the potential for future ash migration 

and to prevent upstream flooding in the event of a large rainfall. 

2. Current Actions 

The time-critical removal action is ongoing; ash removal east of Dike 2 is anticipated to be complete in 

May 2010 and offsite ash disposal is anticipated to be complete in November 2010. As part of the timecritical removal action, ash recovered from the river near the site of the release through mechanical 

dredging or land-based equipment is being transported to one of several onsite ash storage areas. 

Hydraulically-dredged material is being pumped into a Rim Ditch where solids settle out of the solution. 

The water continues flowing through the Sluice Trench into the Ash Pond and then into the Stilling Pond 

where further settlement occurs (Figure 1). Settled ash is removed from the ditches through mechanical 

excavation and windrowed to dry in an ash processing area. Processed ash is loaded into railcars, and is 

transported to the Perry County Associates (Arrowhead) Landfill in Alabama, for final disposal. 

Cenospheres and entrained river debris are also being removed from downstream coves and disposed with 

the processed ash. As of May 4, 2010, nearly 3.1 million cy of material have been removed from the river 

system and 2.0 million tons (approximately 1.5 million cy) of that material have been shipped offsite for 

final disposal. 

C. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES’ ROLE 

1. State and Local Actions to Date 

On January 12, 2009, the TDEC issued TVA a Commissioner’s Order (TDEC 2009) which directed TVA 

to undertake numerous response activities at the Site including, but not limited to: 

• Implement measures to prevent the movement of contaminated materials and minimize further 

downstream migration of contaminated sediments; 

• Fully cooperate and support TDEC’s review of all TVA fly ash impoundments located in the State; 

• Submit all existing studies, reports, and memoranda that are potentially relevant to explaining or 

analyzing the cause of the catastrophic failure of the containment structures; 

• Fully cooperate and provide support for TDEC’s initial assessment of the impact of the ash release on 

all waters of the State; 

• Prepare and submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) within 45 days after receipt of the 

Commissioner’s Order, to include: 

i. A plan for the assessment of soil, surface water and groundwater; remediation of impacted 

media; and restoration of all natural resources damaged as a result of the release; 

ii. A plan for monitoring the air and water in the area during the cleanup process; 

iii. A plan to ensure that public and private water supplies are protected and that alternative water 

supplies are provided if contamination is detected; 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

5 

iv. A plan for addressing both the short-term and long-term management of fly ash at the Site, 

including remediation and stabilization of the failed ash waste cells, proper management of 

the recovered ash, and a revised closure plan for the Class II ash disposal facility; and 

v. A plan to address any health and safety hazards posed by the ash to workers and the public. 

On March 2, 2009, TVA submitted a draft CAP to EPA and TDEC for agency review and approval (TVA 

2009a). Since the release, EPA, the State, and TVA have conducted extensive sampling of air, water, and 

ash material. 

2. Potential for Continued State and Local Response 

TDEC will continue to play a large role in the response activities at the Site and will continue to oversee 

activities under the Commissioner’s Order that are not addressed by the AOC. In addition, the State will 

continue to be involved in sampling surrounding water bodies and air, and will be responsible for 

approving the long-term ash management decisions at KIF, including closure of the Dredge Cell and Ash 

Pond. It will also have responsibility for approving any off-site disposal locations in the State of 

Tennessee. 

EPA will coordinate with the State to ensure they are apprised of all progress made under the AOC. 

III. THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT, AND 

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES 

The conditions resulting from the ash release at KIF present a threat to the public health or welfare and 

the environment if not properly managed and meet the criteria for a non-time-critical removal action as 

provided for in the NCP Section 300.415(b)(2). The primary criteria include: 

• Section 300.415(b)(2)(i) Actual or potential exposure to nearby human populations, animals, or 

the food chain from hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants: 

The area where the ash spilled is temporarily devoid of benthic life. The benthic invertebrates were 

smothered during the ash spill. This minimizes the food available to aquatic life, impacting the health of 

the aquatic environment in the area. The presence of naturally-occurring metal and radiological 

constituents in the ash, if and when resuspended in the water column, can also have an impact on the 

human receptors or the aquatic environment. Ash is exposed at the ground surface. Results of the human 

health risk assessment (Jacobs 2010) indicate that there is no unacceptable cancer risk or noncancer 

hazard to current human receptors; however, cancer risks could exceed the target risk range and 

noncancer hazards (toxic effects) could exceed the target threshold for future exposure scenarios if actions 

were not taken. Results of the screening-level ecological risk assessment (Jacobs 2010) indicate that 

based on the available evidence, the possibility of adverse risks for terrestrial and aquatic ecological 

receptors potentially exposed to inorganic constituents in ash as soil or as sediment cannot be excluded. 

• Section 300.415(b)(2)(ii) Actual or potential contamination of drinking water supplies or 

sensitive ecosystems: 

There is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater plume associated with the former 

Dredge Cell or Ash Pond. Sensitive aquatic ecosystems that existed in the Swan Pond Embayment prior 

to the ash release (approximately 2.58 acres of wetlands) were virtually eliminated by the release. 

Wetland areas were typically associated with the shoreline margins, floodplain, small islands, and coves 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

6 

at the head of the embayment. These wetlands included a mix of forested shrub/scrub and emergent 

wetlands. The ash release eliminated these wetlands. 

• Section 300.415(b)(2)(v) Weather conditions that may cause hazardous substances or pollutants 

or contaminants to migrate or be released and, 

• Section 300.415(b)(2)(viii) Other situations or factors that may pose threats to public health or 

welfare of the United States or the environment: 

Although several steps have been taken to contain the ash in the Swan Pond Embayment (namely, Dike 2, 

clean water ditches, and settling basins), stormwater runoff during high precipitation or flooding events 

may exceed system capacity, resulting in potential migration of the ash into the Emory River. Direct 

contact between ash material in the embayment and water flowing through the embayment area into 

Watts Bar Reservoir may cause hazardous substances to migrate or be released into the Emory River. 

Similarly, erosion of ash and its constituents from the embayment or Dredge Cell into affected waters 

may occur during such times. 

IV. PROPOSED ACTION 

A. PROPOSED ACTIONS 

The proposed actions listed below have been developed in coordination with the TDEC and EPA. These 

actions are designed to remove the remaining ash in the Swan Pond Embayment and permanently close 

the failed Dredge Cell and Ash Pond (including the Lateral Expansion area). These actions will minimize 

the potential for direct contact with human or ecological receptors exposed to the ash, direct contact with 

water flowing through the embayment, or migration from the embayment due to erosion. Material placed 

in the Dredge Cell for the test embankment will remain in the Dredge Cell. An Engineering 

Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) has been prepared that evaluated alternative response actions with 

respect to their effectiveness, implementability, and cost (Jacobs 2010). The proposed action is to 

implement Alternative 3b, as evaluated in the EE/CA. Figure 2 presents a layout and cross-sectional 

sketch showing the end-state of the proposed action. A removal action work plan will be developed to 

implement the actions described below. 

1. Proposed Action Description 

Infrastructure. Ash from two outlying areas in the north embayment will be consolidated to a more 

centralized area where it can be dried and graded. Ash outside of the dirty water ditch along the western 

border of the north embayment will be excavated to isolate freshwater springs that flow into the ditch. A 

steel and concrete bridge will be constructed on Swan Pond Circle Road to allow trucks hauling ash to 

pass beneath the road; this will allow construction-related traffic to pass between the north and middle 

embayment areas without crossing Swan Pond Circle Road. A new haul road will be constructed from 

Swan Pond Circle Road across the middle embayment to the current East/West Haul Road. 

Excavate the Swan Pond Embayment. Much of the ash in the Swan Pond Embayment is expected to be 

retrievable with excavators, dozers, and trucks. Admixtures, such as lime or other proprietary materials, 

may be used to help dry the ash so that it is retrievable. The ash will be piled, dewatered (dried) if 

needed, and when dry enough, transported to the onsite disposal areas. Trees that are retrieved either 

within the ash or that are removed will be chipped and either used onsite to stabilize the surface of the ash 

to support trucks or sent offsite for disposal. Periodically, disturbed ash will be sprayed with a 

component like Flexterra® to control dust. 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

7 

Ash that is too wet to remove with traditional land-based equipment may be dredged from the embayment 

using a small dredge. The dredged material will be piped to the existing Rim Ditch, where the same 

processing system as used during the time-critical removal action will be used (Rim Ditch, Sluice Trench, 

Ash Pond, Stilling Pond). Discharges from the Stilling Pond will comply with the existing National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Any dredged ash will be recovered from the 

Rim Ditch/Sluice Trench, then processed on the Ash Processing Area (“Ball Field”) to allow it to dry 

sufficiently before being trucked back to the onsite disposal areas. 

Remove Clean Water Ditches. A series of clean water ditches were installed during the time-critical 

removal action to bypass upgradient surface water around the ash. Nearly 5,900 linear ft of ditches, 4-ft 

deep and 16 to 20 ft across were constructed through the north and middle portions of the Swan Pond 

Embayment. At least one side of the ditch is made of ash and is covered in rock. This portion of the 

ditch, including the overlying rock, will be removed so as to remove the underlying ash. The rock will be 

disposed onsite with the ash, or cleaned and re-used onsite. 

Remove Dike 2 and Settling Basins. Dike 2 is a temporary rock dike comprised of shot rock, riprap, 

and smaller-sized rock saturated with ash. The dike is approximately 1,400-ft long with an average height 

of 12 ft and average width of 30 ft at the top. The dike has served as a barrier to prevent ash from 

moving into the Emory River from the embayment and to serve as a haul road. Immediately adjacent to 

Dike 2 are several settling basins that serve as a treatment system for water that migrates over ash. 

Roughly 5 acres are used for the basins, which are lined with rock. 

Both the dike and the settling basins must remain in service until the last of the ash is removed west of 

Dike 2. At that time, the rock and any accumulated sediment will be removed and transported to the 

onsite disposal area. Some of the larger rock may be washed of ash so that the clean rock may be used for 

onsite drainage and erosion control. 

Restore Embayment Ecosystem. Following the removal of ash from the areas west of Dike 2, the 

embayment ecosystem will be restored to pre-spill conditions, as best determined from a jurisdictional 

assessment based on analysis of existing data and site observations, data collected from surrounding 

reference communities in a similar geomorphic position, and best professional judgment. The 

requirements for a jurisdictional assessment include maps of the site prior to the spill and following the 

non-time-critical removal action, areas/species/habitat impacted, habitat created or revegetated with 

selected species, channel slopes, and similar elements. The pre-spill topography of the embayment 

shoreline and surrounding areas will be reconstructed to an elevation that supports native plant 

communities. Restoration will incorporate the following actions: 

• Achieving suitable elevations within the floodplain necessary to support the restoration of a complex 

mosaic of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetland plant communities. This includes the 

restoration of floodplain microtopography and wetland hydrology (i.e., constructed vernal pools) that 

historically provided important off-channel, seasonal, aquatic habitat for amphibians, birds, and other 

semi-aquatic species. 

• Restoring the island that was historically located on the northern perimeter of the middle embayment. 

The island was likely an aquatic habitat feature important to fish and other aquatic species. 

Restoration will include filling and/or regrading to establish pre-spill topography. 

• Characterizing the bottom sediments exposed by excavation/dredging or filling/regrading for organic 

content and moisture retention capacities to determine if soil amendments will be necessary to 

support the restoration of native plant communities. Hydric soils were identified in the wetland 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

8 

ecosystems surrounding the embayment. Given that the embayment appears subject to high sediment 

deposition, the bottom substrate of the embayment is expected to reestablish naturally. 

The final planting will restore a complex mosaic of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetland plants. 

Figure 3 presents a conceptual cross-section of the restored embayment, with reference to different native 

plant communities. Species composition and densities of restored plant communities will be based upon 

previously collected data within the embayment area, as well as data collected from surrounding reference 

communities in a similar geomorphic position. 

Install Perimeter Containment. The foundation beneath the perimeter berms will be stabilized by 

constructing a grid of soil/cement columns that are installed using deep soil mixing techniques. Figure 4 

presents a conceptual cross-section and plan view of the stabilized foundation zone. Selected foundation 

zones will be stabilized by mechanically mixing in-situ soil materials with a cement grout slurry using a 

hollow-stem paddle mixer. Auger drilling equipment will be used to create a soil/cement column. 

Successive columns will then be installed to create a contiguous subsurface “wall” of soil/cement. These 

walls will then be configured into the required grid pattern. The conceptual foundation zones, to be 

refined during final design, are anticipated to vary from 15-ft to 130-ft wide. A working platform, 

consisting of layers of geogrid, sand, and stone, will be built along the perimeter berm prior to stabilizing 

the underlying foundation material. A ditch will be constructed around the perimeter of the Dredge Cell 

and Ash Pond to divert surface drainage away from the site and to control runoff from the site. 

Construct Working Platform/Stack Ash. A working platform, consisting of layers of geogrid, sand, and 

stone, will be constructed across the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond before dry ash is stacked to serve as a 

capillary break, and to provide a stable working base for construction equipment. Dried ash (near 

optimum moisture content) will be placed in relatively thin lifts, and each lift will be compacted. 

Grade Dredge Cell. The former Dredge Cell will be regraded to a peak elevation of approximately 790 

ft mean sea level (msl). The regrading will occur over time and will be coordinated with the construction 

of the working platform for the new perimeter berm and closure of the Ash Pond. 

Cover Dredge Cell and Ash Pond. A soil cover will be placed to control erosion, control dust 

generation, promote runoff and evapotranspiration, limit infiltration, and provide a surface for vegetative 

growth. A layer of clay and then topsoil will be placed over the entire area and contoured. Other lowpermeability caps, such as a composite clay liner system, may also be used. Once the cover reaches final 

grade, it will be seeded and mulched. 

Monitoring. Because ash will remain in the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond area, the groundwater underneath 

the cell and surface water flowing from the cell will be monitored quarterly for at least one year or until 

the results indicate stable conditions. Once stable conditions are confirmed for four quarters, the 

monitoring will be reduced to semi-annually for the 30-year post-closure monitoring. A permanent 

network of groundwater wells will be installed and monitored for metals and radionuclides. The 

containment system as well as the drainage systems will be periodically inspected. Monitoring and 

inspection results will be documented in a five-year review report to ensure the remedy remains effective 

and adequately protective of human health and the environment over the long-term. Air and surface 

water monitoring will be conducted during implementation of the removal action. 

Institutional Controls. The Dredge Cell and Ash Pond area will be maintained as a disposal location for 

the foreseeable future. Under Tennessee solid waste regulations, access to the cell will be controlled. 

Institutional controls in the form of restrictive covenants will be recorded on the property in order to 

prohibit exposure to the contents of the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond disposal areas and to protect the 

integrity of the perimeter containment, cover, and other components of the remedy. Institutional controls 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

9 

will also include a “Notice in Deed to Property” that will be recorded on the property pursuant to TDEC 

1200-1-07-.04(8)(f) for the purpose of notifying persons that the property has been used as a disposal 

facility and its use is restricted in accordance with an approved closure/post-closure plan. 

In addition the following existing plans will be revised to make them applicable to non-time-critical 

removal activities: 

• Site Health and Safety Plan, 

• Site Storm Water Management Plan, 

• Site Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan, and 

• Surface Water Monitoring Plan for the Emory, Clinch, and Tennessee Rivers. 

2. Rationale for Selection of the Proposed Action 

TVA has selected the proposed action based on careful consideration of multiple factors, as evaluated in 

the EE/CA. The proposed action, which consists of the removal of ash from the embayment with onsite 

disposal in the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond, offers the best tradeoff of effectiveness, implementability, and 

cost remedy evaluation criteria. The following summarizes the key considerations in selecting this action. 

a. The proposed action is effective in meeting each of the removal action objectives (RAOs). 

RAOs have been identified in the EE/CA to mitigate the threat or potential threat to the public or 

the environment as a result of the spilled ash in the Swan Pond Embayment. These threats or 

potential threats, as listed in Section III of this Action Memorandum, were evaluated in the 

screening-level human health and ecological risk assessments in the EE/CA, which indicated 

potential risk to human and ecological receptors due to exposure to naturally-occurring metals 

and radionuclides in the ash. The RAOs also reflect the mid-term strategic objectives of the site 

as defined in the AOC. The following describe how the proposed action meets each of the RAOs. 

i. Minimize direct contact between ash material in the embayment and water flowing 

through the embayment area into Watts Bar Reservoir. By removing the ash from the 

embayment, direct contact between ash and water is eliminated, which effectively 

eliminates further migration of ash-laden sediment or surface runoff into the reservoir. 

Ash removal by both mechanical excavation and dredging has been shown to be effective 

during the time-critical removal action in the eastern embayment (east of Dike 2), based 

on results of visual observations of the excavation surface and examination of 

soil/sediment cores using polarized light microscopy. 

ii. Minimize migration of ash and its constituents from the embayment, Dredge Cell, or 

Ash Pond into affected waters due to erosion. By removing ash from the embayment 

and capping of the ash during closure of the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond, erosion and 

transport of ash-laden runoff is eliminated, which effectively eliminates further migration 

of ash-laden sediment or surface runoff to the reservoir. The final 36-inch thick clay, 

soil, and vegetative cover over the ash will be graded and will have drainage facilities 

that will be effective in minimizing erosion of cover material, optimizing drainage, and 

are consistent with drainage in the surrounding area. 

iii. Minimize direct contact exposure by human or ecological receptors to ash on the 

ground. By removing the ash from the embayment and capping the ash in the Dredge 

Cell and Ash Pond, direct contact by both human and ecological receptors is eliminated. 

The cover will be effective in eliminating direct contact exposure, and will provide 

sufficient thickness against dust generation or burrowing. 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

10 

iv. Restore the embayment to pre-spill conditions. By removing the ash from the 

embayment, and reestablishing pre-spill topography, plant communities, and habitat for 

fish, semi-aquatic amphibians, and bird species, the embayment will be restored to prespill conditions. The restoration of a complex mosaic of forested, scrub-shrub, and 

emergent wetlands along the embayment shorelines will be effective in establishing a 

riparian zone that will encourage natural repopulation of native faunal groups. 

v. Close the former Dredge Cell in accordance with Tennessee Solid Waste Rule 

1200-1-7. The proposed action includes closure of both the Dredge Cell and adjacent Ash 

Pond in accordance with TDEC solid waste regulations. The proposed action will be in 

full compliance with these applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). 

Furthermore, the former Dredge Cell and Ash Pond will be closed by installing a safe and 

structurally-sound perimeter containment system, as described below, to prevent any 

future release of ash from the closed facility.

vi. Dispose of waste streams from the removal action in accordance with ARARs. By 

disposing of the ash from the embayment in the on-site Dredge Cell and Ash Pond, waste 

streams will be disposed in accordance with TDEC regulations. Dry stacking of the ash 

in compacted lifts will be effective in providing a safe, stable fill with suitable shear 

strength and limited long-term settlement. Construction activities will be effectively 

implemented onsite to control fugitive dust emissions, erosion, and sedimentation in 

compliance with TDEC 1200-3-8 and TDEC 1200-4-10. Excavated ash will be 

characterized, managed, and disposed in compliance with 40 CFR 262.11 and TDEC 

1200-1-11. As indicated above, closure will be in accordance with TDEC 1200-1-7.

Public comments on the EE/CA indicated a concern over groundwater remediation if ash were to 

be disposed onsite (see the Responsiveness Summary in Attachment B). However, groundwater 

remediation was specifically not identified as an RAO for the following reasons: 

• There is no identified groundwater plume. As described in Section II above, groundwater 

samples have been collected at least semiannually from monitoring wells surrounding the 

Dredge Cell and routinely analyzed for 16 metals and flouride. Since the ash release, 2 

out of 40 samples exceeded the MCL for arsenic; those two samples were from well AD2 at the south end of the Ball Field in June and July 2009. However, subsequent monthly 

sampling of well AD-2 over the past 7 months has shown that arsenic does not exceed the 

MCL in that well. Historically (over the past 10 years), arsenic concentrations in one 

well (6A) exceeded its MCL 6 out of 27 times; however the highest historical 

concentration (0.014 mg/L in December 2004) only slightly exceeded the MCL in that 

one well and since the spill, arsenic has not exceeded the MCL. Arsenic concentrations 

in other wells have not exceeded the MCL. Concentrations do not indicate either an 

increasing or decreasing trend. Historically, silver has occasionally been detected in one 

well (6A) at concentrations that exceed its MCL of 0.10 mg/L. However, in 2007 TDEC 

granted a site-specific standard of 0.18 mg/L for silver in recognition of the fact that 

silver is present in natural soil and groundwater sources, but is absent in ash. Therefore 

there is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater plume associated with 

the former Dredge Cell or Ash Pond. 

• Metals in the ash do not leach readily under site-specific conditions. Several lines of 

evidence support this conclusion. First, groundwater quality does not exceed drinking 

water standards after more than 50 years of the ash being in contact with groundwater. 

This overall evidence, which integrates the effects of site-specific geochemical, 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

11 

hydrostratigraphic, and leaching characteristics, demonstrates that ash does not leach 

readily. Second, an EPA Science Panel review of potential selenium issues after the ash 

spill concluded that metals are not readily leaching off the ash particles spilled into the 

river, based on available surface water monitoring data. None of the downstream median 

concentrations of dissolved metals were found to be above the water quality criteria 

benchmarks for protection of aquatic life. Third, the U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center (ERDC) tested samples of ash taken from the Dredge Cell, Emory 

River, and Stilling Pond using sequential extraction procedures designed to remove 

metals from the ash with increasingly more “aggressive” solvents. Results of that study 

demonstrated that site-specific metals (such as arsenic and selenium) would not easily 

become mobile in normal aqueous environments, that is, they do not readily leach from 

the ash. Fourth, results of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) testing of 

ash samples for waste characterization purposes have shown that the TCLP leachate does 

not exceed threshold limits and that the ash is not a hazardous waste. This provides 

indirect evidence that the ash does not readily leach metals. Public comments on the 

EE/CA (see the Responsiveness Summary in Attachment B) suggest that alternate 

leaching procedures developed in EPA research studies could result in greater leaching of 

metals. However, such alternate procedures subject the ash to harsh pH conditions that 

are not representative of site-specific pH and redox conditions. 

• Hydrostratigraphic conditions at the site mitigate transport (migration) of metals from the 

Dredge Cell to groundwater discharging at the river. A silty clay layer underlies the ash 

that has a thickness of approximately 10 ft and a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 

1.9×10-6 cm/sec, which acts as a barrier to metal migration. Shallow groundwater 

movement is generally from upland areas toward the river, resulting in upward hydraulic 

gradients beneath the Dredge Cell, which impedes downward metal migration. It should 

be noted that the conceptual design for the Dredge Cell closure includes installation of a 

soil-cement perimeter foundation treatment zone that will impede lateral groundwater 

flow. The conceptual design for the Dredge Cell also includes a low-permeability clay 

cap over the ash, which will reduce infiltration of precipitation through the ash by an 

order of magnitude (14 inches/yr to 1.4 inches/yr) and reduce the rate of leachate 

generation. 

For these reasons, groundwater remediation has not been identified as an RAO. Several public 

comments on the EE/CA (see the Responsiveness Summary in Attachment B) suggest that a liner 

and/or leachate collection system should be included in the closure design. However, because 

there is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater plume associated with the 

former Dredge Cell or Ash Pond, metals do not readily leach from the ash, and hydrostratigraphic 

conditions impede metal migration, no liner or leachate collection system is warranted to protect 

human health or the environment. It should be noted, that up to 40 ft of ash will remain below 

grade, beneath the groundwater table, so that ash will remain in contact with the groundwater as it 

has for the past 50 years. It is unnecessary to install a synthetic liner beneath that ash and it would 

be ineffective to install a synthetic liner on top of that ash, prior to dry ash stacking. For these 

reasons, neither a liner nor a leachate collection system are included in the conceptual closure 

design. 

It should be noted that the river system will be addressed in a separate EE/CA and Action 

Memorandum following additional investigation to confirm geochemical conditions and leaching 

characteristics for modeling fate and transport of metals and radionuclides to the river. Future 

sampling and analysis plans for characterization of the river system include additional leaching 

tests, hydraulic conductivity tests, geochemical and geotechnical tests, additional wells, and 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

12 

sampling of groundwater at the shoreline, in sediment porewater and in epibenthic water 

immediately above the bottom of the river. This investigation will be used in quantitative fate 

and transport modeling to evaluate the flux of constituents to the river and to assess risks to 

human and ecological receptors. . 

b. The proposed action is effective in safely containing the ash. The perimeter berm, foundation 

stabilization system, and ash fill will be effective and stable over the long term, so that the closed 

Dredge Cell will not present a threat of future release. Analysis of the conceptual berm stability 

under static loading conditions resulted in safety factors greater than 1.5, which are indicative of 

stable conditions. The conceptual berm configuration and foundation design effectively address 

the four contributing factors cited by AECOM in their root cause analysis of the former dike 

failure: 

i. Fill Geometry. The former failed dike was constructed using small dikes stacked 

progressively up slope on top of nearly 80 feet of sluiced ash and a sensitive silt 

(“slimes”) layer. Total height of the dikes that surrounded the former Dredge Cell prior 

to its failure was elevation 820 ft msl. The proposed action will reconstruct the perimeter 

containment using a single compacted earthen berm placed on a crushed rock working 

platform. The perimeter berm will be built to a height of 765 ft msl; the Dredge Cell will 

be built to a maximum elevation of approximately 790 ft msl, which is 30 ft lower than 

the former Dredge Cell prior to its failure. 

ii. Fill Rates. The elevation of the ash in the former Dredge Cell prior to failure was 

increasing at a rate of about 6 ft/yr, more rapidly compared to earlier years, which added 

load to the wet ash beneath the dikes. In particular, filling resulted in loose, wet ash 

saturated throughout its depth, which led to high porewater pressures at depth and low 

strength in the sluiced ash materials. The proposed action will reconstruct the cell fill by 

dry stacking using dewatered ash, compacted in thin lifts. Results of the test 

embankment have shown that such construction methods do not result in excess 

porewater pressures in the foundation ash materials under a controlled and monitored rate 

of filling. 

iii. Foundation Soils. Creep deformations within the submerged loose slimes was occurring 

under the load of loose wet ash in the former Dredge Cell, which caused a reduction in 

the strength of the slimes and led to deep-seated failure of the dike. The proposed action 

will reinforce the perimeter berm foundation with soil-cement columns that will not rely 

on the strength of the soft foundation soil layer for stability, but will instead transfer the 

load substantially to the soil-cement columns. The foundation ash/soil layers beneath the 

perimeter berm will be mixed in-place with cement grout, to achieve a specified strength. 

The foundation improvements will be designed to support the internal pressures from the 

landfilled ash, even if a strong earthquake were to liquefy the saturated ash/soil layers 

beneath the ash fill. 

iv. Ash Fill. The original sluiced ash was deposited under water, resulting in a high void 

ratio (very loose ash) that did not consolidate or densify under the surcharge weight of 

ash placed above it. As a result, the loose wet ash had a low undrained shear strength 

with a very sensitive structure. The proposed action will reconstruct the cell fill above 

current grades using dewatered ash, compacted in thin lifts on top of a constructed 

working platform that serves as a capillary break. Results of the test embankment study 

have shown that the shear strength of the compacted dry ash is much greater than loose 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

13 

wet ash. The moisture content of the dry ash will be at the optimum level to achieve a 

specified shear strength. 

The test embankment program was successful in demonstrating that stable embankments can be 

constructed across the Dredge Cell subgrade. The results verified key design parameters, 

including settlements, horizontal displacements, porepressures, strength, and drainage from the 

ash fill. The results also verified key construction methodology, including control of moisture 

content, compaction, daily lift thickness and filling rates, and erosion control. Successful 

completion of the test embankment program was primarily attributed to use of a working 

platform, geotechnical instrumentation and evaluation, moisture conditioning, embankment 

geometry and surface runoff, and erosion control. The test embankment results will be used as a 

basis for embankment design and construction. 

For these reasons, the perimeter berm, foundation stabilization system, and ash fill will be 

effective and stable over the long term. 

c. The proposed action minimizes offsite transportation and disposal impacts. By disposing of 

the ash onsite, the proposed action will virtually eliminate inherent short-term risks associated 

with shipment of ash over public roadways or railways and will eliminate uncertainties in 

implementing offsite disposal. The following describe the reasons why onsite disposal is 

preferred over offsite disposal. 

i. Transportation risks. If ash were to be shipped offsite, short-term risks of railroad 

incidents or rail-vehicle intersection accidents would be proportionate to the number of 

trip-miles. Offsite transport of more than 2.8 million cy of ash would result in nearly 

125,000 trip-miles by rail alone. Transportation risk calculations presented in the EE/CA 

indicate that an estimated 1 rail accident, 0.8 rail injuries, and 0.4 rail fatalities could 

occur. Hauling a portion of the ash by truck would reduce potential rail transportation 

risks, but increase the truck transportation risks accordingly. Offsite shipment of ash 

would involve more than 380 trains hauling for 19 months, which would result in 

continued disruption of local traffic and inconvenience to local residents. Greater 

volumes of offsite shipment would result in even higher transportation risks. Offsite 

shipments implemented during the time-critical removal action have received 

considerable objection from local residents. Several public comments on the EE/CA (see 

the Responsiveness Summary in Attachment B) expressed concern regarding truck 

hauling due to the increased danger of traffic and potential damage to area roadways. 

Onsite disposal will minimize these transportation risks. 

ii. Acceptability of offsite disposal. Public opposition to use of a particular permitted 

disposal facility would complicate implementability of offsite disposal. Several public 

comments on the EE/CA (see the Responsiveness Summary in Attachment B) expressed 

concern over continued offsite disposal at the Arrowhead Landfill. Environmental 

Justice concerns were raised as to the public health, socioeconomic, and equity 

implications of continuing to dispose of ash from the non-time-critical action in a lowincome and minority community. Landfill operation concerns were raised as to the 

ability of offsite landfills accepting coal ash to handle the specific regulatory and 

management controls needed. Operational concerns included control of air quality and 

fugitive dust, leachate treatment, surface water quality, and groundwater quality. These 

concerns and public opposition regarding the Arrowhead Landfill would likely be present 

if other permitted offsite disposal facilities were to be used. TVA does not have the 

ability to control the waste management practices at commercial offsite disposal 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

14 

facilities. Onsite disposal will eliminate these concerns regarding acceptability of offsite 

disposal. 

Several public comments on the EE/CA (see the Responsiveness Summary in Attachment B) 

expressed a preference that all ash be removed from the area, not only the ash from the 

embayment, but all the ash remaining on the site, so as to achieve a vision for the site that is 

entirely free of ash. However, offsite disposal of such large quantities of material would have 

even greater negative impacts to the community due to long-term shipments, and would further 

compound the problems discussed above regarding transportation risks, disposal capacity, and 

acceptability. Onsite disposal will protect the health of local residents and persons that use the 

river and avoid significant offsite transportation and disposal risks. 

d. The proposed action results in comparable time to achieve RAOs. The proposed action is 

expected to be complete in less than 5 years, including final closure of both the Dredge Cell and 

Ash Pond. Closure will occur in phases, and must be carefully coordinated with the dry ash 

conversion project, dredged ash dewatering operations, and long-term wastewater management 

facilities needed to support the operating power plant. The time to complete the action is not 

substantially different from other alternatives that were considered. Although offsite disposal 

could likely be completed in less than 4 years, TVA does not consider the difference in these 

duration estimates to outweigh the disadvantages of offsite transportation and disposal. 

e. The proposed action is the most cost-effective. The proposed action is estimated to cost the 

least of the alternatives considered, primarily due to the high cost of offsite transportation and 

disposal associated with the other alternatives. Long-term operation and maintenance costs are 

expected to be the same for all alternatives. This lower estimated cost, combined with the lower 

transportation and disposal risk and the effectiveness in meeting RAOs and safely containing the 

ash, provides the best tradeoff of effectiveness, implementability, safety, time, and cost among 

the alternatives considered. Several public comments on the EE/CA (see the Responsiveness 

Summary in Attachment B) expressed a preference for a lower cost approach that would have the 

least impact on electric rate payers in the region. 

3. Contribution to Remedial Performance 

The proposed removal action will address the threats discussed in Section III, in accordance with the 

removal criteria of NCP Section 300.415(b)(2). The removal action contemplated in this Action 

Memorandum is consistent with future remedial actions that are anticipated at the Site. A Preliminary 

Assessment will be conducted at the completion of the removal work to address whether additional 

assessment or remedial work is necessary to address any residual contamination remaining at the Site, 

predominantly within the river system. 

4. Description of Alternative Technologies 

The use of alternative technologies is not anticipated at this time. For low-level threat waste found at 

metals-in-soil sites, the EPA presumptive remedy is containment, although excavation with disposal and 

other institutional controls have also been used. The proposed removal action will use a combination of 

these presumptive remedy technologies. 

The EE/CA presented an evaluation of alternative technologies for the embayment/Dredge Cell, including 

phytoremediation, separation by screening or sieving, electrokinetic separation, soil washing, chemical 

extraction, immobilization, and vitrification. These other technologies are not considered cost-effective 

nor implementable at this site. 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

15 

The EE/CA also presented an evaluation of other alternatives for the embayment/Dredge Cell. One 

alternative would have excavated the ash and other materials in the embayment and disposed of this 

material offsite. A berm would have been installed to keep ash in the Dredge Cell from entering the 

embayment in the future and the Dredge Cell would have been graded for drainage. The height of the 

closed cell would have been approximately 790 ft msl. The embayment would have been restored to an 

aquatic and riparian environment. The actions under this alternative would have been designed to avoid 

returning any spilled ash back into the Dredge Cell and to close the remainder of the Dredge Cell in place. 

This alternative was not selected because of the large volume of material (more than 2.8 million cy) that 

would have been transported by rail and/or truck offsite, corresponding transportation risks, and 

uncertainties in acceptability of the final disposal site. This alternative would not have provided any 

greater environmental protectiveness, yet would have resulted in capital costs that are 60% higher than the 

selected action. 

Another alternative would have excavated the ash and other materials in the embayment, plus enough ash 

from the Dredge Cell to limit long-term reliance on a dike between the cell and the embayment, yet would 

have left enough ash to provide buttressing for the remaining dikes. The removed material would have 

been disposed offsite. The Dredge Cell would have been graded to a gradual slope, with a maximum 

height of the closed cell of approximately 780 ft msl at its highest point, although most of the Dredge Cell 

would have been below elevation 765 ft msl. The embayment would have been restored to an aquatic and 

riparian environment. The actions under this alternative would have been designed to minimize longterm reliance on a dike containment system by removing much of the ash from the Dredge Cell above the 

surrounding ground level. This alternative was not selected because of the very large volume of material 

(more than 6.8 million cy) that would have been transported offsite, primarily by rail, corresponding very 

high transportation risks, and high uncertainties in the acceptability of the final disposal site. This 

alternative would not have provided any greater environmental protectiveness, yet would have resulted in 

capital costs that are 160% higher than the selected action. 

Another alternative, similar to the selected action, would have excavated the ash and other materials in the 

embayment and placed them fully in the Dredge Cell, which would have been closed as part of the 

removal action. The adjoining Ash Pond would have been closed at a later date, which would have 

avoided complications in project phasing needed to coordinate closure of the Ash Pond with completion 

of dredging and with the KIF dry ash conversion project. This alternative was not selected because 

closing the two areas separately would have resulted in greater time and cost, primarily due to closing the 

Ash Pond at a later date and increasing the foundation stabilization needed for perimeter berm 

construction. This alternative would have resulted in capital costs that are 15% higher than the selected 

action. 

Several other options were considered, but not retained as alternatives, as explained in the EE/CA. Those 

options included leaving all materials within the embayment and either covering them in-place or placing 

a liner beneath them; excavating all ash from the embayment and replacing with clean fill dirt; excavating 

all ash from the embayment and placing them in a new onsite lined landfill, and excavating all ash from 

both the embayment and the entire Dredge Cell. 

5. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) 

The EE/CA for the embayment/Dredge Cell (Jacobs 2010) is available in the Administrative Record, 

available at the TVA Outreach Center, the Kingston Public Library, the Harriman Public Library, and 

online at www.tva.com/kingston and www.epakingstontva.com. The EE/CA was issued for public 

comment on January 19, 2010. Following a 75-day public comment period, written responses to 

significant comments on the EE/CA were prepared. The Responsiveness Summary is attached to this 

Action Memorandum (Attachment B). 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

16 

6. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) 

Pursuant to the NCP, removal actions conducted under CERCLA are required to attain ARARs to the 

extent practicable, considering the exigencies of the situation. Waivers described in 40 CFR 300.430 may 

also be used for removal actions. This action is being conducted as a non-time-critical removal action. 

Pursuant to the AOC, restoration of area waters impacted by the coal ash release will be considered a 

remedial activity for purposes of complying with ARARs. Therefore, ARARs pertaining to such 

restoration shall be attained unless a waiver has been approved by EPA. A list of ARARs is attached to 

this Action Memorandum (Attachment C). 

Closure of the Dredge Cell will be in accordance with Tennessee Solid Waste Rule 1200-1-7, thereby 

complying with terms of the TDEC Commissioner’s Order. The final cover system will be at least 36 

inches thick, consisting of a compacted soil layer at least 24 inches thick which has a permeability no 

greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec, and a second soil layer at least 1-ft thick for the support of vegetative cover. 

An alternate final cover system may be used provided that it provides equivalent or superior performance 

in minimizing infiltration. The final surface will be graded and/or have drainage facilities that minimize 

erosion of cover material, optimize drainage, and are consistent with drainage in the surrounding area. 

Restoration of the embayment will restore waters of the state and the associated floodplain and wetland 

areas impacted by the ash in compliance with TDEC 1200-4-3 and associated ARARs. Removal of the 

ash will remove the naturally-occurring metals and radionuclides that could produce toxic effects on the 

health and safety of humans or animals. Water quality will be restored to meet AWQC in surface water 

within the embayment. Waters will therefore not contain residual pollutants from the ash that may impair 

the usefulness of the river water as a source of domestic or industrial water supply, recreation, or 

irrigation, or that may impair the health of fish or aquatic life. 

Pursuant to the AOC, TVA agrees that it will comply with Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines 

to restore waters of the United States to the functional level occurring prior to the ash release. In order to 

identify the full extent of response activities necessary to meet this ARAR, TVA will conduct a 

jurisdictional assessment of the Site, to the extent not previously evaluated, which will identify all waters 

of the United States impacted by the release. The jurisdictional assessment will be performed in 

accordance with the requirements of the AOC. 

Site preparation, construction, and excavation activities will be conducted in compliance with TDEC 

1200-3-8 and TDEC 1200-4-10, including precautions to control fugitive dust emissions, erosion, and 

sedimentation. Dredged material removed from the embayment will not be placed into an aquatic 

ecosystem, in compliance with 40 CFR 230.10(a). 

Excavated ash will be characterized, managed and disposed in compliance with 40 CFR 262.11 and 

TDEC 1200-1-11. Because ash will be disposed onsite, rules pertaining to offsite disposal or 

transportation of hazardous materials are not applicable. 

B. PROJECT SCHEDULE 

The proposed removal action will be implemented within an estimated 4.25 years following design of the 

removal action. Figure 5 shows a conceptual schedule for construction sequencing. A removal action 

work plan will be developed to provide more details on the anticipated productivity of the excavation, 

dredging, foundation stabilization, berm construction, ash stacking, and final cover construction. The 

schedule is highly dependent on weather and availability of specialty contractors. 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

17 

C. ESTIMATED COSTS

Capital costs associated with implementing the proposed removal action are estimated at $268.2 million 

(2009 dollars). Subsequent operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $686,000/year 

(2009 dollars). 

V. EXPECTED CHANGE IN THE SITUATION SHOULD ACTION BE DELAYED OR 

NOT TAKEN 

The timing of the decision on the embayment and Dredge Cell is important. The ongoing time-critical 

action is scheduled to be completed in spring 2010. Construction and transportation activities will have 

been underway for over a year to accomplish this goal. The remaining ash in the embayment will have 

been contained by constructing drainage features to separate clean water runoff from the ash. Although 

the clean water ditches have been designed for a 25-year recurrence interval, some of the drainage 

features in the embayment (sediment basins) have been sized for a storm event having only a 2-year 

recurrence interval; a delay in the decision would increase the risk of future ash releases during greater 

storm events. Implementation of the proposed removal action scope is needed by spring 2010 to allow for 

continuation of removal activities and smooth transition from time-critical to non-time critical actions. 

VI. OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES 

There are no outstanding policy issues. 

VII. ENFORCEMENT 

This action is being undertaken pursuant to an AOC between TVA and EPA. TVA is the lead Federal 

agency for this action. 

VIII. RECOMMENDATION 

This Action Memorandum is the decision document that represents the selected removal action for the 

restoration of the Swan Pond Embayment and closure of the Dredge Cell associated with the TVA KIF 

Release Site in Roane County, Tennessee. This Action Memorandum has been developed in accordance 

with CERCLA as amended, and is not inconsistent with the NCP. This decision is based on the 

Administrative Record for the site, available online at www.tva.com/kingston and 

www.epakingstontva.com. The Administrative Record is also available at the following locations: 

TVA Outreach Center 

509 N. Kentucky Street 

Kingston, Tennessee 

(865) 632-1700 

Kingston Public Library 

1004 Bradford Way 

Kingston, Tennessee 

(865) 376-9905 
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge Cell Action Memorandum EPA-AO-024 

18 

Harriman Public Library (computer disks) 

601 Walden Street 

Harriman, Tennessee 

(865) 882-3195 

IX. REFERENCES 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a (May 11). Administrative Order and Agreement on 

Consent, Docket No. CERCLA-04-2009-3766, Region 4. 

Jacobs 2010. (January 15). Kingston Ash Recovery Project, Non-Time-Critical Removal Action, 

Embayment/Dredge Cell, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) 2009 (January 12), Commissioner’s 

Order, Case No. OGC09-0001, Division of Water Pollution Control. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 2001. Material Safety Data Sheet, Class “F” Fly Ash, MSDS No. 

BP-001. 

TVA 2009a (March). Final Environmental Assessment, Emergency Dredging for the Kingston Fossil 

Plant Ash Dike Failure, Roane County, Tennessee. 

TVA 2009b (March 2). Corrective Action Plan for the TVA Kingston Fossil Plan Ash Release, Roane 

County, Tennessee. 

TVA 2009c (August 4). Action Memorandum: Request for Removal Action at the TVA Kingston Fossil 

Fuel Plant Release Site, Roane County, Tennessee. 

X. ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment A Figures 

Attachment B Responsiveness Summary 

Attachment C Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
ATTACHMENT A 

Figures 




Infrastructure

Excavation and DredgingExcavate Swan Pond Embayment-North

Excavate Swan Pond Embayment-CentralDredge Swan Pond Embayment-North

Dredge Swan Pond Embayment-CentralRemove Dike 2 & Settling Basins

Restore Ball FieldRestore Aquatic Environment

Perimeter ContainmentBuild Perimeter Containment-Dike CBuild Perimeter Containment-OtherBuild Perimeter Containment-Ash PondFilling and GradingFill North Dredge Cell

Fill Laterial Expansion AreaGrade Relic Area Dredge Cell

Fill Ash PondCover/ClosureCover North Dredge Cell

Cover Lateral Expansion AreaCover Relic Area Dredge Cell

Cover Ash Pond

FIGURE 5

CONCEPTUAL SCHEDULE FOR THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE

(Duration represented in months after start of non-time-critical action)

Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 
ATTACHMENT B 

Responsiveness Summary 
Page 1 of 57 

Summation of Comments Received and Response to Comments 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Kingston Ash Recovery Project 

Non-Time-Critical Removal Action, Embayment / Dredge Cell 

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) 

Public Comment Period January 19 – April 9, 2010 

An Administrative Order and Agreement on Consent was signed between the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and TVA on May 11, 2009 providing the regulatory 

framework for restoration efforts. Since that time, restoration efforts have been conducted as a 

time-critical removal action. The EE/CA for the embayment / Dredge Cell describes and 

evaluates alternatives for conducting a non-time-critical removal action to restore the 

embayment and close the Dredge Cell and adjacent Ash Pond. Three alternatives developed in 

the EE/CA are: 

Alternative 1 - Excavation of the embayment and off-site disposal. This alternative 

would remove the ash from the embayment and from the test embankment within the 

Dredge Cell and dispose of the ash offsite. A berm would be installed to keep ash in the 

cell from entering the embayment in the future, and the Dredge Cell would be graded for 

drainage and closed. The height of the closed cell would be approximately 790 feet (ft) 

above mean sea level (msl). A total of approximately 2.8 million cubic yards (cy) of 

removed material would be disposed offsite using rail transport. A subalternative (1b) 

would haul a portion of the ash offsite by truck for disposal. 

Alternative 2 - Excavation of the embayment and portions of the Dredge Cell, both 

with offsite disposal. This alternative would remove the ash from the embayment and 

test embankment, plus enough ash from the dredge cell to limit long-term reliance on a 

berm between the cell and the embayment. Enough ash would be left in the Dredge Cell 

to provide buttressing for the remaining berms. The Dredge Cell would be graded to a 

gradual slope and closed, with a maximum height of approximately 765 to780 ft msl at 

its highest point. A total of approximately 6.8 million cy of removed material would be 

disposed offsite using rail transport. A subalternative (2b) would haul a portion of the ash 

offsite by truck for disposal. 

Alternative 3 – Excavation of the embayment and on-site disposal in the Dredge 

Cell. This alternative would use the Dredge Cell as a disposal facility. No material would 

be taken offsite. The ash in the embayment would be removed and stacked in the 

dredge cell. Material placed in the cell for the test embankment would remain in the cell. 

A berm would be installed to keep ash in the cell from entering the embayment in the 

future, and the dredge cell would be graded for drainage and closed. The height of the 

closed cell would be approximately 790 to 800 ft msl. A subalternative (3b) would place 

some of the ash in the adjacent Ash Pond and close both the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond 

at the same time. 

A 30-day public comment period on the Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA report was initiated on 

January 19, 2010. The public comment period was extended by EPA to April 5, 2010. This 

Responsiveness Summary lists the comments received from the public by email or mail, and 

TVA’s responses to the comments. 
Page 2 of 57 

Some of the public comments on the EE/CA indicated a concern over groundwater remediation 

if ash were to be disposed onsite. However, groundwater remediation was specifically not 

identified as a Removal Action Objective (RAO) for the following reasons: 

• There is no identified groundwater plume. Groundwater samples have been collected 

semiannually from monitoring wells surrounding the Dredge Cell and routinely analyzed 

for 17 metals. Since the ash release, 2 out of 40 samples exceeded the Maximum 

Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic; those two samples were from well AD-2 at the 

south end of the Ball Field in June and July 2009. However, subsequent monthly 

sampling of well AD-2 over the past 7 months has shown that arsenic does not exceed 

the MCL in that well. Historically (over the past 10 years), arsenic concentrations in one 

well (6A) exceeded its MCL 6 out of 28 times; however the highest historical 

concentration (0.014 mg/L in December 2004) only slightly exceeded the MCL in that 

one well and since the spill, arsenic has not exceeded the MCL. Arsenic concentrations 

in other wells have not exceeded the MCL. Concentrations do not indicate either an 

increasing or decreasing trend. Historically, silver has occasionally been detected in one 

well (6A) at concentrations that exceed its MCL of 0.10 mg/L. However, in 2006 the 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) granted a site-specific 

standard of 0.18 mg/L for silver in recognition of the fact that silver is present in natural 

soil and groundwater sources, but is absent in ash. Therefore there is no identified 

groundwater contamination or groundwater plume associated with the former Dredge 

Cell or Ash Pond. 

• Metals in the ash do not leach readily under site-specific conditions. Several lines of 

evidence support this conclusion. First, groundwater quality does not exceed drinking 

water standards after more than 50 years of the ash being in contact with groundwater. 

This overall evidence, which integrates the effects of site-specific geochemical, 

hydrostratigraphic, and leaching characteristics, demonstrates that ash does not leach 

readily. Second, an EPA Science Panel review of potential selenium issues after the 

ash spill concluded that metals are not readily leaching off the ash particles spilled into 

the river, based on available surface water monitoring data. None of the downstream 

median concentrations of dissolved metals were found to be above the water quality 

criteria benchmarks for protection of aquatic life. Third, the U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center (ERDC) tested samples of ash taken from the 

Dredge Cell, Emory River, and Stilling Pond using sequential extraction procedures 

designed to remove metals from the ash with increasingly more “aggressive” solvents. 

Results of that study demonstrated that site-specific metals (such as arsenic and 

selenium) would not easily become mobile in normal aqueous environments, that is, they 

do not readily leach from the ash. Fourth, results of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP) testing of ash samples for waste characterization purposes have 

shown that the TCLP leachate does not exceed threshold limits and that the ash is not a 

hazardous waste. This provides indirect evidence that the ash does not readily leach 

metals. Public comments on the EE/CA (see the Responsiveness Summary in 

Attachment B) suggest that alternate leaching procedures developed in EPA research 

studies could result in greater leaching of metals. However, such alternate procedures 

subject the ash to harsh pH conditions that are not representative of site-specific pH and 

redox conditions. 

• Hydrostratigraphic conditions at the site mitigate transport (migration) of metals from the 

Dredge Cell to groundwater discharging at the river. A silty clay layer underlies the ash 

that has a thickness of approximately 10 ft and a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 
Page 3 of 57 

1.9×10-6 cm/sec, which acts as a barrier to metal migration. Shallow groundwater 

movement is generally from upland areas toward the river, resulting in upward hydraulic 

gradients beneath the Dredge Cell, which impedes downward metal migration. It should 

be noted that the conceptual design for the Dredge Cell closure includes installation of a 

soil-cement perimeter foundation treatment zone that will impede lateral groundwater 

flow. The conceptual design for the Dredge Cell also includes a low-permeability clay 

cap over the ash, which will reduce infiltration of precipitation through the ash by an 

order of magnitude (14 inches/yr to 1.4 inches/yr) and reduce the rate of leachate 

generation. 

For these reasons, groundwater remediation has not been identified as an RAO. 

Some of the public comments on the EE/CA suggest that a liner and/or leachate collection 

system should be included in the closure design. However, because there is no identified 

groundwater contamination or groundwater plume associated with the former Dredge Cell or 

Ash Pond, metals do not readily leach from the ash, and hydrostratigraphic conditions impede 

metal migration, no liner or leachate collection system is warranted to protect human health or 

the environment. It should be noted, that up to 40 ft of ash will remain below grade, beneath the 

groundwater table, so that ash will remain in contact with the groundwater as it has for the past 

50 years. It is unnecessary to install a synthetic liner beneath that ash and it would be 

ineffective to install a synthetic liner on top of that ash, prior to dry ash stacking. For these 

reasons, neither a liner nor a leachate collection system are included in the conceptual closure 

design. 

It should be noted that the river system will be addressed in a separate EE/CA and Action 

Memorandum following additional investigation to confirm geochemical conditions and leaching 

characteristics for modeling fate and transport of metals and radionuclides to the river. Future 

sampling and analysis plans for characterization of the river system include additional leaching 

tests, hydraulic conductivity tests, geochemical and geotechnical tests, additional wells, and 

sampling of groundwater at the shoreline, in sediment porewater and in epibenthic water 

immediately above the bottom of the river. This investigation will be used in quantitative fate 

and transport modeling to evaluate the flux of constituents to the river and to assess risks to 

human and ecological receptors. 

TVA has concluded that no comments were received that disclosed facts or considerations that 

indicate that the EE/CA is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. The EE/CA presents a range 

of alternatives and evaluates tradeoffs between them with respect to effectiveness, 

implementability, and cost evaluation criteria. Results of those evaluations are sufficient to 

support selection of a proposed action for the embayment restoration and Dredge Cell closure. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 4 of 57 

EE/CA Comments Received by email 

1) As a board member of Bowling Green Municipal Utilities, it is my recommendation that the 

cleanup of Kingston be completed with all ash remaining onsite and non-hauled. This is 

clearly the most economical and beneficial for our customers and appears to be the most 

logical from the research and review that I have viewed. 

Alex Nottmeier, CCIM, SIOR, Neal Turner Realty

1401 Scottsville Road, Bowling Green, KY 42104

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that all ash 

remain onsite and non-hauled and will take your recommendation under consideration 

during selection of the preferred removal action. 

2) To parties concerned, I personally feel the remaining coal ash be stored on an on-site 

storage facility. The steam plant has other areas safely stored and so do power plants all 

across the country. I feel TVA has done a remarkable job in the clean up procedures and I 

believe they will monitor their storage sites very closely in the future. Hauling the ash on the 

highways is a larger threat to the general public’s welfare than storing it in a safe place. 

Name withheld in confidence 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that all ash be 

stored onsite in a safe place and be closely monitored and will take your recommendation 

under consideration during selection of the preferred removal action. 

3) After reading and going over the options for ash removal or storage I would like to see 

alternate 3 put in place because of cost to customers as well as keeping the ash from the 

dangers of travel. 

Name withheld in confidence 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that Alternative 3 

be put in place due to cost and travel dangers and will take your recommendation under 

consideration during selection of the preferred removal action. 

4) This e-mail is in regards to the Kingston ash spill. I am strongly in favor of alternate 3. I think 

the ash should be stored on site. I think this is the best option environmentally and the most 

cost effective approach. 

Rody Blevins, rblevins@vec.org

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 3 

(ash stored on site) as an environmentally sound and cost-effective approach and will take 

your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal action. 

5) I reside in Kingston at 909 Neighborwood St. It is my input to utilize Alt. 3B for subject. 

W. Scott Woodlee, Volunteer Energy Cooperative, www.vec.org 

Decatur, TN 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that Alternative 3 

be utilized and will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the 

preferred removal action. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 5 of 57 

6) My wife and I favor Alternative #1. However, we also favor the project taking four additional 

months and be accomplished 100% by rail. Not only are our roads not good enough for that 

much truck traffic but most of those trucks would not be from Roane County. Thank you. 

William M. Griffin and Jean N. Griffin 

741 Bowman Bend Road, Harriman, TN 37748 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 1, 

with 100% shipment by rail due to road conditions and local economic considerations and 

will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal 

action. 

7) None of the alternatives addresses the potential for leaching and contaminant transport by 

groundwater. As such, all of the alternatives fail to meet the first of the Removal Action 

Objectives (RAOs) of the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) that states 

“Minimize direct contact between ash material in the embayment and water flowing through 

the embayment area into Watts Bar Reservoir.” Research on surface water-groundwater 

interaction within the Conasauga Group on the nearby Oak Ridge Reservation has 

demonstrated a close linkage between surface water and shallow groundwater systems. 

Because of this, the term “...water flowing through...” must be interpreted as including the 

shallow groundwater system. No features of any of the alternatives address any aspect of 

groundwater monitoring or groundwater containment/treatment. 

1. Characterization of the groundwater flow system at the Kingston coal ash site is totally 

inadequate. Therefore, the relative importance or non-importance of the groundwater 

exposure pathway for risk assessment is incomplete. Research at waste disposal areas 

on the nearby Oak Ridge Reservation underlain by the Conasauga Group (Melton Valley 

sites at ORNL and Bear Creek Valley sites at the Y-12 Plant) demonstrates that 

groundwater movement is strongly controlled by flow through fractures and is spatially 

anisotropic. Because of this, potential contaminant transport pathways are typically 

spatially restricted and cannot be adequately addressed without first identifying likely 

groundwater flowpaths. As such, data from sampling of surrounding wells is largely 

irrelevant to determining the potential nature and extent of any groundwater migration of 

coal ash contaminants unless such wells happen to located and completed in the 

appropriate geologic formation and flowpaths. A coherent analysis of groundwater flow 

conditions at the Kingston coal ash site must be completed before the protectiveness 

and adequacy of any of the alternatives can be determined. Because of this, should one 

of the alternatives be implemented, it must be recognized that the action may not be fully 

protective of human and ecological health, and that additional, potentially substantive 

actions may be required. 

2. Inspection of the engineering drawings in the EE/CA suggests that all of the alternatives 

leave some amount of coal ash in contact with the groundwater. As such, the potential 

for long-term leaching of contaminants from the ash must be investigated. While the 

EE/CA and information provided at public meetings provide scattered information 

regarding this topic, no coherent analysis of the leaching characteristics of the Kingston 

coal ash has been presented to date. Until such an analysis is forthcoming, the 

protectiveness of the alternatives must be considered unproven. For example, because 

of the potential for significant partitioning of contaminants among the various 

components of the ash, a statistically robust sampling of the heterogeneity of the fly ash 

for TCLP leach testing must be considered in a technically defensible analysis of the 

leachability of Kingston coal ash. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 6 of 57 

3. All of the alternatives leave significant quantities of coal ash in place. As such, they 

amount to leaving potentially hazardous material in place, without complete treatment. 

While the final status of coal ash with respect to it being classified as a hazardous waste 

has not been made at this time, all alternatives must include provision for such a future 

determination. 

Typical practices at RCRA and CERCLA sites for situations in which hazardous waste is 

left in place include at a minimum: (1) establishment of long-term monitoring programs 

to ensure adequate performance of the selected alternative; (2) establishment of a longterm management and operation fund, and mechanism to ensure proper maintenance of 

the remedy; (3) periodic review of the alternative and identification of a mechanism to 

implement contingency actions should the remedy be demonstrated to not be functioning 

as anticipated; and (4) posting of bond by the responsible part to ensure adequate 

funding to implement the previous steps. 

4. As proposed, all alternatives only serve to mitigate the inhalation risk of the ash and 

prevent the catastrophic dam failure and any resultant spill in the future. It does not 

necessarily address the pathway of contaminant ingestion. The EE/CA uses the current 

maximum contaminant limit (MCL) for arsenic of 10 μg/L. Yet, data suggest that this 

MCL may not be protective of human health. In June of 2000, the EPA proposed an 

MCL for arsenic as low as 5 μg/L using their own data, as well as other credible data 

sets. However, in January 2001, the EPA promulgated the current standard of 10 μg/L 

based on a cost/benefit analysis. The EPA stated that it would be too costly for smaller 

utilities to treat groundwater to the lower arsenic level. With this in mind, a robust 

monitoring program by an independent (certainly not TVA, and perhaps not EPA) 

agency becomes increasingly important for the Kingston ash spill. 

In summary, because all of the proposed alternatives leave coal ash waste in place and 

in hydrologic contact with the groundwater system, all of the alternatives are incomplete 

and should be rejected, as proposed, until substantive modifications are made. 

Minimum actions to be considered for addition to all of the alternatives in order to make 

them acceptable would include actions to address the issues raised in paragraphs 1 

through 4 above. 

Helen L. Haase, RPG, and C. Stephen Haase, PhD, RPG, helennsteve@highland.net 

 632 Catoosa Ridge Road, Rockwood, TN 37854 

 

TVA Response: Closure of the Dredge Cell will further reduce the potential for migration of 

metals to groundwater. Please see the Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary. 

In response to your specific comments: (1) Additional investigation is being planned as part 

of the river system Sampling and Analysis Plan; analysis of groundwater transport to the 

river system will be included in the EE/CA for the river system. This investigation will include 

paired piezometers and wells at multiple depths and hydrogeologic units (including the 

Conasauga shale bedrock) to provide quantitative modeling of groundwater flow. Additional 

monitoring of groundwater quality will also be conducted to address groundwater conditions 

vertically and laterally. Please note that, unlike sites on the Oak Ridge Reservation, 

groundwater beneath the former Dredge Cell and Ash Pond discharges directly to the Watts 

Bar Reservoir due to the presence of the Emory River and embayments surrounding the 

site. (2) It is correct that ash will remain onsite in contact with groundwater, as it has for 50 

years. Additional investigation for the river system will include leaching tests and modeling 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 7 of 57 

of the fate and transport through the ash and groundwater. Note that sampling of the ash 

has demonstrated that the ash is relatively homogenous, so that the partitioning of 

constituents can be appropriately modeled. (3) Results of TCLP testing of the ash have 

demonstrated that the ash is non-hazardous. TVA recognizes that on May 4, 2010, EPA 

published a proposed rule for coal combustion residuals, including coal ash. That proposed 

rule considers two possible options: one to regulate coal ash as special waste regulated 

under Subtitle C of RCRA, and the other to regulate it as non-hazardous waste under 

Subtitle D of RCRA. As neither option has been adopted and the rule has not been 

promulgated,TVA cannot speculate on what the final rule will require regarding classification 

of coal ash. Note that the fate and transport modeling to be conducted as part of the 

Sampling and Analysis for the river system does not depend on this classification status. (4) 

Please note that the human health risk assessment presented in the EE/CA did address 

ingestion of groundwater as a potential exposure pathway. Results of groundwater testing 

conducted since the ash spill have not shown exceedance of the MCL for arsenic of 10 ug/L. 

TVA cannot speculate on future changes in regulations regarding the promulgated MCL. 

Long-term post-closure care for the closed Dredge Cell and Ash Pond will be in accordance 

with TDEC rule 1200-1-7, which includes groundwater monitoring. TVA will be responsible 

for conducting and reporting the results of such monitoring to TDEC. 

8) In regard to the three options laid out by TVA. I believe that option 2 or 3 would provide the 

best result for area residences. I am concerned that TVA is the ONLY agency deciding 

which option is the best. There should be a joint decision by EPA, Tennessee Wildlife 

Management, and the Health Department. 

Name withheld in confidence 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 2 or 

3, and will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred 

removal action. Please note that, although TVA is the lead Federal agency, both EPA and 

TDEC are involved in deciding which option is preferred, and have been working jointly with 

TVA in this decision-making process. 

9) Dear Local, State and Federal Regulators and Administrators: Thank you for your availability 

and responses at the public meeting at the Roane County High School last night. 

 Confirming our public conversation in the question and answer period following the 

presentations, it is my understanding that air quality is a paramount consideration at the 

Kingston spill site because of the potential dangers to health of airborne coal ash. Leo 

Francendese elaborated at length about the extensive air quality monitoring systems and 

their backup systems which were used in a period when TVA failed to adequately provide air 

monitoring results. Steve McCracken with TVA described the multiple systems and 

practices in place to insure that coal ash particles do not become airborne. He also 

emphasized that TVA monitors air quality extensively and frequently at the Kingston spill 

site. Craig Zeller affirmed that if Alternative 3, on site disposal of the non-critical spill ash, 

were utilized, extensive air quality monitoring and preventive measures would be used to 

avoid airborne coal ash. When asked under what regulatory authority this monitoring and 

prevention was required, he answered EPA and CERCLA. 

 

As Alternative 3 in dealing with the remaining spill ash is onsite storage of coal ash, this 

method would seem to share some characteristics with a coal ash landfill. When asked 

what TDEC air quality regulations would apply to a coal ash landfill in Tennessee, Quincy 

Stykes with TDEC responded that landfills in Tennessee monitor for methane, that the 

national ambient air quality requirements apply, and that the there is a fugitive dust law. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 8 of 57 

 

As a property owner on Smith Mountain Road in Cumberland County, Tennessee where a 

coal ash landfill is proposed, I am concerned that air quality issues at coal ash landfills are 

not adequately regulated in Tennessee and that this should be a consideration of EPA, TVA, 

TDEC and health agencies. While exhaustive monitoring and prevention is taking place at 

Kingston with good results, and while considerations of scale do apply, there seems to be 

an absence of consideration of air quality issues when TVA ash is contracted off site for 

disposal. Among these considerations should be: a) appropriate siting of coal ash landfills, 

i.e. excluding windy sites such as near the top of Smith Mountain; extensive regulated 

monitoring of air quality and required preventive measures at a coal ash landfill; air quality 

monitoring on transportation routes. 

 

In addition to air quality issues associated with offsite coal ash landfills, transportation 

method and safety are obvious and apparently unregulated concerns. For example, the 

eight miles of narrow winding roads to the proposed coal ash landfill near the top of Smith 

Mountain pose a significant hazard from accidents and spills as up to 600 (applied for) coal 

ash trucks daily wind their way up and down the mountain during all daylight hours six days 

a week for years without end. 

 

Finally, TVA should begin to take continuing responsibility and liability for its waste product 

and not place that burden on communities which are often ill equipped to handle the 

complexity of the issue and the long term effects. Thank you all for your continuing 

communication with the public you serve. Your efforts are appreciated. 

Flo Hopkins, Fhopkins851@gmail.com 

581 Catoosa Ridge Rd, Rockwood, Tennessee 37854 

TVA Response: TVA will continue to implement measures to monitor air quality and control 

fugitive dust emissions at the site, particularly during ash handling or landfilling activities. If 

the decision were to be made to dispose of the retrieved ash offsite, TVA would safely 

dispose of that ash in permitted landfills that are operated in accordance with their 

respective operating permits, as governed by the respective state’s regulatory authority. Air 

quality regulations would be governed by that authority. Please note that transportation 

safety (accidents/spills) was evaluated in the EE/CA for those alternatives that would involve 

offsite disposal of the ash. TVA recognizes the concerns you have raised with respect to 

Smith Mountain and will only dispose of the ash retrieved under this non-time-critical 

removal action in an existing, permitted facility. 

10) I would pick alternative-3B it is the only one that makes sense to me. I have lived here all life 

and the ash has been here for fifty years. The ash has no effect on me I am sixty three 

years old and live about 3/4 of a mile from the ash. 

Name withheld in confidence 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 3B, 

and will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred 

removal action. 

11) I wish to provide my input on the EE/CA plan and the specific alternative I support for the 

remediation of the spill area. Alternative 3, with sub-option A or B certainly seems to make 

the most technological, ecological, and financial sense over the other alternatives from both 

a time to complete, transportation and cost perspective. Within alternative 3, I support suboption B because it completes the remediation in a shorter time and lowers the estimated 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 9 of 57 

cost $50 million. Additionally, it lowers the height of the remaining closed cell to 

approximately 30 feet above the ground versus sub-option A which results in a height of 45 

feet above the ground. As a long-time property tax paying resident of East Tennessee and a 

rate-payer on multiple TVA distributor accounts, I have a vested interest in the alternative 

chosen to complete the remediation. Consequently, I am making my selection based on all 

facets of the remediation and not just those that will promote a given social or political 

agenda. Completing the remediation using alternative 3B will not only return the area to its 

pre-spill condition, it will VASTLY improve it. Please consider my comments and my support 

for alternative 3B as you move forward.

Henry J Collins 

236 Ivy Gate Lane, Knoxville, TN 37934 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 3B 

because it completes the remediation I a shorter time, lower cost, and lower height. TVA will 

take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal 

action. 

12) This email is response to the request for public comment on the Non-Time-Critical Ash 

Removal. My choice for the ash removal would be Alternative 2. 

James D. Gann 

126 Indigo Bunting Dr., Harriman, TN 37748 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 2 and 

will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal 

action. 

13) The coal ash spill at the Kingston Steam Plant has changed the lives of many Roane 

Countians including me. I have been actively involved for over 14 months on two important 

committees which are working to help Roane County overcome the negative impact the ash 

spill has caused. Serving as vice chairman of the Roane County Advisory Group and also 

serving as a member of the Roane County Long Term Recovery Committee has given me a 

unique perspective of the views of residents all over the county and also those of the Swan 

Pond area. But today I am writing as a concerned member of this community and Roane 

County. I am very concerned with the long term effects the ash spill will have on Roane 

County. While I applaud the efforts that have been made to clean up the river I believe the 

only way for our county to come out from under the cloud which the ash spill has caused is 

for Roane County to be declared an “ash free” county. It is for this reason I am 

recommending Alternative 2 as the proper option to clean up the remainder of the ash spill. 

 

This option will provide the following: 

1. Reduced time of clean up because both rail and trucks will be used to transport the ash. 

2. Transporting the ash by truck to Chestnut Ridge landfill will provide a much needed 

economic stimulus for Roane County. It is only right to allow Roane County to benefit 

from this tragedy because we are the ones who have suffered because of the spill. 

3. Many merchants, including convenience stores, tire stores, auto parts stores and many 

others will benefit by the circulation of money in Roane County if Alternative 2 is chosen. 

 

Finally this option will allow Roane County to be promoted as an “ASH FREE” county which 

will allow us to come out of this tragedy stronger than we were before. Allowing the ash to 

remain on site is an option that I and I believe most Roane Countians find unacceptable. As 

a lifelong and 6th generational Roane County and Swan Pond Community member I have a 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 10 of 57 

personal and unique perspective of this tragedy. December 2008 changed and drastically 

altered the lives of many individuals and families, mine included. December 2008 changed 

and drastically altered the image and progress of Roane County. The only acceptable 

option is for Roane County to be able at the end of this tragedy to declare we are “ASH 

FREE”. It is for this reason I strongly recommend Alternative 2. 

Randy Ellis 

Harriman, TN 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 2 and 

your support for the subalternative that includes use of both rail and truck hauling. TVA will 

take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal 

action. 

14) Currently we are hauling gravel for TVA. With the economy being the way that it is, we 

appreciate any and all work that is sent our way. We do a lot personally in Roane County. 

My family and I camp at Caney Creek Campground at least 6 times a year for at least 3 

days at a time, sometimes more. We love it there, it is so beautiful. We also eat at all the 

area restaurants such as Cracker Barrel, Ruby Tuesday's, Gondolier, Shoney's and both of 

the Mexican restaurants. Also my family and I shop at the fresh produce market as well as 

Wal-Mart and surrounding stores. My wife's first car was also bought from there. We enjoy 

rides through Kingston on our motorcycle several times in the year. I also have family that 

owns a business there. My parents & brother's and their families live in Spring City, and 90% 

of their shopping is done in Roane County. We also buy our tires from Tim's Tires there in 

Coalmont. Roane County has a lot to offer us and my family and I spend a lot of our revenue 

there instead of where we live, which is in Dayton, TN. We really do appreciate and enjoy 

working and hauling gravel out of there. Also we have an excavating business and we do a 

lot of work in the Crystal Cove Sub-division as well as Eagle Furnace. As previously said we 

love to work in that area, and we do our best to make everyone happy with the jobs that we 

do. Again...thanks for all the work, we really do appreciate it and Roane County. 

Name withheld in confidence 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment and your support of Roane 

County. 

15) I support alternative 3 that would leave the ash to be managed on-site. Thank you for the 

opportunity to comment. 

 Roger and Judy Carpenter 

10512 Hwy 58 S., Decatur, TN 37322 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 3 

(that all ash be managed onsite) and will take your recommendation under consideration 

during selection of the preferred removal action. 

16) With each day that goes by I have to face the unknown of this disaster - my family worries 

daily. The long term effects are unknown. Our once quiet safe life was turned upside down 

on 12-22-08 and has, to date not returned to normal. Please remove all this from our 

community. I ask that Alternative 2 be used to remove everything. 

 Sheila Steelman 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 11 of 57 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 2 

(that all ash be removed) and will take your recommendation under consideration during 

selection of the preferred removal action. 

17) The coal ash spill at the Kingston Steam Plant has destroyed our lives and caused our 

homes to be unhealthy with the irritants that we now have to breath. My family and I live 

day to day wondering what the next day will bring. It has changed and destroyed my 

family’s lives as well as the community we once called home. We are among many in this 

area that are forced to worry day to day as to what TVA has in store for our future. 

As a lifelong citizen of Roane County and a resident of what was once called Swan Pond 

Road I am very concerned with the long term effects the ash spill will have on us. Roane 

County and especially the Swan Pond Road area citizens feel the only way to be relieved 

from some of the stigma that has been placed upon it -is for TVA to remove all the ash from 

our area. Our community needs to be ash free. That is why we recommend Alternative 2 as 

the proper option. 

Since this spill our community has been labeled as Fly Ash Rd – we no longer enjoy life 

here. We no longer have friends over for their fear of being near the ash as it is air borne. 

Again, this disaster has destroyed our lives and put fear in each person of the long term 

risks we are forced to face. We have been left behind to deal with this. Allowing ash to 

remain in this area is unacceptable. TVA may not see it this way because this is a more 

costly removal option, but we had no voice in the ash being deposited on us. I do hope we 

will, at the least, have a voice for which way it is removed. 

Stephen Ellis 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 2 

(that all ash be removed) and will take your recommendation under consideration during 

selection of the preferred removal action. TVA recognizes your concern over long-term 

effects and will close the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond to reduce potential long-term risks of 

air-borne ash. 

18) After reviewing all the options, it seems that a substantial amount of ash will be left 

regardless of the option chosen. I have heard a lot about an ash-free zone but in each case 

we will end up with over 10 million cubic yards of ash regardless of the option selected. 

Given the substantial amount of ash my comments will be directed to Mr. Kilgore’s 

statement that TVA will make Roane County better than it was. Regardless of the option, I 

would like to see a significant effort taken by TVA to utilize local contractors in this clean up 

effort, including the hauling of the clay and topsoil for the capping off of whatever option is 

selected. I understand, due to the length of time and to the amount of cost involved in 

removing all the ash, why that option was taken off the table. However, I do hope that TVA 

will use a substantial portion of the savings that will result to make Roane County better, 

including capital enhancement for pools, community centers, senior centers and recreational 

parks to enhance the image of Roane County and to draw investors, new residents and 

economic development to our wonderful county. I would also like to see some money set 

aside in an economic development revolving loan fund that could be administered by the 

Foundation that has been established to assist individuals who would like to come and start 

businesses in Roane County, using local citizens. I think any of these options, falling short of 

an ash free zone, are acceptable. The savings realized of stopping short of an “ash free 

zone” should then be utilized to help not only the restoration of the water but the restoration 

of the economy of Roane County. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 12 of 57 

Mike Farmer, Roane County Executive 

TVA Response: It is correct that ash will remain onsite regardless of the option selected. 

TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending use of local contractors in the 

cleanup effort, including material hauling. TVA will continue to support the Roane County 

community. 

19) As a member of the Roane County Long Term Recovery Committee, I would like to give a 

few comments on the EE/CA documents. I have considered the different alternatives for the 

non-time-critical ash removal and would support alternative 3B for several reasons. 

It is lowest cost approach and would have the least impact on the electric rate payers in the 

region. It has the least off site traffic and would be less likely to have traffic related issues. 

The final dredge cell height is 790 ft. above sea level, which is the same or less than all the 

other options except the most expensive (and I assume least likely) alternative 2. By 

choosing the lowest cost alternative for the actual ash removal process it should make other 

indirect projects easier to fund. Indirect project requests I would make concerning the clean 

up would be: 

• Sports facilities be provided at some location. This could be accomplished by using 

some of the land acquired for the cleanup if needed. The area off Berkshire Lane, the 

Sams Farm, or some land off Swan Pond Road comes to mind. If an area other than the 

ash cell would allow night lighting, this would be preferred. 

• A park type area could be developed around the lake shoreline where possible. This 

could include the Swan Pond embayment and the area between the ash cell and the 

Emory River. Walking and bike trails, along with fishing access and parking could be 

included. 

• A deep water boat launch should be constructed in the area. Right now the closest boat 

launch is at the Kingston Plant near the interstate on the Clinch River. The fisherman in 

the Swan Pond Circle area would appreciate a good launch facility. 

• Fishing access to the skimmer wall area should be developed. Just as the water 

discharge from the plant provides good fishing, the water intake area does too. In the 

past access to this area was limited and restricted. 

• TVA could work with TWRA to look at wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge potentials for the 

area. If the ash cell is covered with one foot of topsoil it could be planted and managed 

with wildlife in mind. 

• TVA should also provide fish habitat improvements in the area. This should include both 

the main channel of the Emory River and also the bays and coves in the area. 

• There will be a considerable amount of rock and gravel not needed on the site as the 

clean up progresses. This could be donated to the county and surrounding cities for any 

projects that would need rock and gravel. 

• Some of the surplus rock and gravel could be used to build a road overpass of the train 

tracks on Swan Pond Road. The local residents would benefit greatly by having an 

overpass that would eliminate the railroad crossing. The rail crossing is a safety issue 

for the area because emergency vehicles can get stopped by train traffic. 

• If there are educational and research opportunities related to the ash storage area, these 

should be considered and plans included in the design to make these possible. 

Thank you, 

Mark E. Hall 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 3B 

(due to its lower cost and lower impact on ratepayers, lower traffic impact, and lower height). 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 13 of 57 

TVA will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred 

removal action. TVA will continue to support the Roane County community. 

20) My name is Lauren Wilson. I am a resident of Harriman. I recently relocated here from 

Crossville. Although I previously lived in Roane County for approximately eight years during 

my childhood. My concern is that the relocation of the ash to a facility off site is only going to 

elongate the reach of contamination. What assurance does the public have that the 

mistakes previously made by TVA resulting in this multi-million dollar travesty doesn't repeat 

itself. After years of waste and "accidental" contamination in the Roane Co. area, not 

restricted to local waterways and real estate, why encourage the same defecation of other 

untouched regions. It is your responsibility to ensure the safety of the public, wildlife, and 

nature surrounding the areas you inhabit with your multi-million dollar facilities. Take 

responsibility for your actions and resolve this in a manner suitable for your loved ones, for 

your communities. 

Lauren Wilson 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates your concern regarding relocation of ash to an offsite 

facility that is not impacted by ash and will take your concern under consideration during 

selection of the preferred removal action. TVA accepts responsibility for the safety of public 

and environment surrounding TVA facilities and the communities in which they are located. 

21) Please remove all use alternative 2. This is my request for our communities' future please 

remove it all. 

 James Steelman 

Harriman,TN 37748 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 2 and 

will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal 

action. Please note that none of the options call for removal of all the ash at Kingston. 

22) I live on the Emory River, just above the Kingston Coal Fired Power Plant, and I am 

submitting my comments on the EE/CA. My family and I feel that the best action for TVA to 

take would be to make some plans to store all ash locally - I believe it is irresponsible to 

transport ash, that may be hazardous waste, to other communities and leave it for them to 

deal with. It not only harms other communities, but it can't help but leave a trail of detritus all 

along its wake, whether it be trucked or sent by rail. And we've already seen problems with 

the landfill in Alabama that may not have been as prepared for it as they thought they were. 

Not only that, but constant shifting of the ash from lake to drying ponds to piles to railroad 

cars does nothing but add to local air-borne pollution. Moving it fewer times seems to be a 

more environmentally responsible solution. However, I don't believe that Option 3, as it 

stands now, will "make us whole" or "make us better than we were." TVA/EPA personnel 

have admitted that with the current plan, there will still be both rainwater and river water 

leaching through the planned landfill, and it has nowhere to go but into the Emory River. 

This is unacceptable. Adding ANY amount of pollution to the already distressed 

waterway should NOT an option. The only way to do this in my opinion would be to fully line 

the storage area so that no ground water, rain water or lake water could seep through to 

carry off additional pollution. Please, wherever the recovered ash is to be stored, it MUST 

be dealt with properly and in accordance with modern science, knowledge and laws. 

Joni Morgan 

385 Emory River Rd. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 14 of 57 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that all ash be 

stored locally to avoid hazards during transport, to avoid problems at offsite landfills unable 

to properly manage the ash, and to minimize ash handling on-site to reduce potential for airborne ash. TVA will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the 

preferred removal action. 

Because there is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater plume associated 

with the former Dredge Cell or Ash Pond, metals do not readily leach from the ash, and 

hydrostratigraphic conditions impede metal migration, no liner or leachate collection system 

is warranted to protect human health or the environment.. Please see the Introduction to 

this Responsiveness Summary. Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river 

system Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include modeling of rainwater percolation, 

leaching, and groundwater flow into the Emory River. Because the existing Dredge Cell is 

up to 40 ft deep, placement of a liner and leachate collection system beneath the ash that 

was placed more than 50 years ago is not practical. Placement of a liner on top of that ash 

would not be effective, since ash would remain below the water table. 

23) I want alternative 2 completed. 

Don Simon

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 2 and 

will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal 

action. 

24) I think that on-site storage would have less impact on the environment and wholesale power 

rates. TVA owns the property and they have security established in the area. I feel that 

alternative three is the best route to take. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Clyde Jolley 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that all ash be 

stored on-site to avoid impact on the environment or power rates. TVA will take your 

recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal action. 

25) I request that Alternative 2 be used to remove the ash from Swan Pond Community. We 

need all the ash removed to remove all the dangers it can cause. Thank You.

 Cathy Randolph 

Harriman, TN 37748 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 2 

(that all ash be removed) and will take your recommendation under consideration during 

selection of the preferred removal action. 

26) I would like to see all the ash removed from this area. Not only have the ash removed that 

spilled from the broken dike, but also all ash remaining on the site. I see no other way for 

this community to recover into a desirable place to live. This would remove doubt of health 

and safety concerns. Any ash that is left could taint the waters of the Emory and Watts Bar 

Lake for many, many years to come. The citizens left in the Swan Pond area need all ash 

removed to allow us to recover from health concerns and property value devastation. 

Further, when the Berkshire slough and Swan Pond Embayments are restored there should 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 15 of 57 

be added improvements to make this area attractive. Please consider adding the following 

improvements: 

• widening of Swan Pond Circle Road between Berkshire slough and Swan Pond 

Embayment. The original road was very narrow, just allowing two way traffic. Fishermen 

often parked along the roadside. 

• adding a parking area for the recreational functions at the area. Previously fisherman 

often parked along the roadside creating dangerous conditions for vehicle traffic. 

• adding a dock to ease the above condition and create safe access 

• add walking and biking trails, and benches throughout the restored areas in these two 

locations and other nearby spots. 

• add a community center facility and recreation area for children ABOVE and BEYOND 

ball fields. 

Thanks for your consideration of these requests. Please contact me if clarification or 

additional details are needed. 

Cathy Willis 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that all ash be 

removed. Please note that none of the options call for removal of all the ash at Kingston. 

. TVA will continue to support the Roane County community and will consider the 

improvements mentioned. 

27) My name is Mark Longmire, and I am a resident of Anderson County. Although I own my 

own excavation business, I am also a sub-hauler for Alliance Hauling. The ash spill at 

Kingston was a disaster that everyone wishes never happened. The economy has slowed 

and so has the work that I had been doing, but I am thankful that I have been able to pick up 

some work by hauling rock to the Kingston site. I don’t know how many loads of rock have 

been hauled or how many from each quarry, but I would estimate more than 35,000 loads—

maybe even double that amount. I have not heard of any accidents involving dump trucks. I 

have driven on roads around the plant and roads between the plant and rock quarry and 

have not noticed any noticeable damage to the roads. The drivers that I see when I haul 

seem to be very safe and skillful drivers. I know TVA wants to finish the clean up using the 

cheapest methods possible. I also know that whatever it costs will eventually be passed on 

to the users of TVA electricity. If a portion of the remaining ash needs to be removed from 

the site, I would like for TVA to consider the cost difference between rail cars and trucks. I 

don’t know which is more cost effective. I do hope that if trucking is cheaper that TVA will 

not allow those who are opposed to hauling it with trucks affect their decision—especially 

since we, the electricity users, will eventually pay for it. 

I think the Alliance truckers have proven themselves to be very safe and would do a good 

job. I know that a lot of people would think that I am thinking of myself. That would be true, 

but if the ash were hauled in trucks I think it would put a lot of money in the economy in this 

area. Maybe some people have jobs that have not been affected by the economy. I know 

some of these people, and I am glad they have not been affected. However, a lot of others, 

including me, have been affected. Hauling with trucks would mean a lot of money would be 

spent at local businesses, such as gas stations, fast food restaurants, parts stores. But 

movie theaters, clothing stores, and many other stores that provide goods and services that 

might not be considered necessities during this slow economy would also benefit. 

Most of what I have written is my opinion, but the economy in this area is slow, and that is a 

fact. Any money that could be put into it would be a big help. I hope you will consider this 

as you make decisions concerning the removal of ash from the Kingston spill. 

 Mark Longmire 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 16 of 57 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that if the ash 

were to be removed offsite, then truck hauling should be implemented as the cheaper option 

and as a support of the local economy. 

28) This disaster took my lifelong residence in the Swan Pond Community and destroyed it. 

Yes I did choose to live in this community knowing that TVA was here. But, with my lack of 

knowledge on coal processing and storage, and with TVA being an agency that is not 

forthcoming with how their storage process of burnt coal is done I now know the dangers we 

have faced without our knowledge. With that said I request that Alternative 2 be the effort 

made by TVA to remove all these environmental dangers from this community. Yes I am 

very concerned about the long term health effects that have already been forced upon us 

and if this is left in the community we will be the ones forced to experience what any 

unknown effects will be to us. We had no voice in the deposit of this in our community so I 

pray we have a big voice (more so than others in Roane County) because we will be the 

ones dealing with the day to day and the long term unknown effects if it is left here. Please 

implement Alternative 2 and remove this from our once safe neighborhood. 

Phyllis Ellis 

Harriman, TN 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 2 and 

will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal 

action. Please note that none of the options call for removal of all the ash at Kingston. TVA 

recognizes your concern over long-term effects and will close the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond 

to reduce potential long-term risks. In addition, TVA will continue to investigate the potential 

risks to human health and the environment associated with the river system, as part of the 

future river system EE/CA. 

29) I live on the Clinch River, just across from the Kingston Coal Fired Power Plant, and I am 

submitting my comments on the EE/CA. I don't believe that Option 3 will "make us whole" or 

even "make us better than we were." There must be an impermeable liner between the 

stored ash and the surrounding environment. Protecting the surrounding land and 

waterways with an impermeable liner is required by law in many circumstances and is 

broadly accepted by the environmental science community as the best available option 

today. TVA/EPA personnel have admitted that with the current plan there will still be both 

rainwater and river water leaching through the planned landfill, and it has nowhere to go but 

into the surrounding waterways, like the Clinch and Emory Rivers. This is unacceptable. 

Adding ANY amount of pollution to the already distressed waterway is NOT an option. The 

ash must be stored properly. There has already been one disaster from improper storage, it 

is not prudent to continue taking short cuts. Proper storage is accomplished with an 

impermeable liner so that no ground water, rain water or lake water could seep through to 

carry off additional pollution. Please, it only makes sense to store the ash in accordance 

with current science, knowledge and laws. Any future storage of the ash must be in a facility 

with an impermeable liner. 

Wendy Schneider, Paul Schneider, and Karin Schneider 

326 Peninsula Road, Harriman, TN 37748

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that an 

impermeable liner be provided between the stored ash and the environment. Please see 

the Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary. Additional investigation is being planned 

as part of the river system Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include modeling of 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 17 of 57 

rainwater percolation, leaching, and groundwater flow into the Emory River. Because the 

existing Dredge Cell is up to 40 ft deep, placement of a liner and leachate collection system 

beneath the ash that was placed more than 50 years ago is not practical. Placement of a 

liner on top of that ash would not be effective, since ash would remain below the water table. 

30) I have given a great deal of thought to the options presented for us to comment on. My 

personal feelings on the recovery project are based on fifteen months of meetings, phone 

calls, public gatherings, articles I have read, programs I have seen, etc. Having several 

different roles in this endeavor has given me a great deal of insight along with an even 

greater sense of responsibility. Choosing an option does not end our responsibility; how 

that option is carried out will be just as important to our community. I have made public 

statements that I am in favor of not transporting all of the material to other sites. It has 

been with us for decades with no problem until December 22, 2008 and if handled properly, 

I think it can stay with us for decades in the future in the Kingston Fossil Plant area. I have 

complete confidence that it will be handled properly. 

Having said that, I lean towards the options that do not transport the material to other sites. 

I would strongly urge that the decision makers make continuing beneficial reuse of the area 

impacted by the spill as the strongest factor (after Health and Safety) in the formula they 

develop. We must take into consideration this decision will have an effect on this 

community for years to come. Creating something that can not only be used in a beneficial 

way, but that we can be proud of, will serve all of us well. With an option that does not 

remove all the material I think the opportunity is there to put some of the cost savings into 

maintaining the area well into the future. Thank you for your consideration, 

Troy Beets, 

Mayor, City of Kingston - 

Chair, Roane County Commission - 

Member, Long Term Recovery Committee - 

Chair, Roane County Economic Development Foundation 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that ash not be 

transported to other sites, but handled properly onsite, and will take your recommendation 

under consideration during selection of the preferred removal action. TVA will continue to 

support the Roane County community and will consider the improvements for beneficial 

reuse mentioned. 

31) My vote/opinion for the ECA is to remove all ash from the embayments and haul it out of 

Roane County. Whatever is left in the old cell can be left, leveled and capped with topsoil. 

However, I would not be opposed to moving the ash in the embayments to the old cell, 

leveled and capped either. Either way will save TVA substantial money and I believe the 

future design of the new cell will be 100% safe. If either of these choices are taken I would 

like to see the TVA invest a sizable “donation” to the residents of Swan Pond in the form of 

ballparks, athletic facility, pool etc. For the amount of savings and what has transpired there 

I think it would be a wise move, not to mention it will help raise the resale value of the 

homes in that area that the TVA will eventually put back on the market. This will aid in the 

resale through auction or traditional resale process and help recover much of the money 

spent acquiring those homes. 

Chris Mason 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that ash from the 

embayment either be removed from Roane County or be moved to the old cell and that the 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 18 of 57 

ash remaining in the cell be capped with topsoil. TVA will take your recommendation under 

consideration during selection of the preferred removal action. TVA will continue to support 

the Roane County community and will consider the improvements mentioned and impact on 

home values. 

32) I live on the Clinch River, just across from the Kingston Coal Fired Power Plant, and I am 

submitting my comments on the EE/CA because I am concerned that the three options 

currently being considered for ash removal and storage do no present adequate resolutions 

for the situation. None of the three options provide for storage in lined landfills, as is 

recommended by the EPA and now required by law in many circumstances. It would be 

irresponsible and shortsighted for the TVA not to take this opportunity to implement the best 

available technology in order to protect the health of residents and the surrounding 

environment. Unlined storage areas allow for leaching of rain and river water through the 

landfills and into the Emory River. It is unacceptable that any amount of pollution be allowed 

to leach into the already polluted river. All ash recovered, and new ash produced, should be 

stored only in lined landfills. 

Dale Strasser, Ann VanSlyke, Emily Strasser, Kurt Strasser, and Jane Strasser 

326 ninsula Road, Harriman, TN 37748 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that a lined 

landfill be provided for the stored ash. Please see the Introduction to this Responsiveness 

Summary. Because the existing Dredge Cell is up to 40 ft deep, placement of a liner and 

leachate collection system beneath the ash that was placed more than 50 years ago is not 

practical. Placement of a liner on top of that ash would not be effective, since ash would 

remain below the water table. Building of a new lined landfill in the area would not be 

implementable in a reasonable time frame, although TVA is studying such an option for 

management of new ash produced from the Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant in the future. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 19 of 57 

EE/CA COMMENTS FROM THE ROANE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BOARD 

The Roane County Environmental Review Board (RCERB) exists in an advisory role reporting 

to the Roane County Executive. The RCERB’s purpose is to identify environmental issues and 

recommend plans and programs to the appropriate organizations for the promotion and 

conservation of the natural resources and for the protection and the improvement of the quality 

of the environment with the objective of ensuring the protection of public health and safety, 

visual acceptability and long term human habitability within Roane County; and advises the 

appropriate personnel and governmental agencies, including, but not limited to, the County 

Executive, County Commission, county planning commission, local planning commissions, 

industrial development boards and recreation and park boards. The RCERB has reviewed the 

subject EE/CA documents and is hereby submitting the following comments. This opportunity to 

participate in this decision is appreciated.

The RCERB 

Frank Kornegay, Chairman 

Gail Okulczyk, Vice Chair 

Minna Andriulli 

Robert Capell 

Robert Davis 

Bruce Kimmel 

Mary Anne Koltowich 

David Reichle 

1. Overall, the base document does a good job with background information, summary of 

contaminant data, risk evaluations, and alternatives evaluation. 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates the comment. 

2. TVA has a responsibility to restore wetlands damaged by the ash spill. While there is 

federal statute to require wetlands restoration, there is none per se to cover riparian habitat. 

The Roane County Environmental Review Board (RCERB) encourages TVA and EPA to 

take a progressive approach and include mitigation of both riparian habitat and wetland 

losses in these plans. Riparian habitat was a major ecological feature impacted by the ash 

spill and a critical resource in the Emory watershed. RCERB encourages TVA/EPA to 

secure expert advice and assistance from state and national organizations with experience 

in wetlands mitigation to guide a suitable restoration program focused in the Emory 

Watershed. 

TVA Response: As described in Appendix D of the EE/CA, TVA’s conceptual plan for the 

embayment restoration would restore a complex mosaic of forested, scrub-shrub, and 

emergent wetland plant communities. This plan therefore would cover the riparian habitat. 

TVA has secured expert advice from state and national organizations and ecological 

consultants as part of a Technical Working Group addressing investigation, assessment, 

and restoration of the river system. Detailed designs for the restoration of Swan Pond 

Embayment will be prepared prior to construction. 

3. Page x of the base document, Alternative 3 paragraph, next to last sentence: Suspected 

typo: “...lower height of closed cell to 390 ft msl.” Should be “...to 790 ft msl.” 

TVA Response: Correct, 790 ft msl. TVA regrets the typographical error. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 20 of 57 

4. All three alternatives evaluated would fully meet stated requirements for the Remedial 

Action Objectives. 

TVA Response: Correct, all three alternatives would fully meet the RAOs. 

5. Information presented in Table 4-1, Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives, 

suggests that Alternative 1 should be the preferred alternative in that it involves a smaller 

volume of ash to be shipped off-site (capacity for off-site disposal is more feasible than for 

Alternative 2), a moderate volume of ash to remain on site requiring stabilization and 

management, and an intermediate cost relative to Alternatives 2 and 3. 

TVA Response: Table 4-1 is not meant to suggest a preference for any alternative, but to 

summarize differences or tradeoffs between them. It is correct that Alternative 1 would 

involve a smaller volume of ash to be shipped offsite relative to Alternative 2, but Alternative 

2 would involve a much greater volume of ash to the shipped offsite relative to Alternative 3. 

It is correct that Alternative 1 would result in volume of ash remaining onsite intermediate 

between the other 2 alternatives and would result in cost intermediate between the other 2 

alternatives. 

6. Avoiding disposal and transportation costs and impacts and achieving lower cost in 

Alternative 3 are, unfortunately, offset by the necessity of retaining, stabilizing and long-term 

management of the entire ash volume on site. 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment suggesting that the lower 

disposal and transportation costs and impacts would be offset by the retaining, stabilizing, 

and long-term management of the ash on site. Please note that the costs of Alternative 3 

reflect the cost of retaining and stabilizing the greater volume of ash in storage. Note also 

that all three alternatives include the cost of management of the ash on site. 

7. Alternative 1b and 2b include the transport and disposal of 990,000 cubic yards offsite using 

trucks. It is not evident these options fully evaluate the risks and impacts of 35,000 100-mile 

round trips. Movements on the order of 3.5 million truck-miles are likely to result in serious 

accidents, significant damage to roads that are not mitigated by current road taxes, 

increases in air pollutants as a result of the truck travel, increased risks of ash spillage due 

to a truck accident, and significantly greater consumption of fuel than alternatives that rely 

exclusively on rail for off-site transport. For these reasons, neither Alternative 1b nor 2b 

should be considered. 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that neither 

Alternative 1b nor 2b be considered, due to the greater risks (accidents, spills, and air 

quality), damage to roadways, and fuel consumption as a result of truck hauling. 

8. Although each of the three alternatives leave a substantial amount of ash on site 

permanently, the trade-offs between amounts of ash removed and disposed of elsewhere 

are identified. 

TVA Response: Correct, the trade-offs are identified. 

9. A balance between costs and impacts of ash movement versus the impacts of amount of 

materials remaining on-site is the critical consideration. Assuming that the enhanced 

stability for the dikes works as planned, and the clay caps over the roughly 240-acre ash cell 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 21 of 57 

adequately address infiltration, it appears Alternative 3 would have the least impact on 

ratepayers while maintaining an acceptable impact to Roane County. The height of the 

reclaimed ash pile is, to a first approximation, the key difference between the options. 

TVA Response: Correct, Alternative 3 would have lower capital costs; the height of the 

closed Dredge Cell is a key difference between the options, because it affects the amount of 

conceptual foundation improvements needed. 

10. If the significantly larger remaining ash volume is thought to be a significant impediment to 

Roane County’s recovery from the ash spill, then Option 1, with no off-site movement of ash 

by truck, strikes the better balance between options 1 and 2. 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that Alternative 

1a be selected over Alternative 2a, if the remaining ash volume is thought to significantly 

impede Roane County’s recovery from the ash spill. However, TVA does not consider the 

relative difference in volume remaining onsite to significantly affect the County’s recovery, 

since closure of the Dredge Cell will be similar under all three alternatives. 

11. The RCERB recommends that Alternative 1a be the chosen option for the Non-time Critical 

Cleanup for Restoration of the TVA Kingston Site. 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending Alternative 1a, 

and will take your recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred 

removal action. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 22 of 57 

EE/CA COMMENTS FROM THE ROANE COUNTY COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP 

The Roane County Community Advisory Group (RCCAG) is pleased to submit our comments to 

the Kingston Ash Spill Non Time-Critical Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA). Our 

detailed comments are compiled in a spreadsheet attached to this letter. In addition to our 

attached comments, the RCCAG would like to emphasize that we find the EE/CA incomplete 

and the three proposed alternatives unacceptable for the following reasons. 

• A complete identification and analysis of all technically feasible alternatives has not 

been performed. 

• A project-specific risk assessment addressing all risks associated with all alternatives 

was not prepared. Aspects that should have been more thoroughly addressed 

include transportation risk, including an assessment of the impact of the increase of 

all types of vehicular traffic to local residents, including large vehicles and heavy 

earth-moving equipment. 

• An analysis of the impacts of groundwater flow and fluxuating lake levels on the ash 

left in the ground in the Dredge Cell and its affect to the environment and human 

health has not been performed. 

• Isolation of the ash (with a liner and leachate collection) from the waters of the 

Emory River and Watts Bar Lake has not been included in any alternative. 

With the understanding and inclusion of the above comments as part of our response to the 

Kingston Ash Spill Non Time-Critical EE/CA, we do support the development of alternatives that 

maximize the amount of ash removed, including development of an alternative to remove all ash 

to native soils and shipping all ash to off-site disposal locations. We do not support any 

alternative that leaves ash on site in a configuration that does not meet the requirements for 

construction of a new hazardous waste landfill, including hydraulic isolation (at a minimum, a 

liner with leachate control) of the closed Dredge Cell from the Emory River and Watts Bar Lake. 

We believe a more robust analysis of all alternatives will lead to the development of a technically 

defensible EE/CA and the selection of a preferred alternative that protects the human health of 

local residents and users of the Emory River and Watts Bar Lake, and the environment. 

Additionally, the preferred alternative should protect and enhance the economic value of all 

Roane County property owners and, at a minimum, provide the same protection as would be 

required for disposal of similar hazardous material in any other location in the United States. 

Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to receiving your responses and 

discussing them with you. 

Sincerely, 

Brenda Timm, Chairperson 

Roane County Community Advisory Committee 

Roane County Community Advisory Group Specific Comments: 

1. General: Suggest figures follow their references in the document so the document is easier 

to follow. Doing so will increase a reader's ability to find referenced figures. Also, the 

electronic references are linked incorrectly to wrong figures. 

TVA Response: Figures are presented at the end of the text for easier reference. 

2. Executive Summary: According to the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Annotated 

Outline, the executive summary must be printed on blue paper. The reviewer understands 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 23 of 57 

that it is impossible to show this in the review cycle, however, this comment just serves as a 

reminder. 

TVA Response: CERCLA does not require that the EE/CA Executive Summary be 

prepared on blue paper. 

3. Page iii: The title of Figure 4 on the "List of Figures" is inconsistent with the actual title on 

Figure 4. It should read "Hydrogeologic Features of the KIF Site". 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the typographic error. 

4. The title of Figure 11 on the "List of Figures" is inconsistent with the actual title on Figure 11. 

It should read "Dredge Cell/Embayment Area Perimeter Improvements". Ref: Page iii 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the typographic error. 

5. Pg. vii, 5th paragraph; page 4, Sec. 1.1.7, 2nd paragraph: These two parts of the document 

discuss the upward groundwater gradients near the river and on page 4 correlation 

coefficients are listed. There are no tables or figures that support this information. Include a 

figure (graph) showing screen depth vs. potentiometric level (actual data rather than 

conceptual). 

Question 1: How many wells were used for the analysis? 

Question 2: The correlation may be good but what is the slope of the regression line? 

TVA Response: Five wells at the Dredge Cell and six in the gypsum pond area were used 

in the analysis; the slope of the regression line for the Dredge Cell area is 0.48 and for the 

gypsum pond area is 0.04. The correlations were made using results from the existing wells 

at the Dredge Cell and gypsum pond sites to provide a conceptual model of site 

hydrogeologic conditions. Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river 

system Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include paired piezometers and wells at 

multiple depths and hydrogeologic units to provide quantitative modeling of groundwater 

flow. 

6. Pg. vii, 5th paragraph; page 4, Sec. 1.1.7, 1st paragraph: This section states that 

groundwater moves from upland areas to stream valleys, ultimately discharging to the 

Emory River. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph in Section 1.1.7 states that it is "likely" 

that shallow groundwater on the dredge cell site discharges directly to the Emory River. That 

implies there is potential that groundwater may be forced downward into the bedrock 

(depending on potentiometric head in the dredge cell) or laterally down gradient (in the 

alluvial materials) for some distance before discharging to the river. Any groundwater 

monitoring program needs to be developed so that it is adequate to address these potential 

migration pathways effectively. 

TVA Response: Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system 

Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include paired piezometers and wells at multiple depths 

and hydrogeologic units to provide quantitative modeling of groundwater flow. Additional 

monitoring of groundwater quality will also be conducted to address groundwater conditions 

vertically and laterally. 

7. Pg. viii, 2nd paragraph: This paragraph states that two monitoring wells were destroyed 

although one was replaced. Were the two wells removed (with the void being grouted) or do 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 24 of 57 

they remain in an inoperable condition? Depending on their condition if left in place, they 

may act as preferred conduits for contaminant migration. 

TVA Response: Please note that the wells were destroyed as part of the ash release and 

cannot be relocated. Note also that they were previously located at the perimeter of the cell, 

and will therefore be incorporated into any permanent perimeter containment system. 

8. Pg. ix, RAOs: Although the risk assessment indicates a potential future groundwater risk, 

there are no remedial action objectives that address contaminant migration from the closed 

dredge cell to the river. This risk needs to be fully analyzed in this Non Time-Critical EE/CA. 

TVA Response: The RAOs were developed to be consistent with the Administrative Order 

on Consent. Additional groundwater investigation is being planned as part of the river 

system Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include modeling of groundwater transport and 

evaluation of potential future risk due to exposure to groundwater. 

9. Page x, 3rd bullet: The bullet which begins with "several options" should include the 

response to a no-action option since the Annotated Outline states its inclusion in the EE/CA. 

The reviewer suggests rewording the second sentence to "Those options included no action, 

leaving all materials within the embayment........." In addition, add TVA's response detailed 

in the comment summation "The no action alternative has been specifically rejected by 

TDEC and EPA because it violates the requirements of both the TDEC Commissioner's 

Order and the EPA Administrative Order on Consent" to the end of the bullet. 

TVA Response: Please note that an option leaving materials in the embayment was 

considered, but rejected; a no action alternative has been specifically rejected by TDEC and 

EPA for the reasons cited. CERCLA does not require the evaluation of a no action 

alternative for a Removal Action. 

10. Pg. xii, 5th paragraph: The transportation risks for Alternative 1 (2 rail injuries and 0.9 rail 

fatalities) do not agree with the risks presented on page 67 (last paragraph). 

TVA Response: Agree. TVA regrets the typographical error. For Alternative 1a, 

transportation risks are estimated at 1 rail accident, 0.8 rail injuries, and 0.4 rail fatalities. 

11. Pg. 4, Sec. 1.1.7, 3rd para.: This section states that any ash-related constituents entering 

shallow groundwater beneath the affected area would be transported a short distance to 

local streams. This seepage has presumably been occurring (with respect to the Ash Pond 

and Dredge Cell) for approximately 50 years. 

Question 1: Has monitoring been adequate, with respect to groundwater or surface water 

seepage, to detect contaminants migrating into the river? 

Question 2: Will future monitoring (groundwater and surface water) be upgraded to do a 

better job monitoring these impacts? 

TVA Response: Historical monitoring has included wells at multiple depths surrounding the 

Dredge Cell and Ash Pond area, and has therefore been adequate to detect contaminants 

migrating to the river. Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system 

Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include paired piezometers and wells at multiple depths 

and hydrogeologic units to provide quantitative modeling of groundwater flow. Additional 

monitoring of groundwater quality will also be conducted to address groundwater conditions 

vertically and laterally. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 25 of 57 

12. Ref: Pg. 4, Section 1.1.7, 1st paragraph and Figure 5: The conceptual groundwater model 

(Figure 5) does not seem to account for the potential for groundwater migration along 

bedding planes or fractures that are possible in the underlying bedrock. Hydraulic 

conductivity along bedding planes and fractures will be higher than that perpendicular to 

bedding planes. In addition, these features may allow groundwater to move laterally 

downgradient prior to entering the river. Please revise the conceptual groundwater model to 

account for the possibility of groundwater migration in this manner. 

TVA Response: Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system 

Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include paired piezometers and wells at multiple depths 

and hydrogeologic units to provide quantitative modeling of groundwater flow. This 

modeling will consider hydraulic conductivity, bedding planes and fractures as they may 

affect groundwater flow. The conceptual groundwater model will be revised at that time to 

indicate bedrock flow pathways. 

13. Page 6, Section 1.2, 3rd paragraph: Change "Sluice Ditch" to "Sluice Trench" in the second 

sentence to be consistent with Figure 3. 

TVA Response: TVA will attempt to use Sluice Trench as consistent terminology. 

14. Sec 1.3: Question 1. Was geochemical modeling considered or performed to evaluate the 

conditions beneath the ash disposal areas and how those conditions might affect the 

migration of metals or how the ash may alter the geochemical conditions over time? 

Comment 1: Suggest the analysis is not complete without performing this modeling. 

TVA Response: Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system 

Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include paired piezometers and wells at multiple depths 

and hydrogeologic units to provide quantitative modeling of groundwater flow. This will 

include geochemical modeling of fate and transport of metals over time. TVA will be 

assessing the geochemical conditions and conducting additional leach/column tests based 

on recommendations from EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

(Groundwater and Ecosystem Restoration Division) in Ada, Oklahoma. 

The analysis of groundwater transport to the river system will be evaluated as part of the 

river system EE/CA. Closure of the Dredge Cell will reduce the potential for migration of 

metals to groundwater and construction of the perimeter foundation stabilization zone will 

reduce groundwater flow through the site. Please see the Introduction to this 

Responsiveness Summary. 

15. Page 6, Section 1.3.1, 2nd paragraph: Add "(Figure 6)" to describe sample locations after 

(locations PR-1 through PR-4 and PR-7 through PR-10). This is mentioned in the 3rd 

paragraph. The reviewer recommends moving it to the 2nd paragraph for clarification. 

TVA Response: As indicated in the comment, sample locations are shown on Figure 6. 

16. Pg. 13, Sec. 1.3.3, last para.: This paragraph states that the flux of constituents in 

groundwater could conceivably impact the river system. 

Question 1: If the future hydrogeological assessment determines that to be the case, how 

will that affect the decision made in the current EE/CA regarding the dredge cell and Ash 

Pond? 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 26 of 57 

Question 2: Won't modification to the Non Time-Critical EE/CA be needed to address 

groundwater migration from the closed dredge cell? 

TVA Response: Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system 

Sampling and Analysis Plan; analysis of groundwater transport to the river system will be 

included in the EE/CA for the river system. Closure of the Dredge Cell will reduce the 

potential for migration of metals to groundwater and construction of the perimeter foundation 

stabilization zone will reduce groundwater flow through the site. Therefore, the future 

hydrogeological assessment of groundwater flux to the river will not affect the decision made 

in the current EE/CA regarding the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond. The Non-Time-Critical 

EE/CA will not need to be modified to address groundwater migration from the closed 

Dredge Cell; a separate EE/CA will be prepared for the river system addressing 

groundwater flux to the river. 

17. Pg. 13, Sec. 1.3.3, last para.: This paragraph states that results of surface water sampling to 

date have not shown any exceedances of water quality criteria in the river. 

Question: Does the sampling in the river occur close to the shore where seeps would be 

expected and account for laminar flow where the seepage interacts with the river or is the 

river sampled farther out from the site? 

TVA Response: Surface water sampling to date has been conducted within the river 

system both upstream and downstream of active dredging operations, and did not target the 

river close to shore. Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system 

Sampling and Analysis Plan. This investigation will include groundwater sampling at the 

shoreline just prior to discharge to the river, porewater sampling within the sediment at the 

bottom of the river, and surface water sampling at multiple depths within the river (including 

the epibenthic water located less than 3 feet above the bottom of the river). 

18. Pg. 15, Table 1-5: Table 1-5 shows the depth of the wells but it's not clear if they all monitor 

the alluvial materials or do any monitor other zones or materials (well 13B is presumably a 

bedrock monitoring well)? 

Comment: Suggest an upgraded groundwater monitoring plan incorporate clustered wells 

to allow measurement of water levels and contaminant concentrations at different levels. 

TVA Response: Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system 

Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include paired piezometers and wells at multiple depths 

and hydrogeologic units to provide quantitative modeling of groundwater flow and monitoring 

of contaminant concentrations at different levels. 

19. Page 19, Section 1.4.4 Risk Characterization, Subsection 1.4.4.1 Current Exposure 

Scenarios: Although the text correctly points out that the highest current risk is to an onsite 

adolescent trespasser, the risk to an offsite outdoor worker is still greater than 1x10-6. 

Please address where and to whom this risk is occurring, along with how long this risk will 

occur. 

TVA Response: Please refer to Appendix A, page A-8. Under current land use 

assumptions, an offsite individual involved in routine outdoor work may be exposed to ash 

that has been deposited by wind or tracked by human or vehicle traffic to a point of 

exposure. Note that the results of the risk assessment show that risks to current offsite 

outdoor workers do not exceed EPA's acceptable risk range or target hazard; this current 

risk scenario will continue until the ash is capped. Future risks would be even lower, as the 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 27 of 57 

ash would be capped onsite, so that there would be no exposure pathway to an offiste 

outdoor worker. 

20. Page 19, Section 1.4.4 Risk Characterization, Subsection 1.4.4.2 Future Exposure 

Scenarios: The text in paragraph 1 of Subsection 1.4.4.2 states the following: "There is 

uncertainty in these estimates in that levels of arsenic and radioactivity in the ash are 

generally similar to those of typical regional soils. An exception is that levels of radium-226 

in ash generally exceed the range typical of regional soils. The estimates may therefore 

overestimate risks above normal regional background levels." 

Comment. The text only addresses arsenic and radioactivity. What about the other toxic 

materials? Please address levels of all Constituents of Interest (COI). 

TVA Response: Please note that the other metals (those identified as Constituents of 

Interest) do not contribute to the cancer risk estimate. That is why they aren't discussed 

here. Please refer to the detailed tables in Appendix A that show that these other metals do 

not contribute to the cancer risk. 

21. Page 19, Section 1.4.4 Risk Characterization, Subsection 1.4.4.2 Future Exposure 

Scenarios: The text in paragraph 1 of Subsection 1.4.4.2 states the following: "There is 

uncertainty in these estimates in that levels of arsenic and radioactivity in the ash are 

generally similar to those of typical regional soils. An exception is that levels of radium-226 

in ash generally exceed the range typical of regional soils. The estimates may therefore 

overestimate risks above normal regional background levels." 

Comment. The text states the ash is similar to regional soils in content. In conversations 

with TDEC, it was determined that this is not accurate. Please remove the statement. Also, 

please provide a table that identifies each Constituents of Interest (COI), comparing those 

COI contents in ash to contents and concentrations of these COIs found in local area soil. 

TVA Response: Please refer to Table A-10 which lists ranges of concentrations of metals 

and radionuclides reported in Tennessee soil. Please note (as stated on page 7 of the 

EE/CA) that ash is not natural soil, and therefore direct comparisons of "background" 

concentrations cannot be made. Note also that the risk estimates for exposure to ash have 

been calculated using total measured concentrations for all constituents of interest, 

regardless of their concentrations in typical regional soils. 

22. Page 20, Section 1.5.2: Please identify, in tabular form in the text of the document, for ease 

of reference, the constituent of interest details addressed in this section. 

TVA Response: Please refer to Table B-10, which lists the constituents of interest details 

addressed in the screening-level ecological risk assessment. 

23. Please identify, in tabular form in the text of the document, for ease of reference, the 

constituent of interest details addressed in this section. Ref: Page 20, Section 1.5.3 

TVA Response: Please refer to Table B-10, which lists the constituents of interest details 

addressed in the screening-level ecological risk assessment. 

24. Provide details in the text to support the conclusions in the last paragraph. Tabularize as 

well for ease of reference. Ref: Page 21, Section 1.5.3, Last Paragraph 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 28 of 57 

TVA Response: The conclusion is that a potential for adverse ecological effects exists; that 

conclusion is supported by the details provided in Appendix B. The SLERA further 

concludes that a BERA is not warranted because the EE/CA alternatives will remove the 

ash and cap the ash onsite, eliminating the potential exposure pathways for ecological 

receptors. Please note that the EE/CA for the river system will include a detailed BERA, 

which will be prepared following additional investigation of the river. 

25. Page 23, Section 2.1 Scope and Purpose, 3rd paragraph: The time of the decision may 

have some relevance to the decision. However, this paragraph is written in the manner to 

minimize remobilization costs and downtime associated with Phase II. Choice of the best 

alternative should not be totally dependent on time (and therefore cost). Suggest rewording 

the paragraph and ensuring the correct choice is balanced with risk, cost, and schedule, not 

just cost and schedule driven. 

TVA Response: As stated in the text, the timing of the decision is important. However, the 

choice considers tradeoffs between effectiveness, implementability, and cost per CERCLA 

guidance and as detailed in Section 4 of the EE/CA. The choice is not cost and schedule 

driven. 

26. The effect of groundwater on the closed dredge cell and its impact to the river system needs 

to be addressed in this Non Time-Critical EE/CA to determine the best alternative to 

minimize the impact from the Constituents of Interest that would be transported out of the 

Closed Dredge Cell to impact local residents and those persons who use the lake for 

numerous purposes. Ref: Page 23, Section 2.1 Scope and Purpose, 5th paragraph 

TVA Response: Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system 

Sampling and Analysis Plan; analysis of groundwater transport to the river system will be 

included in the EE/CA for the river system. The effect on groundwater of the closed Dredge 

Cell has been addressed in the EE/CA. Closure of the Dredge Cell will reduce the potential 

for migration of metals to groundwater and construction of the perimeter foundation 

stabilization zone will reduce groundwater flow through the site. Because groundwater at 

the site meets current drinking water standards, remediation of groundwater is not a part of 

this current removal action. Please see the Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary. 

27. Page 24, Section 2.2, 1st paragraph: Add "of" to 1st sentence between words exposure and 

naturally to read "......potential risk to human and ecological receptors due to exposure of 

naturally occurring metals........." 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the typographical error. 

28. Page 24, Section 2.2 Goals and Objectives: Text should be added to the second bulleted 

item to address groundwater contamination from the Dredge Cell, not just erosion across 

the cell. 

TVA Response: Groundwater remediation is not an RAO for this Removal Action. Please 

see the Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary. 

29. Page 27, Section 3.1 Technology Identification, 5th Paragraph: Containment of Constituents 

of Interest as a result of their transportation by groundwater flow and "tidal pumping" is not 

addressed in this EE/CA. It will be too late to address the topics during Phase III since 

under each alternative already identified, the Dredge Cell will already be closed by the time 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 29 of 57 

analytical studies are complete. Modeling should be done during Non Time-Critical EE/CA 

to determine their impacts to the Emory River, Watts Bar, and personnel in close proximity 

and those who use them for whatever purpose. 

TVA Response: Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system 

Sampling and Analysis Plan that will include modeling of rainwater percolation, leaching, 

and groundwater flow into the Emory River. Because groundwater at the site meets current 

drinking water standards, remediation of groundwater is not a part of this current removal 

action. Closure of the Dredge Cell will reduce the potential for migration of metals to 

groundwater and construction of the perimeter foundation stabilization zone will reduce 

groundwater flow through the site. Please see the Introduction to this Responsiveness 

Summary. 

30. Page 27, Section 3.1 Technology Identification, 6th Paragraph: The document states the 

following: Because contaminants are typically bound to the ash, and because shallow 

groundwater discharges to local streams without encountering wells or springs, the 

reduction of infiltration offered by clay caps is appropriate at the site. 

Comment/Question: This is a statement backed up by no analytical data, sampling, or 

referenced research. On what is this statement based? 

Question: What effect does groundwater have on the Constituents of Interest left in the 

Dredge Cell to local residents and persons that use the lake both locally and downstream in 

the long term? 

Comment: Modeling should be done during development of the Non Time-Critical EE/CA. 

TVA Response: Please note that groundwater at the site meets current drinking water 

standards, so that remediation of groundwater is not a part of this current removal action. A 

clay cap is appropriate for compliance with TDEC solid waste regulations; other lowpermeability caps, such as a composite clay liner system, may also be used. As the text 

points out, there are no wells or springs used for water supply between the Dredge Cell and 

the river. Additional investigation is being planned as part of the river system Sampling and 

Analysis Plan that will include paired piezometers and wells at multiple depths and 

hydrogeologic units to support quantitative modeling of groundwater flow. The effect of 

groundwater flux to the river will be evaluated further as part of the EE/CA for the river 

system. 

31. Page 28, Table 3-1 Identification and Screening of Technologies: Liners and leachate 

systems for collection are not addressed in this table; nor are they addressed in the Analysis 

of Alternatives selection. We believe this absence represents a void in the current analysis 

of alternatives. 

TVA Response: Because there is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater 

plume associated with the former Dredge Cell or Ash Pond, metals do not readily leach from 

the ash, and hydrostratigraphic conditions impede metal migration, no liner or leachate 

collection system is warranted to protect human health or the environment. Please see the 

Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary. . 

32. Page 29, Section 3.1, Identification and Screening of Technologies, Last Paragraph: Ash 

that is dispositioned to any landfill in the United States must be placed in a hazardous waste 

landfill that is lined and has in use a leachate system to capture materials to prevent 

migration of materials off-site. Lining the Dredge Cell is an alternative that was not 

documented, considered, and analyzed. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 30 of 57 

Comment: Please explain to the RCCAG why the local residents and those residents that 

use the lake for any reason must be subject to a lesser degree of health protection than 

anyone else in the US. 

Comment: Please include this alternative in the list of alternatives for consideration. Then, 

if that alternative is not chosen, it will have been scientifically analyzed and chosen or 

eliminated with a documented basis. 

TVA Response: Because there is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater 

plume associated with the former Dredge Cell or Ash Pond, metals do not readily leach from 

the ash, and hydrostratigraphic conditions impede metal migration, no liner or leachate 

collection system is warranted to protect human health or the environment. Please see the 

Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary, which further explains why the health of local 

residents and persons that use the lake are protected. Local residents and persons that use 

the lake will be further protected by removing the ash in the embayment and eliminating the 

potential threat of future release of ash to the river system. In addition, potential 

groundwater flux to the river will be evaluated in the EE/CA for the river system and human 

health risk assessment will be conducted to evaluate protection of residents and persons 

that use the lake. 

The existing Dredge Cell is up to 40 ft deep, so that placement of a liner and leachate 

collection system beneath the ash that was placed more than 50 years ago is not practical. 

This is explained further in Section 3.2 of the EE/CA. 

33. Page 31, Section 3.2 Development of Alternatives: The last two alternatives listed in the 

"considered, but not retained for further consideration" have no documented cost or 

scientific and technical supporting documentation. These two alternatives are viable options 

that should have been investigated to demonstrate all viable options were considered when 

choosing an alternative. 

Comment: Writing a few paragraphs of text explaining both options away is not technically 

defensible. Please incorporate analysis of these two options in to the Non Time-Critical 

EE/CA. 

TVA Response: As stated on Page 29, the EE/CA has developed a range of alternatives 

that meet the RAOs and that represent a range of possibilities for restoration of the 

embayment so that tradeoffs between them can be clearly defined and evaluated. The 

rationale for not developing alternatives for complete excavation of ash and placement 

either in an onsite lined landfill or offsite landfill is provided on page 31 of the EE/CA. 

34. Page 32, Section 3.2.1, 1st paragraph: Recommend changing the word "but" to "and" as the 

second word in the second line of text in the paragraph. 

TVA Response: The suggestion is noted. 

35. Page 32, Section 3.2.1, Table 3-2: Action: Transport the ash offsite. The last sentence in 

the paragraph under Summary - Alternative 1b is a combination of train and truck 

transportation, not just truck transportation. 

TVA Response: Correct. Alternative 1b, which combines train and truck transportation, 

would transport ash from the northern part of the embayment by truck to an offsite landfill. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 31 of 57 

36. Page 32, Section 3.2.1, Table 3-2: Action: Restore embayment. There are more actions 

needed to restore the embayment besides introducing aquatic plants in the remediated 

area. 

TVA Response: Please refer to Appendix D, which provides further details of the 

conceptual restoration design. 

37. Infrastructure. Space between "to" and "10" Ref: Page 32, Section 3.2.1, 2nd paragraph 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the typographical error. 

38. Page 32, Section 3.2.1, 3rd paragraph: Infrastructure. Will the project method of 

accomplishment still include use of a conveyor? 

TVA Response: As of the time of writing this EE/CA, TVA had been considering use of a 

mechanical conveyor. Additional means of conveyance have also been evaluated; currently 

TVA plans to install a bridge and underpass to transport ash beneath Swan Pond Circle 

Road. 

39. Suggest changing "Ball Field" to "Ball Field Area" throughout the document. Ref: General 

TVA Response: The suggestion is noted. 

40. Page 33, Section 3.2.1: Excavate the Swan Pond Embayment. The last two sentences do 

not appear to contain a complete description of the transportation methods for ash. 

TVA Response: Please note that under Alternative 1b, ash from the northern part of the 

embayment would be transported offsite by truck; ash from the middle part of the 

embayment would be hauled to the Ball Field for offsite disposal by rail. 

41. Page 33, Section 3.2.1: Excavate the Swan Pond Embayment. Would the last sentence of 

the first paragraph be more accurate if the word "in" in the next to last line was changed to 

"from"? 

TVA Response: The suggestion is noted. 

42. Page 33, Section 3.2.1: Excavate the Swan Pond Embayment. Why is there a distinction 

between the north portion of the embayment for dump truck removal and Swan Pond 

Embayment for articulating truck? 

TVA Response: The distinction is only that under Alternative 1b, ash from the northern part 

of the embayment would be transported offsite by truck (dump trucks); ash from the middle 

part of the embayment would be hauled to the Ball Field (using articulating trucks) for offsite 

disposal by rail. 

43. Page 33, Section 3.2.1: Excavate the Swan Pond Embayment. Place a "%" symbol after 

20. 

TVA Response: The suggestion is noted. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 32 of 57 

44. Page 33, Section 3.2.1: Excavate the Swan Pond Embayment. Into what are the 50 

truckloads of timber included? 

TVA Response: The alternative includes the removal of an estimated 50 truckloads of 

timber. 

45. Excavate the Swan Pond Embayment. Suggest changing the word "for" to "in" in the last 

line of the paragraph. Ref: Page 33, Section 3.2.1 

TVA Response: The suggestion is noted. 

46. General. The appendices references need to be checked throughout the document. The 

appendices do not appear to be effectively referenced in the end of the EE/CA. 

(Specific Reference Page 35, Section 3.2.1) - Restore Embayment. The reference is to 

Appendix D but it appears the Restoration Plan is not Appendix D. Recommend appendix 

coversheets to introduce each Appendix. It is hard to figure out which document is in any 

particular appendix. 

TVA Response: Please note that Appendix D is the Conceptual Restoration Design, as the 

reference correctly states. TVA regrets that the Appendix coversheets were omitted from 

the online document. 

47. Page 35, 1st incomplete paragraph: Consider adding the word "on" to the 2nd complete 

sentence between words "up" and "the" to read ".......loading stations would be set up on 

the northern embayment area with......." 

TVA Response: The suggestion is noted. 

48. The terms for the various bodies of water (embayments) have different names within the 

EE/CA and in the reference documents in the Appendices. These names should be 

consistent. 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the confusion. In future documents, TVA will refer to the 

"northern embayment" and the "middle embayment", which are portions of the overall Swan 

Pond Embayment. 

49. Bullet starting with "Dike D corridor" - Remove period after 60-ft deep. Ref: Page 38, 2nd 

bullet 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the typographical error. 

50. Page 39, Section 3.2.2: Infrastructure. Will the project method of accomplishment still 

include use of a conveyor? 

TVA Response: Please see response to comment no. 38 above. 

51. Page 40, Section 3.2.2, Table 3-3: Action: Transport the ash offsite. The language in 

Table 3.3 would be better than the current similar language in Table 3.2. 

TVA Response: The suggestion is noted. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 33 of 57 

52. Page 40, Section 3.2.2, Table 3-3: Action: Restore embayment. There are more actions 

needed to restore the embayment besides introducing aquatic plants in the remediated 

area. 

TVA Response: Please see response to comment no. 36 above. 

53. Throughout Section 3.2.2: If reference is made to language and/or actions in Section 3.2.1, 

instead of repeating the text in Section 3.2.2, please provide the location of the referenced 

text in each appropriate section of 3.2.2. 

TVA Response: The suggestion is noted. 

54. Page 43, Section 3.2.3, Table 3-4: Action: Restore embayment. There are more actions 

needed to restore the embayment besides introducing aquatic plants in the remediated 

area. 

TVA Response: Please see response to comment no. 36 above. 

55. General Comment: It is improper grammar to start a sentence with the word "This" without a 

subject. A specific example occurs in the second sentence of the paragraph on Page 45, 

Section 3.2.4, Environmental, Safety, and Health. 

TVA Response: The text is grammatically correct as written. 

56. Place a comma between "Environmental" and "Safety". Ref: Page 45, Section 3.2.4 

Components Common to All Alternatives, Environmental Health and Safety 

TVA Response: The text is grammatically correct as written. 

57. Three places in the paragraph refer to the Sluice Ditch. This should be changed to Sluice 

Trench to be consistent with Figure 3. Ref: Page 46, 1st complete paragraph 

TVA Response: TVA will attempt to use Sluice Trench as consistent terminology. 

58. Page 46, Section 3.2.4: Dewatering and Water Management. Remove the words "so as" 

from the first sentence. 

TVA Response: The text is grammatically correct as written. 

59. The last sentence states the only constituent exceeding criteria is arsenic found at "low 

levels (near its MCL)." That sounds fairly subjective and not exactly accurate. The arsenic 

levels (maximum) detected in groundwater were approximately 3 times the MCL. Please 

correct this inaccuracy with objective data. Ref: Pg. 49, 3rd full paragraph 

TVA Response: Please refer to section 1.3.3 for further discussion of groundwater 

monitoring results. 

60. Pg. 49, 3rd full paragraph: Comment 1: In the discussion of the low permeability cover and 

it's impact on reducing infiltration from 14.9 inches/yr to less than 1.4 inches/yr, please 

provide EPA's modeling report (HELP input parameters, etc). 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 34 of 57 

Comment 2: Please provide information relative to how infiltration is expected to increase 

over time (see comment # 63 below). 

TVA Response: Calculation packages, including HELP model outputs, can be made 

available upon request. Infiltration is not expected to increase over time, with proper design, 

construction, and maintenance of the landfill cap. 

61. Add "will" between words month and not to read "Maximum loading rates of 5 ft per month 

will not produce excessive......." Ref: Page 49, last paragraph, last sentence 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the typographical error. 

62. Change the word "that" to "than" - ".......which is 40 to 55 ft lower than the top of the........" 

Ref: Page 50, bullet number 1, 2nd sentence from end of paragraph 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the typographical error. 

63. Section 4: All alternatives include a 24-inch low-permeability barrier. A paper on compacted 

clay covers (Field Performance of a Compacted Clay Landfill Final Cover at a Humid Site by 

William Albright and others) suggests preferential flow paths develop in the clay barriers 

soon after construction, likely due to desiccation cracking. After 4 years of service of a 

studied cap, the hydraulic conductivity of the clay barrier increased approximately 3 orders 

of magnitude (from ≈ 10-7 to ≈ 10-4 cm/s). 

Comment: The Non Time-Critical EE/CA should consider and address this change in the 

hydraulic conductivity. 

Comment: The Non Time-Critical EE/CA should be revised so that it contains plans or 

details on the design and construction of the low permeability cover, or the measures that 

will be employed to prevent desiccation or root intrusion following construction. 

TVA Response: Final design of the landfill cap will consider material specifications for the 

low-permeability cover and protective soil materials. Proper cover design, construction, and 

maintenance avoids the formation of desiccation cracks or root intrusion. Alternative 

materials, such as geosynthetic liners or clay composite liner materials will also be 

considered during final design, as stated in the EE/CA, Section 3.1. The final cap will be 

designed and constructed in compliance with TDEC landfill closure requirements. 

64. Sections 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2.1, and 4.1.3.1 Effectiveness, Compliance with ARARs, First 

Sentence: The RCCAG agrees the closure of the dredge cell does meet the intent of the 

TDEC Commissioner's Order and will minimize surface water's ability to transport COIs from 

the closed Dredge Cell. However, the RCCAG does not believe meeting that requirement 

adequately protects the citizens of Roane County or anyone else using the waters of the 

Emory River or Watts Bar Lake for any reason. Adequate provisions need to be engineered 

and implemented to prevent any future leachate or groundwater containing COIs from 

entering the Emory River. 

TVA Response: Because there is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater 

plume associated with the former Dredge Cell or Ash Pond, metals do not readily leach from 

the ash, and hydrostratigraphic conditions impede metal migration, no liner or leachate 

collection system is warranted to protect human health or the environment. Closure of the 

Dredge Cell will reduce the potential for migration of metals to groundwater and construction 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 35 of 57 

of the perimeter foundation stabilization zone will reduce groundwater flow through the site. 

Please see the Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary. 

65. Sections 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2.1, and 4.1.3.1 Effectiveness of Restoration, first and second indented 

paragraphs: The statement implies that flora affected by the ash spill will not be completely 

restored because "loss of native soil in some areas may required previous riparian forest 

communities being restored to a wetland emergent community or a great areal extent of 

open water habitat than the pre-spill condition". 

Comment: TVA management and EPA have stated that "everything will be better than 

before". That statement will not be true without repairing all areas to pre-spill conditions and 

restoring vegetation as it was pre-spill. One alternative would be to truck native top soil into 

the affected areas and plant the appropriate pre-spill vegetation back. 

TVA Response: The addition of soil amendments to the native sediments has been 

included in the conceptual restoration design. Note that adjustments to the proportions of 

ecological habitat types (riparian forest and wetland and open water) will not substantively 

alter habitat types existing prior to the spill, so that TVA's stated RAO of restoring the 

embayment to pre-spill conditions remains a firm commitment. Please note that TVA will 

restore a complex mosaic of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands that will 

enhance diverse habitats for fish, semi-aquatic amphibians, and bird species, as described 

in Appendix D. 

66. Sections 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2.1, and 4.1.3.1 Effectiveness, Effectiveness of cover containment, first 

paragraph See comment #64. 

TVA Response: Please see response to comment #64 above. 

67. The RCCAG agrees that a gas collection system is not required. However, the RCCAG 

does not agree that a leachate collection system is not required. See comments #32 and 

#64. Ref: Sections 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2.1, and 4.1.3.1 Effectiveness, Effectiveness of cover 

containment, last paragraph 

TVA Response: Please see response to comments #32 and #64 above. 

68. Sections 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2.1, and 4.1.3.1 Implementability, Next-to-last paragraph: The RCCAG 

does not believe natural repopulation of fish and terrestrial fauna would occur immediately. 

Suggest removing the word "immediately". 

TVA Response: The suggestion is noted. Mobile fish species are expected to repopulate 

the Swan Pond Embayment within days; less mobile fish with smaller foraging areas or 

home ranges may repopulate the embayment over a longer period of time. 

69. Sections 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2.1, and 4.1.3.1, Implementability, Last paragraph: The RCCAG 

believes the long-term monitoring of groundwater should be addressed under this EE/CA 

since that topic should be integral with the closure of the Dredge Cell. 

TVA Response: Agreed. As stated in the EE/CA, each alternative would include long-term 

monitoring of groundwater as part of closure of the Dredge Cell. This monitoring is to be 

further addressed under the EE/CA for the river system. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 36 of 57 

70. Section 4.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES, Section 4.2.1 Effectiveness, 

Overall Protectiveness: The RCCAG agrees that erosion can be managed to eliminate 

future migration of ash to the river in stormwater runoff. Subsurface impacts to the river 

have not been addressed in this EE/CA. 

Comment: Without addressing and analyzing subsurface impacts to the Emory River, an 

inadequately protective alternative may be constructed that would allow COIs to enter the 

river as a result of groundwater flow or tidal pumping. Just because operations have been 

ongoing for numerous years under a permit that does not protect the local residents or 

persons that use the Emory River or Watts Bar Lake does not mean operations should be 

allowed to continue as they were being done and the permit not revised to better protect the 

environment and human health. 

TVA Response: Because there is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater 

plume associated with the former Dredge Cell or Ash Pond, metals do not readily leach from 

the ash, and hydrostratigraphic conditions impede metal migration, no liner or leachate 

collection system is warranted to protect human health or the environment. Closure of the 

Dredge Cell will reduce the potential for migration of metals to groundwater and construction 

of the perimeter foundation stabilization zone will reduce groundwater flow through the site. 

In addition, potential groundwater flux to the river will be evaluated in the EE/CA for the river 

system. Please see the Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary. 

71. Section 4.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES, Section 4.2.1 Effectiveness, 

Effectiveness of restoration: See comment #65. 

TVA Response: Please see response to comment #65 above. 

72. Section 4.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES, Section 4.2.1 Effectiveness, 

Effectiveness of disposal: The alternative for disposing of all ash in an offsite location (either 

adjacent to the site or in another state) was not evaluated. It is a technically viable 

alternative that should have been addressed in the Non Time-Critical EE/CA because it is 

technically feasible. Elimination of the alternative should be an evaluated decision, not just 

a judgment call with no supporting data or analysis prior to preparing the EE/CA. 

TVA Response: the EE/CA has developed a range of alternatives that meet the RAOs and 

that represent a range of possibilities for restoration of the embayment so that tradeoffs 

between them can be clearly defined and evaluated, as stated on page 29 of the EE/CA. 

The rationale for not developing alternatives for complete excavation of ash and placement 

either in an onsite lined landfill or offsite landfill is provided on page 31 of the EE/CA. 

73. Figure 6: There are 2 locations for PR-2 and no location for PR-9. Please correct figure 

accordingly. 

TVA Response: PR-9 is located alongside the northern embayment area. TVA regrets the 

typographical error. 

74. APPENDIX A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT, Section A.1.5 Uncertainty Analysis, 

A.1.5.1 Data Uncertainties, Last Paragraph (Page A-20): The following statement is located 

in the referenced section of the HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT. 

- "There is considerable uncertainty associated with the bedrock groundwater dataset. 

The uncertainties are associated with the limited number of samples and the availability 

of data from only a single well. Therefore, the risks from potential exposure to 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 37 of 57 

groundwater may be overestimated or underestimated, but the magnitude of such 

estimation is not quantifiable. TVA is planning for the installation of addition monitoring 

wells which will allow for better estimates of potential risks should exposures occur in the 

future." 

Question: With this admitted risk associated with the lack of groundwater data and the COIs 

associated with the groundwater, how can an alternative be chosen to close the Dredge Cell 

(and subsequently designed) that will protect the local residents and any user of the Emory 

River or Watts Bar Lake? 

Question: What process was followed to identify the number and location of wells that are 

needed to analyze the groundwater risk to the environment and human health. Ref: 

TVA Response: Because there is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater 

plume associated with the former Dredge Cell or Ash Pond, metals do not readily leach from 

the ash, and hydrostratigraphic conditions impede metal migration, no liner or leachate 

collection system is warranted to protect human health or the environment. Closure of the 

Dredge Cell will reduce the potential for migration of metals to groundwater and construction 

of the perimeter foundation stabilization zone will reduce groundwater flow through the site. 

In addition, potential groundwater flux to the river will be evaluated in the EE/CA for the river 

system. Please see the Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary. 

The process to be followed to identify the number and location of wells that are needed to 

model groundwater flow and to analyze the groundwater risk to the environment and human 

health in the river system will be addressed in the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the river 

system. 

75. APPENDIX A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT, Section A.1.5 Uncertainty Analysis, 

A.1.5.2 Exposure Scenario Uncertainty, Third Paragraph: Why were future exposures to 

groundwater evaluated using data from a bedrock well only, rather than looking at all 

groundwater data? 

TVA Response: As stated on pages A-5 and A-21 of Appendix A, the use of bedrock 

groundwater data quantitatively in the risk assessment is appropriate because drinking 

water wells are typically installed in bedrock rather than soil. Potential exposures to 

groundwater from unconsolidated wells are presented in the uncertainty analysis (Tables A4 through A-8). 

76. APPENDIX A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT, Section A.1.5 Uncertainty Analysis, 

A.1.5.2 Exposure Scenario Uncertainty, Third Paragraph (Third Line, Page A-21): The 

following statement is located in the referenced section of the HUMAN HEALTH RISK 

ASSESSMENT. 

- "TVA has active and aggressive dust control and air monitoring programs in place." 

The RCCAG strongly disagrees. There is no evidence of a coordinated, integrated 

continuous air monitoring program that takes readings continually. Please provide 

documentation that the program exists and random reports that substantiate that assertion. 

TVA Response: Please refer to the EPA website for dust control and air monitoring data. 

The Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan has been approved by EPA and TDEC. EPA 

continues reviewing the air quality monitoring conducted by TDEC and TVA and confirms 

TDEC's belief that there is no known threat to public health from an air pollution exposure 

associated with the clean-up of the ash spill at the TVA Kingston Steam Plant. National 

ambient air quality standards for inhalable particulate (PM10) and respirable particulate 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 38 of 57 

(PM2.5) are being met. Air sampling continues to show no metal concentrations of concern. 

Persons wishing to view the monitoring data can see it at the following web address: 

http://www.state.tn.us/environment/kingston/air/. 

77. APPENDIX A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT, Section A.1.5 Uncertainty Analysis, 

A.1.5.2 Exposure Scenario Uncertainty, Last Paragraph (Pages A-21 and A-22): The 

following statement is located in the referenced section of the HUMAN HEALTH RISK 

ASSESSMENT. 

- "KIF is located in an area of groundwater discharge rather than recharge. Therefore, 

the movement of groundwater is upward and toward the Emory River rather than 

downward toward bedrock. However, to evaluate the uncertainties associated with 

potential exposures to ash related constituents via groundwater use scenarios, analytical 

data from overburden monitoring wells were used to derive cancer risk and 

noncancerous hazard estimates (Tables A-4 through A-8 [Attachment A-1]). Whereas 

cancer risk estimates for potential exposures to groundwater from bedrock monitoring 

wells ranged from 2E-05 (indoor workers) to 3E-05 (adult residents), those from 

overburden monitoring wells ranged from 2E-04 (indoor workers) to 4E-04 (adult 

residents). The cancer risk estimates are driven by ingestion of arsenic. Similarly, 

whereas noncancerous hazard estimates for potential exposures to groundwater from 

bedrock monitoring wells ranged from 0.3 (indoor workers) to 2 (child residents), those 

from overburden monitoring wells ranged from 4 (indoor workers) to 29 (child residents). 

The hazard estimates are driven by ingestion of manganese and arsenic. This suggests 

that risks from future exposure to groundwater may be underestimated if concentrations 

in bedrock groundwater were to increase to concentrations measured in overburden 

groundwater." 

"Data from monitoring well 6A were not used in this evaluation because it is a nonstandard environmental monitoring well, featuring simply a 4-inch diameter riser with 

0.25-inch diameter holes drilled into it. Well 6A had the highest detected concentrations 

of boron, chromium, iron, manganese, strontium, and vanadium. Had data from well 6A 

been included, the noncancerous hazard estimates would be higher for iron, 

manganese, and vanadium. The following presents a comparison of the analytical 

results for KIF groundwater wells." 

The RCCAG has repeatedly stated concerns relative to groundwater transport of COIs from 

ash materials in the Dredge Cell to the Emory River. This text supports our concern and our 

belief that a more rigorous containment system needs to be designed to ensure COIs are 

not carried by groundwater to the Emory River, and consequently, Watts Bar Lake which 

would affect local residents and any users of the Emory River and Watts Bar Lake. 

TVA Response: Because there is no identified groundwater contamination or groundwater 

plume associated with the former Dredge Cell or Ash Pond, metals do not readily leach from 

the ash, and hydrostratigraphic conditions impede metal migration, no liner or leachate 

collection system is warranted to protect human health or the environment. Closure of the 

Dredge Cell will reduce the potential for migration of metals to groundwater and construction 

of the perimeter foundation stabilization zone will reduce groundwater flow through the site. 

In addition, potential groundwater flux to the river of COIs will be evaluated in the EE/CA for 

the river system, as will the potential risks to local residents and any users of the river 

system. Please see the Introduction to this Responsiveness Summary. 

78. APPENDIX A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT, Section A.1.5 Uncertainty Analysis, 

A.1.5.4 Risk Characterization Uncertainty, Second Paragraph (Page A-23): The following 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 39 of 57 

statement is located in the referenced section of the HUMAN HEALTH RISK 

ASSESSMENT. 

"As stated in Section A.1.1.1, antimony, cadmium, and molybdenum were not detected 

in any ash samples collected by TVA. These constituents were detected in ash samples 

collected by EPA and TDEC. Additionally, analysis for lithium and total uranium was not 

conducted on EPA or TVA ash samples. These constituents were detected in samples 

collected by TDEC. Exclusion of these constituents from the risk assessment introduces 

uncertainty into the risk estimates. The maximum detected concentrations reported by 

EPA or TDEC of these noncarcinogenic constituents were compared to residential riskbased screening levels at a target hazard quotient level 0.1 (Table A-9 [Attachment A1]). This comparison indicates that the maximum detected concentrations exceed their 

respective residential screen levels at the target hazard quotient level of 0.1. This 

suggests that the hazard estimates may be underestimated." 

Question 1: Why were samples taken by EPA and TDEC ignored, using only samples taken 

by TVA, the entity that has the most at stake financially in this project? 

Question 2: The Human Health Risk Assessment analysis should include all sampling 

results identified and taken in response to a planning DQO process to ensure proper 

protection to local residents and users of the Emory River and Watts Bar Lake. What 

methodology was established to ensure a defensible sampling methodology was 

performed? 

TVA Response: Please note that the samples taken by EPA and TDEC have not been 

ignored. The cited text explicitly includes discussion of those results; Table A-9 presents the 

results of those data compared to risk-based screening levels. The EE/CA further 

concludes that the risks are unacceptable and that a removal action is warranted, and 

further evaluates alternatives to remove the ash from the embayment and to close the 

Dredge Cell. Therefore the uncertainty expressed in this section of the risk assessment is 

managed appropriately. 

Sampling of ash deposits was performed in accordance with EPA-approved work plans. 

TVA has prepared a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), which has been approved by 

EPA, to establish a defensible data management process. Additional investigation of the 

river system is being planned to support a future risk assessment for users of the Emory 

River and Watts Bar Reservoir; a formal DQO planning process has been followed in 

accordance with EPA guidelines, to establish the sampling strategy. The DQOs and the 

sampling design will be presented in the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the river system. 

79. The conclusions of the HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT and the SCREENING 

LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT need to be summarized in some section of 

each document in a manner that is easy for the general public to understand. 

TVA Response: The conclusions of the HHRA are presented in Section A.1.4; the 

conclusions of the SLERA are presented in Section B.3. Please note that these conclusions 

are further summarized in a manner that is easier for the general public to understand in 

both the Executive Summary and Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of the EE/CA. 

80. The following statement is located in section B.3.1 Terrestrial Environment (Page B-8) of the 

SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT. 

- "Sixteen inorganic constituents in ash as soil were selected as COPECs because 

maximum concentrations exceeded an HQ of 1." 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 40 of 57 

Comment: Please provide a bulletized list of the COPECs below this statement in the 

document. Ref: APPENDIX B SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 

TVA Response: Please refer to Table B-10, which lists the constituents of interest 

identified as COPECs in the screening-level ecological risk assessment. 

81. The following two statements are located in section B.3.2 Aquatic Environment (Page B-9) 

of the SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT. 

- "Seventeen inorganic constituents in ash as sediment were selected as COPECs 

because maximum concentrations exceeded an HQ of 1, an ESV was not available, or 

constituents were identified as COIs in fly ash." 

- "Surface Water: Eleven inorganic constituents in surface water were selected as 

COPECs because maximum concentrations exceeded an HQ of 1, an ESV was not 

available, or constituents were identified as COIs in fly ash." 

Please provide a bulletized list of the COPECs below each statement in the document. 

TVA Response: Please refer to Table B-10, which lists the constituents of interest 

identified as COPECs in the screening-level ecological risk assessment. 

82. The acronym DOE is Department of Energy, not Department of Defense. Ref: Page v, List of 

Acronyms 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the typographical error. 

83. Include the acronym BESA - Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Ref: Page iv, List of 

Acronyms 

TVA Response: "BERA" is already included in the acronym list. 

84. The reference to the year (2009) for the ANL study does not match the year of 1999 in the 

reference section. Ref: More than one instance 

TVA Response: TVA regrets the typographical error. The ANL study was produced in April 

1999. 

85. Please define examples of "unauthorized purpose" of use of the closed Dredge Cell as 

mentioned in paragraph three under Evaluation of Alternatives. Ref: Page x, Evaluation of 

Alternatives, 3rd paragraph, last sentence 

TVA Response: Unauthorized purposes are uses of the Dredge Cell that would conflict 

with the requirements of Tennessee Rules 1200-1-7-.02 or 1200-1-.04, which prohibit entry 

by unauthorized persons or disposal of unauthorized wastes. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 41 of 57 

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT 

1920 L Street NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

www.environmentalintegrity.com 

Overall Deficiencies in the EE/CA require additional investigation and clarification. 

Overall, we support an action that removes as much coal combustion waste (“CCW”) as 

possible from the dredge cell and the embayment and minimizes long-term reliance on the 

failed dredge cell as a waste containment unit. We find, however, that there are some significant 

deficiencies in the EE/CA that require additional investigation and clarification. Specifically, we 

urge TVA to: (1) Prevent direct contact between CCW and water; (2) Minimize migration of 

CCW and its constituents into water, via groundwater discharge or surface water discharge; (3) 

Minimize direct contact between CCW and human or ecological receptors; (4) Restore the 

embayment to pre-spill conditions; (5) Close the former Dredge Cell to prevent further 

groundwater or surface water pollution, even if it requires exceeding minimum state standards 

for such closure; (6) Perform additional leach tests on the CCW to ensure accurate 

characterization and assessment of risk from the waste; (7) Safely dispose of CCW from the 

spill site in permitted, composite-lined landfills only after ensuring that such landfills are 

operating in a manner that protects the long-term health and environment of the host 

communities; (8) Refrain from any final decision regarding off-site disposal of CCW until existing 

issues regarding threats to air, groundwater and surface water as well as the sufficiency of the 

operating permit and financial assurance are fully resolved for the Arrowhead Landfill; and (9) 

Refrain from any final decision regarding off-site disposal until the host community has the 

opportunity to participate meaningfully in the determination of off-site placement, including the 

ability to employ technical advisors to assist the community. Because CCW disposal in the 

Arrowhead Landfill raises issues of environmental justice, TVA’s attention to the latter request is 

particularly important.1

1 TVA, Kingston Ash Recovery Project, Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Embayment/Dredge 

Cell Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), ix-x (Jan. 15, 2010) available at 

http://www.tva.gov/kingston/eeca/index.htm.

TVA Response: TVA acknowledges your support of an action that removes as much ash as 

possible from the dredge cell and embayment and minimizes long-term reliance on the dredge 

cell as a waste containment unit. TVA has addressed items (1) through (5) above, by meeting 

the Removal Action Objectives stated in the EE/CA. Items (6) through (9) above are not stated 

RAOs; the following indicate TVA’s response to those items: 

(6) TVA will be performing additional leach tests to support groundwater fate and transport 

modeling associated with additional investigation of the river system. Please see the 

response to the specific comment below. 

(7) If the decision were to be made to dispose of the retrieved ash offsite, the facility or 

landfill selected would have to comply with RCRA Subtitle D permitting requirements for 

operation and disposal of industrial wastes. These requirements include the use of a 

synthetic liner, leachate collection system, groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and 

closure and post-closure care as provided in Section XVII of the AOC. In addition, prior to 

any offsite shipment, TVA would obtain EPA’s determination that the proposed receiving 

facility is operating in compliance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 300.440, as well as 

appropriate health and safety standards. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 42 of 57 

(8) Please note that Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require disposal at any specific landfill; the 

Arrowhead and Chestnut Ridge Landfills were used as representative disposal options, 

however other permitted landfills could be used. If the decision were to be made to dispose 

of the retrieved ash offsite, the facility or landfill selected would have to comply with RCRA 

Subtitle D permitting requirements for operation and disposal of industrial wastes. These 

requirements include the use of a synthetic liner, leachate collection system, groundwater 

monitoring, air monitoring, surface water monitoring, financial assurance, and closure and 

post-closure care as provided in Section XVII of the AOC. In addition, prior to any offsite 

shipment, TVA would obtain EPA’s determination that the proposed receiving facility is 

operating in compliance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 300.440, as well as 

appropriate health and safety standards.. 

(9) As part of the EE/CA public comment period, which has been extended to 75 days, the 

host communities of potential offsite disposal facilities have had the opportunity to 

participate meaningfully in the public participation process. Comments have been received 

from members of the local host communities, in particular the Arrowhead Landfill 

community. 

I. Undertake Further Study to Accurately Characterize CCW using EPA’s New Leach 

Test Methods Instead of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). 

In the EE/CA, TVA relies exclusively on a single point leach test, the Toxicity Characteristic 

Leaching Procedure (“TCLP”) to characterize the leaching potential of the coal ash.2

However, several reports by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (“ORD”), 

published from 2006 to 2009, provide conclusive evidence that this single-point pH test is 

not sufficient for evaluating potential impacts from CCW disposal. According to the EPA, the 

TCLP should be replaced by a test that more accurately predicts the levels of toxic metals 

that can leach out of coal ash. The EPA describes its transition to a more sensitive and 

accurate leaching test for coal ash in the following studies: 

2 Id. at pp. 10-11, Table 1-2. 

(1) "Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet 

Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control" (EPA/600/R-08/077) July2008, available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08077/600r08077.htm

(2) "Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities 

Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control" (EPA-600/R-06/008) February 2006; 

available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r06008/600r06008.pdf

(3) U.S. EPA, Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using 

Multi-Pollutant Control Technology – Leaching and Characterization Data (EPA-600/R09/151) December 2009; available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09151/600r09151.html

(4) Senior, C; Thorneloe, S.; Khan, B.; Goss, D. Fate of Mercury Collected from Air Pollution 

Control Devices; EM, July 2009, 15-21, available at: 

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Ja3eLhFq5Y0J:oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eims

comm.getfile%3Fp_download_id%3D491053+Fate+of+Mercury+Collected+from+Air+Po

llution+Control+Devices&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShUcTwEh2Rs8gD3Xao_5

JiUFwhQYib4AYsrhvISgRhRsHDhU1Vtr9IgyeSf6cNj8GTiCwrZHRwJpYuSOyM3UO0IBk

6c_0hbmJ9vo9dLas-U4yJyC2ux-8pNbmq6sbw5eiAxbHX&sig=AHIEtbRjyt8wcCNU58RCc0YCDm6iOSaJA

(5) Thorneloe, S., D. Kosson, G. Helms, and A. C. Garrabrants. Improved leaching test 

methods for environmental assessment of coal ash and recycled materials used on 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 43 of 57 

construction. In Proceedings, 12th International Waste Management and Landfill 

Symposium, Cagliari, ITALY, October 05 - 09, 2009. (2009), available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=210134

In the report published by the EPA ORD in December 2009, “Characterization of Coal 

Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Multi-Pollutant Control Technology – 

Leaching and Characterization Data,” the EPA explained the use of a new leaching protocol: 

In developing data to characterize the leaching potential of [constituents of potential 

concern] from the range of likely CCRs resulting from use of state-of-the-art air pollution 

control technology, improved leaching test methods have been used. The principle 

advantage of these methods is that they consider the impact on leaching of 

management conditions. These methods address concerns raised by National Academy 

of Science and EPA’s Science Advisory Board with the use of single-point pH tests. 

Because of the range of field conditions that CCRs are managed during disposal or use 

as secondary (or alternative) materials, it is important to understand the leaching 

behavior of materials over the range of plausible field conditions that can include acid 

mine drainage and codisposal of fly ash and other CCRs with pyrites or high-sulfur coal 

rejects. The methods have also been developed into draft protocols for inclusion in 

EPA’s waste testing guidance document, SW-846, which would make them available for 

more routine use. 

(http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/index.htm). 

The selected testing approach was chosen for use because it evaluates leaching over a 

range of values for two key variables [pH and liquid-to-solid ratio (LS)] that both vary in the 

environment and affect the rate of constituent release from waste. The range of values used 

in the laboratory testing encompasses the range of values expected to be found in the 

environment for these parameters. Because the effect of these variables on leaching is 

evaluated in the laboratory, prediction of leaching from the waste in the field is expected to 

be done with much greater reliability.3

3 U.S. EPA, Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using MultiPollutant Control Technology – Leaching and Characterization Data (EPA-600/R-09/151) Dec 

2009, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09151/600r09151.html. 

In fact, the data published in the EPA’s report reveal a dramatic difference between the 

leach test results derived from the TCLP test and the results from the EPA’s new leaching 

framework. The test results are illustrated in the graph below. The TCLP results on the 

graph represent the highest levels of coal ash pollutants documented in the EPA’s 1999 

Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels. These results are 

compared to the highest levels found in leachate from the most recent EPA report 

(December 2009) using the new leaching framework. For all of the pollutants shown, the 

new test reveals substantial increases in the concentration of metals in the leachate. For 

example, the concentration of antimony increases over 900 times in the 2009 test results, 

the barium concentration increases over 1800 times, and the chromium concentration 

increases over 125 times. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 44 of 57 

It is also clear that the leachate resulting from the new test is considerably more toxic when 

compared to federal drinking water standards (maximum contaminant levels (“MCLs”)) and 

hazardous waste concentration limits. The graph below compares both MCLs and toxicity 

characteristics (“TCs”) to the EPA’s new leaching values for coal ash as documented in its 

December 2009 report. The toxicity characteristic determines at what concentration level a 

solid waste becomes a hazardous waste.4

 This graph indicates the magnitude by which coal 

ash leachate often exceeds federal drinking water standards and the toxicity characteristic. 

For example, the highest leaching level for arsenic found by the EPA using the new testing 

method was 18,000 parts per billion (ppb). This level is 1800 times the federal drinking water 

standard and over 3 times the level that defines a hazardous waste. Similarly, the highest 

leaching level for selenium found by the EPA using the new testing method was 29,000 ppb. 

This level is 580 times the drinking water standard and 29 times the hazardous waste 

toxicity characteristic level. 

4 See 40 C.F.R. § 261.44. The toxicity characteristic identifies wastes likely to leach 

concentrations of contaminants that may be harmful to human health or the environment.
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 45 of 57 

In sum, the growing body of data generated by EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

definitively shows that CCW, when tested using a more accurate leach test, produces 

leachate containing heavy metals at concentrations harmful to human health and the 

environment. According to the EPA, TCLP data alone, relied upon by TVA in this EE/CA, are 

no longer accurate measurements of coal ash toxicity. Therefore, given the availability of 

new testing protocols that would predict more accurately the extent of leaching from the 

Kingston ash, it is necessary that TVA conduct such testing. According to the TCLP leach 

data in the EE/CA, the Kingston ash does not exhibit the characteristic of toxicity for any of 

the metals tested.5

 Yet until the ash is tested with the new leaching protocol, one cannot 

conclude that the CCW does not leach at levels equivalent to a hazardous waste. TVA 

tested 68 samples of ash.6

 These samples should be re-tested before any decision is made 

regarding its on-site or off-site disposal. 

5 Id. at p. 11. 

6 Id. at p. 10. 

In addition, in numerous places throughout the EE/CA, TVA relies on the TCLP data to 

justify a limited consideration of remedial alternatives. For example, because TVA relies on 

the “fact” (as supported by TCLP testing) that “contaminants are typically bound to the ash,” 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 46 of 57 

TVA concludes that “the reduction of infiltration offered by clay caps is appropriate at the 

site.”7

 Therefore, “a clay cap option is carried forward in this EE/CA as a representative type 

of containment system for use in developing alternatives.”8 Other alternatives are also shortcircuited by reliance on the TCLP results for the Kingston ash. In Table 3-1 of the EE/CA, 

“Identification and Screening of Technologies,” TVA states “results of TCLP tests show fly 

ash has low leachability (below regulatory limits) therefore immobilization/stabilization was 

considered unnecessary.”9

 The EE/CA is flawed because TVA never developed alternatives 

evaluating treatment technologies because they prematurely and without adequate scientific 

basis determined that they were unnecessary. These conclusions are unwarranted and 

must be reconsidered after testing the coal ash using the EPA’s more accurate leach test. 

7 Id. at p. 27.

8 Id. 

9 Id. at 28. 

TVA Response: Metals in the ash do not leach readily under site-specific conditions. 

Several lines of evidence support this conclusion. First, groundwater quality does not 

exceed drinking water standards after more than 50 years of the ash being in contact with 

groundwater. This overall evidence integrates site-specific geochemical, hydrostratigraphic, 

and leaching characteristics to demonstrate that ash does not leach readily. Second, an 

EPA Science Panel review of potential selenium issues after the ash spill concluded that 

most metals are not readily leaching off the ash particles spilled into the river, based on 

available surface water monitoring data. Third, the U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center (ERDC) tested samples of ash taken from the Dredge Cell, Emory 

River, and Stilling Pond using sequential extraction procedures designed to remove metals 

from the ash with increasingly more “aggressive” solvents. This previous extended leaching 

work conducted by the ERDC used site water agitated with air and nitrogen, and 

demonstrated that metal leaching at circumneutral pH values closely mimics site conditions 

Results of that study also demonstrated that site-specific metals (such as arsenic and 

selenium) would not easily become mobile in normal aqueous environments, that is, they do 

not readily leach from the ash. A copy of that report may be found at the following website: 

ftp://erdcftp.erdc.usace.army.mil/pub/el/Steevens/ERDC%20TVA%20fly%20ash%20Final%

20Draft%2010-09-09.pdf. Fourth, results of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP) testing of ash samples for waste characterization purposes have shown that the 

TCLP leachate does not exceed threshold limits and that the ash is not a hazardous waste. 

This provides secondary evidence that the ash does not readily leach metals. 

The new EPA leach tests, specifically Proposed Methods 1313 through 1316, are alternate 

leaching procedures developed in EPA research studies that could theoretically result in 

greater leaching of metals. These alternate procedures are under development and have 

not yet been formally adopted. The alternate procedures are being developed specifically to 

characterize the impact of leaching under a range of plausible field conditions for various 

disposal or secondary uses. The new leaching procedures are intended to evaluate all 

kinds of waste materials, not just coal ash, for disposal or re-use under a wide variety of 

plausible conditions. The particular response of the material to those leaching procedures is 

to be evaluated relative to the environmental conditions expected for the particular disposal 

or re-use under consideration. These tests subject the ash to harsh conditions that are not 

representative of site-specific pH and redox conditions observed or managed at the TVA 

Kingston site. TVA’s proposed action addresses the site-specific field conditions 

encountered and the conditions which are expected to be encountered in the future at the 

Kingston site. Plausible conditions noted in the comment above, such as acid mine 

drainage, secondary uses of the material, codisposal with other waste products (pyrites or 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 47 of 57 

high-sulfur coal rejects) aren’t applicable to the site-specific conditions observed with the 

retrieved ash or managed under closure of the Dredge Cell. 

It should be noted that future sampling and analysis plans for characterization of the river 

system include additional sampling of ash and groundwater to determine geochemical 

conditions and leaching characteristics for modeling fate and transport of metals and 

radionuclides to the river. These tests will include soil leaching column tests and sequential 

extraction procedures. TVA will be assessing the geochemical conditions and conducting 

additional leach/column tests based on recommendations from EPA's National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory (Groundwater and Ecosystem Restoration Division) in 

Ada, Oklahoma. 

II. Further Investigate the Environmental Risks, Including CCW Leachate Treatment, at 

Arrowhead Landfill in Alabama and Chestnut Ridge Landfill in Tennessee. 

This EE/CA does not examine the current CCW disposal problems at the Arrowhead landfill, 

or the likelihood that other EPA-approved landfills, such as the Chestnut Ridge landfill, may 

experience similar problems with CCW disposal. TVA’s current CCW disposal site in Perry 

County, Alabama has been widely criticized and continues to be controversial due to 

financial problems, environmental issues, and environmental justice concerns.10 Although 

the Chestnut Ridge Landfill is only being considered for 760,000 cubic yards of CCW from 

the Berkshire Slough (North Embayment), both landfills should be examined to determine 

compliance with CERCLA offsite disposal regulations and whether the disposal of ash is 

currently threatening health and the environment.11

10 Shaila Dewan, Clash in Alabama Over Landfill's Plans to Take Tennessee Coal Ash, NEW YORK 

TIMES (Aug 30.2009); Scott Barker, Landfill owner files for Chapter 11: TVA, contractor say action 

won't stop coal ash spill shipments, THE KNOXVILLE NEWS-SENTINEL (Jan. 28, 2010); AP Alert 

(Alabama), Lawsuit planned over landfill's coal ash shipments, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Feb. 5, 2010); 

Bill Poovey, Plant in Alabama stops taking coal ash drainage , ASSOCIATED PRESS (Feb. 6, 2010). 

11 TVA EE/CA, supra note 1 at 29. 

Of special concern is the ability of each landfill to treat CCW leachate. TVA should 

investigate whether wastewater treatment plants (“WWTP”) in Alabama and in the Knoxville 

area are equipped to remove metals and other CCW constituents from CCW wastewaters 

before committing to dispose of CCW at these landfills. CCW leachate should be collected 

at each landfill and treated, most likely by a local WWTP. However, in Perry County, the 

local WWTP had problems treating CCW leachate, and the company charged with 

transporting leachate for treatment has stopped accepting it.12 TVA should address these 

problems before shipping CCW offsite, and ensure that similar problems will not arise at the 

Tennessee landfill. 

12 Ben Raines, Mobile firm rejects waste, PRESS-REGISTER (Mobile, AL) (Feb. 6, 2010 (Liquid 

Environmental Solutions in Mobile announced that it would no longer accept shipments of waste 

liquids from the Perry County landfill).

TVA Response: Please note that Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require disposal at any 

specific landfill; the Arrowhead and Chestnut Ridge Landfills were used as representative 

disposal options, however other permitted landfills could be used. If the decision were to be 

made to dispose of the retrieved ash offsite, the facility or landfill selected would have to 

comply with RCRA Subtitle D permitting requirements for operation and disposal of industrial 

wastes. These requirements include the use of a synthetic liner, leachate collection system, 

groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and closure and post-closure care as provided 

in Section XVII of the AOC. In addition, prior to any offsite shipment, TVA would obtain 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 48 of 57 

EPA’s determination that the proposed receiving facility is operating in compliance with the 

requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 300.440, as well as appropriate health and safety standards. 

. 

 

III. Investigate the Full Scope of Environmental Risks at the Arrowhead Landfill in 

Uniontown, Alabama. 

The EE/CA must ensure safe off-site disposal of the TVA ash in permitted, composite-lined 

landfills only after ensuring that such landfills are operating in a manner that protects the 

long-term health and environment of the host communities. Both Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2 require the off-site disposal of substantial quantities of coal ash at the 

Arrowhead Landfill in Uniontown, Alabama. 

Alternative 1 requires the off-site disposal of approximately 2.8 million cubic yards of coal 

ash, and Alternative 2 requires the disposal of approximately 6.8 million cubic yards of ash. 

If options to truck portions of this waste to a subtitle D landfill in Tennessee are chosen, 

these totals would be reduced slightly. 

Wholly absent from the EE/CA, however, is any analysis of the impact to public health and 

the environment of disposing of these prodigious quantities of coal ash in the Arrowhead 

Landfill. For the past year, trainloads of TVA ash have been arriving daily in Uniontown, 

Alabama at the rate of approximately 10,000 tons per day. Yet, to date, no comprehensive 

analyses of the impacts to groundwater, surface water or air quality have been undertaken. 

Neither the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) nor the EPA has 

required the collection of data sufficient to quantify such impacts. TVA appears not to have 

looked into the nature of the many citizen complaints of degradation of air and water near 

the landfill,13 the notices of intent to sue sent to the owners of the landfill,14 the outstanding 

notice letter pertaining to violations of the federal Clean Water Act involving landfill 

leachate,15 the outstanding notice letters sent to the operators of the landfill on behalf of 155 

residents of Uniontown for violations of the federal Clean Air and Solid Waste Disposal 

Acts,16 and a Petition to Rescind the EPA determination that the Arrowhead Landfill is 

acceptable for the receipt of CERCLA waste.17 This is wholly unacceptable. In the absence 

of data and analysis in the EE/CA, it is inappropriate to designate Arrowhead Landfill as the 

recipient of additional waste shipments of this magnitude before such an investigation is 

completed. 

13 See, for example, the Complaint regarding off-site discharge of contaminated water at 

Arrowhead Landfill Perry County Associates, LLC, SWDF Permit No. 53-03, filed with ADEM and 

the US EPA by David A. Ludder, Esq., dated December 17, 2009, available at http://www.envirolawyer.com/News-LawOfficeNews.html. 

14 See Notice of Intent to File Suit for Violation of Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

under the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Notice of Intent to File Suit for Violation of State 

Implementation Plan for Alabama under the Clean Air Act to Perry County Associates, LLC, Inc. 

by David A. Ludder, Esq. on behalf of residents of Uniontown, AL, dated December 7, 2010, 

available at http://www.enviro-lawyer.com/News-LawOfficeNews.html. 

15 See Notice of Intent to File Suit under the Clean Water Act sent to the Demopolis Wastewater 

Treatment Plant and Collection System by David A. Ludder, Esq. on behalf of Conservation 

Alabama Foundation, dated February 9, 2010, available at http://www.enviro-lawyer.com/NewsLawOfficeNews.html. 

16 See Notice of Intent to File Suit for Violation of Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

under the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Notice of Intent to File Suit for Violation of State 

Implementation Plan for Alabama under the Clean Air Act to Phillips and Jordan, Inc by David A. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 49 of 57 

Ludder, Esq. on behalf of 155 residents of Uniontown, AL, dated February 2, 2010, available at 

http://www.enviro-lawyer.com/News-LawOfficeNews.html, attached as Appendices D and E. 

17 See Petition to Rescind Determination that the Perry County Associates, LLC Landfill is 

Acceptable for the Receipt of CERCLA Waste filed by David A. Ludder, Esq. on behalf of 

Uniontown residents, dated February 15, 2010, available at http://www.enviro-lawyer.com/NewsLawOfficeNews.html.

TVA Response: Please note that Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require disposal at any 

specific landfill; the Arrowhead and Chestnut Ridge Landfills were used as representative 

disposal options, however other permitted landfills could be used. If the decision were to be 

made to dispose of the retrieved ash offsite, the facility or landfill selected would have to 

comply with RCRA Subtitle D permitting requirements for operation and disposal of industrial 

wastes. These requirements include the use of a synthetic liner, leachate collection system, 

groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and closure and post-closure care as provided 

in Section XVII of the AOC. In addition, prior to any offsite shipment, TVA would obtain 

EPA’s determination that the proposed receiving facility is operating in compliance with the 

requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 300.440, as well as appropriate health and safety standards.. 

IV. Site Characterization of the Arrowhead Landfill Is Needed to Determine Current and 

Potential Impacts on Groundwater. 

In order to ensure that disposal of coal ash in the Arrowhead Landfill is not currently 

degrading groundwater and does not have the potential in the future to degrade area 

groundwater, a geologic and hydrologic study of the site must be completed. This study 

should include an analysis of the site’s hydrology, including determining whether voids 

beneath the landfill could facilitate off-site migration of contaminants, determination of the 

direction of groundwater flow and rate of flow, and determination of background 

groundwater quality. In addition, a study of current and potential uses of groundwater in the 

area must be completed, including an analysis of the location of groundwater wells, their 

depth, and their use. 

While the EPA recently conducted an analysis of the available groundwater data collected 

from semi-annual monitoring by the landfill operators, this analysis is insufficient to 

determine present and future impacts to groundwater.18 The analysis is inadequate because 

of the landfill owner/operator’s failure to determine background quality of the groundwater, 

the limited number of groundwater wells, the location of existing wells, the condition and 

construction of groundwater wells, the limited sampling parameters of the current program, 

and the infrequency of the monitoring period. 

18 See Letter from G. Alan Farmer, Director, RCRA Division, EPA Region 4 to Lisa Evans, 

Earthjustice and Reverend James R. Murdock, Concerned Citizens of Perry County, Review of 

Groundwater Monitoring Data for the Perry County Associates Landfill near Uniontown, Alabama, 

dated March 22, 2010.

Specifically, inadequacy of the current groundwater monitoring regime includes the 

characterization of baseline water quality by only four sampling events over a period of 42 

days. Pursuant to the RCRA regulations, Part 265 Interim Status regulations for hazardous 

waste landfills, four background measurements are required during the first year of 

monitoring by quarterly sampling.19 It is highly questionable whether baseline water quality 

could be determined by the very limited sampling conducted by the Arrowhead Landfill 

operators. Further, the sampling parameters required by the landfill permit do not include 

primary constituents of concern for coal ash, including boron, sulfate, manganese and 

molybdenum.20 Without the quarterly monitoring of such common CCW contaminants, it is 

unlikely that accurate and timely detection of contaminant migration can be ascertained. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 50 of 57 

Third, the extremely high pH reported in groundwater wells suggests a problem with the 

construction and installation of the wells. Lastly, conducting only semi-annual monitoring is 

not sufficient to produce a database that can accurately characterize groundwater impacts. 

19 See 40 C.F.R. § 265.92(c)(1). 

20 See Hensel, Bruce, Kenneth L Ladwig, and Karen V. Summers. Remediation of Groundwater 

at Coal Combustion Product Management Facilities: Driving Issues and Future Trends, 2009 

World of Coal Ash Conference Abstract, dated May 2009, available at 

www.flyash.info/2009/a134-hensel2009abs.pdf.

TVA Response: Please note that Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require disposal at any 

specific landfill; the Arrowhead and Chestnut Ridge Landfills were used as representative 

disposal options, however other permitted landfills could be used. If the decision were to be 

made to dispose of the retrieved ash offsite, the facility or landfill selected would have to 

comply with RCRA Subtitle D permitting requirements for operation and disposal of industrial 

wastes. These requirements include the use of a synthetic liner, leachate collection system, 

groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and closure and post-closure care as provided 

in Section XVII of the AOC. In addition, prior to any offsite shipment, TVA would obtain 

EPA’s determination that the proposed receiving facility is operating in compliance with the 

requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 300.440, as well as appropriate health and safety standards. 

V. Investigation of Impacts on Air Quality Is Needed at the Arrowhead Landfill. 

In view of the persistent complaints of Uniontown residents of noxious odors emanating from 

the Arrowhead Landfill21 and the threats posed by fugitive dust when coal ash becomes 

airborne, TVA must examine whether the disposal of the Kingston coal ash at the 

Arrowhead landfill is adversely affecting air quality. To date, adequate air monitoring and 

control measures are not in place to quantify or prevent adverse impacts. 

21 See Notice of Intent to Sue, supra at note 15.

The threat to human health from inhalation of the Kingston coal ash was examined by 

scientists from Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke’s Pratt School of 

Engineering, the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the Georgia Institute of 

Technology.22 The peer-reviewed study that resulted from their analysis found a “high 

probability of atmospheric resuspension of fine fly ash particulates, which are enriched in 

toxic metals and radioactivity, [that] could have a severe health impact on local communities 

and workers.”23

22 See Ruhl, L. Vengosh, A, Dwyer, G. Hsu-Kim, H, Deonarine, A, Bergin, M., Kravchenko, J. 

Survey of the Potential Environmental and Health Impacts in the Immediate Aftermath of the Coal 

Ash Spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Environ.Sci.Technol. 2009, 43(22), 6326–6333. 

23 Id. at 6331.

Scientists analyzed the TVA coal ash currently being disposed at the Arrowhead Landfill, 

and their analysis revealed that the Kingston ash contains high levels of toxic metals and 

radioactivity, including 75 parts per million of arsenic, 150 parts per billion of mercury, and 8 

picocuries per gram of total radium. According to the study, the high concentrations of trace 

metals and radioactivity in the bulk ash “are expected to magnify, as fine fractions of fly ash 

(which may be resuspended and deposited in the human respiratory system) are typically 4-

10 times enriched in metals relative to the bulk ash and the coarse size fraction.”24 In 

addition, the study notes that the “toxic metal content in coal ash, the sizes of fly ash 

particulates, and the ionizing radiation (IR) exposure (both incorporated and external) may 

act synergistically or, less frequent, antagonistically, affecting human health directly 

(predominantly through inhalation of contaminated air).”25 

24 Id. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 51 of 57 

25 Id. 

The study also notes that coal ash is a Group I human carcinogen associated with increased 

risks of skin, lung, and bladder cancers. Arsenic and radium exposures in humans are 

associated with increased risks of skin, lung, liver, leukemia, breast, bladder, and bone 

cancers for exposure predominantly due to chronic ingestion or chronic inhalation, with the 

dose-response curve dependent on location, sources, and population susceptibility and/or 

tolerance.26 The study states that coal ash particulates: 

affect lung epithelial and red blood cells in animal studies and human in vitro models, 

causing inflammation, changing the sensitivity of epithelia, altering immunological 

mechanisms and lymphocyte blastogenesis, andincreasing the risk of cardiopulmonary 

disease (e.g., pulmonary vasculitis/hypertention). Individuals with pre-existing chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease, lung infection, or asthma are more susceptible to the 

coal ash affliction. Several epidemiological studies have proved the significant health 

hazards (such as enhanced risk for adverse cardiovascular events) of fine-particulate air 

pollution for individuals with type II diabetes mellitus and people with genetic and/or 

diseaserelated susceptibility to vascular dysfunction, who are a large part of the 

population.27

26 Id. 

27 Id. 

Lastly, in addition to the threats posed by inhalation of trace metals such as arsenic and 

lead, the study also identifies risk from inhalation of radium in the Kingston ash: 

Radium-226 and 228Ra, which are the main sources of low-dose IR exposure in coal 

ash, can remain in the human lung for several months after their inhalation, gradually 

entering the blood circulation and depositing in bones and teeth with this portion 

remaining for the lifetime of the individual. When inhaled, the radionuclides can affect the 

respiratory system even without the presence of the other coal ash components. Thus, 

the airborne particles containing radioactive elements inhaled by cleanup workers of the 

nuclear accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant caused bronchial mucosa lesions, 

in some cases preneoplastic, with an increased susceptibility to the invasion of 

microorganisms in bronchial mucosa. Consequently, the combined radioactivity of coal 

ash at the TVA spill, together with other enriched trace metals such as Ni, Pb, and As, 

may increase the overall health impact in exposed populations, depending on duration of 

exposure, and particularly for susceptible groups of the population.28

28 Id.

Nothing in the current permit at the Arrowhead Landfill requires the owner or operator of the 

landfill to take any specific precautions to eliminate the threat of airborne ash. While the 

permit does require placement of “daily cover,” the permit specifically allows the use of coal 

ash as an “alternative daily cover material” to cover the TVA ash.29 In view of the absence of 

any specific permit conditions requiring control of fugitive dust, the allowance of coal ash as 

a daily cover creates a further potential for injury. 

29 See Section III.H.2. of the Permit Modification for the Arrowhead Landfill, dated July 20, 2009, 

available at http://www.arrowheadlandfill.com/Solid%20Waste%20Permit.pdf.

Current air monitoring at the landfill, obtained by a Freedom of Information Act Request, 

reveals that the Arrowhead Landfill operators are only conducting PM 10 monitoring. This 

has produced a data set that is inadequate to determine potential human health impacts to 

residents near the landfill. Because a significant portion of the TVA coal ash contains 

particles smaller than PM 10, monitoring for PM 2.5 (respirable particles) is essential. TVA 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 52 of 57 

has acknowledged that such enhanced air quality monitoring is necessary to determine 

potential health threats from the coal ash, and TVA currently conducts PM 2.5 monitoring at 

the Kingston spill site. 

The EE/CA must resolve this lack of relevant data concerning both fugitive dust and noxious 

odors prior to approval of the Arrowhead Landfill as the designated off-site disposal site for 

millions more tons of toxic waste. 

TVA Response: Please note that Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require disposal at any 

specific landfill; the Arrowhead and Chestnut Ridge Landfills were used as representative 

disposal options, however other permitted landfills could be used. If the decision were to be 

made to dispose of the retrieved ash offsite, the facility or landfill selected would have to 

comply with RCRA Subtitle D permitting requirements for operation and disposal of industrial 

wastes. These requirements include the use of a synthetic liner, leachate collection system, 

groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and closure and post-closure care as provided 

in Section XVII of the AOC. In addition, prior to any offsite shipment, TVA would obtain 

EPA’s determination that the proposed receiving facility is operating in compliance with the 

requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 300.440, as well as appropriate health and safety standards. 

VI. Investigation of Impacts to Surface Water Quality from the Arrowhead Landfill. 

There have been numerous reports of the discharge of coal ash-laden water to surface 

waters near the Arrowhead Landfill.30 These discharges have been brought to the attention 

of ADEM and the EPA, but no investigation into the effect of these discharges has occurred. 

Samples taken by concerned citizens reveal arsenic levels in ditches that flow close to 

residential properties at levels far above federal drinking water standards. One sample 

revealed an arsenic level of 0.840 mg/L in the surface water—84 times the maximum 

contaminant level for arsenic. These discharges appear to flow from various sources, 

including the washing of trucks and train cars at unloading stations, uncontrolled runoff, and 

uncontrolled leachate. In view of the proximity of residences to the landfill, an investigation 

of area ditches and streams is needed as well as an evaluation of the sufficiency of the 

control of runoff and leachate at the landfill. 

30 See, e.g., Complaint of David A. Ludder, supra at fn. 12.

TVA Response: Please note that Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require disposal at any 

specific landfill; the Arrowhead and Chestnut Ridge Landfills were used as representative 

disposal options, however other permitted landfills could be used. If the decision were to be 

made to dispose of the retrieved ash offsite, the facility or landfill selected would have to 

comply with RCRA Subtitle D permitting requirements for operation and disposal of industrial 

wastes. These requirements include the use of a synthetic liner, leachate collection system, 

groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and closure and post-closure care as provided 

in Section XVII of the AOC. In addition, prior to any offsite shipment, TVA would obtain 

EPA’s determination that the proposed receiving facility is operating in compliance with the 

requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 300.440, as well as appropriate health and safety standards. 

VII. The EE/CA Must Address Environmental Justice Concerns Pertaining to Off-Site 

Disposal. 

It is clear from the EE/CA that important environmental justice (“EJ”) concerns have once 

again been omitted in the consideration of off-site disposal options for the toxic coal ash 

from the TVA Kingston plant. These concerns should be addressed in an environmental 

justice assessment under Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 53 of 57 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, signed by 

President William J. Clinton in 1994.31

31 William J. Clinton, Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/ej/exec_order_12898.pdf 

(accessed April 4, 2010).

Executive Order 12898 is “designed to focus the attention of federal agencies on the human 

health and environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. 

It requires federal agencies to adopt strategies to address environmental justice concerns 

within the context of agency operations.”32 In December 1997, the President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued environmental justice guidance for integrating EJ into 

the National Policy Act.33 And in April 1998, the EPA adopted the Final Guidance For 

Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses. 

32 U.S. EPA, Final Guidance For Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA 

Compliance Analyses. Washington, DC: EPA, April 1998. 

33 President’s Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, December 10, 1997.

The first gross omission of environmental justice concerns by TVA and EPA was made 

when the agencies failed to conduct an EJ assessment or EJ analysis prior to the July 2, 

2009 determination to dispose of the coal ash from the TVA spill at the Arrowhead Landfill in 

Perry County, Alabama, located approximately 330 miles from the spill site. An 

environmental justice red flag should have been raised immediately based on the following: 

(1) TVA’s plan called for shipping toxic coal ash by railcar from the mostly white east 

Tennessee Roane County (95.2 percent white and 13.9 percent of its residents living 

in poverty) to the Arrowhead Landfill located in the heart of the mostly black and poor 

Perry County (69 percent African-American with more than 32 percent of its 

residents living in poverty), in the heart of the Alabama “blackbelt.”34

34 U.S. EPA Press Release, EP:A Approves Plan for Disposal of Coal Ash from TVA 

Kingston Site at the Arrowhead Landfill in Perry County, Alabama , available at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/2ac652c59703a4738525735900400c2c/02ec7

45d4bba7547852575e700476a8f!OpenDocument, July 2, 2009 (accessed April 4, 2010).

(2) The nature of the waste spilled—coal combustion waste—was under review by the 

EPA for redesignation as a hazardous waste. 

(3) The large volume of coal ash involved—up to 6.8 million tons. 

(4) The long, sordid history of disparate waste facility siting and discriminatory disposal 

of toxic waste in minority communities, as documented in the 2007 Toxic Wastes and 

Race at Twenty report and numerous other studies.35

35 Robert D. Bullard, Paul Mohai, Robin, Saha, and Beverly Wright, Toxic Wastes and 

Race at Twenty. Cleveland, OH: United Church of Christ, March 2007.

(5) The legacy of unequal protection and discriminatory waste “dumping in Dixie” --

practices and policies that target black communities for toxic waste disposal from 

cleanups in white communities.36 A case in point is the 1978 cleanup of PCBcontaminated soil in mostly white areas in North Carolina and the decision by EPA 

Region 4 and the State of North Carolina to dispose of the toxic waste in mostly 

black and poor Warren County in 1982—giving rise to the modern EJ movement. By 

1993, the Warren County disposal facility was failing with 13 feet of water trapped in 

the landfill.37 The PCB landfill became the most recognized environmental justice 

symbol in the county. Despite the stigma, Warren County also became a symbol of 

triumph. After 21 years of living with the 142-acre toxic waste dump, in 2003, the 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 54 of 57 

threats to the community were officially recognized and state and federal sources 

spent $18 million to detoxify or neutralize contaminated soil stored at the Warren 

County PCB landfill.38

36 Robert D. Bullard, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality. Boulder: 

Westview Press, 2000. 

37 Exchange Project, Real People, Real Stories: Afton, NC (Warren County). Chapel Hill: 

Department of Health and Health Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 

September, 2006, available at http://www.exchangeproject.unc.edu/documents/pdf/realpeople/Aquadale%20long%20story%2007-0426%20for%20web.pdf (accessed April 4, 

2010). 

38 Wade Rawlins, “Dump’s Days Fade,” The News & Observer, November 11, 2003, p. 1.

(6) EPA Region 4 and the State of Tennessee have a history of discriminatory decisions 

allowing toxic wastes from industrial spills and accidents to be cleaned up in white 

communities and disposed of in black communities. The Dickson County case is yet 

another example where EPA Region 4 and the State of Tennessee sanctioned the 

removal of toxic waste from white communities (Dickson County is only 4.5 percent 

black) to be transported to and disposed in a black community, in the Dickson 

County Landfill, located in the heart of Dickson’s predominately black Eno Road 

community.39

39 See Tetra Tech EM Inc., Dickson County Landfill Reassessment Report. Prepared for 

the U.S. EPA (September 18, 2003), pp. 16-17, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/foiapgs/readingroom/dickson_co_landfill/Sept2003.pdf 

(accessed April 4, 2010); Robert D. Bullard, Paul Mohai, Robin Saha, and Beverly 

Wright, “Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: Why Race Still Matters After All of These 

Years,” Lewis & Clark Environmental Law Journal 38 (2): 2008; Robert D. Bullard and 

Beverly Wright, “Disastrous Response to Natural and Man-Made Disasters: An 

Environmental Justice Analysis Twenty-Five Years After Warren County,” UCLA Journal 

of Law and Environmental Policy 26: 2008.

Clearly, an environmental justice analysis should have been conducted between December 

22, 2008 (the date of the spill) and July 2, 2009 (the date of the EPA’s determination of the 

suitability of the Arrowhead Landfill)—a period of more than six months. The EJ implications 

became problematic when the EPA/TVA’s preferred site involved shipping toxic waste along 

a 330-mile corridor by rail from East Tennessee to the heart of the Alabama Blackbelt in 

Perry County. An EJ analysis using geographic information system (GIS) mapping to assess 

the racial and income implications along the route at alternative off-site waste disposal 

facilities could easily have been accomplished. Now the EPA/TVA is about to embark on the 

largest off-site removal of hazardous substances ever conducted under Superfund. Yet 

documents retrieved under several Freedom of Information Act requests show that no EJ 

analysis has been conducted to date. It has now been more than 15 months since the 

Kingston coal ash spill. A second decision to dispose of coal ash at the Arrowhead Landfill 

will compound the first decision. And clearly, EPA and TVA have not adequately addressed 

environmental justice impacts of the initial decision. At the very least, EPA Region 4 and 

TVA should have been actively investigating the current problems at the Arrowhead Landfill, 

holding public meetings and soliciting comments from the affected community. 

TVA must now analyze the environmental justice impacts of its decision to dispose of the 

Kingston coal ash in Perry County. TVA should prepare a supplemental EE/CA that 

identifies alternative offsite disposal sites and analyzes the environmental justice impacts, if 

any, at these sites. The revised EE/CA should demonstrate the commitment to provide 

equal protection and equal enforcement of the law when it comes to the black residents of 

Perry County, Alabama. Such an EJ analysis should assess the public health, 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 55 of 57 

socioeconomic, and equity implications of disposing up to 6.8 million tons of ash in the lowincome and minority community of Uniontown. In addition, TVA and/or the EPA should 

promptly make funds available to the Uniontown community, as they have to the Citizens 

Action Group (“CAG”) in Harriman, Tennessee, to enable the community to participate 

meaningfully in the decision making process. This non-time critical removal action presents 

TVA and EPA Region 4 with the opportunity, not realized to date, to integrate environmental 

justice into its decisionmaking.40 Executive Order 12898 requires no less. Failures over the 

years have exposed too many low-income and minority communities like Warren County, 

North Carolina and Perry County, Alabama to unnecessary elevated environmental health 

risks.41 TVA and EPA should not move forward with the decision for off-site disposal until an 

EJ analysis is completed and the Uniontown community is brought meaningfully into the 

decision-making process. 

40 Robert D. Bullard, "Unequal Environmental Protection: Incorporating Environmental Justice in 

Decision Making," Pp. 237-266 in Adam M. Finkel and Dominic Golding, eds., Worst Things 

First? The Debate over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities. Washington, DC: 

Resources for the Future, 1994. See also, Robert D. Bullard, “Assuring Environmental Justice for 

All.” Pp. 187-212 in Tavis Smiley, Covenant with Black America. Chicago: Third World Press, 

2006; Robert D. Bullard, The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of 

Pollution. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2005.

41 Robert D. Bullard, “Need for EPA Inspector General Investigation of Region 4 Treatment of 

Black Communities,” Dissident Voice, September 14, 2009, found at 

http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/09/need-for-epainspector- general-investigation-of-region-4-

treatment-of-black-communities (accessed on April 4, 2010). 

TVA Response: TVA agrees that environmental justice impacts should be evaluated during 

the selection of alternative offsite disposal sites. Such analysis should assess the public 

health, socioeconomic, and equity implications of disposing ash in low-income, minority 

communities. Please note that Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require disposal at any specific 

landfill; the Arrowhead and Chestnut Ridge Landfills were used as representative disposal 

options, however other permitted landfills could be used. If the decision were to be made to 

dispose of the retrieved ash offsite, TVA would evaluate alternative disposal locations and 

include environmental justice evaluations in the selection. 

VIII. TVA Should Not Construct Dikes Around the Failed Dredge Cell or Elsewhere at 

Kingston Using Coal Ash. 

The EE/CA states that, “under each of the three alternatives, the conceptual dike would be 

constructed using dewatered ash, compacted in thin lifts.”42 There is no discussion in the 

EE/CA concerning the potential problems involving construction using coal ash. Use of ash 

for construction of the dike, however, ensures continued contact between CCW and water 

and presents perpetual source for leaching of contaminants. Further, there is no evidence in 

the EE/CA that demonstrates that ash is a stable material for long-term waste containment. 

In contrast, the engineers who studied the root cause of the Kingston failure found that soft 

foundation soils and dike construction from ash contributed to the dredge cell failure.43

Because coal ash, particularly the Kingston coal ash, has not proven to be a stable material 

for long-term waste containment, TVA should not use CCW to construct a new dike around 

the failed dredge cell or anywhere else at the Kingston site. 

42 TVA EE/CA, supra note 1 at xi. 

43 TVA OIG Report, Review of the Kingston Fossil Plant Ash Spill Root Cause Study (July 23, 

2009). 

TVA Response: TVA will not construct dikes around the failed Dredge Cell or elsewhere 

using ash. For clarification, please note that the EE/CA states (paragraph 1 on page xi) that 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 56 of 57 

the perimeter dikes would be constructed using compacted soil, not ash, placed on a 

crushed rock working platform, which would be further reinforced with soil/cement columns 

(paragraph 3 on page xi). The EE/CA further states (paragraph 2 on page xi) that the 

conceptual cell fill would be constructed by dry stacking using dewatered ash, compacted in 

thin lifts. Therefore, the dikes (perimeter berms) would be constructed of soil on a stabilized 

foundation; the fill inside the cell would be dry-stacked ash. 

IX. TVA Should Revise Closure Plans for the Failed Dredge Cell and Ash Pond. 

A. TVA Must Consider Using a Synthetic Cap for the Dredge Cell and Ash Pond 

The closure plans for both the dredge cell and ash pond appear inadequate. First, TVA 

should install a synthetic cover at closure. As discussed above, TVA should be using new 

EPA leach tests instead of the TCLP, and preparing closure plans that are protective of the 

environment over the longterm, taking into consideration the full leaching potential of the 

coal ash. TVA’s current proposal in the EE/CA only requires a soil cover over the dredge cell 

and only 2 feet of clay and 1 foot of topsoil over the area.44 The same plan has been 

proposed for the ash pond, including closure with a cover of 2 feet of clay and 1 foot of 

topsoil, seeding, and mulching.”45 TVA should install a synthetic cap on both the dredge cell 

and ash pond or show that the clay and soil covers proposed in the EE/CA provides 

equivalent or better protection from water infiltration. 

44 TVA EE/CA, supra note 1 at 38-39. 

45 TVA EE/CA, supra note 1 at 38-39.

TVA Response: For clarification, please note that the EE/CA presents the revised closure 

plan for the failed Dredge Cell and Ash Pond. Closure will be in accordance with 

Tennessee Solid Waste Rule 1200-1-7. Please note further that the EE/CA has used a 

compacted clay cover as a representative closure option. However, the EE/CA states 

(Section 3.1, page 27) that other low-permeability caps, such as a composite clay liner 

system may be used. The EE/CA further states, in evaluating each of the three alternatives 

in Section 4, that an alternate final cover system may be used provided that it provides 

equivalent or superior performance in minimizing infiltration. TVA will evaluate a synthetic 

cover during that final design. 

Please also see response to comment “I”. Future sampling and analysis plans for 

characterization of the river system include additional sampling of ash and groundwater to 

determine geochemical conditions and leaching characteristics for modeling fate and 

transport of metals and radionuclides to the river. These tests will include soil leaching 

column tests and sequential extraction procedures.

B. TVA Must Commit to Long-term Monitoring After Closure of the Failed Dredge Cell 

and Ash Pond 

TVA’s current monitoring plan should be extended to ensure long-term protection of the 

environment. TVA should commit to a 30-year, post-closure monitoring plan. The proposed 

monitoring plan allows TVA to reduce monitoring “once stable conditions are confirmed for 

four quarters,” to a semi-annual basis, and then cease monitoring altogether. Since CCW 

remains in the dredge cell in contact with groundwater, and groundwater underneath the cell 

and water from the cell flow into surface water, TVA should commit to monitoring the failed 

dredge cell for a minimum of 30 years to ensure safety and environmental health. 

Termination of monitoring should be permitted only after a study is completed of all 

monitoring data, including consideration of adverse impacts on all receiving surface water 

bodies. 
Responsiveness Summary – Embayment/Dredge Cell EE/CA 

Page 57 of 57 

TVA Response: Post-closure monitoring will be performed in accordance with TDEC rule 

1200-1-7-.04(d), which requires that post-closure care be continued for 30 years after the 

date of final completion of closure of the disposal facility. 

X. Investigate the Environmental Risk and Sufficiency of Permit Conditions at the 

Chestnut Ridge Landfill in Anderson County, Tennessee. 

The EE/CA does not provide sufficient information on the adequacy of the Chestnut Ridge 

Landfill in Anderson County, Tennessee to accept Kingston coal ash. The EE/CA identified 

this landfill, 50 miles from the Kingston site, as a potential recipient of approximately 

760,000 cubic yards of ash. The EE/CA states that it is “approved by the EPA to handle 

CERCLA waste,” but provides no specific information regarding its capability to safely 

handle the disposal of coal ash.46 Questions regarding the adequacy of the landfill’s 

groundwater and air monitoring programs are not addressed. If, for example, the Chestnut 

Ridge Landfill is a state-permitted subtitle D landfill, this, alone, does not guarantee that an 

adequate groundwater monitoring program is in place. Tennessee regulations pertaining to 

subtitle D landfills do not require monitoring for common coal contaminants such as boron, 

manganese, molybdenum and sulfate.47 Nothing in the EE/CA indicates that there is any air 

monitoring at the landfill, nor is there information regarding the community in which the 

landfill is located. The EE/CA should provide supplemental information to fill these gaps and, 

in particular, should provide documentation that compliance and monitoring programs are 

sufficient to address the potential health and environmental threats posed by disposal of 

large quantities of coal ash. 

46 TV EE/CA supra note 1 at 35. 

47 See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1200-1-7-.04.

TVA Response: Please note that Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require disposal at any 

specific landfill; the Arrowhead and Chestnut Ridge Landfills were used as representative 

disposal options, however other permitted landfills could be used. If the decision were to be 

made to dispose of the retrieved ash offsite, the facility or landfill selected would have to 

comply with RCRA Subtitle D permitting requirements for operation and disposal of industrial 

wastes. These requirements include the use of a synthetic liner, leachate collection system, 

groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and closure and post-closure care as provided 

in Section XVII of the AOC. In addition, prior to any offsite shipment, TVA would obtain 

EPA’s determination that the proposed receiving facility is operating in compliance with the 

requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 300.440, as well as appropriate health and safety standards. 

XI. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we urge TVA to correct the significant deficiencies in the EE/CA 

that require additional investigation and clarification, and choose an action plan that 

removes as much CCW as possible from the dredge cell and the embayment and minimizes 

long-term reliance on the failed dredge cell as a waste containment unit. 

TVA Response: TVA appreciates receiving your comment recommending that as much 

ash as possible be removed from the Dredge Cell and the embayment, so as to minimize 

long-term reliance on the failed Dredge Cell as a waste containment unit. TVA will take your 

recommendation under consideration during selection of the preferred removal action. 
ATTACHMENT C 

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) 
C-1 

APPENDIX C 

Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly As

Roane County, Tennessee 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Chemical-specific ARARs 

Restoration of Rivers classified for Domestic Water Supply

Waters shall not contain toxic substances, whether alone or in combination with other substances, which will produce toxic conditions that materially affect the health and safety of man and animals, or impair the safety of conventionally treated water supplies. 

Presence of pollutant(s) in waters of the State as defined in TCA 69-3-103(33) — relevant and appropriate

 May not exceed AWQC in surface water(s) for the listed 

toxic substances. 

 

 Shall not violate physical and chemical parameters or 

conditions related to Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Total Dissolved Solids, Solids, Turbidity, and Temperature. 

 

 Waters shall not contain other pollutants in quantities that 

may be detrimental to public health or impair the usefulness of the water as a source of domestic water supply. 

 

Restoration of Rivers classified for Industrial Water Supply

The waters shall not contain toxic substances whether alone or in combination with other substances, which will adversely affect industrial processing. 

Presence of pollutant(s) in waters of the State as defined in TCA 69-3-103(33) — relevant and appropriate

 Shall not violate physical and chemical parameters or 

conditions related to Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Total Dissolved Solids, Solids, Turbidity, and Temperature. 

 

 Waters shall not contain other pollutants in quantities that 

may adversely affect industrial processing. 

 
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-2 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Restoration of Rivers classified for Fish and Aquatic Life

Waters shall not contain toxic substances or a combination of substances including disease-causing agents that, by way of either direct or indirect exposure through food chains, may cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions, physical deformations, or restrict or impair growth in fish or aquatic life or their offspring. 

Presence of pollutant(s) in waters of the State as defined in TCA 69-3-103(33) — relevant and appropriate

May not exceed AWQC in surface water(s) for the listed toxic substances. Shall not violate physical and chemical parameters or conditions related to Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Total Dissolved Solids, Turbidity, and Temperature. 

 

Waters shall not contain other pollutants that will be detrimental to fish or aquatic life. 

 

 The waters shall not contain iron at concentrations that cause 

toxicity or in such amounts that interfere with habitat due to precipitation or bacteria growth. 

 

 The waters shall not be modified through the addition of 

pollutants or through physical alteration to the extent that the diversity and/or productivity of aquatic biota within the receiving waters are substantially decreased or adversely affected, except as allowed under 1200-4-3-.06. 

 

 The quality of stream habitat shall provide for the 

development of a diverse aquatic community that meets regionally-based biological integrity goals. Types of habitat loss include, but are not limited to: channel and substrate alterations, rock and gravel removal, stream flow changes, accumulation of silt, precipitation of metals, and removal of riparian vegetation. For wadeable streams, the instream habitat within each subecoregion shall be generally similar to that found at reference streams. 

 

 Stream or other waterbody flows shall support the fish and 

aquatic life criteria. 

 
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-3 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Restoration of Rivers classified for Recreation

Waters shall not contain toxic substances, whether alone or in combination with other substances, that will render the water unsafe or unsuitable for water contact activities including the capture and subsequent consumption of fish and shellfish, or will propose toxic conditions that will adversely affect man, animal, aquatic life or wildlife

Presence of pollutant(s) in waters of the State as defined in TCA 69-3-103(33) — relevant and appropriate

May not exceed AWQC in surface water(s) for the listed toxic substances (applies to waters classified for both recreation & domestic water supply) Shall not violate physical and chemical parameters or conditions related to Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Solids, Total Suspended Solids, Turbidity, and Temperature 

 

Waters shall not contain other pollutants in quantities that may have a detrimental effect on recreation 

 

Restoration of Rivers classified for Irrigationand/or Livestock Watering and Wildlife 

Waters shall not contain toxic substances, whether alone or in combination with other substances, that will produce toxic conditions that adversely affect the quality of the waters for irrigation and/or livestock watering and wildlife. 

Presence of pollutant(s) in waters of the State as defined in TCA 69-3-103(33) — relevant and appropriate

Shall not violate physical and chemical parameters or conditions related to Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Solids, and Temperature. 

 

Waters shall not contain other pollutants in quantities that may be detrimental to the waters used for irrigation and/or for livestock watering and wildlife.

 

Restoration of on-site soils The concentration of radium-226 in land averaged over any 

area of 100 square meters shall not exceed the background level by more than 5pCi/g, averaged over the first 15 cm of soil below the surface and 15pCi/g averaged over 15cm 

thick layers of soil more than 15cm below the surface. 

Presence of radium in on-site soils – relevant and appropriate
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-4 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Location-specific ARARs 

Floodplains Presence of floodplain An evaluation shall consider (1) the effect of the proposed 

action on natural and beneficial floodplain values and (2) alternatives that would eliminate or minimize such effects. The initiating office shall determine if there is no practicable alternative to siting in a floodplain. If a determination of no practicable alternative is made, all practical measures to minimize impacts on the floodplain shall be implemented. If at any time prior to commencement of the action it is determined that there is a practicable alternative that will avoid affecting floodplains, the proposed action shall not proceed. 

Federal actions that involve potential impacts to, or take place within, floodplains — to be considered 

Aquatic resources Waters of the State as defined in TCA 69-3-

103(33) 

Must comply with the substantive requirements of the Aquatic Resources Alteration Permit (ARAP) Individual Permit; § 401 Water Quality Certification; or General Permit. 

Action potentially altering the physical, chemical, radiological, biological, or bacteriological properties of any Waters of the State, including wetlands. These activities include, but are not limited to: the discharge of dredge or fill material, dredging, stream channel modifications, water withdrawals, wetlands alterations including drainage, and other construction activities which result in the alteration of the waters of the State — applicable 

Within area impacting stream or any other body of water –and - presence of wildlife resources (e.g., fish) 

The effects of water-related projects on fish and wildlife resources and their habitat should be considered with a view to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources by preventing loss of and damage to such resources. 

Action that impounds, modifies, diverts, or controls waters, including navigation and drainage activities — relevant and appropriate
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-5 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Location encompassing aquatic ecosystem as defined in 40 CFR 230.3(c) 

No discharge of dredged or fill material into an aquatic ecosystem is permitted if there is a practicable alternative that would have less adverse impact. 

Action that involves discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including jurisdictional wetlands — applicable 

No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted unless appropriate and practicable steps in accordance with 40 CFR 230.70 et seq. are taken that will minimize potential 

adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. 

 

Must comply with the substantive requirements of the NWP 38 General Conditions, as appropriate, any regional or casespecific conditions recommended by the Corps District Engineer, after consultation. 

On-site CERCLA action conducted by Federal agency that involves the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands – relevant and appropriate

Wetlands Presence of wetlands An evaluation shall consider (1) the effect of the proposed 

action on natural and beneficial wetland values and (2) alternatives that would eliminate or minimize such effects. The initiating office shall determine if there is no practicable alternative to constructing in a wetland. If a determination of no practicable alternative is made, all practical measures to minimize impacts on the wetland shall be implemented. If at any time prior to commencement of the action it is determined that there is a practicable alternative that will avoid affecting wetlands, the proposed action shall not proceed. 

Federal actions that involve potential impacts to, or take place within, wetlands — to be considered
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-6 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Endangered, threatened, or rare species Presence of Tennessee nongame species as defined in TCA 70-8-103

May not take (i.e., harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to kill), possess, transport, export, or process wildlife species. 

Action impacting Tennessee nongame species, including wildlife species which are “in need of management” (as listed in TWRCP 94-16 and 94-17) — applicable

May not knowingly destroy the habitat of such wildlife species. Upon good cause shown and where necessary to protect human health or safety, endangered or threatened species may be removed, captured, or destroyed. .... Provisions for removal, capture, or destruction of nongame wildlife for the purposes set forth above shall be set forth in regulations issued by the executive director pursuant to § 70-8- 104(a). 

Presence of Tennesseelisted endangered or rare plant species as listed in TDEC 0400-6-2-.04 

It is a violation for any person other than the landowner, lessee, or other person entitled to possession (or the manager, in the case of publicly owned land) or a person with the written permission of the landowner (or manager) to knowingly uproot, dig, take, remove, damage or destroy, possess or otherwise disturb for any purposes any endangered species. 

Action impacting rare plant species including but not limited to federally listed endangered species — relevant and appropriate

Presence of federally endangered or threatened species, as designated in 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12 or critical habitat of such species 

Actions that jeopardize the existence of a listed species or results in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat must be avoided or reasonable and prudent mitigation measures take.

Action that is likely to jeopardize fish, wildlife, or plant species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat — applicable

Action-specific ARARs 

Site preparation, construction, and excavation activities Activities causing fugitive dust emissions 

Shall take reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Reasonable precautions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Fugitive emissions from landdisturbing activities (e.g., excavation, construction) — applicable
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-7 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

• Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for control of 

dust and in demolition of existing buildings or structures, construction operations, grading of roads, or the clearing of land; and 

• Application of asphalt, oil, water, or suitable chemicals on 

dirt roads, materials stock piles, and other surfaces which can create airborne dusts. 

Shall not cause or allow fugitive dust to be emitted in such a manner to exceed 5 minutes/hour or 20 minutes/day beyond property boundary lines on which emission originates. Operator must take dust control measures as necessary to prevent dust from creating a nuisance or safety hazard to adjacent landowners or to persons engaged in supervising, operating, and using the site. The use of any oils or other chemicals (other than water) for dust suppression must be approved in writing beforehand. 

Emissions from coal ash fill arearelevant and appropriate 

Activities causing storm water runoff (e.g., clearing, grading, excavation) 

Implement good construction management techniques (including sediment and erosion controls, vegetative controls, and structural controls) in accordance with the substantive requirements of General Permit No. TNR10-0000, Appendix F to ensure water discharge:

Storm water runoff discharges from land disturbed by construction activity⎯ disturbance of 

≥1 acre total 

⎯ applicable

• Does not violate water quality criteria as stated in TDEC 

1200-4-3-.03, including but not limited to prevention of discharges that cause a condition in which visible solids, bottom deposits, or turbidity impairs the usefulness of water of the state for any of the uses designated for that water body by TDEC 1200-4-4, and 

• Does not violate other conditions detailed in General 

Permit No. TNR10-0000.

Stormwater discharges from construction activities — to be considered

• Does not contain distinctly visible floating scum, oil, or 

other matter. 
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-8 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

• Results in no materials in concentrations sufficient to be 

hazardous or otherwise detrimental to humans, livestock, wildlife, plant life, or fish and aquatic life in the receiving stream. 

General duty to mitigate for discharge of wastewater from treatment system 

Take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of effluent standards which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. 

Discharge of pollutants to surface waters—applicable 

Operation and maintenance of treatment system 

• Properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems 

of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used to achieve compliance with the effluent standards. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. 

Discharge of pollutants to surface waters—applicable 

Technology-based treatment requirements for wastewater discharge 

• For industrial discharges with applicable federal 

effluent guidelines, technology-based effluent limitations and standards in accordance with those guidelines shall be applied. 

Discharge of pollutants to surface waters from other than a POTW—applicable 

Monitoring requirements for treatment system discharges 

In addition to 40 CFR §122.48 and to assure compliance with effluent limitations, one must monitor, as provided in subsections (i) thru (iv) of 122.44(i)(1). 

Discharge of pollutants to surface waters—applicable 

 All effluent limitations, standards and prohibitions shall be 

established for each outfall or discharge point, except as provided under section 122.44(k) 

 

 All effluent limitations, standards and prohibitions, 

including those necessary to achieve water quality standards, shall unless impracticable be stated as: 

• Maximum daily and average monthly discharge 

limitations for all discharges 

Continuous discharge of pollutants to surface waters—applicable 
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-9 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Monitoring Well Installation, Operation, and AbandonmentInstallation, operation, or abandonment of monitoring wells 

Must comply with the substantive requirements of TDEC 1200-4-9. 

Construction of monitoring wellsrelevant and appropriate 

Closure/capping with waste in place  Disposal of solid waste in on-site landfill and closure of landfill 

If a waste is determined to be a solid waste and is disposed of on-site in a solid waste landfill, the landfill must be managed in accordance with state regulations at TDEC 1200-1-7, including the applicable closure and post-closure care state regulations at TDEC 1200-1-7-.04(8) 

On-site disposal of solid waste in landfill and closure of landfill – applicable 

General performance standards 

The facility must be located, designed, constructed, operated, maintained, closed, and cared for after closure in such a manner as to minimize to the extent practicable: 

Operation and closure of a solid waste disposal facility-relevant and appropriate

• The potential for releases of solid wastes, solid waste 

constituents, or other potentially harmful materials to the environment except in a manner authorized by state and local air pollution control, water pollution control, and/or waste management control agencies; and 

• The exposure of the public to potential health and safety 

hazards through uncontrolled or unauthorized public access. 

Run-on/runoff and erosion control during closure 

Operator must design, construct, operate, and maintain a run-on control system capable of preventing flow onto the active portion of the facility for all flow up to and including peak discharge from a 24-hour, 25-year storm. 

Operation and closure of a solid waste disposal facility-relevant and appropriate

Operator must design, construct, operate, and maintain a run-off management system to collect and control at least the peak flow volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm. 
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-10 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Holding facilities (e.g., sediment basins) associated with run-on and run-off control systems must be designed to detain at least the water volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm and to divert through emergency spillways at least the peak flow resulting from a 24-hour, 100-year storm. Collection and holding facilities associated with run-on and run-off control systems must be emptied or otherwise managed expeditiously after storms to maintain design capacity of the system. 

Landfill closure performance standard 

Must close the unit in a manner that: 

• Minimizes the need for further maintenance; and 

Closure of a solid waste disposal facility-applicable

• Controls, minimizes, or eliminates to the extent 

necessary to prevent threats to public health and the environment, post-closure escape of solid waste, solid waste constituents, leachate, contaminated rainfall, or waste decomposition products to ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere. 

Must care for a disposal facility or disposal facility parcel for the period of time after closure, specified in TDEC 1200-1-7-.04(8)(d), in a manner that assures that the performance objectives of TDEC 1200-1-7-.04(8)(a)(1) are continuously met. Must complete closure activities including grading and establishing vegetative cover in the shortest practicable time after any fill areas or any portion of the fill areas have achieved final grade. 

Landfill cover performance standard 

Facility must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained such that the final cover includes a cap which will: 

Operation and closure of a solid waste disposal facility-relevant and appropriate

• Provide long-term minimization of migration of liquids 

through the closed facility; 
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-11 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

• Function with minimum maintenance; • Promote drainage; • Accommodate settling and subsidence so that the cap’s 

integrity is maintained; and 

• Meet the closure requirements of paragraph TDEC 

1200-1-7-.04(8) 

Landfill cover design and construction 

A compacted final cover material (e.g., soil) shall be placed on the disposal facility in the shortest practicable time, after achieving final grade of any fill area. 

Closure of a solid waste disposal facility-applicable

The final depth of final cover system shall be at least 36 inches of soil of which a minimum of 12 inches shall be for the support of vegetative cover. The design of the final cover system shall be a design which includes a compacted soil layer of at least 24 inches and has a permeability no greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. This design shall be supported by use of the HELP model or other equivalent model approved by TDEC and EPA. An alternate final cover system may be used provided that it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of TDEC and EPA that the final cover system provides equivalent or superior performance to the minimum performance standard in this subpart. With approval of TDEC and EPA, any other low permeability layer construction techniques or materials may be used to provide the final cover, provided that it provides equivalent or superior performance to the requirements of this part. 

Run-on/runoff control systems for landfill cover 

The final surface of the disposal facility or disposal facility parcel shall be graded and/or provide with drainage facilities in a manner that: 

Closure of a solid waste disposal facility-applicable
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-12 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

• Minimizes precipitation run-on from adjacent areas onto 

the disposal facility; 

• Minimizes erosion of cover material (e.g., no steep 

slopes); 

• Optimizes drainage of precipitation falling on the 

disposal facility (e.g., prevent pooling); and 

• Provides a surface drainage system which is consistent 

with the surrounding area and in no way adversely affects proper drainage from these adjacent lands. 

In addition to the drainage and grading requirements and vegetative cover requirements, the operator shall take other measures as may be necessary to minimize and control erosion and sedimentation (e.g., soil stabilization, sediment ponds) at the site. In order to minimize erosion, as soon as practicable after final grading, the operator shall take steps as necessary to establish a protective vegetative cover of acceptable grasses over the disturbed areas of the site. These steps shall include seeding, mulching, and necessary fertilization at a minimum, and may include additional activities such as sodding of steeper slopes and drainage ways if necessary. 

Closure of a solid waste disposal facility with final cover that includes vegetative layer-applicable

Groundwater protection and monitoring standards 

Perform monitoring in compliance with TDEC 1200-1-7-.04(7). Note that substantive aspects of regulations addressed through existing permit. 

Installation of monitoring wellsrelevant and appropriate 

General post-closure care for closed landfill 

Owner or operator must: Maintain the approved final contours and drainage system of the site such that the objectives of TDEC Rule 1200-1-7-.04(8)(c)(4) are continuously met; 

Closure of a solid waste disposal facility-applicable

Ensure that a healthy vegetative cover is established and maintained over the site; and 
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-13 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Maintain the drainage facilities, sediment ponds, and other erosion/sedimentation control measures (if such are present at the landfill), at least until the vegetative cover is established sufficiently to render such maintenance unnecessary. Maintain and monitor the ground and/or surface water monitoring system. The monitoring system and sampling and analysis program established in the permit shall be continued during the post-closure care period, unless the permit is modified to establish a different system or program. Note that substantive aspects of regulations addressed through existing permit. 

Post-closure notices for closed landfill 

Must ensure that within 90 days of final closure of the facility and prior to sale or lease of the property on which facility is located, there is recorded, in accordance with State law, a notation on the deed to the property - or on some other instrument which is normally examined during a title search - that will in perpetuity notify any person conducting a title search that the land has been used as a disposal facility and its use is restricted. 

Closure of a Class II solid waste disposal facility-applicable

Waste characterization, storage, and disposal Characterization of solid waste (all primary and secondary wastes) 

Must determine if waste is hazardous or is excluded under 40 CFR 261.4; and 

Generation of solid waste as defined in 40 CFR 261.2 — applicable

Must determine if waste is listed under 40 CFR Part 261; or Must characterize waste by using prescribed testing methods or applying generator knowledge based on information regarding material or processes used. If waste is determined to be hazardous, it must be managed in accordance with appropriate sections of 40 CFR 260–272. 
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-14 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Disposal of solid waste in on-site landfill 

May receive for disposal only those solid wastes it is allowed to manage under the terms of its permit (i.e., those which meet its WAC) or “special wastes” as approved in writing by the TDEC Commissioner. 

Disposal of solid waste in a class I, II, III, IV disposal facility regulated by TDEC — relevant and appropriate

Temporary storage of remediation waste in staging piles (excavated soils) 

An accumulation of solid, non-flowing remediation waste defined in 40 CFR 260.10 not in a containment building may be temporarily stored, including mixing, sizing, blending or other similar physical operations intended to prepare the wastes for subsequent management or treatment, at a facility if used only during remedial operations provided that the staging pile will: 

Accumulation of remediation waste on site as defined in 40 CFR 260.10 — relevant and appropriate

• Facilitate a reliable, effective and protective remedy; • Prevent or minimize releases of hazardous wastes and 

constituents into the environment and minimize or adequately control cross-media transfer as necessary to protect human health and the environment (e.g. use of liners, covers, run-off/run-on controls); 

Closure of staging piles of remediation waste located in previously contaminated area 

Must be closed within 180 days after the operating term by removing or decontaminating all remediation waste, contaminated containment system components, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste and leachate. 

Storage of remediation waste in staging pile in previously contaminated area — relevant and appropriate

Closure of staging piles of remediation waste located in an uncontaminated area 

 Must be closed within 180 days after the operating term according to 40 CFR 264.258(a) and 264.111 or 265.258(a) and 265.111. 

Storage of remediation waste in staging pile in uncontaminated area — relevant and appropriate

On-site storage of used oil Used oil shall not be stored in a unit other than a tank or 

container.

Generation and storage of used oil —applicable 

Containers and aboveground tanks used to store used oil must be: 
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-15 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

• In good condition (no severe rusting, apparent structural 

defects or deterioration); and 

• Not leaking (no visible leaks). Containers and aboveground tanks used to store used oil and fill pipes used to transfer used oil into USTs must be labeled or marked clearly with the words “Used Oil”. 

Disposal of RCRA hazardous waste in a landbased unit 

May be land disposed if it meets the requirements in the table “Treatment Standards for Hazardous Waste” at 40 CFR 268.40 before land disposal. 

Land disposal, as defined in 40 CFR 268.2, of restricted RCRA waste - applicable

All underlying hazardous constituents [as defined in 40 CFR 268.2(i)] must meet the Universal Treatment Standards, found in 40 CFR 268.48 Table UTS prior to land disposal 

Land disposal of restricted RCRA characteristic wastes (D001-D043) that are not managed in a wastewater treatment system that is regulated under the CWA, that is CWA equivalent, or that is injected into a Class I nonhazardous injection wellapplicable

Disposal of RCRAhazardous waste soil in a land-based unit 

Must be treated according to the alternative treatment standards of 40 CFR 268.49(c) or according to the UTSs specified in 40 CFR 268.48 applicable to the listed and/or characteristic waste contaminating the soil prior to land disposal 

Land disposal, as defined in 40 CFR 268.2, of restricted hazardous soilsapplicable
 Potential ARARs and TBC Guidance for Non-Time-Critical CERCLA Response Actions for the Kingston Fly A

Roane County, Tennessee 

(continued) 

C-16 

Media/Resource/Action Requirement Prerequisite 

Transportation Transportation of hazardous materials 

Shall be subject to and must comply with all applicable provisions of the HMTA and HMR at 49 CFR 171-180.

Any person who, under contract with a department or agency of the federal government, transports “in commerce,” or causes to be transported or shipped, a hazardous material — applicable

Transportation of hazardous waste off-site

Must comply with the generator requirements of 40 CFR 262.20

−23 for manifesting, Sect. 262.30 for 

packaging, Sect. 262.31 for labeling, Sect. 262.32 for marking, Sect. 262.33 for placarding, Sect. 262.40, 262.41(a) for record keeping requirements, and Sect. 262.12 to obtain EPA ID number 

Preparation and initiation of shipment of hazardous waste off-site -applicable

Dam Safety  Operation and maintenance of a dam. 

Requirements for alteration, maintenance and operation of a dam. 

Tennessee substantive dam safety standards — to be considered

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations TBC = to be considered TCA = Tennessee Code AnnotatedUSC = United States Code

WAC = waste acceptance criteria