The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20150042 Ver 1_Public Notice Comments_20150516Chlorine meets bromide The public water systems run by Madison and Eden pick up raw water from the Dan River; treated water - scrubbed clean by municipal treatment plants - is what pours through faucets. They scrub the water clean, using, among other disinfectants, chlorine. When chlorine meets bromide, trihalomethane is the byproduct, The levels of trihalomethane started to exceed unsafe levels in Madison and get close to Amano Pioneer Eclipse unsafe levels in Eden because the water systems had to increase their use of chlorine to IIIIIJIMM Acoountl °9 Manager scrub the raw river water clean of rising levels of bromide flowing in the river from the .._ .......... _ ...._...____ ........ __ .... .................. __ .......... ___ ................ ..... Belews Creek power plant, according to the emails. All Categories Madison, Rockingham County, and Dan River Water Inc. received notices of violation for Hartley Ready Mix Company O con —re - .1I-ek o-ers the unsafe trihalomethane levels, according to the emails. Rockingham County ___...___.__._...._..__ ... _ ....... _,......_ .............. ___ _ ...... ._ ........ ...........___.........._...... purchases water from Madison; Dan River Water Inc., as well as Henry County, Va., ------ -- - — ----- - - - - -- purchase water from Eden, according to the emails. Although the treated water in Eden Confidential S,�a did not have exceeding levels of trihalomethane, the water Eden sold ultimately did have LPN or CMA the substance because the longer the bromide and chlorine stay in contact, the more ._ ........... - "..r .. -.. _- - .... _ ....... .... ......... .._ - likely they are to form trihalomethane. M a y ben"..b-e. y' s 1= Casbfe- & More Upgrading systems Several of the public -water systems had to deliver notices to their consumers letting them Genesis Health Care u., «°�`'.A,. RNs, _PNs, RN supervisor& CNAs know that their "water contains unsafe levels of these cancer - causing chemicals," wrote Amano Pioneer Eclipse Jessica Godreau, chief of the public water supply section, a part of the N.C. Division of IIIIIJIMM Acoountl °9 Manager Water Resources, in an email dated March 8, 2012. .._ .......... _ ...._...____ ........ __ .... .................. __ .......... ___ ................ ..... city's conversion to another disinfection method (chloramines). In Madison, that involved Halyard "They mentioned they are talking about a possible lawsuit against the department as m " -"` - °. - P` °d ° ° °° "Ass ° °'a'es perhaps their best course of action," God reau wrote. ___...___.__._...._..__ ... _ ....... _,......_ .............. ___ _ ...... ._ ........ ...........___.........._...... industry groups," she said. Piedmont Candy Company u Duke Energy agreed to assist Madison and Eden financially to upgrade their water- Powered by oMC, Inc , V Vew All treatment systems, to make them capable of scrubbing water clean of bromide without -- producing unsafe levels of trihalomethane, according to Erin Culbert, a Duke Disclamec This is not e s°rentific poll spokeswoman. POLL "We felt participating in a solution was the right thing to do, and we've been partnering Do you think Winston -Salem Transit with Eden and Madison since 2011 to research and invest in treatment technologies at Authority needs to revamp the bus their water plants that will resolve the issue. In Eden, that involves helping to fund the routes? city's conversion to another disinfection method (chloramines). In Madison, that involved helping to install a new aeration technology that reduced organic content," Culbert said. Yes, they eeUia Use some work "This is an industry issue that is also getting research focus from broader electric utility No, leave them be industry groups," she said. I'm unsure David Myers, the mayor of Madison, said that he is optimistic about working with Duke Energy: "As far as I know, yes, they have made things whole. They have made things -- right." Disclamec This is not e s°rentific poll Indirect result of cleaner air The increased presence of bromide in the Dan River is, to a certain extent, an indirect SUBMIT NEWS result of a state clean -air law enacted in 2002. The Clean Smokestacks Act set limits on the amount of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide puffed into the air by coal -fired power Submit a news tip or photo online plants. Seven power plants in North Carolina have installed scrubbers required by the state law. And air is cleaner Officials with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources said in those emails that in 2006, before the scrubbers were installed, air quality data reported 95,365 and 21,013 tons of emission, respectively, of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from the Belews Creek power plant. After the scrubbers were installed in 2008, another round of air quality emission data from 2010 reported 3,643 and 3,277 for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, respectively. "There's always going to be a byproduct," said Tom Boyd, an environmental senior specialist who works in the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources regional office in Winston - Salem. Scrubbers take more sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides out of the air but more bromide shows up in the water. Bromide is hard to extract, Culbert said, "even through the sophisticated treatment processes we have in place, and there is no `off the shelf technology available. We continue researching viable options for the Belews Creek plant itself." One of the most alarming aspects of the trihalomethane trouble, according to Frank Holleman, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, is that state and federal regulators have not imposed limits on how much bromide - a primary cause of the Walt UnksiJo.rnal D,,ke E,e,,l, Failed l,, �pplv f,,, or a permit —,!,led by f"d—[ Lew r oo- —t"v t i.. B ie— ',,,,k Stn-, SW,)'', 1 . D,,p.,,.,� f En-,,-ont a"d th" Nat—I R-1-11 Buy lhm photo trihalomethane — can be discharged into state waterways. Even now, the Belews Creek power plant and several others owned by Duke Energy are not violating clean -water laws as they discharge unlimited amounts of bromide. "This is what is happening when everything is going `right'," Holleman said. For now, Duke Energy must monitor the amount of bromide it discharges, DENR officials said. "North Carolina does not have a state water quality standard for bromide, but we are closely following the research in this emerging issue," said Susan Massengale, a DENR spokeswoman. "If it becomes apparent that a statewide standard is appropriate, we have a process for pursuing that." "At this point, we have not seen that other (Duke scrubber) systems have affected the water treatment plants of other communities," she said. bgutierrez_ a�wsjo u rn� I „com (336) 727 -7278 More about Coal Ash Spill • ARTICLE: Duke Energy pleads guilty to causing illegal pollution • ARTICLE: Duke to provide water to NC residents with tainted wells • ARTICLE: Duke opts for "on -site” landfills near Eden, Wilmington • ARTICLE: SEC Filing: Duke says it expects to settle criminal probe ARTICLE: Make Belews Creek a top priority, residents and environmental activists say �4 Tweet 15 Posted In Local. State region on SGntaay, A,ort f3, 2074 ;2.:45 am 3 1 acs: Coal Ash Spill Similar Stories B -17 at Smith Reynolds Airport through Sunday . Woman killed in Taliban attack has family ties in Winston -Salem . Man charged in connection to cattle rustling case • Man charged in connection with cattle rustling case in Alamance County Reward offered for Alamance County cattle rustler 13 Add a comment, .. !✓.: Aiso po» on frcebook Posting as Therese Vick raceboek social plugin Most Read • Ask SAM: What happened to Texas Pete hot dog chili sauce? . Police investigate shooting death 14- year -old child shot in apartment near Forsyth Tech is in critical condition . Big additions coming to Wake commencement Road Trips: Go west to Love Valley Search Winston -Salem Journal, Winston- Salem, NC 02015 SH Media Group Holdings, Inc. Powered by BLOX Content Management System from Town News. com. [Terms of Use I Privary Polbyj The Alternative for North Carolina Technical Report No. 14-083 March 24, 2014 Lours A. Zeller Blue -Ridge, Environmental Defense League, mvN%,.BREDLorg PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 IIREDL@skyl)est.com (336) 982-2691 (Em5c quam biberi page. 2._ .. ...... .......... _.._______ Blue Ridge Environniental_Defense League Preface Shortly after the coal ash dump discharge into the Dan River on February 2, 2014, more than a few elected officials and advocacy groups began calling for removal of the ash from plant sites to double -lined landfills. However, present solid waste landfills were never designed for the hazards presented by coal ash and are not suitable. Municipal solid waste is a mixture of household garbage and commercial waste, and presently permitted landfills do a poor job of coping with these materials, let alone waste which presents special hazards. Coal ash is the toxic residue left after combustion in a power plant. Coal ash presents special problems because of its toxic nature and requires a specialized solution to prevent the spread of toxic heavy metals and other compounds into the air, soil and water. Recognizing this, and in consultation with our members living downstream from the spill and near solid waste dumps, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League set out to find a solution to the immediate problem of what to do with coal ash from Duke Energy1s Dan River power plant and, ultimately, thirteen other coal - fired power plants with ash dumps extending across North. Carolina from the mountains to the coast. As a first step, based on the principles of fairness, equity and environmental justice, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense :League Board of Directors Executive Committee on March 14, 2014 adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED: That no coal ash waste should be transferred from power plant sites to solid waste landfills. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED: That storage of coal ash by electric power plant operators should be done at plant sites but in a manner which would isolate it from surface water, groundwater and airborne dispersion. With this sound footing, the League authorized this report for the purpose of educating elected officials and other decision makers, the news media and other opinion leaders, and advocacy groups and the general public. It was the hest of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of" fbolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way... Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities Technical Report 14-083 __--page 3 11M 11 Page Executive Summary 4 Hazards of Coal Ash Coal Ash Cleanup: A Tale of Two Cities Eden, North Carolina: In Harm C§ Way 10 Landfills Are Not Acceptable for Coal Ash 11 The National Picture 15 The Alternative for North Carolina 16 Appendix A: EPRI List of Coal Ash Toxics Appendix B: In Harms Way -Dan River Steam Station p 2a �e �. 4 ......... ...... Blue Rid-g Environmental Defense League Executive Summary Fly ash isthe dry residue from burning of coal captured by the pollution control devices. Bottom ash is the residue which collects in the bottom of the boiler during the coal burning process. Both types o[ ash are laced with toxic elements, including arsenic, chromium, lead, selenium and mercury. /\|ou, radioactive strontium and uranium remain after the burning process and are concentrated io the ash. the early |990_s, implementation uf the new Subtitle regulations prompted widespread closure of traditional unlined landfills and a flurry of new double-lined landfills relying onu layer of clay and u layer o[plastic. The double liners were thought to provide pzoieu(ionfi-ocu contamination of groundwater. However, the fatal flaw of solid waste landfills io that they are subject to natural forces which make leakage and contamination inevitable. Assurances by solid waste landfill regulators and commercial companies that waste is safely contained and managed byu double-lined landfill are false. Impartial experts agree that liner failure is inevitable, rcgurdicao of the liner type. That all liners will eventually bzi| is not in dispute. The only question is: How long will it take? The inherent injustice of transporting toxic waste from opower plant site toawaste durnpia currently the subject nfo Civil Rights kso/eoh. The solution to the coal ash problem cannot he the transfer ofliability fi-onothe generator of the waste to the public. Nor can dbethe infringement of community well-being. Getting coal ash out of the near rivers and kd«en must be done as rapidly as possible but to o more secure site within the power plant operators roxponaibUi A study Fm the Electric Power Research Institute confirms that combustion of coal tends Lo concentrate many toxic elements in the bottom and fly ash. High levels o[ toxic and radioactive elements in coal ash make the deposition of the ash on cropland, roads, airport onways and other methods unacceptable. Needless and life-threatening contamination o[ the environment would be the result. Tborofbnc, these methods are also unacceptable ways of dealing with the coal ash problem. As an alternative, we propose that the ash be stored by the power plant operators onsite but in manner which would isolate dftomsurface water, groundwater and the air, One method involves the use uf cylindrical concrete tanks. Such concrete vaults are used commercially for waste sludge and liquids. The mixture includes cement, fly ash, and slag which ia put into tile concrete vaults where it hardens. Such vaults may be as large as 120`000 square feet, approximately two football fields iusize. They are modular, allowing for expansion uu the need ur/xca. The Blue Ridge Defense League opposes the transfer the coal ash pollution problem from the private power company to municipal landfills, affecting uominundiemalready exposed to the risk of contamination caused by waste dumping. Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League policy calls for the closing of such landfills, and tile promotion of Zero Waste. Dumping ash in landfills would prolong the mega-dump problem and make it worse. Hazards of Coal Ash The two types ofwaste residue from the combustion oF coal are fly ash and bottom ash. Fly ash im the dry residue from burning of coal captured hv the pollution control devices. These fine particulates are trapped by pollution control devices required by most air quality agencies to reduce visible emissions. Fly ash ieof lighter vvokghtondsnnaDcraizethunboUonnaxh`ino cuogc of to lOU microns, with u median of2O-25 nnic000a (also micrometer or 4m, one thousandth ofumillimeter, l«|O 6 meter, about O.000O39incbes). Toxic elements which become volatile in the combustion process, such as selenium and arsenic, become attached to these fine / Bottom ash imthe residue which collects in the bottom ofthe boiler during the coal burning process. Heavier and larger than fly ash, bottom ash has the consistency o[ sand m gravel, with a airn ranging from 0.| to 50 ndUirnutom. After combustion, hoUucn ash is typically mixed with water for transfer via sluice pipe from the power plant, then de-watered and stored. Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Collection u1aTypical Coal-fired Power Pl~~t2 Toxic constituents of coal ash vary according to the type of coal burned J lignite, aubbdunzbnony, bituminous and anthracite, the sulfur content, the methods of pollution control cyclones, bag bouycm and eluu1n»mLotiu precipitators, and x1utbcr it is fly oob or bottom uab. Other tbo|ora / Coal Ash Disposal Manual: Third Edition. EyD|, Palo Alto, CA: 1995.TD-104137 2 lDuotrudvo from: <Coal Ash: Cbmucueriybco` Management and Environmental Imsues, Electric Power Deocuruh Institute (EPRI), Technical Update Coal Combustion Products Environmental Issues, September 2009 page 6- Blue Ridge Environmental Defe ISeLeague affecting the ash include uuuuonbz4aued nitrogen oxide (NL)) control, carbon injection for mercury control, and sodium-based sulfur trioxide (SOb) control. (S03 is the major contributor to acid rubz and mu|tbric acid cruisuioue from power nlan/n . /\ detailed study ofash revealed the following: 3 The concentrations ofAsOtHg, MuNJ`andPbinfhashmorelatctoUe Sconrod of the coal. (]oncru||v, those feed coals with uhigh S 0001eo| contain higher concentrations of these elements. The concentrations of these elements are also greater tbrhughousc fly ash compared kz ESP fly ash for the munuc station, The S content o[fly ash from high S coal is 0. 1 % for pulverized ESP fly ash and 7% for baghouse fly ash from the fluidized bed, indicating that most of the Sia captured by fly ash inthe fluidized bed. The baghouao fly ash from the fluidized bed has the highest content of Cd, Hg, Mo, Pb, and Sc, indicating that Cx(]` for the most part, nupiurca tbccn. yuaooio is captured by calcium-bearing ruinoru|m and beroudtc, and fbrrnm u m1ub|c coo47\ez of calcium or uU'uoaibuo metal ofiron bydroxyarmcuatc hydrate z+ [(�� )2Fc3//\a[)4b/OFf>4'1 0l{2{}1 in the fly ash. Most elements io fly ash have oroichcucot indices o[ greater than 0.7 indicating that they are more enriched in the fly ash than in the feed coal, except for Hg in all lB8P ashes. Mercury iuunexception; it in more enriched inhogh000u fly ash compared toESP. /\ study kvthe Electric Power Research Institute confirms that combustion of coal tends to concentrate many toxic elements in the bottom and fly ash. The GPBi nnn|vwio compared the concentrations o[28 clezoeoio found io natural soil and rock to levels detected iu bottom ash and fly ash. Chromium ia more highly concentrated iu bottom ash. Lead and mercury are more highly concentrated in fly ash. /\iao, the study indicated that uranium and strontium were highly concentrated in both bottom ash and fly ash as compared to naturally occurring soil levels. The relative concentrations above natural mod levels for six o|czucn1v are |ia1sd io the table below. The EPRI study did not have data on the various radioactive isotopes of strontium and uranium. Appendix /\Nthis report contains the EPRI data listing all twenty-eight coal ash elements they analyzed and compared tothe levels found in natural rock and soil in milligrams per kilogram /CorrigendurnmCharacteri sties and composition of fly ash from Canadian coal-fired power plants ]Faritorz 6nodar i [Fuel 05(|0l))i2006 1418127] Fuel, Volume &5` Issues |7[l0, December 2O06, Pages 2683'2684, accessed 3/20/14 at http://www.sciencedirect.coin/science/article/pii/SOO] 6236 105004643 The presence of high levels of toxic and radioactive elements in coal ash makes the deposition of the ash oncropland, roads, airport ruu\9uya and other methods of using the material largely means o[ dispersing the harmful substances into the air, soil and water. Nced|cao and life- threatening contamination of the environment would be the result. Therefore, these methods are unacceptable ways of dealing with the problems created by the burning ofcoal. Aquatic Inipacts The tons o[ coal ash from the recent nnOl site near Eden, NC, are responsible for the death oro knvc number nfaquatic organisms in the [)uu River: Dmk mussels, clams, frogs and turtles. One biologist described kua |o graveyard. [ Water birds, raptors, mammals and reptiles will also hc affected hvthe hiouccumu|ation of selenium in the food chain. /\kbougb ac|cniunn is an Cmmcn1ia| trace element, it is toxic o1high levels. An elevated level of selenium in the river water also interferes with the development of fish larvae, and bloaccurnulation of selenium has been known � * to [)r Dennis Lundy, Professor of Biology ai Wake Forest University, provided the following description of how selenium in coal ash can harm fish: 5 In concentrations that are too high, selenium leaves fish with deformities that include misshapen spines; -traniolFacial—Idefects of the mouth, jaw and gill cover; fin irregularities; unnatural accumulations of fluids and chronic swelling; and eye problems that include cataracts and protruding eyeballs. [)c Tenlv added that o high level of selenium also renders fish unable to reproduce and that, if selenium contamination is prolonged, the species can be eliminated from the area. Coal Ash Clean UP: A Tale of'Two Cities Tennessee On December 22,2O0O,adike failed at the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in Roane County, Tennessee, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards m[ coal ash sludge. The failure n[containment structures o1 the plant s onsdc Class IT landfill caused the dUmmtoz. Eight ycmn before the break, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation � Solid Waste Management Division had issued TVA aClass D landfill permit aa part ofu plan Lo o|oyc the p)antF§nearby settling pond vvbicb discharged vvnetc vvu1cr into the Emory and Clinch rivers. 'Aquatic Hazardqf'SeleniumReleases Froin Coal Mining in the MudRm,EcmystemWest0rginia, Lem lyD, April 17, 2008, accessed 3/10/14u]6op:/h+w`znvk ghlaodv.n,g/PDPm1on|yBx6.pdf ' Email toL Zeller from Anne Cockrell, lofonnbou/Coocomato Share about the Dan River Coal Ash Spill, � March 9,2Ol4.Dr. Lemly, a Research Associate Professor of Biology at Wake Forest University and a U.S. Forest Service Cooperator, has published 47 research articles om selenium toxicity /nfiah and wildlife, ua well uothe reference book Scicuimn /\oocaamcot in Aquatic Ecosystems. He has consulted on selenium pollution issues ranging from power plant waste iu Australia /n mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia. In Tennessee a Class 11 Disposal Facility is: a u landfill which receives waste which ia generated by one ormore industrial or manufacturing plants and is used or to be used for the disposal of solid waste generated by such plants, `vkicb may include industrial wastes, commercial wastes, institutional vvuatce, farming wastes, bulky wastes, landscaping and land clearing wastes, oonuLruo{ion/deoomlbioovvawtca, and shredded automotive tires. Additionally u C|umo ll disposal facility may also serve as o nn000fi)L for ash disposal from the incineration of municipal solid waste. The state standards for a coal-ash fill project r UH/\ geologic buffer ofo1 least three feet with u maximum saturated conductivity ufIz |� �centimeters per second between the base nf the fill and the seasonal high water table of the uppermost unconfined aquifer oz the top nf the formation o[uoonfiocd aquifer, or such other protection up approved hv the Commissioner taking into account site specific coal ash and soil characteristics, ambient groundwater quality, and projected flows in and around the site; and ODA ground water monitoring program approved by the department that reports sampling results to the department at least once each year. |f sampling results indicate that the fill area has caused the ground water protection standards to be exceeded, the owner or operator of the facility shall commence an assessment monitoring program in u000rdum:c with regulations adopted bythe board and carry-out all corrective o)000nrem db ,pcu/ fi o y the C urnzomaz000r. The Class D landfill o1TVA -s Kingston Fossil Plant failed with catastrophic consequences for the residents of Roane County, Tennessee. On January |2,2009 three weeks after the disaster, the Tennessee Department ofEnvironment and Conservation issued an administrative legal orders which required TVA to: ]. Prevent movement o[ contaminated materials into waters o[ the state, 2. Cooperate with the atato[m comprehensive roviewo[a|lLbextJitv[soou]umh impoundments in the state, 3. Submit 10 the state all documents relevant iounderstanding the cause of the containment failure within 2Odays, 4. Cooperate fully with and support the state d investigation bntntbcbzik/re, 5. Submit u corrective action plan within 45days, O. After review, furnish any additional requested by the utu1c o1u meeting with state 6 0des of Tennessee Department ofEnvironment and Conservation, Solid Waste Management, Chapter 0400'11 0L0i(3}(b) 'Rules of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Solid Waste Management, Chapter 0400-11- 01.82(2)(uK2Avii) ^Cmnodooioomr s Order, Case No. OGC09-000 1, In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water Pn||ohon Control, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, James R. Fyko. Commissioner, January ]2.2U89 7. Implement the corrective action plan according touschedule determined by the state, 8. Submit all data gathered during the corrective action, 9. Perform any additional actions directed hv the state, 10. Submit written reports on performance, results and additional work needed, and 11. Pay all costs associated with the state s investigation and oversight. The State o[ Tennessee was the mole authority regarding this emergency plan, but it did not relieve the utility of other obligations under state or federal law, nor did it prevent the state from pursuing civil or criminal action against the company. TI}EC did assess o civil penalty of$ll.5 million from TVA. Over l5 million cubic yards of ash spilled into the Emory River was removed bymechanical and hydraulic dredge and shined touu EPA-approved Arrowhead Landfill inUniontown, Alabama. The dredging was completed in May 2OlOand the last shipment of ash was in December 2010.9 Uniontown, Alabama The citizens of Uniontown had opposed the Arrowhead Landfill since dwas constructed in 2003. The landfill was permitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (/\T)E&4) to accept the municipal, industrial and is000iul]p/ostcm from |h atu1ce. \Joiou1o9/u is in Perry County, Alabama, about 35O miles from Kingston, Tennessee. PenyCooniyOy population is 68 percent African-American. Uniontown, the community nearest the }\rrovvbcud Landfill, is 88 puroen1/\tiiouu-/1nocricun. The Arrowhead Landfill was permitted bv the state tn accept the municipal, hndumtrialuod �wumt: from ldotatcs.m The Arrowhead Landfill, located inUniontown, AL (population |,775) was permitted >mADBM to dispose of nearly all the coal ash removed from Harriman mu result ofthe TVA spill (4 million Looa). Instead o[using protective management techniques, the ash was dumped in mounds as high as bO feet with nothing covering them. From the b'oo1 porch of several Uniontown homes, residents have only mounds of coal ash from TN to gaze upon and air contaminated by the dust to breath. The dumped ash rises above the tree line and iuwithin 100 feet of their troo1steps. With the arrival of coal ash, the situation in Uniontown deteriorated. Residents living near the waste dump reported u noxious, nauseating smell from coal ash waste. Also, they reported fugitive ash dust covering their homes and automobiles. "� Ash Slide mTVA Kingston Fossil Plant, UTennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, website a000amed March2I20\4mbup:0www.m.gov/eovbnomont/Nogamo6udcx.ahuoi /« A Toxic Inheritance: An Alabama community inherits America's worst coal ash spill, Euuhjusdcc6|ogaccessed 3/21/14utbnp://oa,djundcc.o,g/fLumrm/cumpuigns/u'/oxic-inhxxi/unoo page 10 Blue Ridge Evironmental Defen se Le .. . . ............. . ..... . . .......... . ... ...... ....... .n..... . ..... — - ----- Lea The inherent injustice of transporting toxic waste from the largely white community in Roane County, Tennessee to a majority black community is currently the subject of a Civil Rights lawsuit brought by Earthjustice and a local attorney: I I In December of 2013, Earthjustice attorneys informed the EPA Ls Office of Civil Rights that Earthjustice would be representing six Alabama residents in a civil rights complaint under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal funds, including state agencies, from taking actions or implementing policies that have unjustified disproportionate adverse effect on the basis of race. The complaint is against the Alabama Department of Environmental Management for reissuing and modifying the landfill Ls permit without proper and readily enforceable protections of public health. At the time of this report, the case is unresolved and awaits ad . judication; no hearing date has been set. Eden, North Carolina: In Harin's Wa On February 2, 2014, in the third largest coal ash disaster in history, Duke Energy s Dan River Steam Station released a torrent of toxic sludge into the Dan River near Eden, North Carolina. The story made national and world news that day, but the disaster was an accident waiting to happen. Ample warnings were there. Regulatory officials in North Carolina were aware of excessive groundwater contamination. Risks to residents from coal ash impoundments were known to the company and state and federal officials. Yet nothing was done. The Dan River flows 214 miles through North Carolina and Virginia. It arises in Patrick County, Virginia and crosses into North Carolina at Stokes County, flows cast into Rockingham County, veers back into Virginia and then reenters North Carolina and flows into Caswell County, then back into Mecklenburg County, Virginia where it empties into the John H. Kerr Reservoir, also known to North Carolinians as Kerr Lake and to Virginians as Buggs Island Lake. The Kerr Reservoir is formed by a dam on the Roanoke River, which flows east into Lake Gaston. The Dan River Steam Station Is s coal ash was stored in two impoundments covering 39 acres with a capacity of 664 acre-feet. The embankments and dikes constructed over a fifty-eight year period had created the hazardous situation which ended with an eruption of over 35 million gallons of ash and contaminated water into the Dan River. A report issued over three years ago by the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club concluded 12: Voluntary groundwater monitoring at Duke Energy :§ Dan River Steam Stations coal ash ponds has detected levels of chromium, iron, lead, manganese, silver, and sulfate that exceed state groundwater standards and federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Secondary MCLs (SMCLs). Dan River Stearn Station has two unlined coal ash ponds as well as an unlined dry ash landfill. Fifteen years of sporadic voluntary monitoring beginning in November 1993 indicates that there is on-site groundwater '' Ibid. 12 In Harm's Way: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans And Their Environment, Jeff Stant, August 26, 2010, accessed 3/18/14 at http://earthjusticc.oi-g/sites/default/fiIes/fiIes/report-in-harms-way.pdf contamination that islikely migrating outside of the state-designated -touophunue [ for Dan Rivcr-§CCW EPA ranked both wet CCW ponds o1 Dan River Steam Station aoAiivh hazard ]surface impoundments, meaning that their failure will probably cause loss of life (USEPA, 2009). The /n Harms Way investigators reported 39 new cases ofu>ntarnination caused Fmimproperly disposed coal combustion waste, includ Dan River. These reports were io addition tosimilar cases of contamination found ut scores of other sites and catalogued during the previous decade hv the DS Environmental Protection Agency, bringing the total number of known sites contaminated by coal ash waste to 167 in 34 states. The [}un River Steam Station chapter of In Harm's DKzv is attached to this report as Appendix B. Landfills Are Not Acceptable for Coal Ash During the open pit waste dumps and trash heaps gave way to kundfiUuCwhichonveredthcvvaatenitbuurthcncupatomohc{hoprnb|mnamFrodcuta,in000tm and odors. But the underground environment and consequent anaerobic deconV7oodi000fthe vvumtc introduced new problems: methane gas and toxic liquid \ouchatc. To solve these problems, Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976. 13 Subtitle [) ofDCDA is u section nfthe law which governs municipal solid waste landfills accepting so-called non- hazardous waste; i.e., household garbage and commercial solid waste. IICIl/\ Subtitle C governs hazardous wastes. 14 The solid waste program, under RCDA Subtitle D` encourages states Wdevelop comprehensive plans no manage nonhazardous industrial solid waste and municipal solid waste, ucto ordcdu ±br municipal solid waste landfills and other solid waste disposal facilities, and prohibits the open dumping of solid waste. The hazardous waste program, under RCRA Subtitle C` establishes osystem for controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its ubicnoie disposal _ in effect, from cradle to gruve.] RCRA Conservation and Recovery Act) regulates solid waste. Generally, solid wastes are any discarded materials which are not hazardous. Specific definitions and exclusions are located primarily in Title 40 Pmt 261 of the Code uf Federal Regulations. Mhzuioipx| sV|id vvueic |uodbUm may accept household waste, non-hazardous sludge, iodumbia|solid vvuatc, and cnnwtnzdiouand dcnon|idondcbde. Municipal aoUdp/uatc|andfi||anxuatcooqp|yvvirhttdenu| regulations at 40 CFBPmi 258, Subtitle D. RCRA also regulates hazardous vvumtc; that is, vvam1ca which are ignitable, corrosive, reactive or toxic. The regulations are located primarily in o42[[3.C.g690lc1 seq. (l976) The Solid Waste Disposal &o (42L1S.C.690|J6992k) consists of title Dof Public Law 89- 272 and the amendments made by subsequent enactments. This Act is popularly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, after the short title of the law that amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act io its entirety in 1976(pl94J580). /+}TiouwryofKCRA` EPA wubaico accessed 3/22/l4u|hop:&xww,cpu. gov/wua,c/|uwu-,cgo/ruruhimo,y.hun Title 4Oo[the Code ofFederal Regulations ad Part 26|` Subpart [. There are one Subtitle C hazardous waste landfills in the United States, identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency for disposal o[8C8A Subtitle C hazardous p/ua(e. Pursuant to 40 CFR 8261.4(b)(4), DP|y ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste, generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels... Jis solid waste. In ]988, the {JS EPA altered Subtitle [} regulations because single cmn>oxdc liners for baodO)hs would not prevent groundwater pollution. But the new double-lined landfills I pcnuittodhy North Carolina and most other state waste management agencies under Subtitle O.J suffer from u combination of technological cross-purposes, regulatory short-sightedness and public relations bypcchm|c. During the early |99O_s` implementation of the new Subtitle regulations prompted widespread closure of traditional unlined landfills and a flurry of new double-lined landfills relying onu layer of clay and u layer o[plastic. The double liners were thought to provide protection from contamination of groundwater. However, the fatal flaw of solid waste landfills is that they are subject to natural forces which ondce leakage and contamination inevitable. For example, on average rodents move over five tons of soil per acre annually. The diagram he|ovv illustrates the typical Subtitle D landfill: Cross-section mya Subtitle DLandfill K,��y Problems ivith the Subtitle D Approach n Heavy metals will not detoxjfv[inlandfill All landfill liners eventually leak o Issues Concerning Impacts of Landfills on Groundwater Quality& Public Health, G. Fred Lee and Associates, mmu recently accessed 3/22/{4at Technical Report 1.4- 083 -- ...-- -__E._ 13 • Groundwater monitoring regimens likely to miss finger - plumes of incipient leakage; off - site well pollution may be first indication of failure • Post - closure care and remediation finding required indefinitely, long -term financial responsibility will be shifted to county, public and local residents According to Dr. G. Fred Lee:' 6 [T]he typical groundwater monitoring program allowed by regulatory agencies for Subtitle D landfills involving the use of monitoring wells at the point of compliance, which have zones of capture of about one foot, but which are spaced hundreds of feet apart, means that there must be widespread, general failure of the liner system before these monitoring wells can be expected to detect failure. The initial failure of the liner system will not be through general leakage throughout the bottom of the landfill, but will be through holes, rips, tears, or points of deterioration in the plastic sheeting flexible membrane liner. As discussed by Cherry in 1990, the initial liner failures will produce finger -like plumes of leachate that will have a high probability of passing between the monitoring wells and not being detected by them Lee concludes: Many of the components of the wastes in Subtitle D landfills will be a threat to pollute groundwaters forever. The liner systems being allowed at best only postpone when groundwater pollution occurs. The groundwater monitoring systems being allowed are largely cosmetic in detecting off -site groundwater pollution before widespread pollution occurs. Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't understand the basic issues involved, or is deliberately distorting the readily available information on these issues. The so- called promise of a double -lined landfill to protect groundwater is belied by the limited guarantee offered by manufacturers: I A five year warranty is the typical warranty now offered in the industry. --17,18 Moreover, cleanup costs have not been set aside for the inevitable failures: f The funding that is now provided for closure of Subtitle D landfills is grossly inadequate compared to the funding that will be needed. 9 The conceptual flaw which undermines the reliability of Subtitle D is illustrated in the following diagram. e .Detecting Failure of Subtitle D Landfill Liner Systems, UG. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, DEE, G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, California, November 1999. Accessed most recently on March 22, 2014 at http:// www. gfi- edlee.com /detecting_failure.pdf 17 Dever, Raymond J.; Walsh, James J. Long Term Care for Landfills, More or Less'? SCS Engineers. www.scseiigineers.coni. Web. 12 July 2005. Accessed 1May 2013. " Colorado Lining International, NDPE liner information page. htto:// www. colaradolrning .com /products/liUl e.htm 79 Lee, G. Fred, Jones -Lee, Anne. (Overview of Landfill Post - Closure Issues. G. Fred Lee and Associates. www,.gL edlee.corn, Web. Accessed 1 May 2013. page 1.4 _._.__........__.... Blue Ridge-En vironmental Defense.Lea to Schematic Diagram of Subtitle D Solid Waste Landfill Undetected Failure 20 *:4 Early Capture zone for Monitoring wells which are supposed to detect underground plumes of contamination are placed too far apart to ensure capture of the contamination. Experts who have studied the construction, operation and closure of Subtitle D landfills found that I [G]roundwater monitoring wells spaced hundreds of feet apart ... will have a low probability of detecting groundwater polluted by landfill leachate.... ir 21 Assurances by solid waste landfill regulators and commercial companies that toxic leachate is safely contained and managed by a double -lined landfill are false. Impartial experts agree that liner failure is inevitable, regardless of the liner type. That all liners will eventually fail is not in dispute. The only question is: How long will it take? Re -use of Ash Re- introduees Contamination Methods of using ash by incorporating it into road building and cement block construction have been tried and the results are unsatisfactory. That the ash becomes immobilized is a common but false claim. Research indicates that contaminants in the ash, heavy metals in particular, are leached from roadways and cement blocks made with ash, endangering the environment and public health. For example, in Newcastle, UK, where ash from a local incinerator had been applied from 1994 -1999 on local allotments and paths, hazardous levels of dioxins and heavy metals were found .22 20 Diagram by L. Zeller based on original by Dr. John Cherry 21 G. Fred Lee; Jones -Lee Anne. Flawed Technology of Subtitle D Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste. -G. Fred Lee and Associates. www. g redlee. corn. Updated February 2013. G. Fred Lee and Associates. Web. Accessed 30 Apri l 2013. 22 Ryder, R.E., Incinerator Ash is Inert.- ToxCat, 2000. 3(l). Citation 49 accessed 3/23/14 at http: / /www. zerowaste. co. n z /assets/ Reports / Wastedopportun iti es.pdf Technical Re ort 14-083 ____._Tage_l5 The National Picture Ao detailed above, coal uyh unutkxnu| problem. The following analysis ie from u Duke University legal forum: 23 Consider the following statistics about existing surface impoundments. In the wake of the Kingston Ui the EPA undertook uuinvestigation ufcximti mozfbse impoundments finding that l09of584 such facilities uutkzun�du had either u i1kzh]mzu [significant �huzard In addition, 106 o[ the uodowere not designed hvu professional engineer — Although the impoundments nvurcdcmignedto last for about 40years, 56 were older than 50 years old and 360 were between 28 and 40 ycu,a old .... Moreover, 35 units at 25 facilities had already reported noleusoa ranging from minor spills to the massive release at the Kingston facility. Under the Coal Combustion Residuals Proposed Rule, the TjS Environmental Protection Agency was to promulgate regulations for coal ash waste: 24 EPA iy proposing to regulate for the first time ono] ash to address the risks from the disposal of the wastes generated by electric utilities and power producers. EPA imconsidering two possible options for the management nf coal ash for public oncuroeoi. Both options [b|| under the Ilceuonce Conservation and Recovery Act /9LCRA\. Under the first proposal, EPA would hai ihmmo residuals as apcoiu| wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when destined for disposal in landfills or surface inzpnuodnneo<a. Under the second proposal, EPA would zogu]u1e coal ash under subtitle L)o[KCBA, the section for non-hazardous vva*1em. But the EPAI-s action was forced bw events and legal action brought Fm public interest organizations. The following excerpts are from the EPA Consent Decree of January 24,2Ol4: WHEREAS, Plaintiff Appalachian Voices, etuLallege in their complaint that EPA has failed to perform uuondiocretbnnory duty arising under section 2002(b) oFRC8A, 42 U.S.C. 8 6912(F)` by failing to ooznp|cLethc required review, at |ouot every three years, and revision ifnecessary, o[RCR/\ subtitle regulations pertaining Lo coal combustion EPA proposed rule published on June 2l`2O|U,75 Fed. Reg. 24|48, EPA proposed, as one regulatory option, k)rcvisekmll[llAaub1d|cIl regulations pertaining tocoal combustion residuals. 23 The End Game of Deregulation: Atyopic Risk Management and thcNaxt Catastrophe, Thomas 0. McGarity& Rena i8teinznr Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, Fall 20|2` Vol. 2393. Pg. 9. accessed 3/23/|4ut bttp://sobn|u,ahiy]uw.dukc.udu/cgi/6ewcomtem/.cgi?muic|e=/240&cnntest=dc|pf 24 Coal Combustion Kcoiduuiu Proposed Rule 1 ]]uoc21, 2010, page 16 ____ - - - - - ___ Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League The EPA Administrator mhuD bn December l9,20l4,sign for publication iu the Federal Register a notice taking final action regarding BP/\ § proposed revision mfQC0A subtitle regulations pertaining to coal combustion residuals. Ending the by the ieduzu| agency with Jurisdiction in this matter is a long-overdue step towards re-regulation for the protection ofpublic health and the environment which is the prernise of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other federal laws. The Alternative for North Carolina As demonstrated above, RCRA landfills are unsuitable for coal ash, and re-use merely spreads the prohlemaround. So, what other techniques might there be to keep the toxic substances in the ash from escaping into the environment? This chapter will outline possible alternative methods of sequestering coal oeb from the water, ani\ and air. Tboao are now in use and could be employed, perhaps with modification, to the apcuiu| conditions found in various aiica. Simply m1utcd, one acceptable way to deal with ash is to auhdKy it with concrete, protect it from and store it above ground. This method has been in use for fifty years. Salts/one The United States Department of Energy has developed o method otisolating hazardous waste st the Savannah River Site Ln South Carolina known amthe Laoho1onc_�orooeam. Production byproducts fi-om decades of defense operations are stored in dozens of million-gallon tanks at SRS. The wastes are u witch [$brew of toxic compounds including heavy metals and radioactive compounds. After radioactive substances are removed, the remaining mixture is Lruoa(ecrod to the Saltstone Production Facility and mixed with cement, slag, and fly ash to form a grout which is then disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. The grout or slurry, is mechanically pumped into concrete disposal vaults that make up the Salts tone Disposal FauUky. The roix1occ solidifies into 000n-huzurdouo, |nv/-rudk>ucih/c oults{onun/oyLe. When a concrete vault in filled, itia capped with clean concrete to isolate it from the environment. Final closure o[ the area consists of covering the vaults with engineered closure caps, backfilfing with earth and seeding to control water infiltration and erosion. The muUmtooc plant has been iu operation since 1990, processing waste from SRS tank farms (see illustration). Currently there are two vault sizes at the 80F � -dO,000 and 120`000 square feet. For comparison, u typical football field including end zones is Just over 57,000 square feet. TVA! s Kingston Fossil plant had a244 acre settling pond for ash containment. I)ukcEocrgysl Dan River Steam Station has 39 uczca of ash impoundment area. Technical Report t -083 p_ _1 4 . . . . ........ The Savannah River Site remediation fact sheet states :26 Saltstone Disposal Units (SDUs) are permanent disposal units to contain low-activity waste grout produced from solidification of decontaminated non-hazardous salt waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS). These units are cylindrical concrete tanks that are based on a design used commercially for storage of water and other liquids. The most recently developed unit design, SDU-6, will also be cylindrical but will be built 10 times larger than the others. It will be 375 feet in diameter and 4' ) feet tall, while units 2, 3 and 5 are 150 feet in diameter and 22 feet tall. 25 Photographs from Savannah River Remediation Fact Sheet: Saltstone Facilities, May 2012 and Sept. 2013 26 Savannah River Rernediation Fact Sheet: Saltstone Facilities, Sept. 2013 "a Blue Rid E vilronmental Defense Leavue Testing and analysis 6nthe Department of Energy have concluded that waste disposal inthe 8ukstouo Disposal Facility will not release material above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standards. Wells near the edge nf the disposal site are used tomonitor groundwater to ensure that b meets the applicable standards. The standards are listed in the table below. Selected Groundwater Protection Standards Met bythe Smlbtnne Process Element Level Units Standard —Arsenic 50 ppb SDWS Chromium 100 ppb PDWS Lead 15 PDWS _ppb Mercury (methyl) - background Molybdenum - background Nickel 100 pb PDWS Selenium 50 ppb PDWS The Savannah River Site waste undergoing rcmodiuhunbz this manner was about 3d.4million gallons. 21 It is worth noting that this is just about the size of the Dan River coal ash spill in North Carolina. 2' The Savannah River Site ioowned byU.S. Department of Energy. The SRS Liquid Waste contract iomanaged by Savannah River Kemediatiw,uteam of companies led 6y0RS Corp. with partners Bechtel National, C82MHill and Babcock &Wilcox. m�TuchuiculEvuluodonDcpn,tfooCkoOWaptoDo/oouinmi*ufoxSu]|VVxetcDinpnsuLOLmzyW.Cumpo, Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, US NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |n Charles E. Anderson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office ofEnvironmental Munugmncm,, O.S. Department nfEnergy, December 28, 2005 Appendix A: EPRI List of Coal Ash Toxics Range 10`h percentile _901h percentile in bulk composition of fly ash, bottom ash, rock, and soil _ ' s• • ' s Aluminum 70,000'-1140,000 59,000 - 130,000 9,800 - 96,000 15,000- 100,000 Calcium 7,400- 150,000 5,700 - 150,000 6,000- 83,000 1,500- 62,000 Iron 34,000 - 130,000 40,000 - 160,000 8,800- 95,000 7,000- 50,000 Silicon 160,000 - 270,000 160,000- 280,000 57,000 - 380,000 230,000 - 390,000 Magnesium 3,900- 23,000 3,400 - 17,000 700 - 56,000 1,000 - 1.5,000 Potassium 6,200 -21 000 4,600 - 18,000 4,000- 45,000 4,500- 25,000 Sodium 1,700 - 17,000 1,600 - 11 ,000 900- 34,000 1,000- 20,000 Sulfur 1,900- 34,000 BDL- 1.5,000 200- 42,000 840 -1,500 Titanium 4,300 -9,000 4, 100 -7,200 200 -5,400 1,000 -5,000 Antimony BDL -16 All BOL 0.08 -1.8 BDL -1.3 Arsenic 22 -260 2.6 -21 0.50 -14 2.0 -1.2 Barium 380 -5100 380 -3600 67 -1,400 200 -1,000 Beryllium 2.2 -26 0.21 -14 0.10 -4.4 BDL -2.0 Boron 120 -1000 BDL -335 0.2 -220 BDL -70 Cadmium BDL -3.7 All BDL 0.5 -3.6 BDL -0.5 Chromium 27 -300 51 -1100 1.9 -310 15 -100 Copper 62 -220 39 -120 1.0 -120 5.0 -50 Lead 21 -230 8.1 -53 3.8 -44 BDL -30 Manganese 91 -700 85 -890 175 -1400 100 -1,000 Mercury 0.01 -0.51 BDL -0.07 0.1 -2.0 0.02 -0.19 Molybdenum 9.0 -60 3.8 -27 1.0 -16 All BDL Nickel 47 -230 39 -440 2.0 -220 5 -30 Selenium 1.8 -18 BDL -4.2 0.60 -4.9 BDL -0.75 Strontium 270 -3100 270 -2000 61 -890 20 -500 Thallium BDL -45 All BDL 0.1 -1.8 0.20 -0.70 Uranium BDL -19 BDL -16 0.84 -43 1.2 -3.9 Vanadium BDL -360 BDL - 250 1.9 -330 20 -150 Zinc 63 -680 16 -370 25 -140 22 -99 BDL - Below Detection Limit * Source for most fly ash and bottom ash data is EPRI CP -INFO Database', Beryllium, thallium, mercury (bottom ash only) and boron (bottom ash only) are from the EPRI PISCES Database ** Source for rock data is US Geological Survey National Geochemical database' * * * Source .far most soils data is Shacklette and Boerngen (1.944)8; cadmium and thallium data are from Smith et al (2005) CP -INFO Database. EPRI: August 5, 2009. 6 PISCES Database. EPRI: August 5, 2009. ' Geochemistry of Rock Samples from the National Geochemical Database. US Geological Survey: 2008. http://tin.er.usgs.gov/metadata/ngdbrock.html. 8 Shacklette, 11. and J. Boerngen, 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surftcial Materials of the Conterminous United States, US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. 9 Smith, D.; Cannon, W.; Woodruff. L.; Garrett, R.; Klassen, R.; Kilburn. J.; Horton, J.; King, H; Goldhaber, M.; Morrison, J. , 2005. Major- and Trace- Element Concentrations in Soils from Two Continental -Scale Transects of the United States and Canada. US Geological Survey Open File Report 2005 -1253. Source: Coal Ash -Characteristics, Management and Environmental Issues September 2009 a Electric Power Research Institute Appendix B: IN HARM'S WAY: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment Dan River Steam Station Duke Energy ' Don River Steam Station 524SE6gewood R6 Eden NC 27288 Rockingham County Latitude: 36.489495 Longitude: -79.715427 Deterr-nination Demonstrated on-site damage to groundwater Probable Cause(s) Leaching of coal combustion waste ([[W) contaminants into groundwater ':5 u vrk m a r y Voluntary groundwater monitoring at Duke Energy's Don River Steam Station's coal ash ponds has detected levels of chromium, iron, lead, manganese, silver, and sulfate that exceed state groundwater standards and federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCis) and Secondary MCb(3MCLs). Don River Steam Station has two unlined 000| ash ponds as well as on unlined dry ash landfill. Fifteen years of sporadic voluntary monitoring beginning in November 1993 indicates that there is on-she groundwater contamination that is likely migrating outside of the state-designated "compliance boundary" for Dan River`sCCVV impoundments. EPA ranked both wet [CVV ponds ot Don River Steam Station as "high hazard" surface impoundments, meaning that their failure will probably cause loss of life (U3EP/\ 2009), Damage Case -- Dan River Steam Station Page 97 Test of Proof Groundwater monitoring found exceeclances of groundwater standards, such as North Carolina standards, federal #CLs, and federal 5M[b (Duke Energy and N[ DENR, 1993-2009). For example: • Chromium was reported at 0.061 l mg/LinApril 2O08, over the state groundwater standard of 0.05 mg/L, • Iron exceeclances ranged from 0.32 mg/L to 69.73 mg/L between November 1993 and April 2008, the latter being over 232 times the SMCLand state groundwater standard of 0.3 mg/L. • Lead exoeedonoss ranged from O.Ol522mg/LtoO.O392mg/L between April lP98 and April 2DO8, the latter being over twice the M[L and state groundwater standard ofO.Ol5mg/L. • All recorded manganese values exceeded 3MCLs and state groundwater standards. Manganese concentrations ranged from 0.32 mg/Lto7.O58 mg/Lthe latter being over 141 times the Sk«CL and state groundwater standard ofO.O5mg/L • Silver was reported otO.O4ll mg/L in April 2OO8, over twice the state groundwater standard of 0.0 175mg/L • Sulfate exceeclances ranged from 510 mg/L to 560 mg/L between November 1993 and April 1996, more than twice the SMCL and state groundwater standard of 250 mg/L (DENR). The full extent ofthe groundwater contamination is unknown. Groundwater testing was only conducted within the boundaries ofthe CCW impoundment structure because the impoundment extends all the vvoy to the Don River, making downgrodient groundwater monitoring difficult. No off-site monitoring has been conducted' High levels of iron, lead, and manganese hnwells presumed to be "background" indicate possible contamination from the on-site dry coal ash storage facilities and warrant further investigation. Groundwater monitoring has only targeted the wet CCW storage site, ignoring the dry C[VVlandfill. Constituents Involved Chromium, iron, lead, manganese, silver, and sulfate At Risk Populafion,,s The Dan River Steam 3|odon is located in o fairly densely populated area. Private well data is supposed to be archived at the county level; however, Rockingham had only on incomplete list of registered wells from the 1 970s, without the geospotio| data necessary to mop */e||s in relation to the Don River Steam Station. Although not an exhaustive list, the private well data available showed that there are over o dozen private suburban residences within two miles of the [CVV impoundments at Don River. In addition, public well data available through the North Carolina Department ofNatural Resources, shows five public drinking water wells within a five-mile radius of Dan River that serve over 60 citizens. Damage Case — Dan River Steam Station Page 98 Unc,ident and Date Dannage Occurred / Idemfified Exceeclances of groundwater standards were first documented in November 1993 R e g, uVa t o �,, y A c:0i o ng The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is aware of existing groundwater contamination at levels that exceed state groundwater standards at the Don River Plant. Hmvever,DENR has not naqo|ned o corrective action plan to restore contaminated groundwater otthe Don River Plant and has no plans to take action to eliminate the source ofcontamination until it reaches the "compliance boondory.° DENR plans to require groundwater monitoring outside of the compliance boundary upon permit renewal for all coal ash ponds (Henderson, 2010), but this may be difficult in the case ofthe Don River Steam Station because its coal ash impoundments abut the Dan River. Despite evidence of groundwater contamination, DBNR has not required Duke Energy to take any remedial action. Under North Carolina |o»\ o company is only required to take cleanup action if contamination is spreading outside ofo designated "compliance boundary." As long as Duke Energy continues to monitor only inside the compliance boundary at the Don River Plant, they will not produce data sufficient to trigger cleanup. W " S f e S P ri;",� S a n f Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas emission residuals from the Dan River Steam Station (Duke Energy, 2009) Damage Case — Dan River Steam Station Page 99 IN HARM'S WAY: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment Type"s) of Waste Morwgiement Unit Two unlined wet coal ash impoundments and one unlined dry coal ash landfill A c fliv, e r In a c t i v e W a sMa M a r,�, a 9 e t Un., it Two active wet coal ash impoundments and one inactive, capped dry landfill Hydro$geoloqic Conditions The C[W impoundments abut the Don River, indicating that shallow off-site groundwater contamination may be diluted. Further hydrogeu|ogicinformation was unavailable. Additional Narrative The Dan River Steam Station began operation in 1949. The C[W storage hnopundment was originally built in 1956, seven years after the plant began operating. The embankment walls were raised in 1967. In 1977, the embankment walls were raised again, and on interior dike was built to divide the impoundment into the two that exist today. It should be noted that the western dike walls of the primary and secondary ash ponds were constructed on top of existing coal ash deposits. The two impoundments together cover 39 acres, with o total storage capacity ofbb4 acre feet. The impoundments have been periodically dredged and the dredged ash spoils are stored inonunlined dry ash landfill just north of the ponds. The last dredging occurred in 2007. Another dredging is unlikely because the plant is expected tnbe decommissioned soon. �ource(s) Duke Energy & N[ DENR. 1993-2008. Don River Steam Station: Coal Ash Pond Voluntary Monitoring Data. Duke Energy. 2009. Letter from Richard Kinck, Doke Energy to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Re. [ERCLA lO4(e) Request for Information (Mar. 25, 2009), available at . Henderson, 8moo. 2010. "State to require monitoring of ash Ponds," Charlotte {J6se/ve, (Feb. 2, 2010). N[DENR.2OO6. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to The Groundwaters of North Carolina, l5/\N.0 Admin. Code subchpt2L§§.OlOG,.02OO,.O30Q (amended Dec. 7,2O06). NCREDC. North [onn|ino Rural Economic Development Center (N[R£DC), NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis, Raleigh, NC, 2000O32(lonemop_pro6.SDE4DN`|N/*vveUs. Powers. 2009. R. Powers. Dan River Ash Basin NPDE5 Permit NCDO03468 Waste Review and Compliance Boundary: Duke Energy — Don River Steam Station, Rockingham County, North Carolina (Apr. 27 2009). Rizzo. 2009. Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., "Final Report: C[VV Impoundments Inspection Report: Don River Steam Station Rockingham County, North Coro|ino".(Sept.20Og). USEP/\. 2009. Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues ([[H)—Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings. EP/\530'F'09-006 (updated Aug. 2U0P). available at: Damage Case — Dan River Steam Station Page 100