NC0024406_Comments_20181119 (2)

•
•
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET.SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL.NC 27516-2356
•
November 19, 2018
Via email and U.S. mail
Julie Grzyb, Supervisor RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
NPDES Complex Wastewater Permitting
• N.C. Department of Environmental Quality NOV 2 7 2018
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Water Resources
Permitting Section
Dear Ms. Grzyb,
On behalf of Appalachian Voices,the Stokes County Branch of the NAACP, and the North
Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, we write to respond and object to Duke Energy's
October 22, 2018, letter seeking to evade Clean Water Act protections for fish and shellfish by
wrongly labeling its immense cooling water intake from Belews Lake for Belews Creek Steam
Station a "closed-cycle" system. This new request contradicts Duke and DEQ's previous
acknowledgements that this is in fact a once-through cooling system. •
Duke Energy is asking DEQ to join it in a charade to treat Belews Lake—a large, regional
recreational and fishing lake used by the communities that surround it and by people from
throughout the state—as an internal part of a supposed "closed-cycle" power plant cooling
system. Accepting Duke Energy's proposal would make a mockery of DEQ's mission to protect
• North Carolina's natural resources.
Belews Creek sucks in more than one billion gallons of water per day through an aging system
that lacks fish protections like traveling screens. It is one of the most water-intensive power. .
plants in North Carolina and in the.United States. This inefficient and outdated cooling water
intake structure provides none of the environmental protections of a true closed-cycle system.
Instead, DEQ should decline to certify Belews Creek as a "closed-cycle" system and require
Duke Energy to promptly adopt meaningful protections for fish and shellfish in Belews Lake
based on what is truly the best technology available.
•
Belews Creek. Duke Energy's Belews Creek Steam Station is designed to withdraw roughly
1,512 million gallons of water per day (MGD) from nearby Belews Lake. Its designed water •
intake capacity is higher than all but roughly 15 percent of power plants in the country.' In
practice, it has consistently withdrawn roughly 1,200 MGD in recent years.2 By contrast,
EPA,Existing 316b Facilities with ESA Data(Sept.2015),available at https://www.epa.gov/cooling-water-
intakes/cooling-water-intakes-implementation-support-documents.
2 Attachment 1,Belews Creek Steam Station Entrainment Characterization Study Plan 7,pdf 20(April 15,2016).
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington.DC
100%recycled paper

Cliffside is designed to use less than half as much water, and Mayo is designed to use about one
percent of the water used at Belews Creek-13 MGD.3
Belews Lake is not simply a cooling pond for Duke Energy's private use: is a water of the United
States and an important water, recreational, fishing, and economic resource for North Carolina,
the region, and Stokes County. Families live along the lake. Local residents, people who live in
surrounding communities, and visitors from other areas fish, swim, and boat in and on the lake.
Over the years, Belews Lake has been seriously harmed by the pollution from Duke Energy's
Belews Creek power plant. In 2007, EPA classified Belews Lake a"proven ecological damage
case" due to selenium poisoning from leaking coal ash pits at the Belews Creek plant.4
Selenium contamination from the coal ash pits ultimately eliminated 19 of the 20 fish species
present in Belews Lake.5 Selenium bio-accumulates and persists in the environment, and birds
that feed in Belews Lake continue to experience adverse effects from selenium poisoning.6
Continuing to let Duke Energy use more than a billion gallons of water each day from Belews
Lake without additional protections only further strains the lake's fish and shellfish populations
and lessens the surrounding community's enjoyment of the lake.
The Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule. After years of litigation and false starts, in 2014
EPA established Best Technology Available standards for fish impingement and.entrainment at
power plants and other facilities. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Final
Regulations To Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities
and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities, 78 Fed. Reg. 78,299 (Aug. 15, 2014). To protect
against impingement, facilities must meet one of several options EPA has declared"best
technology available," including modified traveling screens, flow velocity reductions, and
operating a closed-cycle recirculating system. 40 C.F.R. § 125.94(c). For entrainment, .
permitting agencies must establish.a site-specific standard based on information provided by the
discharger. Id. § 125.94(d). Because the Belews Creek NPDES permit will be issued after July
14, 2018, DEQ must establish cooling water intake structure protections in this permit renewal.
Id. § 125.98(b)(2).
EPA recognized in the 2014 Rule that"[c]losed-cycle cooling is indisputably the most effective
technology at reducing entrainment." 78 Fed. Reg. 48,342. Indeed, "EPA has long recognized
the benefits of flow reduction from closed-cycle recirculating systems for reducing impingement
(as well as entrainment)." Id. at 48,345. Closed-cycle systems reduce impingement and
entrainment of fish and shellfish because they drastically reduce water intake in comparison to a
once-through system, using up to 95 percent less water. Id. at 48,342, 48,345. Accordingly, "[a]
facility employing a closed-cycle recirculating system will typically reduce impingement by
more than 95 percent." Id. at 48,345. The Belews Creek cooling water intake structure, which
uses more than a billion gallons of water per day, provides no such benefits.
3 EPA,Existing 3I6b Facilities.
4 Attachment 2,USEPA Office of Solid Waste,Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments 25 (July 9,
2007).
5 Attachment 3,Rachel Cernansky,National Geographic News,Largest U.S.Coal Ash Pond to Close,But Future
Rules Still Undecided(Aug.9,2012),available at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/08/120809-1 ittle-blue-run-coal-ash-pond-to-close.
6 Attachment 4,Barbara Gottlieb et al.,Physicians for Social Responsibility and Earthjustice,Coal Ash: The Toxic
Threat to Our Health and Environment, 12(Sept.2010).
• 2

•
Duke Energy's use of Belews Lake, a water of the United States, as a cooling water source does
not make its cooling water intake structure a closed-cycle system. The Rule allows some cooling
ponds that are impounded waters of the United States to qualify as a closed-cycle system only if:
"the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that make-up water withdrawals
attributed specifically to the cooling portion of the cooling system have been minimized."• 40 •
C.F.R. § 125.92(c)(2). If a utility makes that showing,the agency "may determine a cooling •
system is a closed-cycle recirculating system." Id. (emphasis added).
Duke Energy attempts to show it has "minimized" make-up water withdrawals by discussing its
pumping of supplemental cooling water from the Dan River to maintain required Belews Lake
levels. Duke Energy Letter, at 2 (Oct. 22, 2018). But the need for Dan River pumping—which
is predictable enough that DEQ has incorporated it into the NPDES permit, and which will only
become more important as droughts become more frequent or severe—shows just the opposite:
Duke Energy uses so much water from Belews Lake to cool its aging power plant that it needs.to
take additional water from a second water of the United States. The Dan River supplies just a
fraction of Duke Energy's "make-up water"—the rest comes from the countless millions of
gallons constantly replenishing Belews Lake from upstream.
Duke Energy's request acknowledges the obvious fact that it relies on the entire Belews Lake
watershed for its immense cooling water needs. It states that"in most years, input from the •
surrounding watershed is sufficient to offset the output due to consumptive use, evaporation, and
releases from the main dam." Letter, at 2. But it fails to recognize that this natural inflow into •
Belews Lake maintains lake levels and helps provide Duke Energy the billion-plus gallons a day
it needs for cooling water to operate Belews Creek. Duke Energy does not even attempt to show
it minimizes this make-up water. Because Duke Energy's use of Belews Lake does not minimize
make-up water, DEQ cannot declare it a closed-cycle system.
This last-minute request, which Duke Energy did not make until cooling water intake structure
requirements were imminent, would undo the protections the 2014 federal cooling water intake
structure rule provides. Duke Energy's permit renewal for Belews Creek has been pending for
more than two years. Not until now has Duke Energy attempted to call Belews Creek a"closed-
cycle" system. Instead, even in documents related to the 2014 Rule implementation, Duke
Energy has candidly described it as once-through.
• Duke Energy's 2016 Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for Belews Creek, which
details how Duke Energy will conduct required studies under the rule, states: "The upper
portion of the West Belews Creek arm of the lake receives heated effluent from BCSS's
once-through condenser cooling water." Its description of the cooling water intake
structure never uses the phrase "closed-cycle."7
• In 2015, when Duke Energy requested extra time to complete and submit the required
studies under the Rule for its power plants across North Carolina—a request DEQ has
rejected in part in the June 2018 draft permit for Belews—it listed the cooling method for
Attachment 1,at 4,pdf 17(emphasis added); id. at 7,pdf 20.
3

•
each plant. Although Duke Energy described Mayo and other sites as "closed-cycle" if
they had cooling towers or cooling ponds that were not waters of the United States, it did
not list Belews Creek as closed-cycle.8
• DEQ, like Duke Energy, has recognized that the Belews Creek system is once-through
and not closed-cycle. The June 2018 draft NPDES permit, and the accompanying fact
sheet, both describe Outfall 001 as discharging "once through cooling water consisting of
• intake screen backwash, recirculating cooling water, station equipment cooling water and
once-through cooling water" to Belews Lake. Permit at 2, Fact Sheet at 1 (emphasis
added);see also Permit at 4 ("the Permittee is authorized to discharge once-through
cooling water"; "Chlorination of the once through condenser cooling water . . . is not
allowed under this permit").
Duke Energy's misguided attempt to ignore the reality of its once-through cooling system at
Belews Creek and belatedly rebrand that system as"closed-cycle" shows how important it is that
DEQ establish robust cooling water intake structure protections at Belews Creek and other North
Carolina power plants. Under no circumstances should DEQ use Duke Energy's attempt to
whitewash its cooling water system at Belews Creek as reason to waive any of the Rule's
information submittal requirements. 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(r)(ii)(B). And, although properly
certified closed-cycle recirculating systems may satisfy the BTA standards for impingement, 40
C.F.R. § 125.94(c), the entrainment standard requires a site-specific analysis to determine BTA.
Id. § 125.94(d). Because of the outdated, inefficient cooling water intake structure at Belews
Creek, and its massive water consumption, DEQ must require additional controls when it
establishes a site-specific entrainment protection. •
Sincerely
Leslie Griffith
Staff Attorney
cc: Bill Lane, General Counsel
•
e Attachment 5,316(b)Alternate Schedule Request 4(Mar. 10,2015). •
4

Attachment 1
Belews Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
May 13, 2016

efts DUKE Environmental Services
ENERGY: Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte,NC 28202
Mailing Address:
Mail Code EC13K/P.O.Box 1006
Charlotte,NC 28201-1006
May 13, 2016
Mr. Tom Belnick, Supervisor
NPDES Complex Permitting
NC DEQ/DWR/WQ Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
RECEIVED/NCD
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 EQ/DWR
MAY252016
Water Quality
Permitting Section
Subject: Belews Creek Steam Station
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Permit No. NC0024406
316(b) Entrainment Characterization Study Plan (ECSP)
Dear Mr. Belnick:
Please find enclosed the final Entrainment Characterization Study Plan (ECSP) for Belews Creek
Steam Station. The plan incorporates comments from the fisheries biologists peer reviewers, as
well as comments from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
received on March 3, 2016. Responses to comments from NCDEQ are also enclosed.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Nathan Craig at Nathan.Craig@duke-
energy.com / 704-382-9622 or Keeley McCormick at [e-mail] /
336-580-4521.
Sincerely,
olitrArr/
Reginald D. Anderson
General Manager Ill, Regulated Stations
Belews Creek Steam Station
Power Generating Carolinas East

. 1
. ,
FY
RECEIVED/NCDEQ/DVVR
MAY 2 5 2015
Water Quality
Permitting Section
Response to NCDEQ
Comments:
Entrainment Characterization Study
Plan -- Belews Creek Steam Station
Prepared for:
j•, DUKE
' ' ENERGY
Prepared by:
HDR Engineering, Inc.

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Response to NCDEQ Comments—Belews Creek Steam Station
1 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule implementing §316(b) of the Clean
Water Act(the rule)was published on August 15, 2014 in the Federal Register. The rule applies
to existing facilities with design intake flows (DIF) of more than 2 million gallons per day (MGD)
that withdraw from Waters of the United States, use at least 25 percent of that water exclusively
for cooling purposes, and have or require an NPDES permit. Existing facilities with an actual
intake flow a 125 MGD are required to provide an entrainment characterization study (at 40
CFR 122.21(rX9)) as part of its permit renewal application materials. Duke Energy facilities in
the Carolinas that meet the 125 MGD flow threshold are proposing a two-year entrainment
sampling program to gather the information necessary to fulfill the entrainment characterization
requirements. The goal of the proposed program is to estimate the seasonal and annual total
abundance of fish eggs and larvae that are drawn into the cooling water systems. Entrainment
sampling at each facility is proposed from March through October of 2016 and 2017.
2 Development of Entrainment Characterization
Study Plans
An Entrainment Characterization Study Plan (ECSP) was developed for Belews Creek Steam
Station (BCSS). The ECSP describes the sampling design and site-specific approach being
used at BOSS to sample for entrainment; the rationale for the selection of gear type, sampling
location, and other components of the sampling design; and a discussion on how the study
fulfills the requirements of the rule. While not required to undergo a peer-review, a draft of the
ECSP was sent to a subject matter expert in fisheries biology for an independent review. After
addressing comments and incorporating relevant changes, the final ECSP was sent to the
Director for comment. Comments were received from Bryn H. Tracy (Senior Environmental
Specialist, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality[NCDEQ]) by email on March 3,
2016.We thank Mr. Tracy for his comments and have provided responses in Table 2-1.
Duke Energy I 1

r
Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FYR
Response to NCDEQ Comments—Belews Creek Steam Station .
Table 2-1. Responses to Bryn H. Tracy (Sr. Environmental Specialist, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality)
Comments on the Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for Belews Creek Steam Station
NComment Response and Resolution
Page 8,Section 2.2.1:I might have missed this somewhere,but what are the
Belews current approach velocities at each of the plants where a§316(b) Approach velocity at the five fossil tacilities that are sampling for entrainment is greater
Creek demonstration is required? Are they all>0.5 ft/sec,<0.5 ft/sec.or a than 0.5 fps when all pumps are operating at design flows.
combination of these?,
iii„--- .
tIe
causes could haus Conlnb ited to!ow entrainment densities in the 1970s(e.g..
nt levels)but temperature was nal specifically Implicated.
et al.(2010)points out that aquatic organisms.and in particular oviparous(egg
laying)vertebrates(including fish),are the most sensitive to selenitxn toxicity.Sutfur-
age 12,Section 3,second paragraph: I find it hard to believe that the containing proteins in vitterogenin(an important precursor of egg yolk proteins)can
ntain selenium.At sufficiently high levels.selenium exposure results in embryo
extremely low(or non-existent)entrainment values observed in 1976 and 1977
Belews were attributed to selenium toxicity given the fact that the two units had bear, atagenesis(formation of congenital malformations)and reduced survival of larval fish
Creek on-line for only2 or 3 sera Could the elevated wa miler fish kill events and reproductive failure have been observed in other waterbodies
y .g.,Martin Lake,TX and Kesterson Reservoir.CA)(Hamilton 2004)
been a factor?
t sh populations in Belews Lake have rebounded since the power plant stopped
'discharging water with selenium,while thermal loading remains unchanged.For this
reason,we think selenium toxicity was the likely source of low larval fish densities in the
1976-77 study.Ultimately,Duke Energy will not be relying on data from the 1970s
entrainment study to support the analyses required by the final rule
Belews Page 17,first paragraph:Replace"Roxboro'with"Belews'. This will be corrected.
Creek
Pages 17 and 18(same as Allen Steam Station comments:a)Please provide '
Belews reason(s)as to why you decided on bi-weekly sampling(or is it just twice a
Creek month?)vs.weekly sampling. I attended an NC AFS workshop in 2005 lead Tease see Section 3—Twice per Month Sampling for Estimating Entralrunent.
Dr.Doug Dixon(EPRI)and I have in my notes that biweekly sampling is mo
biased than more frequent sampling.
b)One sample collected every six hours--please provide reason(s)why th
Belews is no replication within a six hour penod.i read your response in Appendix B .
Creek (and I wondered about this issue even before I got to Appendix B),but wonder Please see Section 3—Twice per Month Sampling for Estimating Entrainment.
why you chose not to replicate,even before any samples are collected? Is this
common practice not to replicate? Has this been done at other projects?
Belews Page 19,Section 6.2,first paragraph,last sentence:Please provide citation(s) Please see Section 3—Twice per Month Sampling for Estimating Entrainment.
Creek justifying as to why twice per month sampling is sufficient.
Duke Energy. 2

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Response to NCDEQ Comments—Belews Creek Steam Station
3 Twice per Month Sampling for Estimating
Entrainment
Sampling interval — or the time between sampling events — is typically assigned to a regular
schedule(e.g., one month, two weeks, one week, etc.). In some cases, the interval may change
on a seasonal basis (EPRI 2014). In the rule and its preamble, EPA provides no guidance on
the sampling interval associated with entrainment characterization studies required under
§122.21(rX9). The ECSPs reviewed by NCDEQ are based on twice per month 24-hour
sampling events where each sampling event contains four samples collected throughout the 24-
hour period, resulting in eight depth integrated entrainment samples per month. This sampling
frequency was selected based on careful consideration of study objectives, gear selection, and
historical 316(b) studies. This section provides additional clarification on sample frequency
selection based on NCDEQ comments.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in its 2014 entrainment abundance monitoring
support document, took advantage of a large dataset from an intensive entrainment monitoring
program undertaken at the Indian Point Generation Station on the Hudson River, NY. These
data were collected over 5 years (1983-1987) continuously or near-continuously (24-hours per
day, 7-days per week). Using these data, different sampling frequency and intensity scenarios,
including monthly, twice per month, and weekly sampling frequency, were modeled for their
effect on entrainment abundance estimates.
A sampling frequency of one day in a twice per month interval produced a coefficient of variation
(CV—the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean) of annual entrainment estimates ranging
from 750 percent for taxa entrained at very low densities (0.001 per 100 m3) to roughly 50
percent at the highest densities (100 per 100 m3). The CV declined as the frequency of
sampling increased (Table 3-1). At densities between 0.1 and 1.0 per 100 m3 and greater, the
CV stabilized between 25-50 percent for weekly sampling and 50-75 percent for twice per
month sampling.
The Hudson River estuary is a dynamic and variable environment that is affected daily by tides,
salinity and temperature gradients, and freshwater and nutrient inputs. At locations such as this,
species compositions and their relative abundance can fluctuate rapidly. In addition, the
spawning season is more spread out than in freshwater (i.e., spawning can take place in any
month of the year). Comparatively, a southeastern Piedmont reservoir represents a more stable
ambient sourcewater system and the spawning season is discrete within the year. Based on
these factors, it is assumed that comparable levels of precision can be achieved with less
frequent sampling in southeastern Piedmont reservoirs than would be needed on the Hudson
River. Even Brunswick Steam Electric Plant(BSEP), which withdraws from an estuary, exhibits
similar estimates in entrainment based on monthly and twice per month sampling as described
below.
Organisms collected at very low densities will generally not contribute substantially to the
economic benefits valuation and as a result selection of fish protection technologies will not
Duke Energy 13

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan J
Response to NCDEQ Comments—Belews Creek Steam Station
typically be driven by species rarely entrained'. Therefore, greater variability (CV) in estimates
for these rarely collected species should be acceptable for the Entrainment Characterization
Study and the analyses these data support. In addition, as shown in Table 3-1, there is
relatively little difference in the CV between the weekly and twice per month sampling
frequencies for the more abundant species which have a greater affect on the valuation of
economic benefits and the selection of fish protection technologies.
Table 3-1. Estimated Mean Coefficient of Variation of Annual Entrainment Estimates
Based on 100 Iterations of Different Sampling Scenarios (100 m3 per Sample) Applied to
Indian Point Entrainment Data from 1983-1987 (Modified from EPRI 2014)
Approximate Coefficient of
Sample Mean Variation (%)
Density Weekly Twice per Month
(No./100 m3) Samplin• Sampling
0.001 275-525 425-750
0.01 125-50 350-150
0.1 50-75 50-150
1 25-50 50-75
10 25-50 50-75
100 25-50 50-75
We note EPRI (2014) did not provide entrainment estimates associated with the sample
frequencies modeled. Our assumption is the total estimated entrainment generally remains
consistent regardless of the frequency of sampling, but the CV around the estimate decreases
with increased sampling. This is consistent with observations at BSEP. Data from yearly
sampling at BSEP from 1979 to 2004 were used to demonstrate that estimates of entrainment
based on weekly sampling were similar to those based on a monthly sampling frequency (see
green and blue lines in Figure 3-12). Based on this data, and consultation with NCDEQ, Duke
Energy decreased the sampling frequency at BSEP from weekly to monthly.
' A potential exception to this rule is when Federally-listed species may be involved in entrainment,
however, no Federally listed species are associated with potential for entrainment at these Duke Energy
facilities.
2 Baseline and Post-baseline refer to prior to and after the installation of entrainment reduction technology
and operation measures (fine-mesh panels and seasonal flow reduction) at BSEP, respectively. The
post-baseline data includes all sampling frequencies(i.e.,weekly and monthly combined).
Duke Energy 14

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FYZ
Response to NCDEQ Comments—Belews Creek Steam Station
•
100 � ,�.. �s.—
w• 80
V
°- 60
a 40
50th Percentile 80th Percentile
Nu. % Nu. %
R 20 Baseline 9.45 18.46
(� L Weekly 1.44 84.7 4.13 77.6
Monthly 2.38 74.9 5.06 72.6
0 Post-baseline 1.79 81.1 4.79 74.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Number entrained (millions)
Baselln• Weekly Monthly ...... .Post-0asNfn•
Figure 3-1 Cumulative Distribution of Total Entrainment at Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant under Varying Sampling Frequency
3.1 Conclusion
In determining sampling frequency, twice per month sampling was selected to balance the level
of uncertainty and costs with rule requirements and considerations of how these data would be
used in the later §122.21(r) reports. Changing the sample frequency from twice per month to
weekly would double or more3 the program costs yet not materially improve the quality of the
larger technology evaluations required under the rule. For these reasons, the twice per month
sample frequency was proposed in the study plans and remains the recommendation after both
peer review and NCDEQ comments have been received.
3 Increasing sample frequency from twice per month to weekly will at least double the cost of the
entrainment characterization program. Given the scale of Duke Energy's fleet-wide entrainment
characterization effort, such an effort may require hiring of additional contractors and field/laboratory
staff raising the potential for even further cost escalation.
Duke Energy i 5

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Response to NCDEQ Comments—Belews Creek Steam Station
References
Donner, M.T. and R. Eckmann. 2011. Diel vertical migration of larval and early-juvenile burbot
optimises survivalgrowthdeep, pre-alpine in a lake. Freshwater Biology 56: 916-925.
Technical
Abundance Monitoringec
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2014. Entrainment
Support Document: Updated for the New Clean Water Act §316(b) Rule. 3002001425.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. 156 pp.
Duke Energy 16

Entrainment Characterization
Study Plan
Prepared for:
fit~' DUKE
ENERGY
Prepared by:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
April 15, 2016
Belews Creek Steam
Station

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FYI
Belay's Creek Steam Station
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Regulatory Background 1
1.2 Study Plan Objectives and Document Organization 3
2 Generating Station Description 3
2.1 Source Waterbody 4
2.1.1 Belews Lake 4
2.1.2 Dan River 4
2.2 Station and Cooling Water Intake Description 7
2.2.1 Belews Lake Cooling Water Intake Structure 7
2.2.2 Dan River Make-up Pumping Station 10
3 Historical Studies 12
4 Threatened and Endangered Species 13
5 Basis for Sampling Design 14
6 Entrainment Characterization Study Plan 19
6.1 Introduction 19
6.2 Sample Collection 19
6.2.1 Location 20
6.3 Sample Sorting and Processing 25
6.4 Data Management 26
6.5 Data Analysis 28
6.6 Field and Laboratory Audits 27
6.7 Laboratory Quality Control 28
6.8 Reporting 28
6.9 Safety Policy 28
7 References 29
APPENDIX A—Select Species Spawning and Early Life History Data 31
Life History References 33
APPENDIX B—Response to Informal Review Comments 34
APPENDIX C-Comparison of Pumps and Nets for Sampling Ichthyopiankton 40
Duke Energy I I

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Tables
Table 1-1. §316(b)Rule for Existing Facilities Submittal Requirements Summary 2
Table.2-1. Belews Creek Steam Station Design Intake Flow Rate by Unit and Daily Average Water
Withdrawal from Belews Lake, 2011-2014 7
Table 2-2. Belews Creek Steam Station Design Intake Flow Rate for the make-up intake and Daily
Average Water Withdrawal from the Dan River, 2011-2014 7
Table 3-1. Entrainment Sampled by Flow (m3) at Belews Creek Steam Station, March 1976 through
August 1977 13
Table 5-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Hoop Nets and Pumped Samplers for Estimating
Ichthyoplankton Density in Cooling Water Intake Structures (some information adapted from EPRI 2014)
16
Table 5-2. Potential Disadvantages of Pumped Ichthyoplankton Sampling at Belews Creek Steam Station
17
Table 5-3. Summary of Approach for Development of §122.21(r)(9) Required Entrainment
Characterizations 18
Table 6-1. Entrainment Sampling Details 20
Table B-1. Directed Charge Questions 34
Table B-2. Peer Reviewer Responses to Directed Charge Questions 36
Table C-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Hoop Nets and Pumped Samplers for Estimating
Ichthyoplankton Density in Cooling Water Intake Structures (some information adapted from EPRI 2014)
42
Table C-2. Total Number (N) and Mean Densities (MD) (mean number of shad/ 1,000 m3) of All Shad
Collected with Comparison Gear and Shad <28 mm Total Length Collected with a Tucker Trawl on Lake
Norman, North Carolina, 6-10 June 1982, with Average Volume of Water Filtered per Sample (m3)
(Leonard and Vaughn 1985) 51
Table C-3. Summary of Major Studies Designed to Comparatively Evaluate the Sampling Efficiency of
Various Large-Volume Pumps and Tow Nets (Taggart and Leggett 1984). 53
Duke Energy 1 11

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan 1-YZ
Belews Creek Steam Station
Figures
Figure 2-1.Aerial View of Belews Lake(Image Modified from: Google Earth) 5
Figure 2-2. Belews Creek Steam Station Vicinity Map(Source:Alden 2004) 6
Figure 2-3. Aerial View of the Make-up Water Intake on the Dan River and Belews Creek in Rockingham
County, North Carolina(Image Modified from: Google Earth) .8
Figure 2-4. Site Configuration of Belews Creek Steam Station (Image Modified from: Duke Energy 2011)9
Figure 2-5. Plan and Section View of the Make-up Water Intake (Modified from: Belews Creek Steam
Station Belews Lake Pumping Station-Velocity Cap Engineering Drawing, BC-1394-00.39) 11
Figure 4-1. Geographical Boundary of the IPAC Search 14
Figure 6-1. Section View of the Belews Creek Steam Station's Cooling Water Intake Structure with
Approximate Location of Sample Inlets at Three Depths — Sampler pipe (in red) not Shown to Scale
(Image Modified from:Alden 2004) 21
Figure 6-2. Aerial View Showing Approximate Locations of Sampling Gear(Image Modified from: Google
Earth) 22
Figure 6-3. Example Entrainment Pump Sampling System Configuration 24
Figure 6-4. 7.5-Horsepower Electric Pump Used for Entrainment Sampling 24
Duke Energy I Ill

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan E-3/
Belem Creek Steam Station
Acronyms and Abbreviations
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AlF actual intake flow
AOQL Average Outgoing Quality Limit
BCSS Belews Creek Steam Station
BTA Best Technology Available
CCW condenser cooling water
cfs cubic feet per second
CSP continuous sampling plan
CWIS cooling water intake structure
DIF design intake flow
Director National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Director
Duke Energy Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
El. elevation
ECSP Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FGD flue gas desulfurization
gpm gallons per minute
HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.
IPAC Information for Planning and Conservation(website)
m3 cubic meter
MW megawatt
pm micrometer or micron
mm millimeter
MGD million gallons per day
MIL-STD military-standard
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Normandeau Normandeau Associates, Inc.
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
RTE rare, threatened, or endangered
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Duke Energy I iv

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
1 Introduction
1 .1 Regulatory Background
The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 and introduced the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Facilities with NPDES permits are subject to
§316(b) of the Act, which requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling
water intake structures (CWIS) reflect best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse
environmental impacts. Cooling water intakes can cause adverse environmental impacts by
drawing early life-stage fish and shellfish into and through cooling water systems (entrainment)
or trapping juvenile or adult fish against the screens at the opening of an intake structure
(impingement).
On August 15, 2014, the final §316(b) rule for existing facilities was published in the Federal
Register. The rule applies to existing facilities with design intake flows (DIF) of more than 2
million gallons per day (MGD) that withdraw from Waters of the United States, use at least 25
percent of that water exclusively for cooling purposes, and have or require an NPDES permit.
The rule supersedes the Phase II rule, which regulated large electrical generating facilities until
it was remanded in 2007, and the remanded existing-facility portion of the previously
promulgated Phase Ill rule. The final rule became effective on October 14, 2014.
Facilities subject to the new rule are required to develop and submit technical material, identified
at §122.21(r)(2)-(14), that will be used by the NPDES Director (Director) to make a BTA
determination for the facility (Table 1-1). The specific information required to be submitted and
compliance schedule are dependent on actual intake flow rates (AIF) at the facility and the
NPDES permit renewal date. Existing facilities with an AIF z 125 MGD are required to address
both impingement and entrainment and provide explicit entrainment studies which may involve
extensive field and economic studies (§122.21(r)(9)-(13)). Existing facilities with AIF < 125 MGD
have fewer application submittals. For such facilities, the Director must still determine BTA for
entrainment on a site-specific basis and the applicant may supply information relevant to the
Director's decision. Facilities are to submit §316(b) application material to their Director along
with their next permit renewal, unless that permit renewal takes place prior to July 14, 2018, in
which case an alternate schedule may be negotiated.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's (Duke Energy) Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) is subject to
the existing facility rule and, based on its current configuration and operation, must develop and
submit each of the §122.21(r)(2)-(13) submittal requirements with its next permit renewal in
accordance with the rule's technical and schedule requirements. Within the §122.21(r)(2)-(13)
requirements, (r)(4), (7), (9), (10) and (11) have specific requirements related to entrainment
evaluations (refer to Table 1-1 for additional detail). This document provides an Entrainment
Characterization Study Plan (ECSP) to support §316(b) compliance at the facility with
consideration of these specific requirements. As a part of development of this Study Plan, Duke
Energy submitted an earlier draft of this document to review by a subject matter expert in the
field of fisheries (see Appendix B) and identified to the State as a peer reviewer.
Duke Energy I 1

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
While the equipment and methods contained in this Study Plan were developed with the intent
to be implemented as written, changes to the Study Plan may be required based on facility
requirements and/or situations encountered during execution.
Table 1-1. §316(b) Rule for Existing Facilities Submittal Requirements Summary
Submittal Requirements Submittal Descriptions
at§122.21(r)
Source Water
f.,1 Physical Data Characterization of the source water body including intake area of influence
(3) Cooling Water Intake Characterization of cooling water system:includes drawings and narrative:description cf operation;
Structure Data water balance
Source Water Characterization of biological community in the vicinity of the intake;life history summaries;
(4) Baseline Biological susceptibility to impingement and entrainment;must include existing data;identification of missing
Characterization data data;threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat summary for action area:
identifies fragile fish and shellfish species list(<30 percent impingement survival)
Cooling Water Narrative description of cooling water system and intake structure;proportion of design flow used;
t5) System Data water reuse summary:proportion of source water body withdrawn(monthly);seasonal operation
summary;existing impingement mortality and entrainment reduction measures;flowfMW efficiency
Chosen Method of Provides facility's proposed approach to meet the impingement mortality requirement(chosen from
Compliance with seven available options);provides detailed studymonitoring p plan for compliance,if required by
(6) Impingement Mortality selected compliance option;addresses entrapment where equired
Standard
Entrainment Provides summary of relevant entrainment studies(latent mortality,technology efficacy);can be
(7) Performance studies from the facility or elsewhere with justification:studies should not be more than 10 years old without
justification;new studies are not required
Provides operational status for each unit:age and capacity utilizations for the past five years:
(8) Operational Status upgrades within last 15 years;uprates and Nuclear Regulatory Commission relicensing status for
nuclear facilities:decommissioning and replacement plans;current and future operation as it relates
to actual and design intake flow
or Requires at least two years of data to sufficiently characterize annual,seasonal,and diel variations
in entrainment,including variations related to climate,weather.spawning,feeding,and water
column migration:facilities may use historical data that are representative of current operation of the
Entrainment facility and conditions at the site with documentation regarding the continued relevance of the data
(9) Characterization to document total entrainment and entrainment mortality:includes identifications to the lowest taxon
Study possible;data must be representative of each intake:must document how the location of the intake
in the water body and water column are accounted for;must document intake flows associated with
the data collection;documentation in the study must include the method in which latent mortality
would be identified(including QAQC);sampling and data must be appropriate for a quantitative
survey
Comprehensive
(10) Technical Feasibility Provides an evaluation of technical feasibility and incremental costs of entrainment technologies:
&Cost Evaluation Net Present Value of facility compliance costs and social costs to be provided;requires peer review
Study
Provides a discussion of monetized and non-monetized water quality benefits of candidate
entrainment technologies from(r)(10)using data in(rx9);benefits to be quantified physical or
Benefits Valuation biological units and monetized using appropriate economic valuation methods;includes changes in
(11) Study fish stock and harvest levels and description of monetization,must evaluate thermal discharges,
facility capacity.operations,and reliability;discussion of previous mitigation efforts and affects:
benefits to environment and community;social benefits analysis based on principle of willingness-to-
pay;requires peer review
Non Water Quality Provides a discussion of non-water quality factors(air emissions and their health and environmental
Environmental and
(12) impacts,energy p enalty,thermal discharge,noise,safety,grid reliability,
consumptive water use,
Other Impacts etc.)attributable to the entrainment technologies;requires peer review
Assessment
Duke Energy 2

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Submittal Requirements Submittal Descriptions
at§122.21(r)
Documentation of external peer review,by qualified experts,of submittals(r)(10),(11).and(12).
(13) Peer Review Peer Reviews must be approved by the NPDES Director and present their credentials.The
applicant must explain why it disregarded any significant peer reviewer recommendations.
(14) New Units Identify the chosen compliance method for the new unit
1 .2 Study Plan Objectives and Document Organization
The ECSP provided in this report was developed to support BCSS's §316(b) compliance
through development of a site-specific ECSP with the following primary objectives in mind:
1. Collect data to support development of §122.21(r)(9)which requires at least two years of
entrainment studies be conducted at the facility;
2. Collect data to support development of §122.21(r)(7) which allows for summaries of
relevant technology efficacy studies conducted at the facility; and
3. Collect data to support Duke Energy's objective of having data sufficient to evaluate
biological efficacy of potential alternative intake technologies that may require site
specific evaluations and support social cost-benefit analyses as a part of the
§122.21(r)(10)-(12) compliance evaluations.
While not a primary objective, the entrainment data gathered will help support development of
§122.21(r)(4) which requires a listing of species and life stages most susceptible to entrainment
at the facility.
To meet these objectives, this document provides summaries of the station's configuration and
operation (Section 2), historical biological sampling efforts conducted at the facility that are
relevant to cooling water intake evaluations (Section 3), a summary of Threatened and
Endangered Species identified near the facility (Section 4), a sampling program design based
on this information (Section 5), recommended study methods including gear type, schedule,
frequency, and quality control procedures (Section 6), references cited (Section 7), life history
information on species likely to be entrained that supports reducing the sampling period from
12-months per year to 8-months per year (Appendix A), documentation of the subject matter
expert review of an earlier draft of this study plan (Appendix B), and a white paper on the use of
pumped samplers in entrainment monitoring (Appendix C).
2 Generating Station Description
This section presents background information on the source waterbodies (Belews Lake and the
Dan River) from which BCSS withdraws cooling water and the design and operation of the
CWIS.
Duke Energy 13

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
2.1 Source Waterbody
2.1.1 Belews Lake
Belews Lake was created in 1973 by the formation of a rolled earth fill dam with a concrete
spillway across Belews Creek. Belews Lake has a surface area of 3,863 acres and a shoreline
of approximately 88 miles. The lake was created to provide cooling water for BCSS which is one
of the largest coal-fired generating stations on the Duke Energy system.
Belews Lake is comprised of three distinct regions: (1) West Belews Creek arm; (2) Belews
Creek arm; and (3) main body of the lake (termed downlake region) (Figure 2-1). The upper
portion of the West Belews Creek arm of the lake receives heated effluent from BCSS's once-
through condenser cooling water (CCW). The West Belews Creek arm is physically separated
from the remainder of Belews Lake, except for a 0.93-mile long man-made canal which
facilitates the return of heated CCW effluent to the Belews Creek arm. Moving southward from
the downlake region into the Belews Creek arm, beginning approximately 0.6 miles from
BCSS's CCW discharge canal, is the narrow portion of the reservoir historically termed the
"midlake" region. This region represents a transitional area, situated between the lake's
headwaters and the downlake region. In this portion of the lake, the upper part of the water
column typically has downlake water quality as influenced by the edge of BCSS's thermal
plume. However, the deeper portion of the midlake water column typically has water quality
more like that observed in the headwater portion of the reservoir (i.e. cooler water, with greater
concentrations of nutrients and suspended solids)(Duke Energy 2011).
Belews Lake is characterized as a southeastern Piedmont reservoir which receives heated
discharges from a steam-electric power plant and exhibits strong summer stratification and
complete winter mixing. The BCSS heated discharge influences the heat content in Belews
Lake and longitudinal mixing in the downlake region via continued recirculation between Belews
CCW discharge canal and the CCW intake. Belews Lake lies in the Roanoke River basin. The
lake has a retention time of approximately 1,236 days and a usable storage capacity of 181,664
acre-feet.
2.1.2 Dan River
The Dan River near BCSS is located within Stokes and Rockingham counties, North Carolina. A
make-up water pumping station located on the Dan River near BCSS (Figure 2-2) is used to
maintain the storage capacity and water surface elevation at Belews Lake during extreme
drought periods (see Section 2.2.2 for more detail).
Electrofishing samples during February 2009 demonstrated a diverse fish community at
locations upstream of, downstream of, and near the make-up water intakes. This Dan River fish
community was composed of 24 fish species that included seven cyprinids, six catostomids, six
percids, three centrarchids, and two ictalurids. The fish community was dominated by species
with an intermediate pollution tolerance rating and species known to feed on insects (Duke
Energy 2009a).
Duke Energy 14

• Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station �1)/1f
`
i
Down-lake Region
e
Belews Creek 3,
.: - on �.
*140
e
♦
• • Belews Creek
Arm
.19
4
lot 4
/
y 4�
T
r 4406
Figure 2-1. Aerial View of Belews Lake (Image Modified from: Google Earth)
Duke Energy l 5

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FN
Creek Steam Station
estfield _
IW
life
+' = Danbury ! 'dait`, . �J `,
i .._._ 1
4-) �� I eWfntwotth
, ,„;
.
,-. --)1 a
Y
/
• r
,.. ,,..
�
♦P __...,
, _
naado � ` •
Hall.
...._.,.....
I
S CREEK S EAM STATION
t `i _ ti
!tows r.
TobaccoWlla- ..-• r . '
'Mold
_prowns Summh-
j
eBethanId -7-11----,_ f1#
Wal. owno r-z l t
PLaito..:: 1 t i
♦ te. f' f •
i
1 4t11 fswiita ,
LewisvilleDP
*4/ r -t0! em • - oNax ►t
DI LORME
ta — ss, t• m MN imi I= mi
®2003 DeLorme m •
www.delorme.co0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
SU set Atlas USA4i 2444 Plus MN(6 0'144) Dale Zoom 9-0
Figure 2-2. Belews Creek Steam Station Vicinity Map(Source: Alden 2004)
Duke Energy I e

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan L��
Belews Creek Steam Station r
2.2 Station and Cooling Water Intake Description
BCSS has two coal-fired units with an electric generating output of 2,220-megawatts (MW).
Units 1 and 2 are rated at 1,110 MW each and began commercial operation in August 1974 and
December 1975, respectively. The design pumping capacity for the Belews Lake CWIS is 1,514
MGD (757 MGD/unit; Table 2-1). The Dan River make-up CWIS has a design pumping capacity
of 26 MGD (Tables 2-2).
Table.2-1. Belews Creek Steam Station Design Intake Flow Rate by Unit and Daily
Average Water Withdrawal from Belews Lake, 2011-2014
Design Flow Rate Average daily water withdrawal (MGD)from Belews Lake
Unit (MGD)
2011 2012 2013 2014
1 757
11111.11110111.11
' ? C 1259.1 1,265. 1,185.0
Facility 1.514 . ...
Table 2-2. Belews Creek Steam Station Design Intake Flow Rate for the make-up intake
and Daily Average Water Withdrawal from the Dan River, 2011-2014
Design Flow Average Daily water withdrawal from the Dan River
Rate(MGD) 2011 2012 2013 2014
Dan River
make-up 26 0.0 13.9 0.03 0.'
water intakes
2.2.1 Belews Lake Cooling Water Intake Structure
BCSS withdraws circulating water through a single CWIS located in the west arm of Belews
Lake (Figures 2-3 and 2-4). BCSS's CWIS is 158 feet long and is divided into eight, 18.5 feet-
wide intake bays. A trash rack spans the upstream face of each intake bay. The trash racks are
23 feet tall and are made of 2-inch by 0.5-inch steel bars spaced every 3 inches on-center.
Behind each trash rack is a 23 foot tall vertical fixed screen comprised of coarse mesh panels
with 3/8-inch mesh spacing. Each of the fixed-panel screens is equipped with a differential
pressure alarm that sounds if the differential pressure across the screen reaches 10 inches,
signifying fouling and a need for screen cleaning. Eight circulating water pumps (one in each
intake bay, four pumps per unit) are located 26 feet downstream of the fixed-panel screens.
Each pump has a capacity of 131,500 gpm (189 MGD). With all eight pumps operating, the
maximum design flow of BCSS is 1,052,000 gpm (1,515 MGD).
Duke Energy 17

Entrainment Charactenzation Study Plan LYZ
Belews Creek Steam S:at on
1
Make-up Make-up
Water Intake Water Intake
(approxim ate (approximate
location) location)
' 1•
•Make-up Water Belews
Pum in Station Creek
Dan River
i
Figure 2-3. Aerial View of the Make-up Water Intake on the Dan River and Belews Creek in
Rockingham County, North Carolina (Image Modified from: Google Earth)
Duke Energy 18

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan ���
Belews Creek Steam Station
Belews ...-".-444141‘.-4,401r #
Creek .01111.' . '�+�` , ''t -4 k tea, , 1
Steam '' -
4'8ok.0,j-,
tIt
Station 7 4' } Alle - `
"AL 41- 0,....." . - di*To --%
h. litio,« r _, ,
.. , ,.., , _.,...... .. . ,Aiiii-oft. .., itrkikri _ ..Ps. .
,,
r...w_ ��.. e
sA moi'_. 3. ,. 4.,_ .r_.
'.,
...
.,--
v40 I .0 •
F �i '- 1 '
zi
; •:,........• . - 444/Nek 4. \,inieMA20 ‘'
ille-e ,_ ..,....„
4 ..
- -- • . _
.,...-. „iv- ., ,,r,,,...
-, „.
....,„,
a �5-c� �` 4.a. f ;
- 4, •.•A., 4. ifil '• a:),s.t...
4.4... .• .fr
/,, n • Ora 1 '� '
Discharge :' - + A, MI -
"' s;_+ Canal f �},,
414.
", , sK Jr- Y Kw t 8 . - •e a
— 1 . _all L44.7-411— firS 1'''.1 1111i''' '
` . ` s . Lt �
• , .. •s 6 4
i'
.,
, ,.• -. .- , , _--...A, '91* '11 a, . t ' tvy
_ ---, : If ' .
Iiiiitiet ,.. ' r-4,-"' ,-., . .-.4,- • 40,,it.1,:ir,..,:-
—,ii.w.7.--*„.. . .. , 2 , , . : •40rue , A : , 4.,,
, ,,,. „ .. • ,.
Figure 2-4. Site Configuration of Belews Creek Steam Station (Image Modified from: Duke
Energy 2011)
Duke Energy 19
I

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Bedews Creek Steam Station
2.2.2 Dan River Make-up Pumping Station
In 2008, a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system was installed at BCSS which increased the
consumptive use of Belews Lake by approximately 5.4 MGD. To meet the additional water
demand, primarily during drought conditions, Duke Energy constructed a make-up pumping
station on the Dan River adjacent to the BCSS site (at the Dan River/Belews Creek confluence).
The make-up pumping station has two pumps rated at 9,000 GPM (13 MGD) each. The two
make-up water intakes are low profile horizontal intake structures embedded in the bottom of
the Dan River and Bedews Creek, respectively and each are equipped with a velocity cap'
(Figure 2-5). Water withdrawn from the Dan River and Belews Creek flows into a pit and tunnel
system and is routed to a collection basin at an on-shore pumping station. The make-up
pumping station is equipped with Beaudrey Water Intake Protection (WIP)screens comprised of
2-millimeter fine mesh. The WiP screens were designed to have art approach velocity of less
than 0.5 feet per second. The pumping station was designed with an integrated fish recovery
and return system. This system utilizes a fish pump to lift fish to the top of the pump station and
discharges them back into the Dan River downstream of the make-up water intakes via a
submerged fish return line (Duke Energy 2009b).
1
Note that these velocity cap intakes do not meet the definition of velocity cap as used by EPA in the final
Rule for impingement compliance under Compliance Alternative 4 (§125.92(v)), because they are not
located 800 ft from the shoreline
Duke Energy 110

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan 1 YR
Belews Creek Steam Station J
I % I .
1•111111• 1 10 1
I %
Mt
Sursb4T FINS t'-a•0
(INP.)La.a (sn, sn.) •
R/LEG CUT-OUT Is•-o OM
30
'MTEPIICHT
IIa/.Fb1E COrei
LOU NOD LEati(NAPS . .. ••• _L sat 67'
O01561 JO** .- a .
t
A.
aP. _ sal 00'
SUNT SS OW CAGE .• '' c 1
r-2 1
r • � , BOIT ssGm'
I 4
DISTINC CHANNEL
SLOPE MD5511.50 D CHANNEL _ C///ARM IF-1r RCN - ♦ �/� . `
vaocJTr uvOOTTON AMT SECSA. i• 4i .,i\/
S.OM •S'H avow .\ a• • -f•
/ •
\\//
110.STNUCIUNIL oCTaS•S I \ _ sr OP t/ I.-SIAN
N
Sao 2 NO uc-,o.e-oa.ot \ •.."; D1umw
a •T 6.wc•
l-- • -
IN S51113.
D•CKd
NT ,.\A 1. • GOR.wow ..
,;

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station rYZ
3 Historical Studies
The most recent entrainment study conducted at BCSS occurred during two sampling periods in
1976 and 1977. The first study period was from March 1, 1976 to September 29, 1976 and the
second study period was from April 26, 1977 to August 31, 1977 (Alden 2004). Twenty-four hour
samples were collected three times per week from a 2-inch gate valve located upstream of the
Unit 1 main condenser water box. Sampling consisted of using a 794-micron (pm) plankton net
placed in a 55-gallon drum. Flow rates were estimated by the time required to fill the drum.
Sample times were recorded to the nearest minute. Sample volumes were estimated based on
flow rate and time sampled. Sample volumes averaged 347 cubic meters (m3). No eggs or
larvae were collected in 1976 and only six common carp (Cyprinus carpio) larvae were collected
in 1977 (Table 3-1).
The low entrainment levels observed in 1976 and 1977 were likely influenced by the presence
of toxic levels of selenium (from BCSS ash basin discharge to Belews Lake) and subsequent
recruitment failure, which has been documented to have occurred in Belews Lake during the
1970s and 1980s (Alden 2004). Ash basin discharge water was rerouted to the Dan River in
1985 which has led to the recovery of the Belews Lake ecosystem over time. However, changes
in entrainment rates at the BCSS CWIS are unknown at this time. The detailed EPA
questionnaire submitted by Duke Energy listed bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), black crappie
(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense), and gizzard shad (Dorosoma
cepedianum) larvae as entrainable species and lifestages at BCSS. Because of their life history
and fecundity, threadfin and gizzard shad larvae are commonly collected in entrainment
samples at other facilities where these species occur.
Duke Energy 112

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Table 3-1. Entrainment Sampled by Flow (m3) at Belews Creek Steam Station, March 1976
through August 1977
March 1976 4,794 0
April 1976 • 4,104mil `0:
May 1976 3,846 11,11W11 0
Pune 19764,238 lir IMMO
July 1976 71111111.6a, 4,614 0 `1
►ugust 1976 a=row 5,052 Mil 41111 0':
September 197611101
3,570 0 MIN
TRIM"orr,
April1977 s _ 2,016 Mat61.1111
May 1977 6,166 411111111' 0
June 1977 6,706 0
July 1977 4,945 0
August 1977 4,197 0
4 Threatened and Endangered Species
There are no critical habitat designations within Belews Lake, nor are there expected to be any
State or Federal rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species within the Lake. However, the
Dan River has two aquatic RTE species (i.e., Roanoke logperch [Perciana rex] and James
spinymussel [Pleurobema collina]), neither of which is expected to be present in Belews Lake.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife's map-based search tool (IPAC) was consulted to generate a
resource report and determine the potential presence of Federally-listed species within Belews
Lake and the surrounding land (Figure 4-1; USFWS 2015). The only aquatic species identified
was the endangered James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina). However, the James
Spinymussel lives in stream sites that vary in width from 10-75 feet and depth of 1/2 to 3 feet. It
requires a slow to moderate water current with clean sand and cobble bottom sediments.
(USFWS 1990). The habitat near the Belews Creek intake is not suitable to James Spinymussel
and it is not anticipated to reside anywhere near the BCSS CWIS.
Duke Energy 113

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
N rII
4 �.ai r i
alnut o
Ave t 4:1
IV 1yt f 1 ! 7 } r.
6 , A
t;
I f .
'
Aijir
'tit'.tin
-1t I•'
1t
f42-
e
Figure 4-1. Geographical Boundary of the IPAC Search
5 Basis for Sampling Design
p g g
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) and Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau) participated in a
site visit to BCSS on May 12, 2015 to evaluate potential entrainment sampling methods and
locations that would be practicable based on best professional judgment and previous
entrainment sampling experience. During this site visit, it was determined that pumped samples
from within the CWIS would best represent entrainment rates at BOSS. Sampling at the intake
using a pumped-sampler eliminates the potential for damage to or loss of organisms that can
occur if organisms pass through the cooling water system and are sampled at the discharge. In
addition, properly designed and operated pumped systems have shown collection efficiencies of
95 percent or greater for fish eggs and larvae with little or no organism damage (EPRI 2014).
Two primary methods that have been historically used to estimate ichthyoplankton entrainment
at power plant intakes are utilizing streamed/towed nets and collecting pumped samples.
Traditional ichthyoplankton nets can be used to filter water as it enters the intake and collect
organisms. Alternatively, pumps can be used to convey water from the intake structure to a fine-
Duke Energy 114

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Betews Creek Steam Station
mesh net onshore. Onshore nets are suspended in a buffering tank to minimize damage and
extrusion of eggs and larvae.
Each method has advantages and disadvantages and a comparison of the two methods are
summarized in Table 5-1. Pumped sampling was selected as the preferred sampling method for
the BCSS. The primary advantages of utilizing pumps at this location include metering precise
sample flows, longer sample collection times, reduce the potential to miss samples due to
inclement weather or other events, and increase the ability for technicians to safely observe net
filtering and other aspects of the data collection. Pumped samplers are among the preferred
gear types accepted by the EPA and have been used extensively to successfully monitor
entrainment at power plant intakes for decades. Their versatility includes being utilized in fresh,
estuarine, and marine water environments. Properly designed and operated systems can be
accurate and effective. While no sampling method is perfect, we believe pumped samplers offer
the best, most cost-effective, and consistent sampling method available for BCSS.
Duke Energy 115

•
•
Entrainment Charactenzabon Study Plan tijitMM
Belews Creek Steam Station
Table 5-1.Advantages and Disadvantages of Hoop Nets and Pumped Samplers for Estimating Ichthyoplankton Density in Cooling Water Intake Structures(some information adapted from EPRI 2014)
Gear Type Advantages Disadvantages
Hoop Nets Deployed in the Intake -Large volumes are sampled quickly(less manpower required for the same number of pumped -Can be difficult to deploy and retrieve in the confined space of intake structures—precludes the use
samples). of some net types(e.g.,standard bongo,neuston nets,or Tucker trawls).
-If net frames are not used,then there is limited to no modifications to the intake required for -Depending on deployment method,may require modifications to intake structures(e.g.,frame-
deployment. mounted nets In frame guides).
-No potential for mechanical damage associated with pump passage. -Less precise flow metering than pumped samplers.
-Large volumes are sampled quickly—capturing less temporal variability as compared to pumped
samples.
-Relatively small nets needed to fit in the intake structure offer a small spatial sample.Multiple nets
can be used to increase sampled area at the cost of additional samples to be processed in the
laboratory.
-Tow speeds in the range of 1-2 meters per second(commonly used during ichthyoplankton
sampling)is above the intake velocities at the majority of intakes.
-Some active avoidance possible by larger motile life stage(e.g.,late larvae and early juvenile).
Larger hoops can be used to decrease potential for avoidance,but would require a larger
deployment area,since length is proportional to opening diameter in properly sized nets2.
-Greater potential for extrusion than pumped samples(no buffering tank).
-Boat deployed nets are subject to weather delays and associated safety concerns.
Pumped Samplers in the Intake -100 m'samples are collected over roughly 2 hours increasing the potential to capture temporal -Some active avoidance possible by larger mode life stage(e.g.,late larvae and early juvenile).
variability in ichthyoplankton densities not observed in net samples.- Improperlydesi ned samplers can lead to damage to organisms duringsampling.
9 P 9 9 P g
Limited modifications to intake structures are required to install—usually just anchoring points for -Samples a smaller portion of the spatial variability,because pump inlets are generally smaller than
the sample pipe. net openings.
-In-line flow metering offers greater precision in measuring the volumes of flow sampled.
-Some potential for mechanical damage.However,correctly designed systems can offer<5%
damage or destruction of eggs and larvae.
-Fixed pipe allows precise control over water depth and orientation to intake flows.
-Less potential for extrusion than nets,because the filtering net sits in a buffering tank.
-Lower potential for missed samples due to severe weather.
-Allows technicians to observe sample collections and minimize potential for Invalid samples(e.g.,
use of 330-um nets increases potential for net occlusion and frequent net change outs may be
required during certain times of the year).
2 A general rule of thumb,as described in EPRI 2014,states that the total effective open area of the netting(percent open area x area of netting)should beat least Iw+ce the area of the net mouth opening.Others have suggested a net length to mouth opening diameter ratio of three or more.

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
While all sampling techniques are biased to some degree, the design for the Belews Creek
CWIS 1 is ideal for pumped entrainment sampling. Potential disadvantages to pumped
entrainment sampling at intake structures (compared to sampling at the discharge) have been
studied by EPRI (2014). An explanation of how these potential disadvantages are minimized at
Belews Creek is provided in Table 5-2. Despite some potential disadvantages, pumped samples
collected at the intake structure remain a better option than sampling at the discharge
because:(1) organisms will be less damaged compared to those passing through the cooling
water system to the discharge (resulting in a higher probability of taxonomic identification); (2)
access to the intake structure is easier logistically; (3) lower velocities at the intake structure will
result in less extrusion of larvae and/or damage to nets; and (4) safety issues and inclement
weather will not be major factors resulting in lost sampling dates.
Table 5-2. Potential Disadvantages of Pumped lchthyoplankton Sampling at Belews
Creek Steam Station
Potential Disadvantage Sampling at BCSS
(as described in EPRI 2005)
Non-random vertical distribution may Sampler at BCSS will be designed to sample bear surface,mid-
require depth-stratified sampling depth, and near bottom simultaneously(see Section 6)
Low water velocities at some CWIS
my increase likelihood of active gear Intake velocities at BCSS are greater than 1.0 fps at the point of
avoidance for more motile larval and sampling and avoidance is unlikely.
juvenile stages
Potential uncertainty as to whether No escape from entrainment is anticipated at the sampling location,
organisms were destined to be because velocities downstream of the bar rack are greater than 1.0
entrained fps.
The recommended approach for BCSS is to pump water from between the trash racks and the
vertical fixed-panel screens to an entrainment sampling tank. The sampling system will utilize a
fixed pipe with three orifices that will allow simultaneous withdrawal from near surface, mid-
water, and near bottom. Two identical pipes will be installed at Units 1 & 2 to allow flexibility in
sampling (i.e., if one unit is not in operation on any given sampling date, samples can be
collected from the other unit). These locations are near the mid-point of the CWIS resulting in
samples that are representative of all pumps in operation. Both sampling pipes will be equipped
with quick-connect couplings to allow either pipe to be sampled from a single pump. The quick-
connect couplings will also allow above deck piping to be removed between sampling events to
facilitate cleaning the fixed panel screens.
Entrainment sampling will be collected twice per month between March 1 and October 31 in
2016 and 2017. This period corresponds to when fish eggs and larvae are likely present in
Belews Lake based on spawning characteristics of the species with the potential to be entrained
and historic sampling described in Section 3 (see Appendix 1). To account for potential shifts in
spawning time periods, the entrainment sampling program will be modified, if necessary, in
Duke Energy 117

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
response to entrainment densities. For example, if the densities of entrainable organisms
remain high during October 2016 sampling, additional sampling events will be added to the
program in 2016 and the sampling period in 2017 will be extended accordingly. Similarly, if
densities of entrainable organisms are high in early March 2016 when the program is initiated,
the 2017 sampling plan will begin earlier (e.g., February). These adjustments, if necessary, will
provide the greatest potential to collect representative samples throughout the entrainment
season.
Each sampling collection event will be conducted over a 24-hour period with sample sets
collected in four, 6-hour intervals. This sampling frequency will provide fish taxa, density
distribution, and seasonal/diel variation in data collected over the two year period.
Factors important to meeting §122.21(r)(9) requirements, along with a basis for how these
requirements will be addressed at BCSS, are summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Summary of Approach for Development of§122.21(r)(9) Required Entrainment
Characterizations
122.21(r)(9) Requirement Basis for Meeting the Requirement
Two years of data and annual Entrainment samples will be collected during 2016(Year 1)and
variation 2017(Year 2)
Seasonal variation ntralnment samples will be collected twice per month during March
rough October each year
Diel variation Each 24-hr sampling event will be split into four,6-hr sampling
periods to capture diel variation
Variatio eather information and water temperature will be collected during
a a rack samplingee
event to evaluate differences in entrainment rates
ased on these factors
Year 1 and Year 2 data will be analyzed to determine species/life
Variation related to spawning, stage variations over time along with spawning and feeding variation;
feeding and water column Entrainment samples will be collected at three depths(near surface,
migrations mid-depth,and near bottom)to account for depth variability by
species/life stage for water column migrations
The resolution of taxonomic and life stage designations will be
Identification of lowest taxon monitored through regular evaluations of catch data with the goal of
possible reducing percent of unidentified organisms and increasing resolution
..of genera and higher taxonomic designations
Data must be representative of each Sampling in Units 1 &2 are expected to be representative of the total
intake CWIS
How the location of the intake in the Sampling of near surface,mid-depth and near bottom at downstream
water body are accounted for of the bar racks will result In t the collection of a representative
entrainment sample
Document flow associated with the Facility will monitor and provide documentation of circulating water
data collections flows during sampling events
Duke Energy 118

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FYZ
Belews Creek Steam Station
122.21(r)(9) Requirement Basis for Meeting the Requirement
Methods in which latent mortality will Latent mortality will not be evaluated as a part of this study,
be identified therefore, methods are not provided
Data must be appropriate for a Data will be expressed as taxon and life stage specific densities
quantitative survey which can be multiplied by flow to determine entrainment rates
Characterization Study Entrainment Plan
6.1 Introduction
This section of the ECSP provides methods, materials, and procedures for entrainment sample
collection and processing. A site-specific Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) will also be
developed and serve as a companion document to this ECSP. The SOP will lay out detailed
field sampling procedures, laboratory procedures, data quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC), and database management. This will ensure field sampling and laboratory methods
are adhered to and provide consistency with other plants in Duke Energy's fleet where
entrainment sampling is required.
6.2 Sample Collection
Entrainment sampling will be conducted twice per month between March 1 and October 31 in
2016 and 2017 (16 sampling events in each year). This frequency should be sufficient to
capture the annual, seasonal, and diel variability in entrainment with acceptable confidence
levels (inferred from EPRI 2014). This period corresponds to when fish eggs and larvae are
likely present in Belews Lake based on spawning characteristics of the species with potential to
be entrained and historic sampling described in Section 3 (see Appendix A). To account for
potential shifts in spawning time periods, the entrainment sampling program will be modified, if
necessary, in response to entrainment densities. For example, if the densities of entrainable
organisms remain high during October 2016 sampling, additional sampling events will be added
to the program in 2016 and the sampling period in 2017 will be extended accordingly. Similarly,
if densities of entrainable organisms are high in early March 2016 when the program is initiated,
the 2017 sampling plan will begin earlier (e.g., February). These adjustments, if necessary, will
provide the greatest potential to collect representative samples throughout the entrainment
season. Coordination with station operations will be necessary to ensure pumps are scheduled
to operate for the duration of the sampling period in order to obtain representative density
measurements. This twice per month sampling frequency should be sufficient to adequately
describe seasonal patterns in entrainment as requested in the final §316(b) rule for existing
facilities.
During each 24-hour sampling event, the Unit 1 or Unit 2 intake bay will be sampled (depending
upon which unit is in operation) within the following discrete 6-hour time intervals: 2100-0300
(night), 0300-0900 (morning), 0900-1500 (day) and 1500-2100 hours (evening). During each 24-
hour sampling event, 2-hour samples will be taken within each of the above 6-hour sampling
Duke Energy 119

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
window resulting in four samples during each sampling event. In the crepuscular periods, target
sample collection times will be 1 hour preceding and 1 hour following sunrise and sunset. A total
of 64 samples will be collected during each year over the entrainment season for a program
total of 128 for the two years of study (Table 6-1). This sampling frequency will provide fish taxa,
density distribution, and seasonal variation in data collection over the two year period.
Table 6-1. Entrainment Sampling Details
Details
Units to bee Sample • 1 or Unit 2
Samlp v-ea a"ys kE 32 sampling events per year: twice per month; March 1 through
ttng E ants ROctober 31, 2016 and March 1 through October 31, 2017
Daily Collection Schedule Samples collected within every 6 hours in a 24-hr period(4
collections/24-hr period)
Targeted Organisms IMO t Fish eggs, larvae,and juveniles
Depths Depth integrated sample using selective withdrawal from near
surface, mid-depth, and near bottom.
Sample Duratio `Approximate 100 m3 samples collected within each 6-hour sampling
Number of Samples per Sampling • Four samples per event
Event(Day) . ,
Total Number of Samples 16 sampling events/year x 4 samples/sampling event(days)x 2
years= 128 samples
6.2.1 Location
Entrainment samples will be collected from either the northern section of the intake bay of Unit 1
or southern end of the intake bay of Unit 2, which are immediately adjacent to one another. If
both pumps are operational on a given sampling date, the Unit 1 bay will be selected
preferentially. Samples will be collected from between the trash racks and the fixed screens
using a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sampling pipe with three openings: near surface (-4 feet from
full pond surface elevation; - El. 7213), mid-water (mid-point between full pond surface elevation
and bottom of intake; -- El. 714), and near bottom (+4 feet from bottom of intake; - El. 707) (See
Figures 6-1 and 6-2). Sampling pipe openings will be sized to allow concurrent equal flow from
each depth, thereby contributing to a single aggregate sample.
The electric pump and buffering tank will be located on the CWIS west of the trash rack open
area in front on the units, with PVC or flexhose piping running along the top of the intake
structure deck to the sampling locations between Unit 1 and Unit 2 (Figure 6-2). Changes or
variations in the sampling location over the duration of the 2-year study will require Duke Energy
notification and approval.
3 Elevations in this document refer to Mean Sea Level
Duke Energy 120

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FYZ
Belews Creek Steam Station
TRASH RACK AND TRASH SCREEN GUIDES CIRCULATING
WATER PUMP
TRASH SLUICE
-Z TOP DECK EL. 735.0'
MAX FLOOD EL. 735.0' -----
c CIRCULATING
i 4 WATER PUMP
FULL POND EL. 725.0' —i— — 2 DISCHARGE
MAX DRAW DOWN EL. 720.0' -1- 1 Near-surface Inlet
L.W.L. EL. 715.0' --T-- L ■s - I `: l"
1 j
Mid-depth Inlet
imilimmow
EL. 703.0' T wvazi
1 F9yi Near-bottom Inlet
1
43 2' --•-
i I
�
�'
k... 25' 50'
Figure 6-1. Section View of the Belews Creek Steam Station's Cooling Water Intake Structure with Approximate Location of
Sample Inlets at Three Depths— Sampler pipe (in red) not Shown to Scale (Image Modified from: Alden 2004)
Duke Energy 121

Entrainment Character zation Study Plan F.)?
Belews Creek Steam Station
•
gym .
:`'~' Sampler Pump
Piping • r * and Tank •
T Connecting Location
Pum • to Sampler
•
,V71- 771!"7141
@. .611 ,
. „ .
• . f
tr
i •
to .,' - Sampling Location Sampling Location
Figure 6-2 Aerial View Showing Approximate Locations of Sampling Gear (Image
Modified from: Google Earth)
The water volume sampled will be measured using an in-line flowmeter. Depending on actual
pump flow rates (which are dependent on suction head), pumping 100 m3 of water (target
sample volume) will require approximately 2 hours with additional time required to wash down
nets and prepare the samples for shipping. Samples will be processed discretely to investigate
diel variability in ichthyoplankton composition and abundance.
Pumped water from the sampler will be filtered through 330-pm plankton nets suspended in a
water-filled tank to reduce velocity and turbulence and prevent extrusion of larvae through the
mesh. A larger mesh (e.g., 505-pm) may be used if net clogging precludes sampling with 330-
pm mesh. An example ichthyoplankton sampler is shown in Figure 6-3. The proposed electric
pump has been used successfully at other power plant intake structures to collect entrainment
samples with little or no damage to eggs and larvae (Figure 6-4). Pump specifications are
provided below:
• Capacity 240 gpm;
• Range: 5 gpm — 380 gpm
• 7.5 horsepower
Duke Energy, 22

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
• Inlet diameter: 3 inches
• 230/460 volts
• 18/9 amps
• 3 Phase
• Length: 36 inches
• Self Priming
• Suction Lift: approximately 25 feet
• Impeller: Urethane coated steel
• Weight: 230 lbs.
The net mouth will be suspended above the water line in the tank to prevent overflow and loss
of organisms in the event of tank overflow. In an effort to minimize organism damage, the net
will be washed down at least twice during each sample collection. Washdowns will be combined
in the field to provide a single concentrated 100 m3 sample. If high debris buildup leads to net
clogging then more frequent net washdowns may be required. The net and collection cup will be
carefully rinsed into sample jars with preprinted labels and preserved in a 5 to 10 percent
formalin solution containing.
Total sample volume, total sample duration, intake water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
and conductivity will be recorded on field data sheets. Samples will be transported back to the
laboratory for analysis under a required chain-of-custody, provided in the SOP,
Duke Energy 123

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan ���
Belews Creek Steam Station
JOINT MUST SWIVEL --'i--I
APPROX 90
(POSSIBLY MORE)
SAMPLE FLOW RATE-240 gpm
- , 3'0 ADAPTER SOCKET
WOODEN CRADLES ItyP 21 __ I 3 0 OVERFLOW DRAIN
STAINLESS STEEL BANDS(typ 2) 330u ICHTHYO-NET
I
I
INLINE
FLOW TOTALIZING 3 0 PVC VALVE
METERIIMMFIIMMI.......11'
(PVC SADDLE MOUNT I _ 3'0 PVC
330y 110 gal (PASSIVE DISCHARGE)
.I COD END U POLYETHYLENE
.`..1^�-) J BUCKET - TANK I �-
SAM. LR .I J -
FLD N
3 O PVC NIPPLE1
3-0 PVC —
IOISCHARGE THROUGH NET)
3 0 RADIAL^LEx HOSE -3'0 QUICK-CONNECT 3 0 PVC VALVE
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 6-3. Example Entrainment Pump Sampling System Configuration
ler if ;
, 4 i.,
IIIIIMMIV 40;10
pump
4. A
Figure 6-4. 7.5-Horsepower Electric Pump Used for Entrainment Sampling
Duke Energy 124

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
63 Sample Sorting and Processing
Upon arrival in the laboratory, all ichthyoplankton samples will be logged on an lchthyoplankton
Sample Control Sheet/Sorting Form. Because Belews Lake is a freshwater reservoir, we do not
anticipate shellfish larvae, as defined as commercially important crustaceans or bivalves, will be
present in the samples. Therefore, procedures for identifying shellfish larvae are not presented.
Before sorting, ichthyoplankton samples will be rinsed using a U.S. Standard Sieve with a mesh
size opening of less than or equal to 330 pm to remove excess detritus and formalin. All fish
eggs and larvae retained on the sieve will be hand-sorted from the debris with the aid of an
illuminated magnifier. Samples that are estimated to contain more than 400 fish eggs and larvae
(all taxa combined) will be split with a plankton splitter and to a subsample quota of about 200
eggs and larvae combined and then analyzed. The number of eggs and larvae present in the
sample will be recorded. If possible, long-dead and/or non-viable eggs will be identified using
appropriate and well-defined techniques identified in the SOP and categorized in the database
accordingly. For example, the SOP may require that eggs collected live be whole, show signs of
fertilization and not be covered with fungus at the time of their entrainment. Ichthyoplankton
from each sample will be placed in individually labeled vials and preserved in 5 to 10 percent
formalin prior to taxonomic analysis. Examples of organisms identified as long-dead or non-
viable will be stored in separate vials.
Fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles will be identified using a dissecting scope equipped with a
polarizing lens. Identifications will be made to the lowest practical taxonomic level using current
references and taxonomic keys (e.g., Auer 1982, Wallus et al. 1990, Kay et al. 1994, Simon and
Wallus 2004, EPRI Larval Fish Identification Key http://www.larvalfishid.com/). Larvae and
juveniles will be categorized as follows:
• Yolk-sac larvae: Phase of development from the moment of hatching to complete
absorption of the yolk;
• Post yolk-sac larvae: Phase of development from complete absorption of yolk to
development of the full complement of adult fin rays and absorption of finfold;
• Juvenile: Complete fin ray development and finfold absorption.
lchthyoplankton larval life stage will be identified as larvae" if they are damaged to the point
that they cannot be confidently classified as yolk-sac or post yolk-sac.
For each diel (6-hour) sample, the following morphometric data will be collected:
• Up to 10 yolk-sac, post yolk-sac and larvae" of each fish species will be measured for
total length, greatest soft tissue body depth, and head capsule depth to the nearest 0.1
mm. Among dorso-ventrally compressed organisms whose body or head capsule width
exceeds the body or head capsule depth, soft tissue body and head capsule width will
also be measured to the nearest 0.1 mm.
• Up to 10 eggs of each taxon will be measured for minimum and maximum diameter to
the nearest 0.1 mm.
Duke Energy 125

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Only whole organisms will be subject to morphometric evaluations. If more than 10 eggs or
larvae are present, a random subset of each species and life stage will be measured. Length
measurements will be performed with a calibrated ocular micrometer or other calibrated tool
(e.g., ImageToolTm Software).
Organism identification will be cross-checked using the QC procedure described below.
6.4 Data Management
Field and laboratory data will be recorded on forms compatible for computer entry and data
processing activities will be recorded on log sheets for each batch of data. A digital image of the
datasheet will be taken in the field prior to the datasheets leaving the site. Data sheets will be
inspected for completeness prior to data entry. The data will be entered using a double data
entry software, a feature that ensures entry errors will be caught and corrected as the operators
key the data. Using this procedure, data sets are entered twice in succession and the software
compares the first and second entries and identifies any discrepancies. Discrepancies must be
resolved before the second data entry can continue. Keyed data sets will be error checked. If
any errors are encountered, they will be corrected in the database. Once the database is
cleared of errors, the data file compared to the data sheets will be audited to ensure an Average
Outgoing Quality Limit (AOQL) of 1 percent (a 99 percent accuracy). The data set will then be
ready for the production of summary tables, which will be proofed to confirm that the summary
program worked properly. The data editor will sign and date each proofed summary table and
include notations as to which values were verified.
6.5 Data Analysis
Data analysis will be performed using the QAQC'ed database and will include summaries of
proposed vs actual samples collected, sample volumes, entrainment densities, morphometric
measurements, and water quality parameters. Generally, minimum, average or median, and
maximum values will be provided by sample event or month. Collection densities, expressed as
number per 100 m3, will be calculated from entrainment catch data for each taxon and life stage
by month of sampling, sample event (i.e., including all samples collected within a 24-hour
period), and by six hour diel intervals (e.g., 2100-0300 [night], 0300-0900 [morning], 0900-1500
[day] and 1500-2100 hours [evening]) across all sampling events. Average concentration of
organisms per unit volume in the hth stratum (i.e., month, sample event or six hour interval),xh ,
will be calculated as:
1 n
Xh = — LXhI
nh r=i
where:
nh =the number of samples in the hth stratum
xhl is the ith observation in the hth stratum.
Duke Energy 126

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Next, these densities will used to estimate the total entrainment at cooling water intake based
on design and actual intake flows. The estimated total entrainment will be calculated in the
following manner. First, the average concentration of organisms per unit volume in the hth month
will calculated using the equation provided above. The total number entrained (E) during the
sampled months will then then calculated as:
E= EVhxh
h=1
where:
H = total number of months sampled
Vh = volume of water withdrawn by the station in the hth stratum.
6.6 Field and Laboratory Audits
Prior to the first scheduled sampling, an experienced senior staff member will accompany and
train field personnel, including: protocols for site access and contact with facility personnel;
safety requirements as contained in the Health and Safety Plan, implementation of the field
SOP including the operation of the pump samplers, sample collection, sample preservation,
proper datasheet documentation, chain-of-custody, and shipping. At this time, a readiness
review will be conducted to ensure that trained personnel, required equipment, and procedural
controls are in place. In addition, equipment will be tested to ensure its proper operation.
After initiation of sampling, two trained GA staff members (one each from HDR and entrainment
sampling contractor)will each conduct separate independent QA audits to ensure that the SOP
is being implemented correctly. Results of the audit will be summarized in a technical memo.
This memo will categorize deviations from the SOP into three categories: (1) those that do not
affect the quality of the data, (2) those that may affect the quality of the data, and (3)those that
affect the quality of the data. Variances from approved procedures will be documented and
corrected, either by modifying the SOP to address systematic problems or by testing and/or
retraining staff, as necessary. Any changes to the SOP will be discussed with and agreed upon
by Duke Energy representatives before being implemented in the field. Partway through the
sampling program a trained QA staff member from HDR will conduct an independent QA audit
following the same procedures to provide on-site training, to observe sampling activities, and to
verify that the project's SOP is being followed. In addition, qualified staff will observe initial
laboratory and data management activities to verify the same.
Implementation of the laboratory SOP will be overseen by a senior laboratory manager who will
also ensure that staff technicians have been properly trained. Once during each year of
sampling, an audit will be conducted to ensure that the SOP is followed. These audits will
include safety, sampling procedures, sample processing, and identification. Audit reports will be
prepared and any substantial shortcomings identified will be addressed prior to the next
Duke Energy 127

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
sampling event. Samples from the first collection event will be analyzed prior to the initiation of
the second event to ensure that organisms are being collected with limited damage to allow
identification.
6.7 Laboratory Quality Control
Quality control methods for split, sort and identification of ichthyoplankton will be checked using
a continuous sampling plan (CSP) to assure an AOQL of 10 percent (z90 percent accuracy).
Identification checks will be inspected using a QC procedure derived from MIL-STD (military-
standard) 1235B (single and multiple level continuous sampling procedures and tables for
inspection by attributes). Detailed methods for quality control will be provided in the SOP
developed by the entrainment contractor. The QC checks will be recorded on appropriate
datasheets and these records will be maintained for review. Samples will be stored for a
minimum of three years after the end of the project or longer if Duke Energy requests additional
storage time.
6.8 Reporting
During the study, monthly progress updates will outline the status of the on-going sampling and
laboratory processing. At the end of the first year of study, preliminary results of testing will be
provided to Duke Energy, which will include entrainment estimates by month and diel period
using design intake flow. At the completion of the study, a comprehensive report describing all
aspects of the study program (facility description, study design, sampling methods, data
analysis methods, and results) will be generated. The final report will include all tables, figures,
photographs and engineering drawings as necessary to fully document the evaluations
conducted. Included will be estimates of entrainment by species, life stage, month, and diel
period under design and actual intake flows. The report will be organized with supporting
information and detail in attached appendices, as needed.
6.9 Safety Policy
All work performed under the direction of Duke Energy on Duke Energy properties and/or on
properties owned or operated by third parties (i.e., not owned or operated by the contractor or
Duke Energy) will be performed using safe work practices that are at least equivalent to those
required for Duke Energy personnel and of any third party owner or operator. At a minimum, all
contractors are expected to be aware of, and adhere to, Duke Energy's Corporate Safety Policy,
and other location-specific safety policies and procedures.
Duke Energy 128

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Betews Creek Steam Station
7 References
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. (Alden). 2004. Evaluation of the Belews Creek Steam Station
with respect to the Environmental Protection Agency's §316(b) Rule for Existing Facilities.
Prepared for Duke Power. Holden, MA.
. 2012. Generating Station Assessment Draft 316(b) Rule Compliance Options, Belews
Creek Steam Station. Prepared for Duke Energy and The Electric Power Research
Institute. Holden, MA.
Auer, N.A. (ed.). 1982. Identification of Larval Fishes of the Great Lakes Basin with Emphasis
on the Lake Michigan Drainage. Great Lakes Fisheries Committee Special Publication 82-3,
Ann Arbor, MI. 744 pp.
Collier, C., F. Rhode, J. Schoolfield, and C. Stewart. 2007. Assessment of fish populations in
the lower Cape Fear River, 2002-2007. Final Report for Grant NA16F1543. North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City.
Duke Energy. 2009a. The Fish Community in the Dan River, Rockingham and Stokes Counties,
NC, near a proposed permanent water withdrawal structure. Duke Energy. Huntersville,
NC. June 2009.
. 2009b. Pre-Construction Notification Form, Duke Energy Permanent Pump Facilities,
Belews Creek Steam Station. Duke Energy. Charlotte, NC. September 2009.
. 2011. Assessment of balanced and indigenous populations in Belews Lake for Belews
Creek Steam Station. Duke Energy. Charlotte, NC.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2014. Entrainment Abundance Monitoring Technical
Support Document: Updated for the New Clean Water Act §316(b) Rule. 3002001425.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
Kay, L.K., R. Wallus, and B.L. Yeager. 1994. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of
Fishes in the Ohio Drainage. Volume 2: Catostomidae. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Chattanooga, TN, USA.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2012. Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0024406, Belews Creek Steam Station. Stokes
County, NC, October 12, 2012.
Simon, T.P. and R. Wallus. 2004. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the
Ohio River Drainage, Volume 3: Ictaluridae—Catfish and Madtoms. CRC Press. 204 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Information for Planning and Conservation
(IPaC) Report for Belews Creek Steam Station (Belews Lake). Generated November 05,
2015.
Duke Energy 129

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan ���
Belews Creek Steam Station
. 1990. James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Northeast Division, Newton Corner, MA. 38 pp.
Wallus, R., B.L. Yeager, and T.P. Simon. 1990. Reproductive Biology of Early Life History
Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage, Volume 1: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee
Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. 273 pp.
Duke Energy 130

cneavxnem 1,11araaennuon amuy....Icy!
Belews Creek Steam Stenon r...
Pc
APPENDIX A — Select Species Spawning and Early Life History Data
Sampling for entrainment year-round at BCSS is expected to be a poor allocation of resources,since few if any eggs or larvae are likely to be present in Belews Lake during the winter months. Several species were
identified as likely to be present in entrainment samples and life history information for these species is summarized here and supports a sampling period of March through October.It is important to note that low densities
of entrainable organisms at the outset and conclusion of the sampling period are unlikely to change the estimates of entrainment in any meaningful way and thus do not warrant the additional sampling costs necessary to
extend the sampling season.
Species Spawning Period Spawning Habitat Nest Structure Eggs Fecundity Rates NCDENR Young-of-the- Larvae References
Year Cut ON Lengths Size
Family Centratchidae
Demersal and
• adhesive I
Black Crappie(Pomoxis:. -
nigromaculatus) `Shallow calm waters near vegetation or cover. f Depression in sand or gravels ',tS00 to 189, mm w;
�.. - ...- _.., .. :;r... :,._--.�.,..... ..veragediameter: -
0.93 mm. ME
Spring and Ear y
Summer Saucer-shaped depressions in sand or ravel typically
U to 60.000
Bluegill De P 9 tYP Y P
(Lepomis macrochirus) Shallow waters with sand and gravels. p Adhesive e99 - - tttrtr
Water Temperatures one to two feet in diameter and a few inches dee s
70-75°F .-...k,»a.n«..,,.m.�.s,.,�.+
Spring and Early .>-. .Y# • . .-. Demersal and.
....>-:-.
Summer adhesive
elven Sunfish(Lepomis,, Saucer-shaped depressions In sand or gravel typically up to 50,0“--.
Shallow waters with sand and gravels. one to two feet in diameter and a few inches deep. e994 .
? u. ater Temperat — _ Average diameter' 1
60-80°F 1.0 to 1.4 mrta
Early Spnng
Largemouth Bass Shallow water on bottoms composed of sand, Circular area 2 to 3 feet in diameter with clean sand or Adhesive 5,000 to 43,000..
(Micropterus salmoides) Water Temperatures gravel,or pebbles near cover. fine gravel clear of organic debris and silt. eggs
60-75°F
Spring and Early Demersal and -" "'"
Summer adhesive
Redbreast Sunfish(Lepomis Shallow water on bottoms composed of sand, up to 14,000 4.6-5.1
auritus gravel,or pebbles near cover. Saucer-shaped depressions in gravel or silt eggs <50 mm mm 1'6,2,4,8
Water Temperatures Average diameter:
65-75°F 1.0 to 1.5 mm - • ',.
Demersal and � ._
.
Spring adhesive " -,
Redear Sunfish(Lepomis Shallow water on firm substrates often in Depressions in sand to soft mud constructed in areas 2.000 to 10,000 <50 mm N/A 1,7,2,3
microlophus) Water Temperatures locations exposed to the sun. containing aquatic plants. Average diameter eggs
68-70°F
1.0 to 1.5 mm
Family Clupeidaa
Gizzard Shad(Dorosoma Spring and EarlyShallow water Open water Demersal and Up to 50,000 c100 mm N/A 1,2
cepedianum) Summer adhesive eggs
Spring and Early
Threadfin Shad Dorosoma Summer
( Demersal and 2,000 to 24,000 <100 mm 4.9-5.5 1,2.4,3
petenense) Eggs scattered over plants or loose sediments. Open water
Water Temperatures adhesive eggs mm
60-80'F
Family Cyp/nldaa •

uiwefe111 fit V.naIaue12ae011 JUJ0y rim l
I
Below'Croak Sham StationrJ
Species Spawning Period Spawning Habitat Nest Structure Eggs Fecundity Rates NCDENR Young-of-the- Larvae References
I
Year Cut Off Lengths Size
Spring and Early Demersal and
Summer adhesive
Common Carp(Cyprinus Eggs scattered in shallow waters with aquatic 36.000 to 5.0-5.5
Carpio) vegetation,mud bottoms,and over debris. Open water 2,000.000 eggs '150 mm mm 1,2,5,3
' Water Temperatures Average diameter.
60-80°F 1.5-2.1 mm
May to mid-August
' Salinfin Shiner(Cyprinelie Shallow waters with typically with filamentous and 380 to 3,600
analostana) Water Temperatures algae or root aquatic plants. Eggs are deposited in crevices and bottom substrates adhesive eggs <40 mm NIA 1,8
65-85°F
' Family Moronidae
Adhesive
White Perch Late Spring and Early 20,000 to 3 to 4
(Morons americana) Summer Shallow water Eggs are deposited over sands and gravel. Average diameter: 150,000 eggs <75 mm mm 1,5,3
0.75 mm
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan OI
BeJews Creek Steam Station
Life History References
1) Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.L. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, NC
2) Hendrickson, Dean A., and Adam E. Cohen. 2015. "Fishes of Texas Project Database
(Version 2.0)" doi:10.17603/C3WC70. Accessed (insert date).
3) Auer, N.A. 1982. Identification of larval fishes of the Great Lakes Basin with emphasis on
the Lake Michigan drainage. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
Special Pub. 82-3 744 pp.
4) Ross, S. T. 2001. The Inland Fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi,
Jackson.
5) Animal Diversity Web. http://animaldiversity.org/
6) Helfrich, L., Newcomb, T., Hallerman, E., and Stein, K. 2005. The Virtual Aquarium.
Virginia Tech University, The Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences.
7) Adams, J.C., and R.V. Kilambi. 1979. Maturation and fecundity of redear sunfish.
Arkansas Acad. Scie. Proc. 33:13-16.
8) Wang, J.C.S and R.J. Kernehan. 1979. Fishes of the Delaware Estuaries. A guide to the
early life histories, Towson, MD. pp. 410. ISSN 0-931842-02-6.
Duke Energy l 33

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan F)?
Belews Creek Steam Station
APPENDIX B - Response to Informal Review
Comments
While not required to be peer reviewed under the Rule, Duke Energy engaged subject matter
experts to informally review this Entrainment Characterization Study Plan. The purpose of the
informal review was to afford the Biology Peer Reviewer the opportunity to evaluate the
entrainment study objectives and methodology, and to comment if the proposed methods do not
meet industry standards. Duke Energy's intent was to ensure that if data were collected as
detailed in the ECSP that the data would be sufficient for the intended use in the Best
Technology Available (BTA) determination process required in §122.21(r)(10)-(12), and would
not be questioned at a later time.
In order to help focus the review, charge questions were developed (Table B-1). The primary
goal was to develop a study that meets the objectives of the Rule-required Entrainment
Characterization Study.
Table B-1. Directed Charge Questions
Question Entrainment Characterization Study Response Comments(if any)
Number Plan
Will the proposed sampling depth(s) Yes/No
and location provide for a
1 _
representative sample of the water
'column? 11101.0111— —
IIConsidering fish and shellfish known o
'
expected to be in the source waterbody
will the proposed sampling period
months) provide the ability to
understand seasonal variations i
)entrainment? --
MI' Is the sampling-equipment proposed Yes/No
appropriate to collect entrainable
1 organisms at this type of intake
structure?
Does the plan lay out QA/QC Yes/
4) requirements clearly? Are these= .
requirements adequate? 4 ..
Identifying eggs and larvae to species is Yes/No
often difficult and sometime impossible. - - .. • wr°
Does the sampling plan provide
5) sufficient measures to preserve
organism integrity and support
identification to the lowest taxon
practicable? 4. .
y
Does the study design meet the Yes/No
6) requirements of the Rule at 40 CFR
122.21(r)(9)?
Duke Energy 194

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FYZ
Belews Creek Steam Station
Question Entrainment Characterization Study Response Comments(if any)
Number Plan
Will the study design provide sufficient Yes/No
data to support a benefits analysis of
�) entrainment reducing technologies
required to be evaluated by the Rule
including biological performance as
required in 40 CFR 122.21(rx11)?
re there any deficiencies in the study Ye&
tan that might prevent you or others •
e.g., Regulators) from understanding •
at is being proposed for sampling?
what needs to be added or clarified?!,.
After receipt of the peer reviewer's comments, the following responses were developed and the
ECSPs were updated to reflect those changes. Comments were divided into four categories as
follows:
• Category 1: Comments that are clearly applicable (i.e., relevant under the charge and
improve the quality of the work product). These comments were incorporated into the
ECSP.
• Category 2: Comments that represent a misunderstanding by Informal Reviewers. These
comments were not incorporated into the ECSP.
• Category 3: Comments that are minor and do not materially change or lend additional
value to the ECSP (e.g., comments that were meant as "FYI", or meant as preferential
suggestions, or are beyond the scope of the charge). These comments may or may not
have been incorporated into the ECSP at the discretion of the Report Originator.
• Category 4: Major Peer Reviewer comments that the Report Originators do not agree
with and choose not to incorporate into the ECSP.
Below are the site-specific responses to comments received on the Belews Creek ECSP.
Duke Energy 135

Entrainment Cnaractenzanon Study roan
Belews Creek Steam Stabon ri
Table B-2.Peer Reviewer Responses to Directed Charge Questions
Category Charge No. Comment Response and Resolution
•
The depth distribution of the three openings on the in-water sampler is appropriate to adequately integrate any
3 1 vertical variation in distribution of eggs or larvae(but see comments regarding potential effects of orifice size on No response required .m _
sampling efficiency in response to question 3).
3 1 I agree that the proposed locations in the intake bays for Units 1 and 2 should be representative for CW IS. No response required
The description of the samplerpiperoutingwould be easier to follow if the structures mentioned(e.g.,intake bay `'�""" """at.�.s.,+. """' -"y'...»„�"+-_' "' "'-;���,..., ,.�t
P P
wall,fixed screen channel)were labeled on Figure 2 in the ECSED.It is unclear to me from the information provided
where exactly the sampling pipe orifices will be situated in relation to the walls or other physical structure of the To the extent possible the entrainment sampling pipe will be placed in an area of the intake that is well
bays.Just as water velocity in a stream can vary in different places In response to physical structures,and is always mixed and typical of hydraulic conditions within the intake.That is,away from structures that could be
1 1 slower near the bottom and sides than in the middle of the stream and water column,so it seems possible that flow causing vortices(highly turbulent areas)or In eddies or other areas of stalled flows.At some facilities
may be lower in localized areas near the sides of the intake or around any structures(e.g.,the wall or structure on we may be limited by where we can access the intake(e.g.,a facility with an existing access grate on
which the sampling pipe is mounted)due to eddies,turbulence or other hydrodynamic processes.It will be Important the deck would be used preferentially to cutting through the concrete decking).In many cases,best
to ensure that the intake flow immediately adjacent to each orifice opening is representative of flow across the mouth professional judgment can be used.If velocity measurements are warranted they will be undertaken.
of the intake in general.If this cannot be determined with confidence from first principles or historical data,a few
strategically located measurements with a current meter may suffice.
iiiimilw
The proposed sampling period and frequency are appropriate to encompass the periods when h eggs and larvae
are likely to be present.and to provide Information on seasonal patterns of entrainment(but seefisconcerns regarding No response requi `
the need for sample replication In response to question 3).
It isn't clear why life history information is provided for some species and not others.Detailed life history information
of the type provided is reasonable for the primary entrainment candidates,but at least limited,key information ought _..,..,-te=a ..x �♦,...u...
to be provided on the other species present in the reservoir.Consider providing a complete species list in table form
1 2 that gives the spawning period for each species,the kind of eggs and larvae they have(e.g.,adhesive eggs,pelagic This is an excellent idea and was added to this and other ECSPs
larvae)and other key relevant information,along with the source reference(s),to provide some evidence that the
Prf
sampling period is sufficient for all of them.That would be more valuable than extensive narratives on each species
__�, _ that include information that isn't particularly relevant.
• t 2 I noted that life history information is provided for grass carp;are fertile grass carp present in Belews Lake(only• Agreed.Information on Grass Carp was removed
sterile triploid grass carp can be stocked legally in NC).If not,this information is unnecessary.
L,=' i Pump sampling has been used in a variety of settings to sample zooplankton and fish early life history stages. ..
However,sampling efficiency of pump sampling is likely to be different(likely lower)than traditional net sampling
i, i- approaches.Traditional net deployment and retrieval methods may not be feasible in the intake bays,but if a
4 3 judicious number of samples could be collected with another method,at a time when densities are relatively high), See Pumped Sampler Whits Paper(Appendix C)
that would go a long way toward addressing any concerns about if,or how much,this method underestimates actual
entrainment.If such comparisons are already available from other studies,so much the better,note them.Another
approach that might allow a useful comparison would be to collect samples using a Schindler-Patalas trap.However,
this gear samples a very small volume of water,so even at peak densities it may not be feasible.
LOrifices were sized to achieve equivalent flow rates through each port while minimizing friction losses
b. to reduce the amount of suction lift required.Calculations were performed for each facility to account
Orifices will vary in size to allow equal flow from each depth.It is important that flow(and therefore contribution to for differing standpipe and piping dimensions:as well as reservoir,Intake deck,and inlet port
the total sample volume)be equal through all three openings,but orifice size and flow velocity at the orifice opening elevations.Calculations were based on friction losses(converging flow,piping material and length,
;. are both likely to affect sampling efficiency.If each orifice samples the same amount of water,but samples orifice size)and elevations to determine total head and pump flow.Details will be provided in the final
organisms with different efficiencies,then the combined sample of entrained organisms will not reflect equal report.
conWbutions from all three depths.
•
Volumes sampled and orifice intake velocities are both important considerations and will factor into the
design of the sampling pipe.

N.
Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Beiews Creek Steam Station r'i c
Category Charge No. Comment Response and Resolution
Sizing of the sampling pipe orifices will be described in greater detail In the final reports.
It would be difficult to simulate the flow field conditions from a power plant in a laboratory setting.
Presumably one would want to test at the approach velocities similar to levels in the field.This would
require a test flume with flow control to achieve the desired test velocities.Since one would be
What sizes will the orifices be,and what will the flow velocity be at the opening? Both could affect capture
efficiency,given escape behaviors and rheotaxis exhibited by larval fish.If the differences are fairly small it may not removing organisms and water while sampling,one would have to develop a method to replace the
4 3 matter.But some assurance is needed that the setup will sample the organisms equally,not just the water.If removed organisms and water,If you use a recirculating flume,so only the volume of water removed
necessary,test runs could be done in the lab,sampling larvae of a known density out et a tank. would need to be replaced,then that replacement water would have to seeded with organisms of a
known number.The test pump would be removing 240 gallons per minute,so your total capacity in
your flume would likely need to be at least 5x this volume,if not much higher(otherwise the pump
sampler would be inducing flows not the circulating pump on the flume).If you want to test different
species,life stages and/or organism sizes,then several tests would be required.What at first glace
appears to be a simple test,is actually quite complicated. " :- -
If a 330-pm mesh net works without clogging,that would be ideal:but if problems occur then use of a-500 pm mesh -i'
3 3 net would be acceptable for egg and larval fish collections.That mesh size is often used in larval fish collections,and No response required "'°""r `- , x
the prior study at Hyco in 1979-50 used 571 pm mesh net(note that replicate samples were collected in that project).
The proposal notes that"properly designed and operated pumped-systems have shown collection efficiencies of 95 Systems using trash pumps with recessed impellers routinely collect greater than 95 percent of fish
percent or greater for fish eggs and larvae with little or no organism damage(EPRI 2005)." However,it wasn't clear eggs and larvae.Unfortunately neither EPRI 2005 or EPRI 2014 can provide much greater detail.Both
? m 3how this was measured and if it directly applies to this situation(I believe Dr.Coutant also indicated that an updated state,"Studies of property designed and operated pumped systems have revealed little damage or
f;tr` $;` version of this[PRI document is available).It would be helpful if you could elaborate a bit. destruction of entrained organisms with collection or greater than 95 percent of fish eggs and larvae
,, . ,
---------- , I agree that collection at the intake structure is preferable to sampling organisms after passage through the cooling No response required '
system.
`.
-- I don't think it's a problem if low intake velocities(for the CWIS)allow some animals to escape due to avoidance ;
behavior,as that would happen anyway. Agreed
The lab and field SOP and audit plans are generally sound.However,an Average Outgoing Quality Limit(AOQL)of *"" ,.",r. ,�„-:, ""`"'_ If
4
1%(a 99%accuracy)strikes me as rather liberal for data entry.It seems to me that an error rate of one error per Typically the average outgoing quality(AOQ)Is better than the AOQL.Both this and the AOQL for
100 entries is too high.How does it compare to the observed error rate on similar work(I expect actual accuracy is larval identification are industry standard for entrainment sampling.
typically better than that)? If itis feasible to commit to a lower error rate that would be preferred. ,
The sampling plans implemented under our proposed QC procedures have a specified average
Likewise,an AOQL of 10 percent for organism identification seems pretty high to me(I expect the error rate will be outgoing quality limit(AOQL)of 10 percent,which represents the maximum fraction of all items(e.g.,
lower than that for experienced personnel).I recognize that identifying fish eggs and larvae is tricky,so I fully expect measurements,taxonomic identifications or counts)that could be defective as a worst case.A
4 some individuals to end up in broader calegones(e.g.,unidentified shad or unidentified larvae)-I don't consider defective item could be a measurement or count that falls outside of a specified tolerance limit(e.g.,
that an identification error.But I would expect organisms identifiable to a given taxonomic level to be correctly plus or minus 1 to 10 percent).Typically the average outgoing quality(AOC))is better than the AOQL,
classified more than 90%of the time.Again,what is the observed error rate on similar analyses? Maybe my Items are inspected using a QC procedure derived from MIL-STD(military-standard)12358(single and
16111'
expectations are too high. multiple level continuous sampling procedures and tables for inspection by attributes)to the 10 percent
AOQL.Both this and the AOQL for data entry are industry standard for entrainment sampling.
The data security and chain-of-custody plan is good,but one can never be too careful.Data remain vulnerable to
1 1 4 loss during the period when they exist only on one hardcopy datasheet,particularly while still in the field.You might This is a good idea.We added words that a digital image of the dalasheet will be taken In the field prior
consider taking a picture of each datasheet when completed,to have an electronic backup until the datasheet can to the datasheets leaving the site.
be scanned or entered into a computer.
Given that regulatory compliance is sometimes the subject of litigation,I think that retaining samples for only three ECSP revised to indicate samples will be held until Duke Energy authorizes their disposal.
years is not sufficient My sense is that something on the order of seven years would be a better safeguard.
,,,„,._ ,;,a .,.,,,„^ , ,,-tea ,,;, Adequate information is provided to document that the specific pump(s)to be used are of the type that will not cause
organism damage as noted in EPRI(2005).-
No response requved =;
3 5 Proposed preservation methods will fix organisms in a manner that will maintain their morphological integrity for No response required
identification purposes.

entrainment Unaraaenzanon aruuy rias
Belews Creek Steam Station rJ
Category Chine No. - Comment Response arrd Resolution
ms ?
iv.«o-mss=
I
The proposal indicates, . . ,�:`
using appropriate and well-defined techniques developed in the SOP and categorized in the database accordingly.
When estimates of entrainment are generated,moribund,dead,and non-viable individuals will not be included." The Agreed.We will want to look at the data Inclusive and exclusive of our two categories and both will be
discrimination of dead,moribund or non-viable eggs from live eggs is a critical step because it directly affects preserved for future inspection.At present there are few exclusive
reliable methods that are not time
entrainment estimates,Differences between live and dead individuals are often fairly obvious in fresh samples,but
$ consumptive or expensive to implement.Nero we are thinking of excluding only the most obvious
can be markedly reduced after preservation.Because any error in this process will bias entrainment estimates categories of organism.For example,we might require eggs be whole,show signs of fertilization,and
downward I expect this step would receive heightened scrutiny.Therefore the methodology should be fully not be covered with fungus.
'
111
fined,and be pretty iron-clad.Even If It is,I certainly recommend retaining both groups of eggs in separate vials,
be prepared to provide entrainment estimates based on both groups combined as a conservative measure of
inment if necessary.
The final Rule does not require replication nor is there an obligation to provide confidence intervals or
' bounds around the entrainment estimates generated.The study must be sufficient to show diet,
monthly,and annual variation,which this study plan addresses.
The Rule requires'sufficient data to characterize annual,seasonal,and diel variations in entrainment,including but We Interpret the Rule as requiring sufficient sampling to collect data over the range of conditions that
' not limited to variations related to climate and weather differences,spawning,feeding,and water column migration.° are likely to occur and to prevent bias through selective sampling.For example,you could not propose
The proposed sampling plan calls for collecting a single,large sample in each sampling period.I believe that this to sample only during the day,because you would miss any density differences due to diet variability.
collection plan will provide data representative of the entrainment at the intakes,but determining if apparent patterns You could not propose to sample only on sunny days,because you would miss any density differences
or differences are real(as the requirements seem to call for)requires some measure of variability In the estimates. due to weather.You could not propose to sample only from near the bottom of the intake,because you
' 4 6 That requires replicates.The number of samples collected over the course of the project will be sufficient to detect
annual variation between the two years,but seasonal,diel and weather effects would be confounded with each would miss any density differences due to vertical stratification in the water column.We believe that the way in which these data will be used do not justify extensive replication.
other.Additional replication is necessary in order to determine if any of these factors affect entrainment.For Relationships between weather,climate,spawning,and feeding(as a few examples)and entrainment
' example,one could not separate weather effects from temporal differences in this sampling design.If it is necessarytrates are not going to change the determination of best technology available for entrainment reduction
be able toe.show whether orra not, u are v effects as oc weather,enoo test
h samples will be needed to use weather or the outcome of any social cost/social benefit calculations.In addition,the study plan includes some
variables(e.g.,water temperature,cloud cover)as covariates to test for effects. replication.Each sampling event is divided into four independent samples based on time of collection.
' In addition sampling events occur twice in each month.If necessary,confidence intervals can be
generated based on these 8 samples within a month.Determination of whether confidence intervals
are beneficial can be made at the end of the program.
That said,I think this issue could be addressed with a modicum of additional effort.The simplest approach would he We disagree that splitting each 2-hour sample into smaller sub-samples requires only a small
to divide each 2-hour sample Into at least three,preferably four,samples collected immediately one after the other. additional effort.While it is true that the extra effort in the field would be minimal(extra net wash-
The collection cup(or entire net)could be swapped out after a sample and processed while the next sample is being
4 6 downs,extra datashests to fill out),the effort(and associated labor costs)in the laboratory would
collected.This replication would allow straightforward statistical analysis to determine if these factors(or their
' increase
Interaction)affects entrainment.The individual samples could still be combined into one composite sample if ,2 „ -. '- <Mf.,.!,:v /'L7'''',' -44-.4"-','!.,',.,:. ;-,1'-',_,,,!.,„:,s �. �...
warranted,but the inverse isn't true. costs.r'
Replication is important for density estimates,but it would not be necessary to have morphometric measurements on
' 3 6 a full compliment of individuals from each replicate:one pooled sample for each six-hour period would suffice.A total Morphological measurements will be collected from up to 10 eggs and larvae per species and life stage
of up to 10 individuals of each taxon could be drawn at random from all the individuals collected in all replicates from each 6-hour diel sample.
combined within one six-hour sampling period.
Any vertical migration should be adequately integrated by the multi-depth sampling scheme,and the temporal W e agree.Our of is encompasses the range of conditions
' pattern of sampling should detect the seasonality of spawning.It is unclear to me what-feeding variation-refers to or and fish behaviors.Ourinterpretationpel o occurofEPA'sin requestyeis that sampling season.compThat s,if feeding behaviore of impacts
yhow sampling will assess it,but it is also unclear to me how that is relevant for this assessment-If this refers to vertical migrations in the water column,then you would need to sample during periods that include
changes in feeding behavior over the diel period or seasonally that would increase or decrease vulnerability to
I
Mv those in which larvae are feeding.
entrainment,then I believe such effects would be adequately captured by the proposed sampling scheme.
With minor modifications as noted in responses to other questions,this study design should provide a sound basis to
3 T support the required benefits analysis. No response required w
6 i -' In general the proposal is clearly written and understandable,with only minor exceptions.Some points to be added No response requ
or elaborated upon,or deficiencies in the design,have been noted above.
The Dan River Make-up Pumping Station is described in the proposal,but why it is included is unclear,This pumping ".<'`� ;'^ '°^ F•^ ..«,: :'».r ''--""' ^^"'^"'r ^`
station meets the criterion In§316(b)Rule for existing facilities of 2 MGD in its design flow rate and in its actual The information on the pumping station was included for completeness such that the reader would
3 8 average daily water withdrawals in some years,but it is well short of the 125 MGD threshold requiring an have a fuller understanding of how this facility operates and its connection to the watershed.
entrainment characterization study and no entrainment study is described for it.Thus,its inclusion is rather
' confusing and would benefit from clarification,

I.
hntrainment enaractenzaoon auioy ries rJc
Bees Creek Steam Staten
Comment Ru"Fnn sc and Resolution
a •tentiallY � , `' Cn9eX
!! ..from the trdmnal Reviewer}facilities on page 8, boors ure 2: " to Terre
iimmusimpli 1 complete on p.18,line 24 at the Belews Creek ECSP document(Table 6.2E think).
d raw,either indicate 84 sampling events;or 32 sample events per year.
•
I

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan •
Beiews Creek Steam Station
APPENDIX C - Comparison of Pumps and Nets for
Sampling Ichthyoplankton
Duke Energy 140

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Comparison of Pumps and Nets for Sampling Ichthyoplankton
Prepared by:
440 S. Church Street, Suite 900
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
February 19, 2016
Introduction
As a part of Duke Energy compliance projects associated with the 2014 Clean Water Act
§316(b) rule for existing facilities (Final Rule), the company submitted draft Entrainment
Characterization Study Plans (ECSPs) to informal review by subject matter experts. In the
comments received on the draft ECSPs and during discussions at a peer review kick off
meeting', there was a concern among the biological reviewers that the proposed pumped
ichthyoplankton sampling method could impart a systematic bias compared to nets for
estimating power plant entrainment. In particular, there was a concern that pumped samples
could underestimate entrainment and that additional gear efficiency testing could potentially be
undertaken periodically throughout the entrainment sampling period to determine if a bias exists
and quantify the magnitude of difference if it exists. As a preliminary step, HDR conducted a
literature review. The sections that follow provide background, the methods and results for the
literature review, and conclusions.
Background
Two primary methods have been historically used to estimate ichthyoplankton entrainment at
power plant intakes: streamed/towed nets and pumped samplers. Traditional ichthyoplankton
nets can be used to filter water as it enters the intake or exits the discharge and collect
organisms. Alternatively, pumps can be used to convey water to a fine-mesh net onshore.
Onshore nets are typically suspended in a buffering tank to minimize damage and extrusion of
eggs and larvae.
Each method has advantages and disadvantages and a comparison of the two methods are
summarized in Table C-1. The primary advantages of utilizing pumps include ability to meter
precise sample volumes, longer sample collection times, reduction in the potential to miss
samples due to inclement weather or other events, and increased ability for technicians to safely
observe net filtering and other aspects of the data collection. Their versatility includes being
utilized in fresh, estuarine, and marine water environments. Properly designed and operated
systems can be accurate and effective. While no sampling method is perfect, pumped samplers
Held at HDR offices in Charlotte,NC,January 28-29,2016.
Duke Energy 141

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
were determined to offer the best, most cost-effective, and consistent sampling method for Duke
Energy and therefore were included in the draft ECSPs.
Pumped samplers have been used in sampling plankton as far back as 1887 (Gibbons and
Fraser 1937; Aron 1958; both as cited in Taggart and Leggett 1984) and have a long history of
successful application for collecting ichthyoplankton samples at power plants (Bowles and
Merriner 1978; as cited in EPRI 2014). Pumped samplers are among the preferred gear types
accepted by EPA and have been used extensively to successfully monitor entrainment at power
plant intakes for decades.
At present, HDR is aware of on-going or state approved plans for pumped entrainment sampling
at power plants to support the Final Rule in at least seven states: Florida, Wisconsin, New
Yorks, Pennsylvania, New Hampshiree, Massachusetts, and Virginia. If this list of states is
expanded to include sampling under the remanded Phase II Rule, then the list of states would
be expanded to include Connecticut, Louisiana, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, and
Maryland. In addition, there may be other states that HDR is unaware of, that have also
approved this approach. Still other States could be added to the list as more power generating
companies begin entrainment studies over the next few years under the Final §316(b) Rule.
Table C-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Hoop Nets and Pumped Samplers for
Estimating lchthyoplankton Density in Cooling Water Intake Structures (some
information adapted from EPRI 2014)
Gear Type Advantages Disadvantages
Hoop Nets - Large volumes are sampled quickly(less - Can be difficult to deploy and retrieve in the
Deployed in the manpower required for the same number of confined space of intake structures—
Intake pumped samples). precludes the use of some net types(e.g.,
- If net frames are not used, then there is standard bongo, neuston nets,or Tucker
trawls).
limited to no modifications to the intake
required for deployment. I -Depending on deployment method, may
No potential for mechanical damage require modifications to intake structures
- (e.g.,frame mounted nets in frame guides).
associated with pump passage.
- Less precise flow metering than pumped
samplers.
-Large volumes are sampled quickly—
capturing less temporal variability in a single
sample as compared to pumped samples.
- Relatively small nets needed to fit in the
intake structure offer a small spatial sample.
Multiple nets can be used to increase
sampled area at the cost of additional
samples to be processed in the laboratory.
5 New York State applies a more stringent standard than the Final Rule under the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Policy CP-52 for Best Technology Available(BTA)for Cooling Water Intake Structures.
6 The states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts do not have delegated authority to issue NPDES permits and are administered
by EPA Region 1.
Duke Energy 142

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Gear Type Advantages Disadvantages
- Tow speeds in the range of 1-2 meters per
second(commonly used during
ichthyoplankton sampling)is above the
intake velocities at the majority of intakes.
- Some active avoidance possible by larger
motile life stage(e.g.,late larvae and early
juvenile). Larger hoops can be used to
decrease potential for avoidance, but would
require a larger deployment area,since
length is proportional to opening diameter in
properly sized nets7.
- Greater potential for extrusion than pumped
samples(no buffering tank).
- Boat deployed nets are subject to weather
delays and associated safety concerns.
- May be restricted to relatively deep areas that
are free of floating debris,submerged
snags,and other obstructions
Pumped -Sample durations are typically longer - Some active avoidance possible by larger
Samplers in the increasing the potential to capture temporal motile life stages(e.g.,late larvae and early
Intake variability in ichthyoplankton densities not juvenile).
observed in net samples. - Improperly designed samplers can lead to
Limited modifications to intake or discharge damage to organisms during sampling.
structures are required to install—usually - Samples a smaller portion of the spatial
just anchoring points for the sample pipe. variability,because pump inlets are
- In-line flow metering offers greater precision generally smaller than net openings.
in measuring the volumes of flow sampled.
Some potential for mechanical damage.
However,correctly designed systems can
offer<5%damage or destruction of eggs
and larvae.
- Fixed pipe allows precise control over water
depth and orientation to intake flows.
-Less potential for extrusion than nets,
because the filtering net sits in a buffering
tank.
- Lower potential for missed samples due to
severe weather.
-Allows technicians to observe sample
collections and minimize potential for invalid
samples(e.g., use of 330-urn nets
increases potential for net occlusion and
frequent net change outs may be required
during certain times of the year).
A general rule of thumb, as described in EPRI 2014, states that the total effective open area of the netting (percent open area x
area of netting)should be at least twice the area of the net mouth opening.Others have suggested a net length to mouth opening
diameter ratio of three or more.
Duke Energy 143

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Literature Review
Methods
HDR conducted a literature review to assemble and assess the available data on the
comparative effectiveness of pumped entrainment samplers and nets to estimate power plant
entrainment. Available data were identified via online electronic searches for published articles
and government and industry reports. The electronic literature search used Google, Google
Scholar, and the ProQuest Aquatic Science Collection database accessed through the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. In addition, we consulted the EPRI technical support
document on entrainment abundance monitoring (EPRI 2014)to identify relevant literature. The
literature search revealed a short list of relevant citations and abstracts. Several of these were
available in HDR's corporate library and some were obtained from the publishers. For some of
the industry gray literature and less common symposium papers, we relied on abstracts or
summaries presented in other documents (primarily EPRI 2014).
Below is an annotated bibliography of several of the key references that were reviewed. To the
extent practical, these studies were critiqued and the results and findings put in the context of
the goals of entrainment monitoring at the Duke Energy facilities.
Annotated Bibliography
Cada, G.F. and J.M. Loar. 1982. Relative Effectiveness of Two lchthyoplankton Sampling
Techniques. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39(6): 811-814.
Cada and Loar (1992) collected triplicate pump and towed-net samples during both day and
night near the water's surface to detect differences in the effectiveness of a pumped sampler
and towed nets for collecting ichthyoplankton. The effectiveness of 1.1 m3/min (290 gallons per
minute [gpm]) pump8 was compared to a 2 m long (6.6 feet), 0.5-m (1.6-feet) diameter, 243-pm
mesh conical plankton net in the headwaters of Watts Bar Reservoir in eastern Tennessee. The
net was towed for 5 minutes at velocities between 120 and 189 cm/s (4 to 6 feet per second),
which resulted in sample volumes of 85 to 100 m3. The pump system used a 7.6-cm (3-inch)
diameter intake hose that had a cylindrical trash screen with 6.4-cm2 (1-inch) openings. This
hose inlet was placed 0.25 m (10 inches) below the surface and slowly moved through the
water.
Both gear collected clupeid larvae (Threadfin Shad and Gizzard Shad) between 4 and 17 mm
10 mm (0.4 inches) longwere collected in
(0.16 to 0.67 inches) although larvae greater than
relatively low numbers. Clupeid larvae 4-10 mm (0.16 to 0.4 inches) long were collected in
sufficient numbers to make meaningful statistical comparisons based on date, station, diel
period (day vs. night), and fish length. Due to the difficulty in differentiating small Dorosoma spp.
both species were combined for the analysis. The differences in the mean densities of most
length groups between nighttime pump and tow samples were not statistically significant.
°By comparison,the pumps proposed for use for entrainment sampling at Duke Energy facilities have a target capacity of 240 gpm
with a range from 5 to 380 gpm depending upon head.
Duke Energy 144

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
However, the pump collected significantly more 4-mm larvae and the towed net collected more
5- to 10-mm larvae during the day. Cada and Loar (1992) concluded that based on sampler
intake velocities and the potential for avoidance, it would generally be expected that pumps are
more effective than fixed nets, that towed nets are more effective than low volume pumps, and
that high volume pumps are equally or more effective than towed nets in collecting
ichthyoplankton. The lack of differences between densities of ichthyoplankton at night suggests
that gear avoidance is associated with a visual escape response and not a tactile response to
changes in hydraulic conditions. The authors caution that any gear comparisons should account
for sizes of sampled organisms and how that could impact performance and that care should be
used when using pumped samplers, because pumps may not adequately sample all entrainabie
organisms.
These results should be used with caution and may not be representative of what would be
observed with a fixed entrainment sampler at a cooling water intake. First, Cada and Loar
(1992) moved the pump inlet though the water which could alter the flow fields relative to what
would be observed around a static system. Second, the distance from the boat that these two
systems were deployed is unknown. Theoretically, boat-induced hydraulics, noise, and/or
shadow could have induced differential behavioral responses between the two gear types if
deployment distances were different. Third, the inlet to the pump had a trash screen with 1-inch
openings. The authors did not describe the size of the trash screen. This screen and its wake
could have acted as visual avoidance stimuli.
Elder, J.A., J.W. Icanberry, D.J. Smith, D.G. Henriet, and C.E. Steitz. 1979. Assessment of
a Large Capacity Fish Pump for Sampling Ichthyoplankton for Power-plant Entrainment
Studies. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigation 20: 143-145
A centrifugal, single-port bucket-style pump that delivered 3.0 m3/min (793 gpm) at a 3-m (10-
feet) head and in excess of 4.3 m3/min (1,136 gpm) at lower heads was evaluated for sampling
entrainment. These pumps were originally designed for hatchery and aquaculture use and were
reported by the manufacturer to lift 30-cm (12-inch) trout 3 m (10 feet) above water surface with
99.5 percent survival. The pump discharged into a 505-pm mesh net with a cod-end bucket
suspended in a 2 m3 (528 gallon) box. The inlet to the pump was a 15.2-cm (6-inch) diameter
pipe. The exit pipe was larger (25.4-cm [10-inch] diameter) to reduce velocity entering the net.
This pump sampler was compared to the sampling efficiency of a 1.0-m [3.3-feet] 505-pm nylon
mesh net towed across the mouth of the intakes near where the pump was operating. During 20
paired samples, there were no statistical differences in larval fish densities captured by the net
and the pump. There were statistically higher densities of opossum shrimp (Neomysis spp.)
collected by the pump than by the nets. Damage to pumped specimens was limited. Specimens
collected by pump remained highly identifiable and were in the same physical condition as net-
captured specimens. Given that the pumps evaluated by Elder et al. (1979) had a much higher
capacity than those proposed for use at the Duke Energy facilities, it is difficult to make a direct
comparison, but the results indicate that a pumped sampler could be as efficient as nets for
sampling entrainment.
Duke Energy 145
I _

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan 1.01
Belews Creek Steam Station
Gale,W. R, and H.W. Mohr, Jr. 1978. Larval Fish Drift in a Large River with a Comparison
of Sampling Methods. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107:46-55.
While this study was primarily designed to test the drift of larvae in the Susquehanna River
(1974-1975), use of a pumped sampler and nets simultaneously allows for a comparison of the
two gear types. Samples were collected from April 10 to October 10, 1974 with boat mounted
nets. The nets were made of nylon and had 0.4 x 0.8-mm mesh and 24 x 54-cm (9.4 x 21.3-
inch) rectangular mouths. Simultaneous samples were collected at near each shore and the
main channel (about 80 m [262 feet] from the west shore) at set intervals (0800-1000 h and
2300-0100 h). Five-minute fixed net samples were collected from a stationary boat and push-net
samples were collected propelling the boat slowly downstream for abut 300 m (984 feet). From
March through August 1974 a high capacity trash pump, raised and lowered by a hand winch,
was used to collect samples. Replicate pump samples were collected about 50 cm from the
surface and 10-20 cm (4-8 inches)from the bottom at 3-hour intervals for a 24-hour period near
the middle of the river. Flow rate was about 2,500 liters per minute (660 gpm). Based on surface
samples only,g the pumped and fixed net samples collected about the same number of larvae
per 10 m3 and no statistical differences were detected.
Harris, R.P. L. Fortier, and R.K. Young. 1986. A Large-Volume Pump System for Studies
of the Vertical Distribution of Fish Larvae Under Open Sea Conditions. Journal of the
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 66(4): 845-854.
Harris et al. (1986) evaluated a pumped sampler for application in an open ocean setting. The
pump was 2.8 m3/min (740 gpm) submersible, centrifugal pump designed for pumping waste
water. Comparative efficiency trials by day and night showed that the pump was generally as
efficient, or in some cases more efficient, in capturing larvae than towed 200-pm WP2 nets10,
although there was some evidence of visual avoidance by particular larval size classes during
daylight. The authors indicated that fine-scale temporal and spatial resolution is necessary to
study the distribution of larval fish and that large-volume pumps, sampling at rates in excess of
1 m3/min (264 gpm) can be used as an alternative to conventional nets. The design and
application of the pump sampler used by Harris et al. (1986) is substantially different (e.g., 15-
cm [6-inch] intake line; boat-mounted and sampled while in motion; and marine open-water
ecosystem) than what is being proposed for use at the Duke Energy facilities. For this reason,
the results have limited direct applicability to the Duke Energy fleet.
°Sampler efficiency was only presented for surface sampler in Gale and Mohr 1978.
10 The WP2 Net is a vertical plankton net with messenger operated dosing mechanism based on the design of the UNESCO
Working Party 2.
Duke Energy I 46

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FN
Belews Creek Steam Station
King, L. R., B. A. Smith, R. L. Kellogg and E. S. Perry. 1981. Comparison of
Ichthyoplankton Collected with a Pump and Stationary Plankton Nets in a Power Plant
Discharge Canal. Fifth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. San
Francisco, CA, May 1980. Loren D. Jensen, Ed.
King et al. (1981) compared the performance of pumped samples les and nets in the discharge
canal at Indian Point Generating Station on the Hudson River. Simultaneous ichthyoplankton
sampling was completed using a 15-cm (6-inch) pump/larval table system and stationary 0.5-m
(1.6-feet) diameter conical plankton nets. A total of 79 paired samples were collected on 6 days
in June and July 1978. The average density of total ichthyoplankton collected was 3.0/m3 for
pump samples and 3.3/m3 for net samples. No significant differences (P > 0.05)were detected
between density estimates for total ichthyoplankton determined from pump and net samples for
eggs, yolk-sac larvae, post yolk-sac larvae, and juveniles. Thirteen out of 14 taxa compared
showed no significant difference between pump and net collections. The pump and net
collection systems were equally effective for estimating densities of most ichthyoplankton.
Petering, R W; Van Den Avyle, MJ. 1988. Relative Efficiency of a Pump for Sampling
Larval Gizzard and Threadfin Shad. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:
78-83.
Efficiency of a pump sampler and a plankton net were compared based on monthly nighttime
collections on Lake Oconee, Georgia" from April through August 1982. The two samplers were
used on the same night or on two consecutive nights. The gasoline-powered pump had a 1.18
m3/sec (312 gpm) capacity. Pumped samples were discharged into a 297-pm mesh net
suspend over the side of a boat. A cylindrical metal sieve with 8 mm (5/16 inch) holes was
attached to the inlet of the pump to exclude large debris. Three, 10-minute samples were
collected by slowly raising and lowering the intake hose in the upper 2-m (6.6 feet) of the water
column. Sample volumes were assumed to be 11.8 m3 (3,117 gpm) based on manufacturer's j
pumping specifications. Triplicate samples (75 m3) were collected with a towed net that was
0.25-m2 (2.7 feet2) with 0.5-m (5.4 foot) square opening that was towed at 1.0 m/s (3.3 feet per
second) for 5 minutes. Net samples contained seven fish taxa whereas only two were collected
by pumps; however, Gizzard Shad and Threadfin Shad accounted for more than 97 percent of
the specimens caught in both samplers. The authors conclude that the pumped sampler
collected fewer taxa and that the estimates of shad density were lower and less precise than net
samples.
There are serious concerns with this study design that call into question the authors' findings.
First, when calculating organism density, the authors used pump flow rates as defined by the
manufacturer's specifications rather than metering the flow. The authors evaluated the pump in
the laboratory and determined that the intake rates were typically within 10 percent of advertised
values, but no methods or results for the laboratory evaluation are provided to allow a critique.
This lack of metering casts doubt on the accuracy of the entrainment estimates. Second, similar
"A 7,709-hectare pumped storage reservoir in central Georgia.Not to be confused with Duke Energy's Oconee Nuclear Station on
Lake Keowee in South Carolina.
Duke Energy 1 47

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
to Cada and Loar(1982), the inlet to the pumped sampler was screened and moved through the
water. The screening could alter the localized hydraulics (e.g., increase in velocity entering the
screening), which may be perceived and avoided by later larvae and early juveniles with
sufficient swimming capacity. Moving the inlet through the water could also induce hydraulic
changes perceptible to fish. It is also unknown if, or to what extent, entrainment rates with the
pumped sampler could have been affected by its proximity to a moving boat. Finally, samples
were not necessarily collected on the same night with both gear types. Daily variability in
ichthyoplankton density was likely an unaccounted for confounding factor.
Leithiser, R.M. K.F. Ehrlich and A.B. Thum. 1979. Comparison of a High Volume Pump
and Conventional Plankton Nets for Collecting Fish Larvae Entrained in Power Plant
Cooling Systems. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 1979, 36(1): 81-84
Leithiser et al. (1979) compared a high volume pump to conventional ichthyoplankton nets for
entrainment monitoring. The pumping system had a capacity of about 2.5 m3/sec(660 gpm). No
information was given about the size of the piping on the suction end of the pump. The nets
used by Leithiser et al. (1979)were 0.5-m (363-pm) and 1.0-m (335-pm mesh) conical plankton
nets.
The average density of large larvae (> 5 mm Total Length (TL])was significantly greater with the
pumped sampler than what was observed with the 1-m plankton nets. Compared to the pump,
both sizes of plankton nets (0.5 and 1.0 m diameter) in each test greatly under sampled larvae
over 5.0 mm TL. The data suggest that the pump and plankton nets sampled the small larvae
equally well, butthat the larger larvae were better able to avoid
the plankton net than the pump
inlet. Leithiser et al. (1979) collected samples in the power plant intake canal at different
approach velocities. While it was expected that larval avoidance would decrease with increasing
channel velocity, this was not observed with either the pumped or net samples, but the number
of channel velocities tested were limited.
The authors concluded that the high volume pump was a more effective larval fish sampler than
the conventional plankton nets. It is important to note that on the California coast where these
studies were undertaken, there are greater densities of small larvae (< 5 mm TL)than would be
expected in southeastern Piedmont reservoirs, which would make the differences between
these two gear types more dramatic at the Duke Energy facilities. It is unclear how these results
can be transferred directly to what is being proposed at the Duke Energy facilities because of
the higher flow rate used in this study(660 gpm vs. 240 gpm).
Duke Energy 148

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Leonard, T.J. and G.E. Vaughn. 1985. A Comparison of Four Gear Types to Measure
Entrainment of Larval Fish. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 39: 288-297.
A study was undertaken at the McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) on Lake Norman, North
Carolina. The purpose of this program was to determine the relative efficiency, reliability, and
cost of four different systems for measuring larval fish entrainment into the cooling water
system: 1) a tap valve in the condenser, 2) a pump-net system, 3) a fine-mesh screen; and 4) a
stationary net. Night samples were collected on five consecutive nights 6-10 June 1982, which
was anticipated to coincide with the peak abundance of Threadfin Shad and Gizzard Shad.
The stationary net was a single 0.5-m conical net (2.5-m [8-feet] long, 800-pm mesh) was
suspended from a barge located 7 m [23 feet] upstream of the intake. A flow meter was placed
in the mouth of the net to monitor the volume of water sampled. The net was fished by quickly
lowering the net to the bottom of the intake structure and raising it in 1-m intervals over the 9.5-
m high effective opening to the intake. Rapidly lowering and raising of the net caused the net to
collapse, preventing the flow meter from recording flow during the decent and retrieval. On the
first night the net was raised at 1-m (3-feet) increments at 2-minute intervals, but this resulted in
less than desirable volumes sampled and on subsequent nights the net was raised at 1-m (3-
feet) increments at 3-minute intervals for the remainder of the study, resulting in an average
sampling duration of 27 minutes.
The fine-mesh screen was a 9-cm (3.5-inch) deep rectangular wooden frame that had a 50.8 x
57.5-cm (20 x 22.6-inch) mouth opening covered on one side with 800-pm mesh. This panel
was attached to a traveling screen in the intake bay being sampled. The traveling screen was
rotated manually to position the fine-mesh panel into the flow. The screen was rotated so that
the fine-mesh panel was raised in approximate 1-m (3-feet) increments at 4 minute intervals,
resulting in an average duration of 38 minutes. Once at the water surface, the screen was
rotated without stopping to retrieve the sample.
The pumped sample was collected using a 10.1-cm (4-inch) diameter centrifugal pump
(2,270 Umin [600 gpm] pumping capacity at 0.6 m head). Water was withdrawn through a 10.1-
cm (4-inch) diameter flex hose and discharged via a 10.1-cm (4-inch) PVC pipe into a plankton
net. An ultrasonic flow meter was used to measure flow through the discharge pipe. The hose
was lowered as close to the bar racks as possible and raised at 1-m (3-feet) increments at 3-
minute intervals starting at just above the bottom of the intake opening. Water from the pump
was discharged just below the water surface into a 2.4-m (8-feet) long, 794-pm mesh
suspended from the side of the barge.
Water was sampled through a 7.6-cm (3-inch) gate valve on the condenser and discharged into
an 800-pm mesh plankton net suspended in a 208-L (55-gallon) drum. Two consecutive
samples averaging 192 minutes each were collected on each night. Though longer duration
than the other sampling techniques, the volumes of water sampled were similar.
All four gear types were compared to Tucker trawls taken from the intake embayment and used
to estimate density and length frequency distributions of larvae potentially susceptible to
Duke Energy 49

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
entrainment. The Tucker trawl had 710-pm mesh with a 1 m2 (10.8 feet2) effective opening.
Samples were collected perpendicular to the intake (starting as near as possible to the intake).
Samples were collected at two depths — surface to the top of the intake structure opening (about
4.6 m [15 feet]) and from the intake opening to the bottom of the intake structure (4.6 m [15 feet]
to 14 m [50 feet]). Each stratum was towed obliquely. Trawl durations were 2 to 5.5 minutes and
collected every two hours starting at about 30 minutes after sunset and extending until sampling
with all the other gear types was completed. Two or three sets of tows were made on each
night.
Results were variable by gear type (Table C-2). Few shad were collected by pumped sampler
on 6 and 7 June due to a ripped seam in the net. Trawl samples from the upper stratum were
greater in number than the lower stratum. While not identified by the authors, it should be noted
that it is difficult to measure the flow sampled with the fine-mesh screen approach. Differential
open area between the fine-mesh overlay and the surrounding coarse-mesh panels would likely
have resulted in flow diverting to the coarse-mesh panels or gaps between panels, side seals,
and the screen boot preventing accurate measurement of volumes sampled. In most cases, the
samples collected at the condenser tap were higher than what was observed in the lower trawls.
There were no significant differences in ichthyoplankton density by date (P = 0.83), but there
were differences by gear type. Mean densities of the pumped samples were not significantly
different from the tap samples (P= 0.60). Stationary nets and fine-mesh screen collections were
significantly different from one another and from the pumped and tap collected samples (P <
0.05). Length frequencies between the pump and tap samples were not significantly different
from one another. Mechanical damage from collection was minimal for all four techniques with
the highest observed damage associated with pump passage (3 percent unidentifiable). Tap
sampling was considered for use at McGuire for the 2016 entrainment program, but was
eliminated because of concerns with access to secure locations within the power plant. This
study indicates that the selected method for entrainment monitoring (pumped sampling) is
statistically no different than measuring ichthyoplankton density at the condenser tap and better
than a streamed net.
Duke Energy 150

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan 1-YZ
Belews Creek Steam Station
Table C-2. Total Number (N) and Mean Densities (MD) (mean number of shad/ 1,000 m3) of
All Shad Collected with Comparison Gear and Shad <28 mm Total Length Collected with
a Tucker Trawl on Lake Norman, North Carolina, 6-10 June 1982, with Average Volume of
Water Filtered per Sample (m3) (Leonard and Vaughn 1985)
Net Screen �� Tap Upper Trawl Lower Trawl
Date © MD N MD N MD © MD N MD N MD
Jun 6 0 0.0 2 -a 1b -C 5 56.4 164 195.3 27 27.9
IIJun 7 0 0.0 8 34.0 6°11104c 12 182.0 590 410.5 190 70.7
Jun 8 1 4.7 15 53.0 1 38 91.1 10 103.0 659 536.4 75 43.1
Jun 9 1 7.0 11 43.0=; .80 , '196.9 25 346.1 511 666.1 86 76.4
Jun 10 0 5.0 10 32.1 := 36, . 82.4 82.0 279 406.5 134 85.7
Total 0.0 46 2,203, °512
III
il i
Ave. 29 92
Sample
Volume
._
(m3)
a-Unable to calculate volume
b-Number not considered valid due to malfunctioning equipment
-Density not calculated on invalid data
Taggart, C.T. and W.C. Leggett. 1984. Efficiency of Large-Volume Plankton Pumps, and
Evaluation of a Design Suitable for Deployment from Small Boats. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41(10) 1428-1435.
Taggart and Leggett (1984) identified and evaluated five major studies that compared the
efficiency of large-volume pumps (defined as withdrawing > 0.5 m3/min [132 gpm]) and nets
(Table C-3). In addition the authors evaluated a boat mounted large-volume pumping system.
Taggart and Leggett (1984) found, in general, that among the reviewed studies, densities of
organisms sampled with the pumps was equal to or greater than the densities in the towed net
samples, but there were differences based on length classes and time of day. The authors
pointed out that the gear configurations relative to towed net diameters, pump intake diameter,
the presence of intake screens, intake velocities and mesh sizes were highly variable between
the studies, which made it difficult to compare. The authors were particularly critical of the lack
of accurate flow measurement used in many of these studies. Despite these challenges, no
systematic biases were detected.
In addition to the literature review, Taggart and Leggett (1984) tested a large-volume pump
system with standard plankton nets. The boat mounted system used a 22.2-cm (8.7-inch)
m upto 1.7 m3/min (450 gpm) depending upon head. Divers confirmed
impeller that could pump P 9
the inlet was oriented into the direction of travel. Simultaneously to pump sampling, a 0.5-m
Duke Energy 51

•
Entrainment Characterization Study Ran ���
Belews Creek Steam Station
(1.6-feet) diameter 2-m (6.6 feet) long 80- and 153-pm mesh standard plankton nets were also
fished. Three sets of comparisons were made. In 1981 an 80-pm net was towed immediately
below the surface 2 m (6.6 feet) behind the pump intake. In 1982 and 1983 a 153-pm net was
towed immediately below the surface 13-15 m (43-50 feet) astern of the pump sampler. The
pump intake was maintained at a depth of 0.25 m (0.8 feet)for ail comparisons.
The authors concluded that the nets and pumped sampler were equally effective in capturing
capelin (Maliotus villosus) larvae (5-mm length), herring (Clupea harengus) larvae (9-mm
length), large copepods (>750 pm), small jellyfish, and hyperiid amphipods, despite only
sampling 8 percent of the water volume sampled by the nets. In addition, the pump was more
efficient at collecting crab zoea and megalops larvae and efficiency of collecting euphausiids
and chaetognaths increased as their natural densities increased. Nets were superior in the
capture of fish eggs (primarily cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus), possibly due to the vertical
distribution of eggs in the water column. The average length of capelin larvae captured by
pumping was consistently 0.2 mm longer than that of larvae taken in nets, but the length—
frequency distribution of larvae sampled was similar to that of larvae entering the pelagic
environment.
The very fine meshes and small organism sizes likely contributed to the high collection
efficiency of the pumped sampler used by Taggart and Leggett(1984)as other studies reviewed
here indicate it is the larger more motile life stages that tend to be collected more efficiently by
nets than by pumped samplers. Like other studies that have towed the pumped sampler inlet
through the water, it is unclear whether these results are directly applicable to the application
being implemented by Duke Energy. Despite these uncertainties, this study seems to support
use of pumped samples for estimating ichthyoplankton and zooplankton densities.
Duke Energy I 52

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Bedews Creek Steam Station [.01
Table C-3. Summary of Major Studies Designed to Comparatively Evaluate the Sampling Efficiency of Various Large-Volume
Pumps and Tow Nets (Taggart and Leggett 1984).
Pump
Tow or current
Suction speed Volume sampled
Type and Tow net and (m/s) (m3)
mesh size Flow Diameter Velocity mesh size
Reference (µm) (m'/min) (m) (m/s) (p.m) Pump Net Pump Net Gear comparison protocol
Aran 1958 Centrifugal, 1.514 0.076 5.55 0.5-m-dia.std., 1,7' 1.7' 15 200 50 paired hauls"near
544 silk 476 niter surface"(marine)
Penner and Rohde Tandem propeller, 8.6 0.20 4.60 0.5-m-dia.std., Local current 86' 44' 111 paired stationary
1977 500 triter 500 nitex 0.4 samples at 4.5,8,and
9 m(riverine)
Gale and Mohr Open impeller 2.5 0.10 5.30 0.24 x 0.54-m-rect., Local current 7 stationary sets of 4 pump
1978 centrifugal, 400 x 800 nitex "moderate-strong" - - and 8 net replicates
400 X 800 niter (0.20 (0.92)° at surface and bottom
(riverhle)
Leithiser et al. Fish transfer, 2.1 0.15 1.92 (a)lin-dia.cyl.-cone, Local current (a)62 121 (a)l0 stationary pairs at
1979 335 nitex 335 niter (a)0.26 0.5-I.5 m depth
(rivenne)
(b)as in(a)and (b)0.30 (b)64 414 (b)as in(a)above
0.5-m dia.std., 64 105
363 nitex
Cada and Lour Open impeller 1.10 0.076 4.04 0.5-m-dia. "Slowly" 1.2-1.9 17 85-100 3 sets of 3 replicates not
1982 243 niter (0.021)° (1.1)° Hensen net, paired in time at
243 aiaex 0-0.5 m depth(riverine)
'Estimated from data provided in paper referenced.
°Measured at intake,which differs in size from suction hose.
•
Duke Energy 153
J

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan
Belews Creek Steam Station
Results
The literature review, as described in detail above, indicates that there have been several
studies that have compared the effectiveness of pumps and net sampling. In general, the results
have been equivocal with no clear pattern of one gear type out performing the other. The most
extensive power plant entrainment gear comparison studies were undertaken at the Indian Point
Generating Station on the Hudson River (EA 1978; 1979; 1981; King et al. 1981; NAI 1982;
1987 —as cited in EPRI 2014)12. The results of these studies indicated no consistent differences
in estimated densities between the two gear types (EPRI 2014). There is some indication that at
relative low velocities, high-volume pumped samples collect higher densities of ichthyoplankton
than nets (Leithiser et al. 1979). In a southeastern reservoir(Tennessee), Cada and Loar(1982)
found that for most length classes there were no significant differences in density between
pump and net samples. The data suggest that avoidance is more common during daylight hours
in clear water when organisms can observe and avoid the gear. At night and/or in turbid water
avoidance is minimized (Cada and Loar 1982; Harris et al. 1986). Petering and Van Den Avyle
(1988) collected significantly lower densities of fish larvae in a Georgia reservoir using a
pumped sampler as compared to nets, but there are concerns with the methods and gear, as
described in detail above, that could account for some of these differences. Leonard and
Vaughn (1985) sampled Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma petenense) and Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma
cepedianum) using pumps, a streamed net, a fine-mesh panel on a traveling screen, and a tap
at the condenser at the McGuire Nuclear Station and reported the highest density at the
condenser tap where the water was well mixed. Leonard and Vaughn (1985) reported the
highest rate of damaged larvae from the pumped samples, but damage was s 3 percent. Gear
avoidance occurs with both pumps and nets and increases with increasing fish length, which is
likely a result of increased swimming ability, maturing fish sensory systems, and avoidance
behavior.
Caution should be used when applying the results of specific previous gear efficiency studies to
the Duke Energy entrainment program because of the variability in gear types and sampling
techniques used in these studies (e.g., net type and shape; mesh sizes and material; methods
of gear deployment; deployment location; flow metering; inlet orifice size, shape, and
orientation; inlet velocity; impeller size, shape and material; mechanism for suction [vacuum,
diaphragm, centrifugal]; and pumping capacity). Instead, the weight-of-evidence across
scientifically sound studies should be used which supports pumped samples as being generally
equal in terms of collection efficiency to towed and streamed nets.
Conclusions
Nets and pumps are the two primary methods by which ichthyoplankton densities are estimated
at power plant intakes. Pumped samplers have been used successfully in a wide variety of
12 During the peer review kick off meeting, a biological peer reviewer mentioned an Indian Point Generating study evaluating the
effectiveness of fine-mesh wedgev ire screens to reduce entrainment.As part of that study,samples we collected by nets and
pumps. That study was not reviewed here for several reasons: a)the study was not designed to compare gear types; b)the
sampler used for pump sampling at Indian Point was a unique design that is dissimilar from what is being proposed at the Duke
Energy facilities;and c)Indian Point is part of on-going 316(b)-related litigation and those study reports are not readily available to
the public.
Duke Energy 154

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FYZ
Belews Creek Steam Station
deployment conditions at power plants in the U.S. routinely since the 1970s. This method has
been well vetted by regulatory agencies including in the northeastern U.S., which along with
California, has historically applied the most stringent 316(b) requirements in the nation. In
addition, pumped samplers continue to be accepted for 316(b) monitoring as evidenced by the
list of states where these samplers are deployed or approved to be deployed to support 316(b)
evaluations under the final Rule. Importantly, the final Rule became effective October 14, 2014
and many facilities have not yet chosen the method by which they intend to sample entrainment
and the list of states approving pumped samplers is likely to increase.
Studies that have evaluated nets and pumps have shown no clear pattern of one technology
outperforming the other. The results from published and unpublished industry studies are
equivocal with some examples suggesting that pumped samples outperform netted samples
and vise-versa.
Perhaps the greatest impediment to determining the collection efficiency of gear from existing
data is the lack of standardized techniques for netting (e.g., net type, net shape, mesh sizes,
mesh materials, methods of deployment, deployment location, and flow metering) or pumped
samples (e.g., orifice size, orifice orientation, inlet velocity, impeller size, impeller shape,
impeller material, mechanism for suction [vacuum, diaphragm, centrifugal), deployment location,
and pumping capacity). These factors, along with site-specific hydraulics and life history
characteristics of the early life stages of fish sampled, are likely to impact the performance of
both collection systems. Further, short of a duplicative sampling with both sampling systems in
tandem, it is unlikely that a study program could be developed that would provide the necessary
data to develop a universal correction factor that could be used to quantitative adjust
entrainment estimates.
We acknowledge that no system for sampling ichthyoplankton densities is perfect given the
patchy temporal and spatial distribution of fish eggs and larvae and inherent biases of all gear
types. That said, the available data indicate that pumped samplers can be as efficient as nets.
Because entrainment monitoring by pumped sampling is commonly used, widely accepted, and
has practical advantages over using nets at the Duke Energy facilities, our recommendation is
that no gear efficiency testing is necessary or warranted_
Duke Energy 155

•
Entrainment Characterization Study Plan FYZ
Belews Creek Steam Station
References
Aron, W. 1958. The Use of Large Capacity Portable Pump for Plankton Sampling, with Notes on
Plankton Patchiness. Journal of Marine Research 16: 158-173.
Bowles, R.R. and J.V. Merriner. 1978. Evaluation of ichthyoplankton sampling gear used in
power plant entrainment studies. In L. Jensen (ed.). Fifth National Workshop on
Entrainment and Impingement. Pp. 149-158.
Cada, G.F. and J.M. Loar. 1982. Relative Effectiveness of Two Ichthyoplankton Sampling
Techniques. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39(6): 811-814.
Ecological Analysts, Inc. (EA). 1978. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and
Related Studies 1977 Annual Report. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
EA. 1981. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment and Near Field River Studies: 1979
Annual Report. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; Power Authority of the
State of New York.
Elder, J.A., J.W. Icanberry, D.J. Smith, D.G. Henriet, and C.E. Steitz. 1979. Assessment of a
Large Capacity Fish Pump for Sampling Ichthyoplankton for Power-plant Entrainment
Studies. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigation 20: 143-145
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2014. Entrainment Abundance Monitoring Technical
Support Document: Updated for the New Clean Water Act §316(b) Rule. 3002001425.
EPRi, Palo Alto, CA. 156 pp.
Gale, W. R, and H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1978. Larval Fish Drift in a Large River with a Comparison of
Sampling Methods. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107:46-55.
Gibbons, S.G. and J. H. Fraser. 1937. The Centrifugal Pump and Suction Hose as a Method of
Collecting Plankton Samples. Journal du Conseil / Conseil Permanent International pour
l'Exploration de la Mer. 12: 155-170.
Harris, R.P. L. Fortier, and R.K. Young. 1986. A Large-Volume Pump System for Studies of the
Vertical Distribution of Fish Larvae Under Open Sea Conditions. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of the United Kingdom 66(4): 845-854.
King, L.R., B.A. Smith, R.L. Kellogg, and E.S. Perry. 1981. Comparison of ichthyoplankton
collected with a pump and stationary plankton net in a power plant discharge canal. In L.
Jensen (ed.), Issues associated with Impact Assessment, Fifth National Workshop on
Entrainment and Impingement. Pp. 267-276.
Leithiser, R.M., K.F. Ehrlich, and A.B. Thum. 1979. Comparison of a High Volume Pump and
Conventional Plankton Nets for Collecting Fish Larvae Entrained in Power Plant Cooling
Systems. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 1979, 36(1): 81-84.
Duke Energy 1 56

r �
Entrainment Characterization Study Plan 101
Belews Creek Steam Station
Leonard, T.J. and G.E. Vaughn. 1985. A Comparison of Four Gear Types to Measure
9 p
Entrainment of Larval Fish. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 39: 288-297.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. (NAI). 1982. Gear comparability study for entrainment sampling of
juvenile fish at the Indian Point Station, 1981.
NA!. 1987. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Abundance Program 1985 Annual
Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and New York
Power Authority.
Petering, R W; Van Den Avyle, MJ. 1988. Relative Efficiency of a Pump for Sampling Larval
Gizzard and Threadfin Shad. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 78-83.
Taggart, C.T. and W.C. Leggett. 1984. Efficiency of Large-Volume Plankton Pumps, and
Evaluation of a Design Suitable for Deployment from Small Boats. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41(10) 1428-1435.
Waite, S.W. and S.M. O'Grady. 1980. Description of a new submersible filter-pump apparatus
for sampling plankton. Hydrobiologia 74(2): 187-191.
Welch, P.S. 1948. Limnological Methods. McGraw-Hill Co., New York. 318 pp.
Duke Energy 157

RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
NOV 272018
Water Resources
Permitting Section
Attachment 2
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments
EPA Office of Solid Waste
July 9, 2007

I'.
Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Case Assessments
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
July 9, 2007
•

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
With the exception of the documents listed below, the documents referenced throughout this
assessment are available from the docket to the Notice of Data Availability on the Disposal of
Coal Combustion Wastes in Landfills and Surface Impoundments at www.regulations.gov,
docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796,through internet links provided, or from other identified
sources.
1. Application of Don Frame Trucking,Inc.Petitioner for a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of
the CPLR against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
ent;
Res ondSupreme Court of the State of New York Countyof Chautauqua(July 22,
Respondent; p
1988). Order G11278.
2. Selenium Posting on Hyco Lake Rescinded,North Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services(NCDHHS),August 2001.
3. Feasibility Study for the Y-12 Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 Filled Coal Ash Pond,Oak
Ridge,Tennessee. DOE/OR/02-1259&D1. August 1994.
4. Final Site Investigation Report on Groundwater Contamination,Township of Pines,Porter
County, Indiana. December 2002.
5. Texas Bureau of Health(TBH). 1992. Fish Advisory:Brandy Branch Reservoir. May 1992.
6. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ). 2003. Improving Water Quality in
Brandy Branch Reservoir;One TMDL for Selenium.February 2003.
7. Report: Sulfate Investigation,Miamiview Landfill.Hamilton County. Ohio. Prepared for the
• Cincinnati Gas&Electric Company by Dames&Moore. December 13, 1994. Available in
the docket titled Availability of Report to Congress on Fossil Fuel Combustion;Request for
Comments and Announcement of Public Hearing,EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0022-0632.
ii

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Table of Contents
Description Page
I Summar
2
Summary
II. Proven Damage Cases 12
1. Salem Acres Site, Massachusetts 13
2. City of BeverlyNitale Brothers Fly Ash Pit,Massachusetts 14
3. Don Frame Trucking, Inc.Fly Ash Landfill,New York 15
4. Virginia Electric Power Co.(VEPCO) Possum Point, VA 16
5. PEPCO Morgantown Generating Station Faulkner Off-site Disposal Facility,
Maryland 17
6. Virginia Power Yorktown Power Station Chisman Creek Disposal Site, Virginia 17
7. Hyco Lake, Roxboro,North Carolina 19
8. Georgia Power Company,Plant Bowen,Cartersville,GA 19
9. Department of Energy- Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 20
10. South Carolina Electric&Gas Canadys Plant, South Carolina 24
11. Belews Lake,North Carolina 25
12. U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Project, South Carolina 25
13. Dairyland Power Cooperative E.J. Stoneman Generating Station Ash Disposal Pond,
Wisconsin 26
14. WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill, Wisconsin 27
15. Alliant(formerly Wisconsin Power&Light)Nelson Dewey Ash Disposal Facility,
Wisconsin 27
16. WEPCO Cedar-Sauk Landfill, Wisconsin 28
17. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (WEPCO)Port Washington Facility, Wisconsin 29
18. Lansing Board of Water&Light(LB WL)North Lansing Landfill,Michigan 30
19. Northern Indiana Public Service Corp.(NIPSCO)Yard 520 Landfill Site(Brown's
Landfill) Township of Pines, Porter County, IN 32
20. Brandy Branch Reservoir,Texas 33
21. Southwestern Electric Power Company Welsh Reservoir,Texas 34
22. Texas Utilities Electric Martin Lake Reservoir,Texas 34
23. Basin Electric Power Cooperative W.J.Neal Station Surface Impoundment,North
Dakota 35
24. Cooperative Power Association/United Power Coal Creek Station Surface
Impoundments,North Dakota 36
III. Potential Damage Cases.. 38
25. K.R. Rezendes South Main Street Ash Landfill, Freetown,Massachusetts 38
26. New England Power,Brayton Point,Massachusetts 39
27. AES Creative Resources Weber Ash Disposal Site,New York 40
iii

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Description Page
28. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation Danskammer Waste Management Facility,
New York 40
29. C. R. Huntley Flyash Landfill,New York 40
30. Elrama Plant,Pennsylvania 41
31. Tennessee Valley Authority-Bull Run Steam Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 41
32. Tennessee Valley Authority Widows Creek Fossil Fuel Plant,Alabama 41
33. Tennessee Valley Authority Colbert Fossil Fuel Plant,Alabama 42
34. Duke Power Allen Steam Generating Plant,North Carolina 42
35. Cinergy East Bend Scrubber Sludge Landfill,Kentucky 43
36. Florida Power and Light Lansing Smith Plant,Florida 43
37. Florida Power and Light Port Everglades Plant,Florida 44
38. Florida Power and Light Riviera Plant 44
39. Florida Power and Light P.L.Bartow Plant 44
40. Commonwealth Edison Powerton Plant-Mahoney Landfill,Pekin,Tazewell County,
Illinois 45
41. Xcel Energy/Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency- Sherburne County
(Sherco) Generating Plant Becker,Minnesota 45
42. Alliant Rock River Ash Disposal Facility, Wisconsin 46
43. Michigan City Site,Michigan City,Indiana 46
44. Bailly Generating Station, Indiana 47
45. Alliant Edgewater 1-4 Ash Disposal Site, Wisconsin 47
46. Wisconsin Power Supply Co. (WPSC)Pulliam Ash Disposal Site, Wisconsin 48
47. Central Illinois Light Co. Duck Creek Station,Illinois 48
48. Illinois Power Co.Hennepin Power Station, Illinois 48
49. Illinois Power Co.Havanna Power Plant, Illinois 49
50. Dairyland Power Alma On-site Fly Ash Landfill, Wisconsin 49
51. Dairyland Power Alma Off-site Fly Ash Landfill, Wisconsin 50
52. Illinois Power Vermillion Power Station, Illinois 50
53. Central Illinois Public Service Company Hutsonville Power Station, Illinois 51
54. Illinois Power Company Wood River Power Station,Illinois 51
55. R.M. Schahfer Generating Station,IN 51
56. Coffeen/White&Brewer Trucking Fly Ash Landfill, Illinois 52
57. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company(SIGECO)A.B Brown Generating Station,
Indiana 52
58. Cincinnati Gas &Electric Co.Miamiview Landfill, Ohio 52
59. Indiana Power&Light Petersburg Generating Station, Indiana 53
60. Hoosier Energy Mermon Generating Station Coal Combustion Waste Landfill, Indiana 53
61. Cinergy W.C. Beckjord Station, Ohio 53
62. Lemberger Landfill, Wisconsin 54
63. Conesville Fixed FGD Sludge Landfill, Ohio 54
64. Muscatine County Landfill,Iowa 56
65. Dave Johnston Power Plant, Wyoming 56
66. Montana-Dakota Utilities R.M. Heskett Station,North Dakota 56
67. Arizona Public Service Co.Cholla Steam Electric Generating Station,Arizona 57
iv

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
Description Page
IV. Rejected Damage Cases 59
68. American Coal Corporation#5 Landfill 59
69. Cardinal PFBC Monofill.... 59
70. Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir H Impoundment 59
71. Clinch River,Virginia 60
72. Copicut Road 60
73. Dixie Caverns County Landfill, Virginia 60
74. Gavin Impoundments 61
75. Kyger Creek Power Plant Impoundments 61
76. Lake Erie, Ohio 61
77. Muskingum River Power Plant Impoundments 62
78. Muskogee Environmental Fly Ash Disposal Site, Oklahoma 62
79. Public Service Co Fly Ash Disposal Site, Oklahoma 63
80. Star Coal Company#6 Landfill 63
81. Star Coal Company#14 Landfill 63
82. Stuart Station Impoundments 63
83. Thompson Landfill, Michigan 64
84. Turris Coal Company Elkhart Mine,Illinois 64
85. Western Farmers Electrical Fly Ash Site, Oklahoma 64
List of Tables
Description Page
Table 1. Eleven Damage Cases Cited in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination 3
Table 2. Fossil Fuel Combustion(FFC)Damage Case Resolution,excluding minefills 8
Table 3. Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 Surface and Ground Water
Monitoring Programs 21
•
v

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Summary of Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Case Assessments

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
I. Summary
Under the Bevill Amendment for the"special waste"categories of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
EPA was statutorily required to examine"documented cases in which danger to human health or
the environment has been proved"from the disposal of coal combustion wastes. The criteria
used to determine whether danger to human health and the environment has been proven are
described in detail in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination at 65 FR 32224. For the May
2000 Regulatory Determination for Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels(Regulatory
Determination),the Agency determined there were approximately 300 CCW landfills and 300
CCW surface impoundments used by 440 coal fired utilities.
In comments on the March 1999 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil
Fuels, public interest groups identified 59 cases in which they alleged damage to human health or
the environment had been caused by fossil fuel combustion wastes'. The Agency reviewed each
of the cases. That review resulted in identifying nine of the 11 damage cases cited in the May
2000 Regulatory Determination2 (see Table 1 below for complete listing of the 11 proven
damage cases3). Of the remaining 50 cases,25 were classified as"potential"damage cases as
Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding the CCW
RTC,June 11, 1999, Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council and the Citizens Coal Council to the RCRA
Docket Information Center regarding the CCW RTC,June 14, 1999 and Letter from the Hoosier Environmental
Council,et,al.,to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC,September 24, 1999.
2 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis
Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
3 Per the May 2000 Regulatory Determination,65 FR 32224(http://frwebgate.aceess.gno.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000 register&docid=fr22my00-22.pd1)and Section 1.4.4 of the 1999 Report to Congress
(http://www.epa.6ov/epaoswer/other/fossil/volume 2.pdt),proven damage cases are those with(i)documented
exceedances of primary MCLs or other health-based standards measured in ground water at sufficient distance from
the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituents have migrated to the extent that they could cause
human health concerns,and/or(ii)where a scientific study demonstrates there is documented evidence of another
type of damage to human health or the environment(e.g.,ecological damage),and/or(iii)where there has been an
administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to human health or the
environment. In cases of co-management of CCWs with other industrial waste types,CCWs must be clearly
implicated in the reported damage.
The May 2000 Regulatory Determination falls short of providing a comprehensive definition of the review criteria
("test of proof')for assessing the validity of damage case allegations;it only discusses the review criteria in
response to public comments on the review process of the Cement Kiln Dust(CKD)proposed rule,and focuses only
on the location of the exceedance point with respect to the source term(32224 CFR 65):
"Proven damage cases were those with documented MCL'exceedances that were measured in ground water at a
sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituents had migrated to the
extent that they could cause human health concerns."
The"test of proof'criteria were fully defined on pp.3-4 of the Technical Background Document to the Report to
Congress on Remaining Waste from Fossil Fuel Combustion:Potential Damage Cases(1999):
2

•
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
defined in the Regulatory Determination4 and five cases were determined to be not applicable to
the Regulatory Determination. Four of these five cases could not be linked to coal combustion
wastes and the other was at a coal mine,which is outside the scope of this NODA. Of the
remaining 20 cases, one damage case was the result of wastes other than coal combustion wastes;
one was not considered because it was an illegal, unpermitted dump; and 18 cases were
indeterminate due to insufficient informations.
Table 1. Eleven Damage Cases Cited in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination
Damage Case Wastes Present Event Criteria Comment
(Test of Proof)
Coal-Fired Utility Comanaged Wastes
Chisman Creek Coal ash and Se primary MCL Scientific6/Admini Was put on NPL.
(VA) petroleum coke exceedance; strative7 EPA required
landfill. V, Se,and sulfate in remediation: new
residential drinking water supply to
water wells. nearby residents,
capping disposal
area, ground water
treatment,
relocation of
surface water
tributary;other
possible sources of
contamination.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/ffc2 397.0df. This language,in turn,is derived from the 1993 Report to
Congress on Cement Kiln Dust Waste:http://www.epa,gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/cement2.htm.
According to the 1993 CKD Report to Congress(Chapter Five),Section 8002(ox4)of RCRA requires that EPA's
study of CKD waste examine"documented cases in which danger to human health or the environment has been
proved."In orderto address this requirement,EPA defined danger to human health to include both acute and chronic
effects(e.g.,directly observed health effects such as elevated blood lead levels or loss of life)associated with
management of CKD waste.Danger to the environment includes the following types of impacts:(1)Significant
impairment of natural resources;(2)Ecological effects resulting in degradation of the structure or function.of natural
ecosystems and habitats;and(3)Effects on wildlife resulting in damage to terrestrial or aquatic fauna.
4 Per the May 2000 Regulatory Determination,65 FR 3224,potential damage cases are those with(1)documented
exceedances of primary MCLs or other health-based standards only directly beneath or in very close proximity to
the waste source,and/or(2)documented exceedances of secondary MCLs or other health-based standards on-site or
off-site.
s Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
6 Where a scientific study demonstrates there is documented evidence of damage to human health or the
environment other than ground water contamination(e.g.,ecological damage).
Where there has been an administrative ruling by a state or federal agency,or court decision with an explicit
finding of specific damage to human health or the environment[e.g.,listing on EPA's National Priorities List
(NPL)].
3

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
Damage Case Wastes Present Event Criteria Comment
(Test of Proof)
Faulkner Offsite Coal ash and pyritic Low pH; exceedance Scientific/Administ State required
Disposal Facility mill rejects. of State standard; rative remediation
MD landfill and collection included pond
( ) pond seepage and liners, landfill cover,
discharges resulted and sequestration
in plant and fish of pyrites.
impacts to adjacent
wetlands.
DPC—Old E.J. Coal ash, Cd and Cr primary Administrative State required
Stoneman Ash demineralizer MCL exceedance; Closure plan and
Pond(WI) regenerant, other `gross contamination' relocation of town
water treatment by pond cited by water supply well.
wastes. State—Elevated
levels of Zn and
sulfate; Boron near 5
mg/L in private
drinking water well.
Basin Electric W.J. Coal ash and Cr exceeded state Administrative State required the
Neal Station(ND) sludge; comanaged standard and other (limited site closed and
wastes probable. metals detected at information capped, NFRAP
elevated levels in available) (No Further
downgradient Remedial Action
sediments and Planned).
ground water.
VEPCO—Possum Coal ash, pyrites, oil Cd primary MCL Administrative Response included
Point(VA) ash,water exceedance in sequestration of oil
treatment wastes, ground water; ash, pyrites, and
and boiler cleaning ground water metal cleaning
wastes contaminated with wastes to separate
Cd and Ni, attributed lined units.
to pyrites and oil ash.
WEPCO Hwy 59 Coal ash and mill Boron exceedance Scientific/ State required
Ash Landfill (WI) rejects; other of state standard in Administrative additional
comanaged wastes down gradient monitoring for
probable. ground water; problem/damage
elevated levels of As, assessment.
Fe, Se, Mn, sulfate in
private drinking
water wells.
Alliant Nelson Coal ash, Boron exceedance Administrative State required
Dewey comanaged wastes. of state standard in company to
(WI) down gradient investigate and
ground water; assess problem;
elevated levels of As, remedial action
Se, FI, sulfate in change to dry ash •
ground water. handling and
modify landfill cover
to reduce
infiltration.
4

•
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
Damage Case Wastes Present Event Criteria Comment
(Test of Proof)
Coal Creek Station Coal ash, Se and As Administrative Impacted shallow
(ND) comanaged wastes. exceedance of ground water
primary MCL in aquifer. State
ground water on site; required additional
elevated sulfate and impoundment
chloride levels in liners.
down gradient
ground water.
Non-Utility Coal Combustion Waste Sites
Salem Acres(MA) Large volume; many PAHs,VOCs, PCBs, Administrative Contribution of FFC
other wastes metals including As (on NPL)8 wastes to damage
present including and Cr; in soils, not separable from
municipal solid surface-waters,and other wastes.
waste and industrial ground water. Remedial measures
solid waste. taken including
excavation,
treatment, removal
of sludges and
soils.
Lemberger Landfill, Comanaged Elevated levels of Administrative Contribution of FFC
Inc.9 wastes; many other As, Cr, and Pb (on NPL)1° wastes to damage
(WI) materials including onsite, VOCs, PCBs. not separable from
municipal solid VOCs in private other wastes.
waste; adjacent site water wells initiated
contains industrial action.
solid waste.
Don Frame Coal ash, other Pb exceedance of Administrative State required
Trucking Fly Ash materials. primary MCL action remedial action: site
Landfill level in down closure landfill
(NY) gradient ground cover; post-closure
water; elevated care and
levels of Mn, sulfate, monitoring.
TDS in a water
supply well.
Soon after the publication of the Regulatory Determination, the Agency conducted a reevaluation
of the damage cases identified in the Regulatory Determination, including the 11 proven damage
8
11ttp://yosemite.epa.eov/r l/npl nad.nsf/f52fa5c3 I fa8f5c885256adc0050b631/C8A4A5BEC0121 F04852569I F0063F
6F3?OpenDocument
9 Reclassified as a potential damage case. See Section III.,Potential Damage Cases.Memorandum from SAIC to
Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November 29,
2000.
to
http://www.epa.gov/superfundisitesinplinar735.1ttrn
5

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
cases,the four additional ecological damage cases'1 which were identified in comments on the
1999 Report to Congress,the illegal disposal case, and the two potential damage cases attributed
to non-utility coal combustion waste in the 1999 Report to Congress. As a result of this review,
one of the cases identified in the Regulatory Determination as an ecological damage case, and
the case identified as an illegal disposal case were reclassified as proven damage cases due to
contamination of ground water from the disposal of CCW in sand and gravel pits and another
site,the Lemberger Landfill,was reclassified as a potential damage case 12.
In October 2000,the Agency began collecting additional information from its own experience,
from state agencies, and from commenters to clarify the details of the 18 previously
indeterminate cases,which were included as part of the 59 cases identified by the public interest
groups in their comments on the March 1999 Report to Congress. After analyzing this additional
information, EPA classified three of the 18 cases as proven damage cases,nine as potential
damage cases,and six as cases without documented evidence of proven or potential damage or
where the damage could not be clearly attributed to CCW. Two of the three proven damage
cases involved management of CCW in sand and gravel pits and the third -a surface
impoundment'3.
Finally, in February 2002, environmental-and citizen-organizations submitted to the Agency 16
alleged cases of damage 14. Some of these cases had been submitted to EPA previouslyand
g
s,
evaluated ten of the 16 cases one
evaluated for the 1999 Report to Congress. The Agency I ,
case was not evaluated because it involves minefilling of CCW,which,while under the scope of
the 2000 Regulatory Determination, is outside the scope of this NODA that deals exclusively
with surface disposal. The other five cases were not evaluated because they involved allegations
with little or no supporting information. Of the ten cases evaluated,one case has been
categorized as a proven damage case with documented off-site damages to ground water,while
six cases were categorized as potential damage cases due to on-site exceedances of primary or
secondary MCLs 16. Another damage case was determined to be a proven ecological damage
case as a result of documented impacts to fish and other wildlife on-site;this case also has been
categorized as a potential(human health) damage case due to documented exceedances of
primary and secondary MCLs attributable to an inactive CCW surface impoundment detected in
on-site monitoring wells. Finally,one case was rejected because monitoring data for the site
1 i Ecological damages are damages to mammals,amphibians,fish,benthic layer organisms and plants.
12 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
13 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
14 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC,September
24, 1999.
15 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
16 See Potential DCs,Section III of this document.
6

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
revealed no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs attributable to coal combustion waste
placement at the site,while another site is an oil burning facility and,therefore, is not covered by
the May 2000 Regulatory Determination17.
In August 2005, another damage case was recorded when a dam confining a surface
impoundment in eastern Pennsylvania failed. This damage case resulted in discharge of coal-ash
contaminated water into the Delaware River and concomitant pollution of ground water when an
unlined surface impoundment was temporarily used to divert the ash from the breached
impoundment. Other than obtaining verification of the event from state authorities,the Agency
did not conduct an independent evaluation of this case18.
In summary, EPA gathered or received information on 135 possible damage cases and has
evaluated 85 of these cases. Six of the 50 cases that were not evaluated were minefills and
outside the scope of this NODA.The remaining 44 cases that were not evaluated involved
allegations with little or no supporting information. (See Table 2:Fossil Fuel Combustion(FFC)
Damage Case Resolution,excluding minefills)
Of the 85 cases evaluated,EPA determined that 24 were proven cases of damage 19. Sixteen
were determined to be proven damages to ground water and eight were determined to be proven
damages to surface water. Four of the proven damages to ground water were from unlined
landfills, five were from unlined surface impoundments, one was due to a liner failure at a
surface impoundment, and the remaining six were from unlined sand and gravel pits. Another 43
cases were determined to be potential damages to ground water or surface water. Four of the
potential damage cases were attributable to oil combustion wastes. The remaining 18 alleged
damage cases were not considered to be proven or potential damage cases;they were,therefore,
rejected due to either(1) lack of any evidence of damage or(2)lack of evidence that damages
were uniquely associated with CCW20.
Of the 16 proven cases of damages to ground water,the Agency has been able to confirm that
corrective actions have been completed in six cases and are ongoing in nine cases. The Agency
has not received information regarding the one remaining case. Corrective actions measures at
these CCW management units vary depending on site specific circumstances and include formal
closure of the unit,capping,the installation of new liners, ground water treatment,ground water
monitoring,and combinations of these measures.
17 Status of Alleged Damage Cases Submitted by HEC,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy,February,2002.
18 PA DEP Press Release,December 27,2005.
19 See Proven Damage Cases,Section II of this document. In addition to the documents previously cited,additional
discussions of proven damages can be found in the Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Additional
Information Regarding Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000;and Ecological Assessment
of Ash Deposition and Removal,Euharlee Creek,Georgia Power Bowen Plant.
20 See Rejected Cases Excluding Minefills,Section IV of this document.
7

i
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
Table 2. Fossil Fuel Combustion (FFC) Damage Case Resolution, excluding minefills
(Updated 2/03/05)
Final Final Final Indeter- Not re- Sand& Oil Comb. Eco-
Occurence Stale Proven Potential Rejected minate evaluated Non-FFC Gravel Pit Non-Utility Waste Damage
TVA Widows Creek AL X
TVA Colbert Plant AL X
Arizona Public Sery Cholla Station AZ X
Comanche,PSCC CO X
Pierce Site CT X
Hunts Brook Watershed(3 sites) CT X
FP&L-Lansing Smith Plant (part 1) FL X
TECO Big Bend Electric Plant FL
TECO Polk Power Station FL
FP&L Port Everglades(EPRI#6) FL X(oil) X
FP&L Riviera(EPRI#10) FL X(oil) X
FPC P.L.Bartow(EPRI#66) FL X(oil) X
Georgia Power Bowen GA X
Muscatine County IA X
American Coal Corp.#5 CCR Landfill IA X
Star Coal Co.#6 CCR Landfill IA X
Star Coal Co.#14 CCR Landfill IA X
Powerlon Plant IL X X
Central IL Light Duck Creek IL X
IL Power Hennepin Station IL X
IL Power Havana Plant IL X
IL Power-Vermillion IL X
Cent.IL PSC-Hutsonville Station IL X
IL Power-Wood River IL X
Cofeen,White,Brewer Ash Landfill IL X
Turns Coal Company Elkhart Mine IL X
Michigan City Site IN X
Bailly Station IN X
RM Schaffer Station(Schahfer) IN X
SIGECO-AB Brown IN X
IP&L-Petersburg Station IN X
Hoosier Energy Merom Landfill IN X
Yard 520 Landfill Pines IN .X
Indiana-Kentucky Electric Clifty Creek
Station IN X
Cinergy/Ginn.G&E-East BendlBoon
County-FGD KY X
LG&E Mill Creek Plant KY X
(
LG&E Cane Run Plant KY X .
Salem Acres MA X
Vitale Fly Ash Pit MA X X
Rezendes Ash Landfill(South Main Street
Site/Freetown) MA X X
Copicut Road Monofill,Freetown • MA X _ X
PG&E Salem Harbor,Salem MA X
Brayton Point(EPRI#27) MA X(oil) X
8

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Table 2. Fossil Fuel Combustion (FFC)Damage Case Resolution,excluding minefills
(Updated 2/03/05)
Final Final Final Indeter- Not re- Sand& Oil Comb. Eco-
Occurence State Proven Potential Rejected minate evaluated Non-FFC Gravel Pit Non-Utility Waste Damage
PEPCO Faulkner MD X
Constellation Energy Crofton MD X
Brandywine Disposal Site MD X
Lansing Board P&L-N.Lansing Landfill MI X X
Thompson Landfill MI — X
Motor Wheel,Inc MI X
Dagget Sand&Gravel,Inc MI _ X X
Sherburne County Plant MN X
Colstrlp Power Plant MT
Hyco Lake(CP&L Roxboro) NC X X
Belews Lake NC X X
Duke Power-Allen Plant NC X
Ecusta Ash Monofill NC . X X
BASF Industrial Landfill NC X X
Neal Station BESI ND X
Coop Power&United Power-Coal Creek ND X
Montana-Dakota-Heskett Station ND X
Stanton Site,United Power ND X
Leland Olds Site,Basin Electric ND X
Don Frame Trucking NY X
AES Creative Weber Site NY X
Central Hudson G&E-Danskammer Site NY X
C.R.Huntley Ash Landfill NY X
CinergylCinn.G&E-Miamivlew Landfill OH X X
Cinergy/Cinn.G&E-Beckjord Station OH X
Muskingum River Power Plant
Impoundments OH X
Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II
Impoundment OH X
Cardinal PFBC Monofill OH X
Stuart Station Monofill OH X •
Gavin Impoundments OH X
Kyger Creek Power Plant Impoundments OH X
Lake Erie OH X X
Conesville FGD Landfill (part 1) OH X
Tristate Asphalt Flyash Landfill OH X
Muskogee Env.Ash Site OK X
Western Farmers Ash Site OK X
Public Service Ash Site OK X
Fort Gibson Fly Ash Monofill OK X
Grand River Dam Authority OK X
IMCO OK X
Elrama Plant PA X
Hatsfield Ferry Power Plant,Greene
County PA X
Zullinger Quarry PA X
9

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
Table 2. Fossil Fuel Combustion (FFC)Damage Case Resolution,excluding minefills
(Updated 2/03/05)
Final Final Final Indeter- Not re- Sand& Oil Comb. Eco-
Occurence State Proven Potential Rejected minate evaluated Non-FFC Gravel Pit Non-Utility Waste Damage
Veterans Quarry,Domino Salvage PA X
Shawville Site,Penelec PA X
Montour Ash Disposal Area PA X
SC Elec&Gas Canadys Plant SC X
Savannah Riv.Pro'ect SC X _ X
SCE&G McMeekin Station X
Chestnut Ridge Y-12 Steam Plant
Operable Unit 2 X X
TVA Bull Run Steam Plant III X
Brandy Branch Reservoir X X
Welsh Reservoir X X
Martin Creek Reservoir X X
Jr •
Deely Power Plant,San Antonio
Public Services X
VEPCO Possum Pt Vin inla Power X OCW&CCW
VEPCO Chisman(Virginia Power) X X
Clinch River(part 1) X X
Dixie Caverns Landfill VA X X .
Chesterfield,Virginia Power X
Georgia Pacific Industrial Waste
Landfill,Big Island X X
Dairyland Power Stoneman(Old E.J.
Stoneman) X
WEPCO Hwy 59 X X
Alliant Nelson Dewey X
WEPCO Cedar Sauk Landfill(part 1 X X
WEPCO Port Washington WI X X
Alliant Rock River WI X
Alliant Edgewater 1-4 WI X
Wisconsin Power Pulliam Ash WI X
Dairyland Power Alma On-site Landfill WI X
Dairyland Power Alma Off-site Landfill WI X
Lemberger Landfill WI X 1 X
Genoa#3,Dairyland Power
Co•ierative DPC WI X
Old Columbia,WPL _ WI X
Oak Creek,WEPCO X
New Columbia,WPL X
Locks Mill Landfill 111 X X
Biron On-site Landfill WI X X
Kraft Division Off-site Landfill WI X X
Niagara of Wisconsin Paper
Corporation Flyash Landfill WI X X
RPC Landfill#1 WI X X
RPC Landfill#2 WI X X
RPC Pine Lake Landfill _WI X X
Ward Paper Company Landfill WI X X
Pleasant Prairie,WEPCO WI X
Dave Johnston Power Plant WY X
10

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
Proven Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Cases

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
II. Proven Damage Cases
Per the 2000 Regulatory Determination, 65 FR 32224 and the Technical Background Document
to the Report to Congress on Remaining Waste from Fossil Fuel Combustion:Potential Damage
Cases(1999), classifying damage to groundwater as a proven damage case requires the
satisfaction of at least one of the following "tests of proof'21:
1) Scientific investigation: Damages that are found to exist as part of the findings of a
scientific study. Such studies should include both formal investigations supporting
litigation or a state enforcement action, and the results of technical tests(such as
monitoring of wells). Scientific studies must demonstrate that damages are significant in
terms of impacts on human health or the environment. For example, information on
contamination of drinking water aquifer must indicate that contaminant levels exceed
drinking water standards.
(2)Administrative ruling. Damages are found to exist through a formal administrative
ruling, such as the conclusions of a site report by a field inspector, or through existence of
an enforcement that cited specific health or environmental damages.
(3) Court decision. Damages are found to exist through the ruling of a court or through
an out-of-court settlement.
(4)As a practical matter, EPA employed a fourth criterion in determining whether
damages are proven: available information needed to clearly implicate fossil fuel
combustion wastes in the damage observed.
The above definition does not limit proven damage cases only to those sites with a primary MCL
exceedance(s) in ground water distant from the waste management unit. A case still may be
considered proven under the scientific investigation test if a scientific study demonstrates there is
•
21 The May 2000 Regulatory Determination falls short of providing a comprehensive definition of the review
criteria("test of proof')for assessing the validity of damage case allegations;it only discusses the review criteria in
response to public comments on the review process of the Cement Kiln Dust(CKD)proposed rule,and focuses only
on the location of the exceedance point with respect to the source term(32224 CFR 65):
"Proven damage cases were those with documented MCL exceedances that were measured in ground water at a
sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituents had migrated to the
extent that they could cause human health concerns."
The"test of proof"criteria were fully defined on pp.3-4 of the Technical Background Document to the Report to
Congress on Remaining Waste from Fossil Fuel Combustion:Potential Damage Cases(1999):
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossiUffc2 397.pdf. This language,in turn,is derived from the 1993 Report to
Congress on Cement Kiln Dust Waste: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckcUcement2.htm.
According to the 1993 CKD Report to Congress(Chapter Five),Section 8002(o)(4)of RCRA requires that EPA's
study of CKD waste examine"documented cases in which danger to human health or the environment has been
proved."In order to address this requirement,EPA defined danger to human health to include both acute and chronic
effects(e.g.,directly observed health effects such as elevated blood lead levels or loss of life)associated with
management of CKD waste. Danger to the environment includes the following types of impacts:(1)Significant
impairment of natural resources;(2)Ecological effects resulting in degradation of the structure or function of natural
ecosystems and habitats;and(3)Effects on wildlife resulting in damage to terrestrial or aquatic fauna.
12

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
documented evidence of another type of damage to human health or the environment(e.g.,
ecological damage).
1. Salem Acres Site,Massachusetts22
History:Fly ash disposal occurred at this site from at least 1952 to 1969. The site was originally
contaminated by fly ash, sewage sludge,tannery waste and materials from a landfill on the site.
The contamination was confined to the southernmost 13 acres of the 235 acre parcel and
consisted of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs),
dioxins/furans, volatile organic compounds(VOCs), chromium, arsenic, beryllium, vanadium
and thallium.
EPA proposed adding the Salem Acres site to the NPL on October 15, 1984,and added it to the
final list on June 10, 198623. On May26, 1987,EPA signed a Consent Order with the South
g
Essex Sewerage District(SESD)to perform the studies to examine the nature and extent of
contamination and present technical options for cleanup. In December 1993, EPA signed a
Consent Decree with the SESD to clean up the lagoons. The EPA also signed a separate Consent
Decree with the Massachusetts Electric Company to clean up the fly ash pile on site. In October
1994,the EPA signed a Consent Order with DiBase Salem Realty Trust,the owner of the
property and remaining party,to clean up the landfill and three debris piles.
Cleanup of the site was addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site. In 1987, lagoon water was removed and disposed of,the
slurry wall at the disposal areas was capped and a fence was installed. In 1988, EPA covered
the sludge pits with a high density polyethylene synthetic cap,removed the liquid wastes from
the disposal pits to an off-site storage facility, and constructed concrete cut-off walls to prevent
further releases into the wetlands. In 1990,repairs were made to a monitoring well and a
security fence on site,and signs were posted to further restrict access.
The South Essex Sewerage District completed an investigation into the nature and extent of the
soil and sludge contamination in early 1993. The investigation defined the contaminants of
concern and recommended alternatives for final cleanup. Ground water at the site and adjacent
wetlands demonstrated only minor contamination and therefore,no further remedial actions were
planned. EPA selected a final remedy for the site, including sludge-fixation with fly ash and
other substances such as cement and soil, as necessary and disposed of off-site to a secured
landfill. A contingent remedy includes the installation of an EPA-approved cap. In 1995,the fly
ash area and"old landfill"on site were excavated and the contaminated material was taken off
site to a municipal landfill. Final site restoration of these areas occurred in 1996. The sludge
lagoon cleanup was completed in the fall of 1997 and final site restoration was completed in the
22 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Additional Information Regarding Fossil Fuel Combustion
Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
23
http://yosem ite.epa.gov/r1/nplpad.nsf/f52fa5c3I fa8f5c885256adc0050b631/C8A4A5BEC0121 F048525691 F0063 F
6F3?OpenDocument
13

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
• spring of 1998. In the summer of 1999, fly ash was removed from the wetland adjacent to the
former fly ash pile.The wetland was restored at this time.The site was officially deleted from
the National Priorities List(NPL)effective July 23, 200124. The site now allows for unrestricted
land use
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: The criteria for classifying this site as a
proven damage case were(1) Scientific—Arsenic and chromium exceeded (health-based)
primary MCLs, and(2) Administrative—The site has been placed on the NPL list,and EPA
signed a Consent Order with the owner to clean up the lagoons.
2. City of Beverly/Vitale Brothers Fly Ash Pit,Massachusetts25
History: This site is an abandoned gravel and sand mine that was used as an unpermitted landfill
from the 1950's until the mid-1970s. The site was operated by the Vitale Brothers until 1980,
when the City of Beverly Conservation Commission gained ownership because of failure to pay
property taxes. On the site,the Vitale Brothers accepted and disposed saltwater-quenched fly
ash from New England Power Company along with other wastes. Leaking underground storage
tanks containing petroleum products were also located at the site. In 1973, fly ash at the site
eroded into a nearby swamp and a stream that is a tributary to a surface drinking water supply.
The erosion created a damming effect and resulted in flooding of neighboring property. In 1988,
surface water sampling of the stream revealed levels of iron and manganese significantly greater
than upstream levels. Additionally,there were complaints of fugitive dust from the site from
neighbors located 500 feet away. Air sampling on one occasion in 1988 revealed arsenic
concentrations of 2 parts per billion. Finally, 1988 ground water sampling found arsenic and
selenium in excess of their primary MCLs and aluminum, iron, and manganese in excess of
secondary MCLs. According to the State, fly ash is the suspected source of contamination in all
of these media.
Fly ash is disposed at the site at depths from 14 to 36 feet. Not only is the site unlined, but
ground water depth at the site is between 10 and 21 feet, indicating the likelihood of direct
contact with fly ash. Fly ash also is observed to be present at the surface of the site with no
cover or other surface runoff, erosion, or fugitive dust controls. Finally,the site is located in
close proximity to a wetland and a surface water body.
The site has a long history of noncompliance with local and State laws and regulations.
Following the completion of a Comprehensive Site Assessment and Risk Characterization in
preparation for potential remedial action under Massachusetts regulations for the assessment and
cleanup of hazardous waste sites,the fly ash was removed and the site was redesigned with
special attention to protecting the adjacent water courses from erosion26. The Vitale Flyash site
24 Ibid
25 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
26 http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ecm 0603 erosion.html
14

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
submitted a site closure report February 1,2007, and a preliminary screening of the site closure
report is underway27.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case:This case was not counted as a proven
damage case in the 1999 Regulatory Determination because it was a case of illegal disposal not
representative of historical or current disposal practices. The case, however, otherwise meets the
criteria for a proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific—(i)selenium and
arsenic exceeded(health-based)primary MCLs, and (ii)there is evidence of contamination of
nearby wetlands and surface waters; and(2)Administrative-the facility was the subject of
several citations and the State has enforced remedial actions.
3. Don Frame Trucking,Inc.Fly Ash Landfill,New York28
History:This solid waste management facility had been used for disposal of fly ash, bottom ash,
and other material including yard sweepings generated by the Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation's Dunkirk Steam Station. The age of the facility was not identified in the materials
provided. The available monitoringdata for this facility include quarterly water quality analysis
and various miscellaneous data collected at the facility from March 1989 through September
1998. These data show down-gradient levels of lead greater than the primary MCL Action
Level. These exceedances occurred in 1989 and 1996. The data also document elevations from
background of sulfate,total dissolved solids,and manganese, including levels of manganese in a
water supply well greater than the secondary MCL.
As a result of the contamination,Don Frame Trucking recommended to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC)that the affected water supply well
should immediately be connected to a public water supply. Also, on September 16, 1988, Don
Frame Trucking,Inc. was directed to cease receiving the aforementioned wastes at the facility no
later than October 15, 1988, in accordance with the standards contained in 6 NYCRR Part 360.29
The site was divided into five separate sections.The NYSDEC directed Don Frame Trucking,
Inc.to place two feet of a"final cover"over Section I. The soil should have a coefficient of
permeability of 1 x 10-5 cm/sec. NYSDEC directed Section II to be covered with 18 inches of
clay cover with a coefficient of permeability of 1 x 10-7 in two shifts. Once the permeability was
tested and considered acceptable,NYSDEC directed Don Frame Trucking,Inc.to place six
additional inches of topsoil was over the clay cover and then seed and mulch the section.
Eighteen inches of clay with a coefficient of permeability of 1 x 10-7 was also directed to be
placed on Sections III,IV, and V, followed by reseeding and mulching.Don Frame Trucking,
Inc. was instructed to finish all remediation procedures by October 15, 1988,and then provide
27 MADEP tracking number 3-00230;email message from Patricia Donahue,MADEP,July 9,2007.
28 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
29 Application of Don Frame Trucking,Inc.Petitioner for a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR against
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Respondent;Supreme Court of the State of New
York County of Chautauqua(July 22, I988).Order G11278.
15

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
certification by a licensed professional engineer that the facility was closed in accordance with
the rules and regulations as stipulated by the NYSDEC by October 21, 1988. Post-closure
• ground water and surface water monitoring and maintenance were also expected to continue for
30 years after final closure of the entire facility.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case:(1) Scientific-The lead levels found in down-
gradient wells exceed the primary MCL Action Level; (2)Administrative-The State has
required remedial action as a result of the contamination; and (3) Court order—The owner was
directed, by the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Chautauqua(July 22, 1988),
to cease receiving the aforementioned wastes at the facility no later than October 15, 1988.
4. Virginia Electric Power Co. (VEPCO)Possum Point,VA30
History: EPA identified this site as a proven damage case in the March 1999 Report to Congress.
It is described in detail in the Report and supporting technical background documents in the
rulemaking docket.
The technical background document31 states; "One additional documented damage case is the
Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) Possum Point Site, described in the 1993
Regulatory Determination.This is an active facility with 40-acre unlined ash ponds with solids
dredged to 80-acre lined ponds.These ponds received coal ash, pyrites,water treatment wastes,
boiler cleaning wastes, and oil ash. Ground water monitoring found cadmium at concentrations
3.6 times and nickel, at 26.4 times the primary MCLs.Monitoring for vanadium was conducted
but no results were given. The elevated concentrations were attributed to the pyrites and oil ash.
These wastes, along with metal cleaning wastes,were ordered sequestered to separate lined
units."
The 1999 Report to Congress32 states: "Possum Point,Virginia (described in the 1993
Supplemental Analysis). At this site, oil ash, pyrites, boiler chemical cleaning wastes,coal fly
ash, and coal bottom ash were comanaged in an unlined pond, with solids dredged to a second
pond.Levels of cadmium above 0.01 mg/L were recorded prior to 1986 (the primary MCL is
0,005 mg/L).After that time, remedial actions were undertaken to segregate wastes(oil ash and
low volume wastes were believed to be the source of contamination).Following this action,
cadmium concentrations were below 0.01 mg/L."
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: Based on evidence on exceedances of
cadmium and nickel,the State pursued an Administrative Action by requiring the removal of the
waste,thus qualifying it as a proven damage case.
30 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
31 Technical Background Document For the Report to Congress On Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel
Combustion:Potential Damage Cases,March 15, 1999(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/tbssil/ffc2 397.pd1)
32 http://www.epa.aov/epaoswer/other/fossil/volume 2.pdf
16

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
5. PEPCO Morgantown Generating Station Faulkner Off-site Disposal Facility,
Maryland33
History:Landfills at this site manage fly ash, bottom ash, and pyrites from the Morgantown
Generating Station starting in 1970. Unlined settling ponds also are used at the site to manage
stormwater runoff and leachate from the ash disposal area. In 1991,the State found that water
quality was degraded in the underlying aquifer and that ground water contamination had
migrated to nearby surface waters(including a stream and a wetland area). The impacts included
vegetative damages,orange staining from iron precipitation, and low pH. Because of the ground
water migration,the operator was cited for unpermitted discharges to surface water. The low pH
impacts are believed to have resulted from pyrite oxidation. The low pH may also have
contributed to the migration of other contaminants. Additionally,ground water beneath the
facility is shallow. Documentation shows the water table is very close to the bottom of the ash
disposal area at the down-gradient end of the facility and well above the base of the settling
ponds used to manage stormwater runoff and leachate from the ash disposal area.
Remedial measures at the site included closure and capping of older units, installation of liners in
newer units, installation of a slurry wall to prevent ground water migration,and sequestration of
pyrites. EPA identified this site as a proven damage case in the March 1999 Report to Congress. •
It is described in detail in the Report and supporting technical background documents in the
rulemaking docket.
Basis for Consideration as a proven Damage Case:EPA has categorized this case as a proven
damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific-Ground water contamination migrated
off-site; and(2)Administrative-The State required remedial action.
6. Virginia Power Yorktown Power Station Chisman Creek Disposal Site,Virginia34
History: This site consists of three parcels of land that cover 27 acres. Between 1957 and 1974,
abandoned sand and gravel pits at the site received fly ash from the combustion of coal and
petroleum coke at the Yorktown Power Station. Disposal at the site ended in 1974 when
Virginia Power began burning oil at the Yorktown plant. In 1980, nearby shallow residential
wells became contaminated with vanadium and selenium. Water in the wells turned green and
contained selenium above the primary MCL and sulfate above the secondary MCL.
Investigations in response to the discolored drinking water found heavy metal contamination in
the ground water around the fly ash disposal areas, in onsite ponds, and in the sediments of
Chisman Creek and its tributaries. Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, nickel,
vanadium, and selenium were detected above background levels.
33 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis
Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
34 Ibid.Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
17

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
The contamination at the site's vicinity was caused by the combination of several factors: (i) The
facility was operated with no dust or erosion controls; (ii)The facility is unlined and located in
close proximity to drinking water wells, and ground water at the site was very shallow and
possibly in contact with disposed waste.;(iii)A surface water tributary passed through or near
the disposal areas.
In September 1983, EPA added the site to the National Priorities List(NPL)35 under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liabilities Act(CERCLA).
Cleanup began in late 1986 and was conducted in two parts. The first part addressed the fly ash
pits and contaminated ground water and included the following steps:
• Extension of public water to 55 homes with contaminated well water,
• Capping the disposal iis with soil (2 pits)s) or compacted clay(1 pit) overlain with topsoil and
vegetative growth,
• Ground water and leachate collection for treatment and to lower the water table beneath the
pits,and
• Post-closure monitoring.
The second part addressed the onsite ponds, a freshwater tributary stream,and the Chisman
Creek estuary and included the following steps:
• Relocation of a 600-foot portion of the tributary to minimize contact with the fly ash disposal
areas,
• Diversion of surface runoff,and
• Long-term monitoring for the ponds,tributary,and estuary.
Construction of all cleanup components was completed on December 21, 1990. The site has
been redeveloped as a public park. Following the completion(in December 2006) of its third
five-year review of the site,EPA determined that the remedial action at Operable Unit 1 is
protective in the short term because the extent of the vanadium contamination in the shallow
ground water aquifer is not presently known.EPA is presently working with Virginia Power to
determine the extent of the vanadium contamination and to amend the restriction to make sure it
provides the necessary assurance that it will be protective over time.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: EPA identified this site as a proven damage
case in the March 1999 Report to Congress. It is described in detail in the Report and supporting
technical background documents in the rulemaking docket. EPA has categorized this case as a
proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific—(i) Drinking water wells contained
selenium above the(health-based)primary MCL and(ii)There is evidence of surface water and
sediment contamination; and (2)Administrative-The site was remediated under CERCLA.
35
http://eva.govireg3hwmd/npl/VAD980712913.htm
18

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
7. Hyco Lake,Roxboro,North Carolina36
History: This case was originally identified by a public interest group in a table alleging
selenium contamination, and a selenium fish consumption advisory3 .
Hyco Lake was constructed in 1964 as a cooling water source for the CP&L Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant. The lake received discharges from the plant's ash-settling ponds containing high
levels of selenium. The selenium accumulated in the fish in the lake, affecting reproduction and
causing declines in fish populations in the late 1970s and 1980s. The North Carolina Department
of Health and Human Services issued a fish consumption advisory in 198838.
In 1990,CP&L installed a dry ash handling system to meet new permit limits for selenium. To
determine the effectiveness of the new handling system,the Department of Water Quality is
requiring long-term monitoring of the lake.Based on the results of fish tissue sampling, the fish
consumption advisory has been rescinded in stages starting in 199439. It was completely
rescinded in August, 200140.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: This case is categorized as a proven
ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific -declines in fish populations
were observed(1970s& 1980s); (2)Administrative-The State concluded that the impacts were
attributable to the ash ponds,and issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of the
contamination.
8. Georgia Power Company,Plant Bowen, Cartersville,GA41
History:This unlined CCW management unit was put in service in 1968. On July 28, 2002, a
sinkhole developed in the(coal) ash pond of the Georgia Power Company-Plant Bowen Facility
(coal-fired generating facility). The sinkhole ultimately reached four acres and a depth of thirty
36 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
37 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding comments on
the May 2000 Regulatory Determination,September 19,2000.
38 Selenium Posting on Hyco Lake Rescinded,North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
(NCDHHS),August 2001.
39 Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan,Section B,Chapter 5:Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05,North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources(NCDENR),July 2001.Available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/hasinwide/roanoke/2001/2001 Roanoke wq management_plan.htm
40 Selenium Posting on Hyco Lake Rescinded,North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
(NCDHHS),August 2001.
41 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007. Ecological Assessment of
Ash Deposition and Removal,Euharlee Creek,Georgia Power Bowen Plant,available in the docket to the CCW
NODA(EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796).
19

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
feet. The integrity of the ash pond dikes did not appear to be compromised. The company
estimated that 2.25 million gallons of ash/water mixture was released to an unnamed tributary of
the Euharlee Creek, containing 281 tons of ash. Georgia's Department of Natural Resources
alleges an unpermitted discharge of water containing approximately 80 tons of ash slurry entered
Euharlee Creek through a stormwater drainage pipe resulting in a temporary degradation of
public waters.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources issued a consent order on November 20,2002. The
order contained the following provisions:
• Fine of$31,250 was imposed;
• Company to perform ecological impact study of the ash discharge into Euharlee
Creek and recommend remedial action;
• Company to submit proposed dredging plan if necessitated by impact study;
• Company to submit report on actions taken to fill sinkhole and grout fissures
under the dike;
• Company to perform geological engineering assessment of the ash pond stability
and recommend corrective actions to address future sinkhole development;
• Company to submit a revised ash water management plan;
• Georgia EPD approved corrective action plans shall be implemented;and
• Company shall submit Interim progress report and final schedule for completion
of implementation of corrective action plans.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: (1) Scientific- unpermitted discharge of
water containing ash slurry into the Euharlee Creek resulting in a temporary degradation of
public waters; and (2)Administrative-Georgia Department of Natural Resources issued a
consent order requiring, among others, a fine and corrective action.
9. Department of Energy- Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant.Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2
DOE Oak Ridge Reservation,Oak Ridge,Tennessee42
History: This case was originally identified by public commenters in a table that alleged
aluminum, arsenic, iron, and selenium contamination,as well as fish deformities and a region of
a stream where no fish are found43
Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit(OU)2 consists of Upper McCoy Branch,the Filled Coal Ash
Pond(FCAP), and the area surrounding the sluice channel formerly associated with coal ash
disposal in the FCAP. Upper McCoy Branch runs from the top of Chestnut Ridge across the
FCAP into Rogers Quarry. The FCAP is an 8.5 acre area. The sluice channel area extends
approximately 1,000 feet from the crest of Chestnut Ridge to the edge of the FCAP.
42 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
as Letter from HEC et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy,February,2002.
20

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
The FCAP is an ash retention impoundment used to dispose of coal ash slurry from the Y-12
steam plant. It was constructed in 1955 by building an earthen dam across a northern tributary of
Upper McCoy Branch, and was designed to hold 20 years of ash. By July of 1967,the
impoundment was filled to within four feet of the top of the earthen dam. Once the
impoundment was no longer able to retain the ash solids,the slurry was released directly into
Upper McCoy Branch through direct flow over the earthen dam. In 1967 and 1968, Upper
McCoy Branch was diverted into Rogers Quarry. Between 1967 and 1989,the ash slurry flowed
directly from the FCAP into Upper McCoy Branch and then into Rogers Quarry. In 1989, a
bypass pipe was constructed to carry the slurry directly from the steam plant to Rogers Quarry.
Disposal of ash into Rogers Quarry was discontinued in 1990,when a chemical vacuum system
and a bottom ash dewatering system were installed at the plant. Both fly ash and bottom ash are
now disposed in a landfill. Existing ash deposits were left in place. Erosion of both the spillway
and the ash itself has occurred, leading to releases of ash into Upper McCoy Branch".
In the mid-1980s,the Y-12 plant began investigation and ground water monitoring at a number
of locations within its boundaries, as required under RCRA and by the Tennessee Department of
Environmental Conservation(TDEC). The entire Oak Ridge Reservation was placed on the NPL
in 1989. CERCLA requires all sites under investigation to complete a remedial investigation to
determine the nature and extent of contamination,evaluate the risks to public health and the
environment,and determine remedial action goals. The Remedial Investigation for OU
conducted in two phases. Phase I was conducted by CH2M Hill in the Upper McCoy Branch
zone. Phase II was conducted by CDM Federal in the FCAP and sluice area zones. Both
investigations consisted of surface and ground water, soil, and ash sampling. The table below
shows a summary of the results of the monitoring programs45.
Table 3. Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 •
Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Programs
Monitoring type Monitoring Constituents with exceedances Constituents with
location of ambient/ exceedance of MCLs
reference/background or SMCLs
concentrations
Surface Water Upper McCoy Al,Fe,Cu Al,As,Fe,Mn
Branch(Phase I)
Upper McCoy Al,As, Ca, Mn,K,Na Al,As,Mn
Branch(Phase II)
FCAP Pond Water Al,As,Ba, Ca, Cr,Cu,Fe, Al,As,Fe,Mn
Pb,Mg,Mn, K,Na,V,Zn
44
Feasibility Study for the Y-12 Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2 Filled Coal Ash Pond,Oak Ridge,Tennessee.
DOE/OR/02-1259&D1. August 1994.
as Ibid.
21

•
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
Monitoring type Monitoring Constituents with exceedances Constituents with
location of ambient/ exceedance of MCLs
reference/background or SMCLs
concentrations
Spring Water Al,As, Ba, Ca,Pb,Mn, Hg, Al,As,Fe, Pb,Mn
K, V,Zn
Ground Water Upper McCoy Al,Ba,Ca, Co, Cu, Fe,K, Al, Fe,Mn
Branch (Phase I) Mg,Mn,Na, Se, Zn
Upper McCoy information not provided Mn
Branch (Phase II)
Sluice Channel information not provided Mn
Area
Soil Near Upper Al,As,Ba, Fe, Mn, K,Na Not applicable
McCoy Branch
(Phase II)
Near FCAP Al, As, K,Na Not applicable
Ash Entire Site No background data Not applicable
Biological monitoring has also been conducted at the site as part of a RCRA Facility
Investigation(RFI)required by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA,
and as part of the Phase I Remedial Investigation. The biological monitoring conducted for the
RFI included toxicity testing, bioaccumulation studies, fish community assessments, and a
benthic macro-invertebrate community assessment. Biological monitoring for the Phase I RI
consisted of toxicity testing, a benthic macro-invertebrate assessment, a soil (ash) invertebrate
survey, and bioaccumulation studies"
The conclusions for the RFI biological monitoring programs were as follows:
• Toxicity testing; The results of the toxicity testing did not show significant evidence for
toxic conditions in Upper McCoy Branch.
• Bioaccumulation studies:
• Concentrations of selenium, arsenic, and possibly thallium were elevated in
largemouth bass from Rogers Quarry,relative to bass from another nearby site;
• Arsenic exceeded screening criteria;
• Some fish from Rogers Quarry had deformed bony structures(these effects were
not described in literature as effects of arsenic or selenium); and
• Bioaccumulation was not indicated in Upper McCoy Branch discharge
46 Ibid.
22

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
• Fish community assessment:The results indicate that Upper McCoy Branch is under
severe stress:
• No fish populations were found above Rogers Quarry; and
• Downstream sunfish populations had high percentages of deformed heads and
eroded fins.
• Benthic Macro-invertebrate Community Assessment: The results were indicative of
moderate stress. The stress appears to be habitat alteration as a result of ash deposition
within the stream channel and possibly leaching of potential toxicants from the ash.
The conclusions for the RI biological monitoring programs were as follows:
• Toxicity testing: The results did not show toxic conditions in Upper McCoy Branch.
• Benthic Macro-invertebrate Assessment:The results exhibited no strong evidence of
impact at Upper McCoy Branch. There were some differences in July samples,which
could be due to natural variations between the two locations,or could be due to low flow
conditions increasing concentrations of contaminants from the ash.
• Soil(ash)Invertebrate Study:No invertebrates were found in samples from the sluice
channel area or the FCAP, indicating this is not a possible pathway for contamination of
the food chain.
• Bioaccumulation Studies:
• Vegetation: The results show that selenium uptake into plants is a possible source
of exposure to soil invertebrates and small mammals.
• Small mammals: The study found higher concentrations of arsenic,selenium and
lead in animals from the FCAP than in animals from a reference site.
A remedial action was conducted to stabilize the filled coal ash pond,McCoy Bridge dam
holding contaminated pond sediments in place.A wetland,removed during stabilization
activities,was re-constructed as part of the remedial action.Physical work was completed in
March 1997.The remedial action report was approved in May 199747.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case:This case has been categorized as a proven
ecological damage case based on scientific documentation of impacts to fish and other wildlife
on-site. This case has also been categorized as a potential(human health) damage case based on
(1) Scientific basis- Exceedances of primary and secondary MCLs were detected in on-site
monitoring locations, and(2)Administrative grounds- Federal RCRA and the Tennessee
Department of Environmental Conservation(TDEC)requirements, including placement of the
entire Oak Ridge Reservation on the NPL.
47 http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/npltn/oakridtn.htnt
23

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
10. South Carolina Electric& Gas Canadys Plant, South Carolina48
History: This facility is a coal-fired power plant located along the Edisto River approximately 10
miles south of St. George, South Carolina. Ash from the power plant is mixed with water and
managed in an ash storage pond. The facility operated an unlined, 80-acre ash pond from 1974
to 1989. A new, 95-acre ash pond lined with a bentonite slurry wall began operation in 1989.
Since 1982,arsenic has consistently been found in monitoring wells surrounding the old ash
pond at levels above the MCL. Nickel also has occasionally been found above a State standard
in a single monitoring well adjacent to the old ash pond. Because of these results,DHEC
required the facility to delineate the extent of the contamination surrounding the old ash pond.
The contamination was found to extend beyond the original property boundary of the facility, but
the operator was allowed to buy neighboring property under State policy at the time. The
investigation also showed that the contamination was not reaching the Edisto River and that its
vertical extent was limited by a confining geologic unit 15 to 30 feet below the property. The
facility is currently deactivating the old ash pond,with ash being removed and sold to a cement
company. DHEC concluded that further migration of contaminants was not likely given the
ground water conditions and the ongoing deactivation. In 1996,therefore, DHEC approved a
mixing zone with ongoing monitoring around the old ash pond. The mixing zone establishes a
compliance boundary around the old ash pond. Arsenic concentrations above the MCL are
permitted within the mixing zone, but not at or outside of the compliance boundary.
The new ash pond extends beyond the compliance boundary of the old ash pond. Sampling in
May 2000 found arsenic above its MCL at, and external to,the compliance boundary in wells
that are adjacent to the new ash pond. Resampling in June 2000 confirmed the noncompliance.
The facility's engineering contractor and DHEC suspect this arsenic contamination is associated
with a separate plume originating from the new ash pond. DHEC suspects improper anchoring
or a breach of the slurry wall surrounding the new ash pond. Based on a geophysical
investigation,the facility's engineering contractor concluded that the slurry wall appears to have
failed in various locations, allowing multiple seeps. The contractor noted that drought-like
conditions during the preceding three years have caused a site-wide decrease in the water table.
The increase in potentiometric head between the new ash pond and the falling water table may be
a contributing factor to the breaches in the slurry wall. The facility has proposed additional
monitoring to delineate the extent of the new arsenic plume and an extension of the compliance
boundary to encompass the new ash pond. The facility also is evaluating possible corrective
action alternatives for repairing or replacing the slurry wall. The extent of the new plume has not
yet been fully delineated and DHEC has not yet determined what response may be required of
the facility,
This site was initially classified as indeterminate because there was no information on the extent
of the contamination (on-site or off-site), quantitative data on whether arsenic levels exceeded
State standards,or confirmation that the contamination was attributable to fossil fuel combustion
waste. In a follow-up assessment conducted after the Regulatory Determination, a representative
48 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
24

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
from South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC)confirmed that
there is arsenic contamination attributable to two coal combustion waste (CCW)management
units at this site. According to the DHEC contact, it is unlikely that there are any ground water
supply wells or other human exposure points in the vicinity of the facility. Furthermore, ground
water supply wells in the region typically are drilled beneath the underlying confining geologic
unit.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: Scientific-There are exceedances of the
health-based standard for arsenic at this site. While there are no known human exposure points
nearby,some recent exceedances have been detected outside an established regulatory boundary.
11. Belews Lake,North Carolina49
History: This Lake was impounded in the early 1970s to serve as a cooling reservoir for a large
coal-fired power plant. Fly ash produced by the power plant was disposed in a settling basin,
which released selenium-laden effluent in return flows to the Lake.Due to the selenium
contamination, 16 of the 20 fish species originally present in the reservoir were entirely
eliminated, including all the primary sport fish. The pattern of selenium contamination from the
plant and fish impacts persisted from 1974 to 1985. In late 1985, under mandates from the State
of North Carolina,the power company changed operations for fly ash disposal, and selenium-
laden effluent no longer entered the Lake.
A fish advisory was issued for selenium in 1993 which was rescinded December 31, 200050
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case:EPA has categorized this case as a proven
ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific evidence of extensive impacts
on fish populationsdue to directdischarge -
p p to a surface water body,and(2)Administrative The
State required changes in operating practices to mitigate the contamination.
12. U.S.Department of Energy Savannah River Project, South Carolinast
History: The Savannah River Project commenced operations and disposal of ash in 1952. At this
site, a coal-fired power plant sluices fly ash to a series of open settling basins. A continuous
flow of sluice water exits the basins, overflows, and enters a swamp that in turn discharges to
Beaver Dam Creek. Observations of bullfrogs of all developmental stages in the settling basins
and swamp suggest that the mixture of pollutants that characterize the site does notP revent
49 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
so
http://134.67.99.49/scripts/esrimap.dll7Name=Listing&Cmd=NameQuery&Left=-178.215026855469&Right=-
52.6202812194824&Top=83.108322143 5547&Bottom=-
• 14.3755550384521&shp=3&shp=6&idChoice=3&loc=on&NameZoom=NC%20-%20Belews%20Lake
51 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
25

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
completion of the life cycle. However, bullfrog tadpoles inhabiting the site have oral deformities
and impaired swimming and predator avoidance abilities. There also is evidence of metabolic
impacts on water snakes inhabiting the site.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven
ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific evidence of impacts on several
species in a nearby wetland caused by releases from the ash settling ponds.
13. Dairyland Power Cooperative E.J. Stoneman Generating Station Ash Disposal Pond,
Wisconsin52
History: This facility is an unlined pond that managed ash, demineralizer regenerant, and sand
filter backwash from the 1950's until 1987. During the facility's operating life, ground water
monitoring of on-site wells around the pond found cadmium and chromium in excess of primary
MCLs and sulfate, manganese, iron, and zinc in excess of secondary MCLs. Nearby private
drinking water wells showed levels of sulfate and boron elevated from background. As a result,
the State concluded that other constituents could reach the drinking water wells in the future.53
Because of the evidence of ground water contamination and because the facility violated State
location standards,the State denied the operator's proposal to continue operation of the pond.
The State also required the operator to close the facility and provide alternative drinking water to
the affected residences. The history of contamination also led the State to require a new landfill
on the site to be constructed with a double liner and leachate collection.
In addition to being unlined,the unconsolidated soils beneath the site consist of highly
permeable sand and gravel(estimated permeability of 10-2 cm/sec). The pond was located close
to the Mississippi River, in violation of the State's requirement for 300 feet of separation from
navigable rivers. The proximity to the river caused variable water table levels and periods of
ground water mounding, during which the depth of ground water beneath the unit was very
shallow (possibly as low as 1 foot). Finally,the pond was located closer to 15 water supply
wells than allowed by State standards. '
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: EPA identified this site as a proven damage
case in the March 1999 Report to Congress. It is described in detail in the Report and supporting
technical background documents in the rulemaking docket. EPA has categorized this case as a
proven damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific-Cadmium and chromium exceeded
(health-based) primary MCLs, and contamination migrated to nearby, private drinking water
wells; and (2)Administrative-The State required closure of the facility.
52 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis
Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
53 More recent monitoring data confirm this conclusion,with cadmium exceeding the primacy MCL and iron and
manganese exceeding secondary MCLs in the drinking water wells.
26

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
14. WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill,Wisconsin54
History:This site is located in an old sand and gravel pit and received fly ash and bottom ash
between 1969 and 1978. Ground water monitoring between 1988 and 1998 found sulfate, boron,
manganese,chloride, and iron above the State's Enforcement Standards(ES)and arsenic above
the State's Preventive Action Level (PAL) in nearby private wells. Other down-gradient
monitoring wells showed sulfate, boron, iron, and manganese in excess of the ES and selenium
and chloride in excess of PALs. State agency staff considered this site one of the most seriously
affected coal ash sites in the State. The State required a continuation of monitoring at this closed
facility in 1982 and an investigation into ground water contamination in 1994.
The facility is unlined and the soil underlying the site consists of fine to coarse sands and gravel
with minor amounts of silt and clay and is believed to be relatively permeable. The original sand
and gravel pit included an area of standing water. The presence of the standing water is
attributed to the elevation of the ground water table exceeding the base of the pit in this area.
Waste was disposed directly into this area to a depth of 5 to 10 feet below the water table. (Note
also that the facility is located in close proximity to a wetland,although there is no
documentation of impact to flora in the wetland.)
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case:EPA has categorized this case as a proven
damage case of the following reasons: (1) Scientific-Although the boron standard was not
health-based at the time of the exceedances,the boron levels reported for the facility would have
exceeded the State's recently promulgated health-based ES for boron;and contamination from
the facility appears to have migrated to off-site private wells; and (2)Administrative-As a result
of the various PAL and ES exceedances,the State required a ground water investigation.
15. Alliant(formerly Wisconsin Power&Light)Nelson Dewey Ash Disposal Facility,
Wisconsin 55
History: This facility was originally constructed in the early 1960's as a series of settling basins
for sluiced ash and permitted by the State in 1979. Waste disposal at the site resulted in
exceedances of the State's Preventative Action Levels(PALs)for arsenic, selenium,sulfate,
boron, and fluoride. These exceedances occurred within the design management zone of the
facility. Waste disposal also has resulted in exceedances of the State's Enforcement Standards
(ES)for boron, fluoride, and sulfate outside the design management zone of the facility. As a
result of these exceedances,the State required an investigation of ground water contamination in
1993. In 1996, the facility began converting to dry ash management and covering/closing phases
of the facility.
54 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis
Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
ss Ibid.
27

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Soil underlying the site consists of unconsolidated glacial outwash deposits of relatively high
permeability(estimated between 1012 and 10-5 cm/sec). The facility is not only unlined, but was
originally designed to allow sluiced liquids to infiltrate to ground water,with direct discharge to
surface water occurring only occasionally. For much of their life, the basins operated with a
relatively high hydraulic head. In fact, in 1986,the facility began using direct discharge to
reduce the hydraulic head in response to PAL exceedances for sulfate. This combination of
conditions resulted in a ground water mound beneath the ash disposal area. While depth to
ground water at the site is generally approximately 10 feet,the height of the ground water mound
was estimated at 5 to 8 feet, resulting in an estimated effective depth to ground water of only 2 to
5 feet underneath the disposal area.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case:EPA has categorized this case as a proven
damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific-Although the boron standard was not
health-based at the time of the exceedances,the boron levels reported for the facility would have
exceeded the State's recently promulgated health-based ES for boron;and(2)Administrative-
As a result of the various PAL and ES exceedances,the State required a ground water
investigation, and the facility took action to remediate ground water contamination and prevent
further contamination.
16. WEPCO Cedar-Sauk Landfill,Wisconsin56
History: This facility is an abandoned sand and gravel pit that received coal combustion waste
from the WEPCO Port Washington Power Plant from 1969 to 1979. After closure of the facility,
ground water monitoring revealed exceedances of the primary MCL for selenium, the State
standard for boron, and the secondary MCL for sulfate. Vegetative damage resulting from boron
uptake also was observed in a nearby wetland. Presumably,this damage is the result of ground
water migration to the wetland. As a result, the State required installation of relief wells to
confine and remediate the contamination plume and installation of an upgraded cover at the site.
The facility is not only unlined, but was constructed over shallow ground water57 in highly
permeable(10-3 to 10-2 cm/sec) media. Some time after closure,the water table rose, saturating
portions of the ash fill. Furthermore,the original soil cover installed at closure--less than 2 feet
in places--was found to be insufficient. Finally, the site was located in close proximity to a
wetland.
EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion
of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants and analyzed it further in the supplemental
analysis conducted for its 1993 Regulatory Determination58. This case was not counted as a
56 Ibid.
57 Quantitative data on the original depth to ground water are not available,but documentation on the site reports
that the water table was near the base of the original pit.
58 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal
Combustion Waste. U.S.EPA.,July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination
for Fossil Fuel Combustion (Part 1),EPA-HQ-RCRA-1993-0042-1642.
28

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
proven damage case in the 1999 Report to Congress,however, because there was no evidence of
comanagement of low-volume wastes at the site.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven
damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific- Selenium in ground water exceeded the
(health-based)primary MCL, and there was clear evidence of vegetative damage; and (2)
Administrative-The State required remedial action.
17. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (WEPCO)Port Washington Facility,Wisconsin59
History: Originally,the commenters identified this Wisconsin site in a table that alleged fly ash
contaminated several drinking water wells with boron and selenium.Following a preliminary
evaluation by the EPA,this site was initially classified as indeterminate because(i)the
commenters did not identify the source of the information, and(ii)
No quantitative data or further information about this site was available.
In the course of reassessment conducted following the Regulatory Determination,a copy of the
original Water Well Journal article cited by the commenters was obtained from the National
Ground Water Association(NGWA). The article presented instances in which boron and
selenium concentrations exceeded standards in a well located down-gradient of the CCW
disposal site. Contact was established with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources(DNR)
Waste Management Program. The DNR representative reported that the site affects a residential,
private water well supply. He located the well at about 250 feet south of an old quarry that was
filled to 40-60 feet in depth with fly ash from the Wisconsin Electric Power Company. The
power company placed fly ash in the quarry from 1948-1971, so the ash had been there at least
20 years prior to the contamination described by the article.
In lieu of providing up-gradient well monitoring data,the DNR representative stated with
certainty that in his best professional judgment the boron levels reported for the well are not
naturally occurring. He also is confident that the contaminants come from the quarry because of
the proximity to the monitoring well. He added that boron is characteristic of coal ash and that
geologically there is no naturally-occurring source in that area of Wisconsin that would produce
boron levels that high. However,he was not aware that a boron standard existed at the time of
the exceedances. He reiterated that the selenium concentration exceeds the selenium standard
reported in the article. Based on today's standard of 50ug/L,the levels of selenium reported
would not be considered a compliance problem.
Based on the information provided by the State, contamination from this facility appears to have
migrated to off-site private wells. Documentation to confirm this analysis was received in the
form of a laboratory report from the State Laboratory of Hygiene. Samples collected at the John
&Dolly Keating Port Washington Sample Tap Pit(an off-site drinking water well)showed very
high concentrations of boron. Although the State did not have a health-based standard for boron
at the time of the exceedances,the boron levels reported for the facility would have exceeded the
State's recently promulgated health-based enforcement standard for boron. Samples collected
59 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
29

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
also showed elevated selenium concentrations,
but the levels detected would not exceed the
currentma P riMCL.
rY
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Cse:This case is categorized as a proven damage
case based on a scientific observation-The off-site exceedance of a health-based standard for
selenium, caused by the fact that the site is an unlined former sand and gravel quarry and is in
close proximity to drinking water wells.
18. Lansing Board of Water& Light(LBWL)North Lansing Landfill,Michigan60
History: The North Lansing Landfill (NLL), a former gravel quarry pit,was licensed in 1974 for
disposal of inert fill materials including soil,concrete, and brick. From 1980 to 1997,the NLL
was used for disposal of coal ash from the Lansing Board of Water and Light(LBWL)electric
and steam generating plants. The NLL has three disposal areas,two of which were used for coal
ash disposal. Filling of Area I ceased in 1988 and a temporary cover was placed over the ash.
Area III was the active disposal area from 1988 to January 1997. A temporary cover was placed
over Area III in September 1998 and grass was planted on this cover. Area II was not actively
used for disposal, although some ash has washed into this area. Since 1992,Area II has usually
contained standing water from on-and off-site storm water runoff.
Among the damages that commenters alleged existed at this site were down-gradient selenium
and arsenic exceeding their MCLs and down-gradient sulfate greater than"allowable water
quality standards." The commenters also stated that an adjacent municipal well field is
"threatened."
The site owner claimed that sulfate contamination is due to wastes other than fly ash in the
landfill or else is due to off-site sources. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) confirmed in writing that ground water contamination had occurred at this historic
landfill, which was constructed before current State regulations were in place. The site was
eventually closed because the inadequate control of contamination violated current regulatory
requirements. According to the letter,the NLL was forced to take remedial action to address the
contamination.
This site was initially classified as indeterminate because(i)the documents and quantitative data
supporting the alleged damages were not available;(ii) information was needed to positively
identify the source of the contamination; and(iii)more information was needed to describe the
extent of ground water contamination and to establish whether this contamination extends off-
site.
In an effort to reassess this alleged damage case, EPA's contractor contacted MDEQ and found
that this site was in the process of a Remedial Investigation (RI)and Feasibility Study (FS). The
following information is based on the RI Report, published in May 1999 and revised in
December 1999.
60 Ibid.
30

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
There are two aquifers beneath the NLL. The upper aquifer is highly permeable, but is not used
for drinking water. The lower aquifer(the Saginaw),however, supplies the City of Lansing with
drinking water. Fill underlying the ash has lower hydraulic conductivity than the underlying
aquifer, but does not constitute a liner. The underlying fill has settled in places and the water
table has risen, so that lower portions of the ash are now saturated in Areas I and III. The
standing water in Area II has merged with ground water, forming a mound in the.water table.
According to the Lansing Board of Water and Light North Lansing Landfill Remedial
Investigation Report(the RI Report),this mounding effect likely extends laterally into the ash,
thereby increasing the saturated ash thickness, and consequently the volume of ash subject to
leaching in Areas I and III. Because of the rise in the water table,the facility no longer meets the
State's requirement for a 4-foot isolation distance between wastes and ground water. Moreover,
in mid-to late-1993, abrupt increases were observed in sulfate and selenium concentrations in an
on-site monitoring well. As a result,LB WL was required to perform a remedial investigation
and feasibility study. The RI Report concluded that the timing of the increase in contamination
indicated that leachate released from the saturated fly ash was the source of the contamination.
The objectives of the RI included characterization of site conditions, definition of the nature and
extent of ground water impacts,and estimation of future migration. This analysis is complicated
by the presence of other known or potential sources of ground water contamination both up-
gradient and down-gradient of the NLL site. Therefore,the remedial investigation used
statistical comparisons(i.e.,tolerance intervals calculated from up-gradient and background
monitoring data)to delineate ground water impacts from the NLL. Ground water concentrations
were compared to Michigan's Part 201 criteria. The Part 201 standards for ground water identify
contaminant concentrations that are safe for long-term, daily consumption. The investigation's
statistical analysis,modeling results, and conclusions form the basis for the analysis of the NLL
as a damage case.
For a variety of reasons,the RI Report concluded that boron,iron,pH, strontium, selenium,and
sulfate are of little concern. The RI Report concluded that the constituents of the most concern
are lithium,manganese, and potassium. Based on statistical analysis and consideration of site-
specific factors, however,the following cannot be conclusively linked to the NLL: boron, iron,
pH,and sulfate. Of the remaining contaminants of concern:
• Lithium appears to be attributable to the NLL and concentrations are above health-based
standards off-site;
• Manganese contamination on-site appears tobe attributable to the NLL and concentrations are
above non-health based-standards. (Note that off-site concentrations of manganese also are
above non-health-based standards, but do not appear to be attributable to the NLL);
•Potassium appears to be attributable to the NLL,but has no regulatory standard;
• Selenium appears to be attributable to the NLL and concentrations are above health-based
standards on-site, but not off-site;
• Strontium appears, based on statistics,to be attributable to the NLL, but concentrations are
below health based standards.
•
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: This site was classified as a proven damage
case based on a scientific observation of off-site exceedances of the State's health-based standard
31

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
for lithium. The exceedance was caused by the fact that the site is an unlined former gravel
quarry with an elevated ground water table leading to ground water contact.
19. Northern Indiana Public Service Corp. (NIPSCO)Yard 520 Landfill Site(Brown's
Landfill) Township of Pines,Porter County,IN61
History:NIPSCO's Bailly and Michigan City power plants have deposited an estimated 1
million tons of fly ash in the Town of Pines since 1983. Fly ash was buried in the landfill and
used as construction fill in the town. The ash is pervasive on site, visible in roads and
driveways62.
Pines is located near the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, about 2 miles south of Lake
Michigan. This is a region of sand dune ridges which separate low-lying,poorly drained wetland
areas. The soil is very sandy, unconsolidated,highly-acidic,and with a high organic content.
These sands overlie a less permeable clay-rich unit. The ground water flows in a northerly
direction from the Yard 520 landfill toward the town63.
In April 2000,Indiana DEM received a complaint from a Pines resident that water from her
private well tasted foul. IDEM conducted sampling and found residential wells contaminated
with elevated levels of benzene, arsenic, manganese, and VOCs including benzene. In 2001,
• EPA's Superfund program conducted a preliminary assessment and site investigation, and found
elevated levels of MTBE, boron, manganese, and molybdenum. In January 2002, IDEM
recommended the site for EPA's National Priorities List64
Additional site investigations indicate that the Pines Yard 520 Landfill site is the likely source of
contamination of residential water wells, caused by leaching of heavy metals(manganese, boron,
molybdenum, arsenic, lead)from fly ash that was buried in the landfill and used as construction
fill. The presence of elevated levels of contaminants that are not associated with coal ash, such
as volatile organic compounds(VOCs)and MTBE, indicate that there are additional sources of
contamination that are not related to coal ash65
EPA and the responsible parties signed an Administrative Order of Consent effective January
2003 to cover costs of connecting the affected areas to Michigan City's water system (USEPA
2003a). In April 2004, EPA and IDEM negotiated an Administrative Order of Consent with the
61 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
62 Tim Drexler,Remedial Project Manager,telephone communications with Bonnie Robinson,USEPA. June 5,
2003.
63 Final Site Investigation Report on Ground water Contamination,Township of Pines,Porter County,Indiana.
December 2002.
64 EPA Announces Investigation Results at Pines Site(Fact Sheet). January 2003.
65 Final Site Investigation Report on Ground water Contamination,Township of Pines,Porter County,Indiana.
December 2002.
32

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
responsible parties for continued work at the site66. . In January 2004,the Hoosier
Environmental Council,Inc. filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against
NISOURCE,the parent company of NIPSCO(U.S. District Court).
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: This site was classified as a proven damage
case based on(1)Scientific evidence for boron,molybdenum, arsenic and lead exceeding health-
based standards in water wells away from the Pines Yard 520 Landfill site, and (2)
Administrative Orders of consent signed between the EPA and IDEM with responsible parties
for continued work at the site.
20. Brandy Branch Reservoir,Texas67
History: This case was originally identified by a public interest group in a table alleging
selenium and chromium contamination, and a selenium fish consumption advisory6 .
The Brandy Branch Reservoir is a power plant cooling reservoir built in 1983 for Southwestern
Electric Power Company's Pirkey Power Plant.The cooling reservoir received discharges from
ash ponds containing elevated levels of selenium, resulting in increased selenium concentrations
in fish from the reservoir.From 1986 to 1989,the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department reported
that average selenium concentrations in fish from the Brandy Branch Reservoir increased from
0.81 to 2.29ppm69. In 1992,the Texas Department of Health (TDH) issued a fish consumption
advisory for the reservoir70.
The advisory recommended that adults consume no more than eight ounces of fish from the
reservoir per week;children seven years and older-no more than four ounces/week;and
children under six and pregnant women or women who may become pregnant should not
consume any fish from the reservoir. In 1996 and 1997,TDH collected 17 fish from the
reservoir. Selenium concentrations in these fish ranged between 0.46 and 1.79ppm,with an
average concentration of 0.87ppm(ATSDR 1998).
A total maximum daily load (TMDL)project has been initiated by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality(TCEQ)to determine the necessary steps to improve water quality in
Brandy Branch reservoir. The project involved a fish sampling and analysis program and a
•
66 http://www.epa.gov/reeion5/sites/pines/
67 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
68 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding comments on
the May 2000 Regulatory Determination,September 19,2000.
69 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR),1998. Health Consultation:Brandy Branch
Reservoir,Marshall,Harrison County,Texas. September 1998. Available at
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/inarshall/mar toc.html.
70 Texas Bureau of Health(TBH). 1992. Fish Advisory:Brandy Branch Reservoir. May 1992.
33

•
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
human health risk assessment,and was completed in August 200371. Based on its findings,The
Texas Commissioner of Health fish advisory was lifted in March 200472.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case:This case is categorized as a proven
ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1) Observations of impacts on fish
populations were confirmed by scientific study, based on which the State concluded that the
impacts were attributable to the ash ponds; and (2)Administrative-The State issued a fish
consumption advisory as a result of the contamination.
21. Southwestern Electric Power Company Welsh Reservoir,Texas73
History:This Lake was constructed in 1976 to serve as a cooling reservoir for a power plant and
receives discharges from an open ash settling pond system. The Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department's(TPWDs)monitoring program documents elevated levels of selenium and other
metals in fish. In 1992 the Texas Commissioner of Health issued a fish consumption advisory
for selenium similar to the one issued for the Brandy Branch Reservoir described above74. The
TPWD's report concludes that"discharges from the open ash settling ponds may be a source for
the elevated levels of selenium in fish."The Texas Commissioner of Health fish advisory was
lifted in March 200475.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven
ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1)the State concluded that, based on
scientific evidence, selenium accumulation in fish may be attributable to the ash settling ponds;
and(2)Administrative-The State has issued a fish consumption advisory as a result of the
contamination.
22. Texas Utilities Electric Martin Lake Reservoir,Texas76
History: This Lake was constructed in 1974 to serve as a cooling reservoir for a power plant and
was the site of a series of major fish kills in 1978 and 1979. Investigations determined that
unpermitted discharges from ash settling ponds resulted in elevated levels of selenium in the
71 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ).2003.Improving Water Quality in Brandy Branch
Reservoir;One TMDL for Selenium.February 2003.
72 Assessing the Fish Consumption Use,Water Quality in Brandy Branch Reservoir,TCEQ,March 2004.
73 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis
Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
74 http:IIwww.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/water/tmdl/I4-welshreservoir.htntl
75 Assessing the Fish Consumption Use,Water Quality in Welsh Reservoir,TCEQ,March 2004.
76 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis
Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November.29,2000.
34

I
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
water and fish. The State's monitoring program continues to document elevated levels of
selenium and other metals in fish at the Lake. The Texas Commissioner of Health issued a fish
consumption advisory for this Lake similar to the one issued for the Brandy Branch Reservoir
described above in 199277. There also is evidence of elevated selenium concentrations in birds
nesting near the Lake. The Texas Commissioner of Health fish advisory was lifted October 14,
20047 .
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven
ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientifically based evidence of adverse
effects on wildlife- impacts on fish populations were observed, and the State concluded that the
impacts were attributable to the ash setting ponds; and(2)Administrative -The State has issued
a fish consumption advisory as a result of the contamination.
23. Basin Electric Power Cooperative W.J.Neal Station Surface Impoundment,North
Dakota79
History: This site was an unlined, 44-acre surface impoundment that received fly ash and
scrubber sludge from a coal-fired power plant, along with other wastes(including ash from the
combustion of sunflower seed hulls), from the 1950's until the late 1980's. Sampling in 1982
found chromium at 8.15 parts per million in the pond sediment and in excess of the primary
MCL in down-gradient ground water. The State issued a special use disposal permit to allow
disposal to continue, but required a continuation of monitoring and began negotiations for
closure of the site. The facility was closed between 1989 and 1990, when the impoundment
sediments were consolidated to a 22-acre area and capped. Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act(CERCLA),the site underwent a
preliminary assessment(PA) in 1990 and a site inspection(SI)in 1995. The PA found sediments
in a marshy area adjacent to the closed facility with antimony,arsenic, chromium, manganese,
selenium, and sodium elevated above background. The PA also found arsenic in excess of the
primary MCL and aluminum in excess of the secondary MCL in down-gradient ground water.
The SI found arsenic elevated above background in the marsh sediments and in surface water
passing through the wetland. The SI also found cadmium and lead in excess of primary MCLs
and zinc in excess of the secondary MCL in a public water supply well. The SI concluded that
releases had occurred from the surface impoundment to ground water and surface water.
Soils underlying the facility are characterized by one source as relatively permeable (104
cm/sec). Regionally,the surficial aquifer varies in depth from 3 to 25 feet below the surface.
While a precise mapping of the water table at the site is not available,the SI characterizes ground
water beneath the closed,unlined impoundment as"very shallow." Other information in the
literature confirms this and possibly suggests ground water may directly contact the disposed
material, specifically:
• 77 httD://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/water/tmdl/12-martincreekreservoir.html
78 Assessing the Fish Consumption Use,Water Quality in Martin Creek Reservoir,TCEQ,March 2004.
79 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
•
35

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
• Depth to water in the monitoring wells surrounding the facility ranges from 5.5 to 16 feet,
while the depth of the ash.fill is estimated at approximately 10 feet.
• According to the PA, regionally,"many lakes and potholes represent"windows" into the
water table ..."and an on-site pond located directly up-gradient and adjacent to the disposal
area may be"a surface expression of the ground water onsite."
Additionally,the site was operated without any control of surface waters from the impoundment.
A tributary to the marsh and a nearby creek formerly flowed through the ash disposal areas.
Even as late as 1989, surface water ran directly off the site from the surface impoundment dike
into the marsh. This direct discharge was not documented as being permitted under State or
Federal regulations.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven
damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific investigation-Several constituents have
exceeded their(health-based) primary MCLs in down-gradient ground water, and the site
inspection found documentation of releases to ground water and surface water from the site;and
(2)Administrative-The State required closure of the facility.
24. Cooperative Power Association/United Power Coal Creek Station Surface
Impoundments,North Dakotas°
History:This site includes a number of evaporation ponds and ash storage/disposal ponds that
were constructed in 1978 and 1979. The ponds were originally lined but developed severe leaks
in the late 1970's. The ponds are operated as a zero discharge facility. While quantitative data
on the depth to ground water are not available, documentation from the State agency indicates
that the ponds were constructed "directly over and adjacent to"the Weller Slough Aquifer,
suggesting the presence of shallow ground water. Ground water monitoring at the site showed
arsenic in excess of the primary MCL in 1987 and selenium in excess of the primary MCL in
1992 and 1993. Down-gradient monitoring data also have shown sulfate and chloride above
secondary MCLs and elevated levels of boron. In the facility's 1990 permit application,the
State required relining of the ponds with a composite liner.
Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven
damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific evidence-Arsenic and selenium exceeded
(health-based) primary MCLs, and(2)Administrative-The State required remedial action.
S0 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter- •
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis
Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
36

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Potential Coal Combustion Waste
• Damage Cases
•

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
III. Potential Damage Cases
According to 65 FR 32224,"Potential damage cases were those with documented MCL
exceedences that were measured in ground water beneath or close to the waste source. In these
cases,the documented exceedences had not been demonstrated at a sufficient distance from the
waste management unit to indicate that waste constituents had migrated to the extent that they
could cause human health concerns. State regulations typically use a compliance procedure that
relies on measurement at a receptor site or in ground water at a point beyond the waste boundary
(e.g., 150 meters)." In addition, groundwater contamination would be considered as a potential
damage case also where there are documented exceedances of secondary MCLs or other non-
health based standards on-site or off-site.
25. K.R.Rezendes South Main Street Ash Landfill,Freetown,Massachusetts$'
History:This case was originally identified through contacts with State regulators.
This site consists of an ash monofill located in a former sand and gravel quarry located in
Freetown,Massachusetts. The landfill began operation in 1976 and has an area of approximately
35 acres. It was originally approved as a 14-acre monofill by the Freetown Board of Health and
by permit from the MADEP. The Board of Health granted approval for the remaining 21 acres
'in 1990,and approved a request for expansion to within 250 feet of Assonet Bay in 1993. The
final permit for the site was issued by MADEP in 1994.
The site accepted ash from PG&E's Salem Harbor (approximately 250,000 tons/year)and
Brayton Point Plants(approximately 140,000 tons/year). According to PG&E estimates, a total
of 2,500,000 tons of ash have been disposed at the K.R.Rezendes South Main Street Ash
Landfill.
Ground water monitoring at the site has detected levels of selenium above the primary MCL.
Elevated levels of sulfates,total dissolved solids, manganese, iron,and aluminum have also been
detected at the site, although levels are below the relevant secondary MCLs. All of the
monitoring wells at the site are located on-site. There are no down-gradient drinking water
sources,because the landfill is adjacent to a down-gradient water body(Assonet Bay),which is
not used as a drinking water source due to its brackish water.
•
In early 2001,MADEP required modifications to the ground water monitoring program,
including:
• Increase in sampling from annual to semi-annual;
• Semi-annual surface water sampling;
• Evaluation of wells to ensure the wells yield representative samples;
• Installation of additional monitoring wells; and
gt Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
38

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
• Evaluation of ground water discharge to the adjacent Assonet Bay.
Operations at the landfill ended in 2001 as the result of a bylaw passed by the Town of Freetown.
The bylaw bans the disposal of coal combustion wastes within the town. It was appealed by the
landfill operator and PG&E,but upheld by the State Attorney General.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:This case has been categorized as a
potential damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific-Selenium exceeded its primary
MCL in on-site monitoring wells; and(2)Administrative-The State required modification to the
site's ground water monitoring program.
26. New England Power,Brayton Point,Massachusetts82
History:Associated with the largest coal-and oil-powered generating station in New England,
this is one of nine sites managing oil combustion wastes that have ground water contamination
identified for the 1999 Report to Congress. Seven of the nine, including this site, were
documented in EPRI's oil ash report;the two other sites were found in the 1993 Regulatory
Determination and in RCRA Corrective Action records. Most of the nine sites evaluated were
solid settling basins,while one site had a landfill and a second site had a solids disposal pond.At
each of the nine sites,the waste management unit was found to negatively impact ground water
in one of the following ways: (1)at least one constituent was found in down-gradient ground
water monitoring wells above its MCL, but was not present in up-gradient wells above its MCL,
or(2)a constituent exceeded its MCL both up-gradient and down-gradient, but the down-
gradient concentrations were noticeably higher than the up-gradient concentrations.These
constituents most often include manganese and nickel.Other parameters(including arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, selenium, silver,and zinc)exceeded their MCL in down-gradient wells at
only one of the sites.Although vanadium does not have an MCL,the parameter was found in
ground water down-gradient of waste management units.
At several of the sites reviewed,EPA found that the waste management unit very likely
contributes to the contamination of constituents, such as manganese,nickel,and vanadium, into
ground water. Many of these sites are located next to the ocean or other large bodies of water
where such releases can be diluted and no drinking water wells would be located between the
management unit and the surface water.EPA did not find any cases of drinking water
contamination or other environmental damages resulting from these releases. Additionally,most
or all unlined units are operated under state permit allowing exceedances of ground water
standards close to the management unit,but which must be met outside the zone of discharge.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This case has been categorized as a
potential damage case for the following reasons: exceedance of one or more MCL standards
82Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel
Combustion:Potential Damage Cases,March 15, 1999(http://www.epa.Rov/epaoswer/other/fossil/ffc2 397.pdO.
Status of Alleged Damage Cases Submitted by HEC,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy,February,2002. Brayton Point
Administrative Consent Order(ACO-BO-00-2002,undated),Brayton Point Administrative Consent Order
Timetable,August 22,2006.
39

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
down flow from the plant's unlined wastewater treatment basins that does not impact drinking
water wells offsite.
27. AES Creative Resources Weber Ash Disposal Site,New York83
History: Monitoring data at this site from between 1991 and 1998 show levels of sulfate,total
dissolved solids, manganese, iron, aluminum, and pH in down-gradient wells in excess of their
secondary MCLs. There is no information available on the location of these wells relative to the
waste management units.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:The exceedances found at this site: sulfate,
total dissolved solids, manganese, iron, aluminum, and pH,are of non-health-based standards.
Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
28. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation Danskammer Waste Management
Facility,New York84
History:There were exceedances of State non-health-based standards for sulfate, sulfide,total
dissolved solids,turbidity, iron,magnesium,manganese,sodium, boron, and pH attributable to
CCW at the site. It is unclear whether the exceedances of health-based standards were
attributable to CCW.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:The contamination at the site: sulfate,
sulfide,total dissolved solids,turbidity, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium, boron, and pH did
not appear likely to threaten human health or the environment. Therefore,this case was
determined to be a potential damage case.
29. C.R.Huntley Flyash Landfill,New York85
History: There were exceedances of State health-based standards for arsenic and non-health-
based standards for iron, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids at this site's down-
gradient wells. While there also were exceedances in up-gradient wells,there was statistical
evidence of significant increases over up-gradient concentrations for several of these
constituents. In addition,the State regulatory agency and the site contractor identified some of
these constituents as potential indicators of leachate.
83 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
84 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
85 Ibid.
40

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:All of the exceedances were in wells
located on-site, close to the waste management unit. Therefore,this case was determined to be a
potential damage case.
30. Elrama Plant,Pennsylvania86
History:EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the
Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants. It is described in detail in that
document. In the 1988 Report,EPA found concentrations of cadmium in down-gradient wells
above the primary MCL;the highest concentrations were found in the well closest to the landfill.
EPA concluded that coal combustion wastes have been a source of contamination at the site, but
also concluded that exceedances for many contaminants were probably due to concurrent
contamination from acid mine drainage.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While levels of cadmium exceed the
primary MCL,the contamination appears to be at least partially attributable to sources other than
coal combustion wastes. Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
31. Tennessee Valley Authority-Bull Run Steam Plant,Oak Ridge,Tennessee87
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:This case was categorized as a potential
damage case for the following reasons: (1)exceedances of the secondary MCLs for aluminum,
calcium, iron, and sulfate were detected in on-site surface water; (2) a toxicity study indicates the
potential for ecological impacts;and(3)these impacts appear to be directly attributable to CCW
management.
32. Tennessee Valley Authority Widows Creek Fossil Fuel Plant,Alabama88
History: Monitoring data at this site show lead in excess of the primary MCL Action Level. This
exceedance,however,occurred in an on-site well that appears to be opposite the direction of
ground water flow. Still, in a 1993 memorandum,the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management(ADEM) expressed concern with this exceedance and elevated levels of cadmium
and chromium (which did not exceed their primary MCLs) in this well and recommended that
corrective action measures be established.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While.the ADEM has expressed concern
with on-site contamination and recommended that corrective action measures be established,
86 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Compendium of nineteen alleged coal
combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
87 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
88 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
41

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
there is no evidence available of off-site migration of contaminants. Therefore,this case is a
potential damage case.
33. Tennessee Valley Authority Colbert Fossil Fuel Plant,Alabama89
History: Only limited information on this site was available from the commenters. The
commenters' summary of monitoring data shows no exceedances of primacy MCLs in ground
water at the site. The only primary MCL exceedances(for sulfate,chromium and selenium)
• reported by the commenters are found in a well installed within the saturated ash of the surface
impoundment. A 1998 letter from the facility owner to the ADEM, however, does indicate some
exceedances of primary MCLs in on-site wells that the owner proposes to eliminate from its
sampling
i
program. The onlyconstituent identified in this letter is cadmium.m The commenters
P g
report that ADEM believes ground water contamination has resulted from the disposal osal of coal
combustion wastes at this facility. An ADEM geologist also reported to the commenters that the
disposal area has been subject to collapse into a karst sinkhole.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While some primary MCL exceedances(for
sulfate, chromium and selenium) appear to have occurred in on-site wells,there is no evidence
available of off-site migration of contaminants. Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
34. Duke Power Allen Steam Generating Plant,North Carolina90
History:The Allen Plant of Duke Power Company was included in a study of waste disposal at
coal-fired power plants conducted by Arthur D. Little,Inc(ADL) in 1985. ADL conducted
ground water sampling in 18 monitoring wells installed on-site,detecting exceedances of
manganese and iron, both secondary water quality standards.
Contact was made with North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). According to those contacted,the State has only surface water discharge information
for this facility. There is no record of ground water monitoring at the facility,and no indication
that violations or enforcement actions occurred at the facility. A permit check determined that
ground water monitoring at the site is not required by the facility permit. There is no indication
that any ground water samples have been tested since the 1985 study.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: According to the 1985 data,there were
documented exceedances of manganese and iron, non-health-based standards, in wells
downstream from the waste management unit. Therefore,this site is categorized as a potential
damage case.
89 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.TVA Colbert ground water data,undated.
90 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003. Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes
damage cases,May 3,2007.
42

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
35. Cinergy East Bend Scrubber Sludge Landfill,Kentucky91
History: Commenters identified this site in a table that alleged an estimated 300 tons of sulfate
per year is leaking into the Ohio River from this site. This site was initially classified as
indeterminate because the commenters did not identify the source of the information and no
quantitative data or further information about this site was available. •
Subsequently, additional information was obtained through the Kentucky Department of
Environmental Protection(DEP). According to the DEP,there were on-site exceedances of non-
health-based standards for total dissolved solids, iron, and sulfate at this site. The State has taken
regulatory action based on these exceedances.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: Based on the on-site exceedances of non-
health-based standards for total dissolved solids, iron, and sulfate at this site, and subsequent
State regulatory action based on these exceedances,this case is a potential damage case.
36. Florida Power and Light Lansing Smith Plant,Florida92
History:EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993
Regulatory Determination93• As a result of this analysis,EPA rejected this site as a damage case
because there was no evidence that coal combustion wastes were comanaged with low-volume
wastes at this site. A subsequent evaluation of the information for this site indicates that there
were documented exceedances of primary drinking water standards for cadmium,chromium and
fluoride and secondary drinking water standards for sulfate, chloride, manganese and iron in on-
site ground water attributable to CCW.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This site has been reclassified as a
potential damage case Based on documented exceedances of primary drinking water standards
for cadmium, chromium and fluoride and secondary drinking water standards for sulfate,
chloride, manganese and iron in on-site ground water attributable to CCW.
91 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
92 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Status of Alleged Damage Cases
Submitted by HEC,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy,February,2002. Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion
wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
93 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal
Combustion Waste. U.S.EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination
for Fossil Fuel Combustion(Part 1),EPA-HQ-RCRA-I993-0042-1642.
43

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
37. Florida Power and Light Port Everglades Plant,Florida94
History: This is one of nine sites managing oil combustion wastes that have ground water
contamination identified for the 1999 Report to Congress. Seven of the nine, including this site,
were documented in EPRI's oil ash report;the two other sites were found in the 1993 Regulatory
Determination and in RCRA Corrective Action records. Most of the nine sites evaluated were
solid settling basins,while one site had a landfill and a second site had a solids disposal pond.
At each of the nine sites,the waste management unit was found to negatively impact ground
water in one of the following ways: (1) at least one constituent was found in down-gradient
ground water monitoring wells above its MCL,but was not present in up-gradient wells above its
MCL, or(2)a constituent exceeded its MCL both up-gradient and down-gradient, but the down-
gradient concentrations were noticeably higher than the up-gradient concentrations.These
constituents most often include manganese and nickel. Other parameters (including arsenic,
cadmium,chromium, selenium, silver, and zinc) exceeded their MCL in down-gradient wells at
only one of the sites. Although vanadium does not have an MCL,the parameter was found in
ground water down-gradient of waste management units.
At several of the sites reviewed,EPA found that the waste management unit very likely
contributes to the contamination of constituents, such as manganese,nickel, and vanadium, into
ground water. Many of these sites are located next to the ocean or other large bodies of water
where such releases can be diluted and no drinking water wells would be located between the
management unit and the surface water. EPA did not find any cases of drinking water
contamination or other environmental damages resulting from these releases. Additionally, most
or all unlined units are operated under state permit allowing exceedances of ground water
standards close to the management unit, but which must be met outside the zone of discharge.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: This case has been categorized as a
potential damage case for the following reasons: exceedance of one or more MCL standards
down flow from the plant's disposal facility that does not impact drinking water wells offsite.
38. Florida Power and Light Riviera Plant95
See the preceding description for the Port Everglades Plant.
39. Florida Power and Light P.L.Bartow Plant96
See the preceding description for the Port Everglades Plant.
94 Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel
Combustion:Potential Damage Cases,March 15,1999(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fosses/ffc2 397.pd0.
9s Ibid,
96 Ibid.
44

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
40. Commonwealth Edison Powerton Plant-Mahoney Landfill,Pekin,Tazewell County,
Illinois97
History: This case was originally identified during the review of candidate damage cases for the
1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power
Plants. Although it was rejected as a proven damage case in EPA's 1993 Supplemental Analysis
of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal Combustion
Waste(EPA 1993),this case was re-examined in light of EPA's subsequently developed criteria
for categorizing cases as"potential"damage cases.
There were exceedances of primary MCLs for cadmium, lead, and nitrate and secondary MCLs
for iron,manganese, and sulfate in ground water and surface water at the site. The exceedances
of secondary MCLs in ground water appear attributable to management of CCW.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: All the reported exceedances that are
attributable to management of CCW are for constituents with non-health-based standards and are
located in on-site wells. Therefore,this case was categorized as a potential damage case.
41. Xcel Energy/Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency- Sherburne County
(Sherco) Generating Plant Becker,Minnesota98
History:This case was originally identified during the review of candidate damage cases for the
1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power
Plants. Although it was rejected as a proven damage case in EPA's 1993 Supplemental Analysis
of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal Combustion
Waste(EPA 1993),this case was re-examined in light of EPA's subsequently developed criteria
• for categorizing cases as"potential"damage cases.
There were exceedances of primary MCLs for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, lead, and
nitrate and secondary MCLs for chloride,copper, iron, manganese, sulfate,and zinc at the site, at
least some of which appear attributable to management of CCW. While a scientific study
indicated the potential for future increases in contamination,more recent data were not available.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The reported exceedances of both primary
and secondary MCLs were located in on-site wells and the potential for off-site migration of
contamination may be limited. Therefore,this case was categorized as a potential damage case.
97 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
98 Ibid.
45

•
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
42. Alliant Rock River Ash Disposal Facility,Wisconsin99
History: Monitoring data at this site show down-gradient levels of arsenic and mercury that
would exceed the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources(WDNRs) drinking water
enforcement standard (ES) levels (equivalent to primary MCLs). The data also show down-
gradient levels of sulfate and iron that would exceed their ES levels(equivalent to secondary
MCLs for these constituents). According to information provided by WDNR,however,the site
has no down-gradient ES points of standards application due to its proximity to the Rock River
the design management zone of the landfill). Thus,the State considers
(i.e., all wells are within g g )
the preventive action limit(PAL) exceedances, not ES exceedances. The preventive action limit
represents a lesser concentration of the substance than the enforcement standard 100.In 1996, as a
result of the PAL exceedances for sulfate and iron, WDNR required the company to begin
submitting biennial ground water reports evaluating causes and trends relating to the continued
PAL exceedances. Ongoing monitoring at the site includes indicator parameters and iron.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: Whereas the levels of arsenic and mercury
in down-gradient wells exceed health-based enforcement standards,these exceedances are within
the design management zone of the landfill and there is no evidence available of off-site
migration of contaminants. Therefore, this case was determined to be a potential damage case.
43. Michigan City Site,Michigan City,Indiana101
History: EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the
Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants. It is described in detail in that
document. In the 1988 Report,EPA concluded that ash ponds at the site are responsible for
arsenic concentrations above the primary Maximum Contaminant Limit(MCL). EPA also
concluded, however,that effects on ground water appeared to be limited to areas within the
facility boundaries.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While levels of arsenic found on-site
exceed the primary MCL,there was no evidence available of off-site migration of contaminants.
Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
99 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
too The PAL is either 10%,20%,or 50%of the enforcement standard as specified by statute based on the health-
related characteristics of the particular substance.Ten percent is used for cancer-causing substances,20%for
substances with other health effects and 50%for substances having aesthetic or other public-welfare concerns.
101 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Compendium of nineteen alleged coal
combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
46

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
44. Bailly Generating Station,Indiana 102
History:EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the
Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants. The site is identified as the`Bailly
Site,Dune Acres, Indiana"and described in detail in that document. In the 1988 Report,EPA
concluded that leachate from ash disposal ponds was the most probable contributor to
concentrations of arsenic and lead that were found above the primary MCL and primary MCL
Action Level,respectively, in on-site, down-gradient wells. EPA also observed, however,that
cadmium was the only constituent whose down-gradient off-site concentration exceeded the
primary MCL. Elevated cadmium concentrations also were found in samples taken from the
background well, leading EPA to conclude that the elevated down-gradient concentrations of
cadmium may not have been caused by leachate from the coal ash.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While levels of arsenic and lead found on-
site exceed health-based standards,the only off-site exceedances of health-based standards(for
cadmium) are not shown to be attributable to coal combustion waste. Therefore,this case is a
potential damage case.
45. Alliant Edgewater 1-4 Ash Disposal Site,Wisconsin 103
History: Monitoringdata at the site show down-gradient levels of boron that exceed WDNR's
rY J�
health-based ES level104. Additional data shows that private water supply wells have shown ES
exceedances for sulfate and iron(equivalent to secondary MCLs for these contaminants) and
PAL exceedances for chloride. As a result of these exceedances, WDNR required a series of
investigations from 1988 to 1997. The investigations found that cessation of ash sluicing and
capping of the landfill had effectively controlled the contamination of ground water and no
additional remedial actions were required. Ongoing monitoring at the site(including monitoring
of the private wells) includes boron, sulfate, and arsenic. Previous monitoring included
selenium, iron, fluoride, and chloride.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The level of boron found down-gradient
exceeds a health-based standard. It is unclear, however,whether this exceedance is in an off-site
monitoring location. The exceedances found in off-site private wells are for constituents without
health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
102 Ibid.
103 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
104 As of January 1,2000,Wisconsin elevated boron to the status of a human health-related parameter.
47

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
46.' Wisconsin Power Supply Co.(WPSC)Pulliam Ash Disposal Site,Wisconsin'os
History: Monitoring data at this site showed down-gradient levels of sulfate and manganese that
would exceed WDNR's ES levels(equivalent to secondary MCLs for these constituents) and
levels of iron that exceed WDNR's PAL. According to information provided, however,the site
had no down-gradient ES points of standards application (i.e.,all wells are within the design
management zone of the landfill). Thus,the State would consider the sulfate and manganese
exceedances to be PAL,not ES, exceedances. Further review by WDNR found an inadequate
monitoring network at the facility. Therefore, in 1994, WDNR required an investigation of the
ground water contamination and an upgrade of the monitoring network. Ongoing monitoring at
the site includes indicator parameters plus boron, selenium,manganese, and iron.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:The exceedances found at this site,sulfate,
manganese and iron, are within the design management zone of the landfill and are for
constituents without health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
47. Central Illinois Light Co.Duck Creek Station,Illinois'o6
History: Monitoring data at this site from April 1999 showed levels of sulfate,total dissolved
solids, chloride, manganese, and iron in excess of their secondary MCLs. There is no clear
indication of down-gradient wells or whether these wells are on-site or off-site.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site,sulfate,
total dissolved solids,chloride, manganese and iron, are of non-health-based standards.
Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
48. Illinois Power Co.Hennepin Power Station,Illinoislo7
History: Monitoring data at this site from between 1997 and 1999 showed levels of sulfate and
total dissolved solids in down-gradient wells in excess of their secondary MCLs. There is no
information available on the location of these wells relative to the waste management units.
There is no monitoring data for metals at this site.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:The exceedances found at this site, sulfate
and total dissolved solids, are of non-health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a potential
damage case.
105 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
106 Ibid.
107 Ibid. '
48

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
49. Illinois Power Co.Havanna Power Plant,Illinois108
History:Monitoring data at this site between 1997 and 1999 showed levels of manganese down-
gradient of the south ash impoundment in excess of the secondary MCL. The data also show
levels of sulfate down-gradient of the east ash impoundment greater than up-gradient levels,but
within the secondary MCL. There is no information available on the location of the monitoring
wells relative to the waste management units.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site,
manganese and sulfate, are of non-health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a potential
damage case.
50. Dairyland Power Alma On-site Fly Ash Landfill,Wisconsin'o9
History:EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993
Regulatory Determination'I°. This analysis, along with additional information submitted by
commenters, shows down-gradient levels of sulfate and manganese that would exceed WDNR's
ES levels(equivalent to secondary MCLs for these constituents). According to information
provided by WDNR,however,there are no ES points of standards application at the site(i.e., all
wells are within the design management zone of the landfill). Thus,the State considers these
exceedances PAL,not ES exceedances. In 1975, WDNR issued an administrative order as a
result of an inspection that disclosed a number of operational and locational problems at the
facility. Among other things,the order required submission of a closure plan and an in-field
conditions report. The closure plan was approved in 1981 and included ground water
monitoring. In 1986,the Department required the company to install additional monitoring wells
and to monitor seven private water supply wells for two rounds of monitoring. Ongoing
monitoring at the site includes indicator arame e
rs plus manganese and boron.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While the State has taken regulatory action
at this site,the action appears to be based on operational and locational problems,not evidence
of contamination. The exceedances found at the site, sulfate and manganese, are of non-health-
based standards. Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid.
110 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal
Combustion Waste. U.S.EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination
for Fossil Fuel Combustion(Part 1),EPA-HQ-RCRA-1993-0042-1642.
49

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
51. Dairyland Power Alma Off-site Fly Ash Landfill,Wisconsin i i i
History:EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993
Regulatory Determination 12. This analysis, along with additional information submitted by
commenters,shows down-gradient levels of sulfate and manganese that would be in excess of
WDNR's ES levels(equivalent to secondary MCLs for these constituents). The monitoring data
also show levels of boron that exceed WDNR's PAL. According to information provided by
WDNR, however,the sulfate and manganese exceedances were not found at ES points of
application;they were found in an on-site well within the design management zone of the
landfill. Thus,the State considers the exceedances PAL, not ES, exceedances. None of the ES
wells for the site have shown exceedances. Because of the PAL exceedances and a proposal by
the owner to expand the ash disposal area, WDNR required an analysis of the performance of the
existing landfill along with an upgraded liner system and other design improvements for the new
facility on the site. Ongoing monitoring at the site includes indicator parameters plus iron and
boron, although the company has monitored some wells for a list of metals as part of the siting
for the expansion.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While the State has taken regulatory action
at the site,the exceedances found at this site,sulfate and manganese, are within the design
management zone of the landfill and are for constituents without health-based standards.
Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
52. Illinois Power Vermillion Power Station,Illinois113
History: Monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate and total dissolved solids in down-
gradient wells in excess of their secondary MCLs. No monitoring data for metals,trace
elements, or organics were available.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:The exceedances found at this site, sulfate
and total dissolved solids,are of non-health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a potential
damage case.
1 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
112 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal
Combustion Waste. U.S.EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination
for Fossil Fuel Combustion(Part 1),EPA-HQ-RCRA-1993-0042-1642.
13 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
50

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
53. Central Illinois Public Service Company Hutsonville Power Station,Illinois t t4
p Y
History: Monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate,total dissolved solids, and
manganese in excess of their secondary MCLs. These exceedances were in wells that were
presumed by the commenters to be down-gradient. There is no clear indication of down-gradient
wells or whether these wells are on-site or off-site. No monitoring data for metals, trace
elements, or organics were available.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:The exceedances found at this site, sulfate,
total dissolved solids and manganese, are of non-health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a
potential damage case.
54. Illinois Power Company Wood River Power Station,Illinois115
History: Monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate,total dissolved solids,chloride,
manganese, and iron in excess of their secondary MCLs. It is unclear from the information
provided whether these exceedances were observed in wells close to the waste management unit
boundaries or in more distant wells. All of the monitoring wells,however, appear to be within
the property boundary. There is insufficient information to designate wells at this site as up-
gradient or down-gradient.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site, sulfate,
total dissolved solids,chloride, manganese and iron, are of non-health-based standards.
Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
55. R.M. Schahfer Generating Station,INt t6
History:EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993
Regulatory Determination'17, This analysis,along with additional information submitted by
commenters, showed down-gradient levels of sulfate in excess of its secondary MCL. EPA
concluded in the supplemental analysis that other pollutant exceedances at the site appeared to be
outliers or were for up-gradient wells only.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:The sulfate exceedances found at this site
are of non-health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
114 Ibid.
115 Ibid.
116 Ibid.
117 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal
Combustion Waste. U.S.EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination
for Fossil Fuel Combustion(Part 1),EPA-HQ-RCRA-1993-0042-1642.
51

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
56. Coffeen/White&Brewer Trucking Fly Ash Landfill,Illinois)18
History: Monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate,total dissolved solids, and
manganese in down-gradient wells in excess of their secondary MCLs. Two of the three wells
for which the commenters provided data appear to be located directly underneath the landfill
area. A May 18, 1995 memorandum from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency(IEPA)
documents areas of dead or distressed grass on-site, apparently due to ground water seepage.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case:The exceedances found at this site, sulfate,
total dissolved solids and manganese,are of non-health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a
potential damage case. •
57. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company(SIGECO)A.B Brown Generating
Station,Indiana19
History: EPA initially identified this site in the supplemental analysis conducted for its 1993
Regulatory Determination120. This analysis,along with additional information submitted by
commenters, shows down-gradient levels of sulfate,total dissolved solids,chloride, and pH in
excess of their secondary MCLs.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site,sulfate,
total dissolved solids, chloride and pH, are of non-health-based standards. Therefore,this case is
a potential damage case.
58. Cincinnati Gas&Electric Co.Miamiview Landfill,Ohio121
History: Monitoring data at this site from 1994 show levels of sulfate in excess of its secondary
MCL. This exceedance was identified in a well near the boundary of the landfill. An
investigation of the site estimates that the sulfate plume extends to an area approximately 400
feet south of the site 122. No data are available for other constituents for the site.
118 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
119 Ibid.
120 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Large-Volume Coal
Combustion Waste. U.S.EPA. July 30, 1993. Available from the docket for the 1993 Regulatory Determination
for Fossil Fuel Combustion(Part 1),EPA-HQ-RCRA-1993-0042-1642.
121 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
122 Report:Sulfate Investigation,Miamiview Landfill.Hamilton County.Ohio. Prepared for the Cincinnati Gas&
Electric Company by Dames&Moore. December 13, 1994. Available in the docket titled Availability of Report to
Congress on Fossil Fuel Combustion:Request for Comments and Announcement of Public Hearing,EPA-HQ-
RCRA-1999-0022-0632.
52

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The sulfate exceedances found at this site
are of non-health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
59. Indiana Power&Light Petersburg Generating Station,Indianal23
History:Monitoring data at this site showed levels of sulfate and total dissolved solids in down-
gradient wells in excess of their secondary MCLs. There is no information available on the
location of these wells relative to the waste management units.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site, sulfate
and total dissolved solids, are of non-health-based standards. Therefore,this case is a potential
damage case.
60. Hoosier Energy Mermon Generating Station Coal Combustion Waste Landfill,
Indiana124
History: The historical exceedances of health-based standards (primary MCLs for barium,
chromium, cadmium, and lead and secondary MCLs for sulfate and chloride)at this site are
correlated with up-gradient exceedances and occur in on-site wells.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site,primary
MCLs for barium, chromium, cadmium, and lead and secondary MCLs for sulfate and chloride,
are all confined to on-site wells. . Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
61. Cinergy W.C. Beckjord Station, Ohio125
History: There were exceedances of non-health-based standards (secondary MCL for sulfate)and
a single exceedance of a health-based standard (primary MCL for selenium) at this site. There
was no evidence available of off-site migration.A public water supply well within the property
boundary was shut down and can no longer be used as a drinking water supply as a direct or
indirect result of the contamination due to exceedance of sulfate.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While a public water supply well within the
property boundary was shut down,the contaminant of concern(sulfate) in the water supply well
does not have a health-based standard. Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
123
Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
124 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
125 Ibid.
53

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
62. Lemberger Landfill,Wisconsin 126
History: The 21-acre Lemberger Landfill, Inc.site is located in Manitowoc County. The
Township of Franklin used the site, an old gravel pit, as an open dump from 1940 to 1970.
Lemberger Landfill, Inc. operated the site as a sanitary landfill under a license from the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources(WDNR) from 1969 to 1976. From 1976 to 1977,
the Wettencamp and Brunner Excavating Company transported fly ash from Manitowoc Public
Utilities to the Lemberger facility. An estimated 1,750 to 2,500 cubic yards of fly ash were
disposed of monthly.Past WDNR inspections showed that Lemberger used fly ash and bottom
ash as cover, instead of burying them along with the refuse.
Damages at the site include the seepage of landfill leachate onto adjacent property. Ground
water at the site is contaminated with volatile organic compound(VOC) and inorganic
constituents including arsenic, barium,chromium, cadmium, and lead. VOCs were present in
residential wells in the vicinity of the site, according to monitoring conducted by the State in
1984 and 1985; and a river near the site also is impacted by VOCs,cadmium and lead. A group
of potentially responsible parties(PRPs)entered into a consent decree(CD)with U.S. EPA in
1992 to perform design and remedy implementation activities. Construction was completed in
September 1996. The five-year review of September 2000 identified that the groundwater
extraction system was not capturing the entire contaminant plume. In order to correct this
problem,modifications to the groundwater extraction system were constructed in winter 2001.
On June 15, 2006, U.S.EPA and WDNR approved the PRP's workplan for the monitored natural
attenuation pilot study and gave approval to shut down the groundwater pump and treat system.
The pump and treat system was shut down on August 1, 2006 127.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: Because the available documentation does
not clearly implicate, or rule out,coal combustion waste as a source of the contamination,this
case is a potential damage case.
63. Conesville Fixed FGD Sludge Landfill,Ohio128
History:EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the
Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants. Ground water monitoring data are
described in detail in the report.
126 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Additional Information Regarding Fossil Fuel
Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Review of
Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
127 ttp://www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/wisconsiu/WID980901243.htm
128 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Compendium of nineteen alleged coal
combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
54

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Thirty-four monitoring wells were installed(two up-gradient)to monitor the effectiveness of a
Poz-O-Tec fixation process(fluidized gas desulfurization(FGD) sludge mixed with fly ash and
lime)to stabilize and thus immobilize potential contaminants. The stabilized FGD sludge was
deposited next to the fly ash pond.
Two sets of samples were collected, one between February 27 and April 12; 1979 and the other
between December 4, 1979 and July 10, 1980. Samples from the first set of data contained lead
concentrations which exceeded the primary drinking water standard (PDWS) in two on-site wells
and three off-site wells. Samples from on-site wells in the first set of data also showed increases
above background levels in the secondary drinking water standards(SDWS) of calcium, •
magnesium,total dissolved solids(TDS),sulfate and iron.
In the second set of data, samples from on-site wells showed increases in calcium,magnesium,
TDS and sulfate relative to the first set of data. Exceedances of the PDWS for arsenic,cadmium,
chromium and selenium were found in on-site wells and exceedances of the PDWS for
chromium were found in off-site wells. Lead was not detected in any of the second set of
samples. •
Elevated levels of selenium were detected in up-gradient wells in both the first and second sets of
samples suggesting that selenium is originating from indigenous sediments rather than coal
combustion wastes. The only constituents that appeared to be migrating off-site were lead in the
first set of sampling and chromium in the second•set of sampling.
Based on data collected,there appeared to be a temporal change in ground water quality at this
site, and potential adverse impacts from constituents migrating off-site appeared to be limited.
While the data indicated that lead and chromium appeared to be migrating off-site,EPA rejected
this site as a damage case due to apparent limited potential adverse impacts. Subsequent to the
March 2000 Regulatory Determination,this site was reevaluated and rejected as a damage case
because there was no evidence that coal combustion wastes were comanaged with low-volume
wastes at this site so the site was not covered by that Regulatory Determination129. Since then,
the Agency has learned that the site receives various types of coal combustion wastes, including
fly ash, and is covered by the March 2000 Regulatory Determination.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: Based on the on-site ground water
contamination of the cited secondary drinking water standards(calcium,magnesium,total
dissolved solids, sulfate and iron),and of primary drinking water standards (arsenic,cadmium,
chromium and selenium)and the limited potential for the off-site migration of contaminants,this
site has been reclassified as a potential damage case.
129 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
55

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
64. Muscatine County Landfill,Iowa13o
History: It is not clear, based on the available data, if the currently active facility was constructed
on the same site as the older, closed landfill. However,the issue of whether or not the sites are
the same does not affect the analysis here,because the available data for the active site do not
cover the constituents of concern(sulfate and selenium)for the older site. Further research is
unlikely to find any additional information about the old facility. Therefore, conclusions about
this site are based on the limited historical data.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances of non-health-based
standards (secondary MCL for sulfate)and possibly a single health-based standard (primary
MCL for selenium) at this site are in wells located on-site, close to the waste management unit.
Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
65. Dave Johnston Power Plant,Wyoming131
History: Exceedances of the primary MCL for cadmium and the secondary MCLs for manganese
and sulfate were observed in ground water up-gradient and down-gradient of the site.
Interpretations of sampling results were difficult to make because other potential sources of
contamination exist, such as other waste disposal areas at the site;contaminants naturally
occurring in the soil which is highly mineralized around the Johnston site; and uncertainties with
regard to what degree leachate from the two landfills had reached the down-gradient wells.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: Whereas exceedances of the primary MCL
(cadmium) and the secondary MCLs (manganese and sulfate)were observed in ground water
down-gradient of the site,the natural occurrence of mineralization products in the local soils and
possible and other potential sources of contamination Therefore,this case is a potential damage
case.
66. Montana-Dakota Utilities R.M.Heskett Station,North Dakota132
History: Monitoring data at this site from 1998 show levels of sulfate and boron immediately
down-gradient of an old ash pile in excess of the secondary MCL. According to the NDDOH,
the State required the company"...to install ground water monitoring wells and implement a
closure plan. Since that time,the site has been effectively closed and is currently revegetated
130 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
131 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
132 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
56

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
with a good stand of growth. The ground water monitoring data indicate that impact to ground
water has been reduced since closure of the site133 "
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: While the State has taken regulatory action
at this site,the sulfate and boron exceedances found are of non-health-based standards.
Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
67. Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla Steam Electric Generating Station,Arizona 134
History: Monitoring data at this site show levels of sulfate,total dissolved solids, chloride, and
fluoride in excess of their secondary MCLs. These exceedances are found in a well located
directly at the foot of the fly ash pond. The affected aquifer has"naturally poor water quality,"
but no background or up-gradient data are available. The commenters use a comparison to
distant alluvial ground water to implicate pond leachate as a source of contamination. The
commenters also allege that construction of the waste management units has caused naturally
poor quality water from upper aquifers to contaminate the pristine lower aquifer, regardless of
leachate contamination.
Basis for Consideration as a Potential Damage Case: The exceedances found at this site, sulfate,
total dissolved solids, chloride and fluoride, are of non-health-based standards and are in a well
directly at the foot of a waste management unit. Therefore,this case is a potential damage case.
133 Attachment B to the letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to Dennis Ruddy regarding damage case
sites,November 11, 1999,Document Ill#EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0022-1235 in the docket titled Comments In
Response To The April 28,1999 Federal Register: Availability Of Report To Congress On Fossil Fuel Combustion;
Request For Comments And Announcement Of Public Hearing,Attachment B:Report On R.M.Heskett Station.
The Report On R.M.Heskett Station is accessible at:
http://www.heoveb.org/Programsandlnitatives/CCW/heskettpdf
134 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
57

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
Rejected Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Cases
(Excluding Minef ls)

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9, 2007
IV. Rejected Damage Cases
The following alleged damage cases were rejected due to either(1) lack of any evidence of
damage or(2) lack of evidence that damages were uniquely associated with CCW.
68. American Coal Corporation #5 Landfill135
No information available
69. Cardinal PFBC Monofill136
According to Ohio EPA representatives,the Cardinal PFBC Monofill is used for the disposal of
bed ash from the Ohio Power Cardinal Power Plant. The monofill was constructed on top of the
closed Fly Ash Reservoir I Impoundment. The State has ground water monitoring data for the
site,but the representatives could not confirm the presence of any suspected impacts. The data
do not show any exceedences of primary or secondary MCLs. Furthermore, according to the
State's hydrogeologists, interpretation of the data is occluded by mining impacts in the area.
There are no exceedences of primary or secondary MCLs at this site. Therefore,this site is
categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to human
health or the environment.
70. Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment137
According to Ohio EPA representatives,the Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment is used
for the disposal of fly ash from the Ohio Power Cardinal Power Plant. The State has ground
water monitoring data for the site, but the representatives could not confirm the presence of any
suspected impacts. The data do not show any exceedences of primary or secondary MCLs.
Furthermore, according to the State's hydrogeologists, interpretation of the data is occluded by
mining impacts in the area. There are no exceedences of primary or secondary MCLs at this site.
Therefore,this site is categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential
damage to human health or the environment.
135 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Revised Identification of New Candidate Damage Cases,
December 7,2001.
136 Ibid. •
137 Ibid.
59

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007.
71. Clinch River,Virginia138
EPA identified this site in its original 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion
of Fossil Fuels by Electric Utility Power Plants. It is described in detail in that document. EPA
concluded that this site represented a proven damage case for purposes of the 1993 Regulatory
Determination. In conducting its analysis for the 1999 Report to Congress, however,EPA
concluded that there was no evidence of comanagement at this site. EPA therefore rejected this
site as a damage case for purposes of the 1999 Report to Congress.139
72. Copicut Road'4o
Monitoring results do not document any exceedances of federal or state standards(Ruddy 2001),
except for pH. The ground water pH was below(more acidic than) its minimum secondary MCL
both prior to and during placement(PG&E undated). Because acidic ground water was present
prior to ash placement,this exceedance cannot be attributed to ash placement. Monitoring data
for the site reveal no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs attributable to coal combustion
waste placement at the site. Therefore,this case is categorized as a case without documented
evidence of proven or potential damage to human health or the environment.r4'
73. Dixie Caverns County Landfill,Virginia142
Dixie Caverns Landfill was operated by Roanoke County, Virginia,as a disposal site for
municipal refuse, solvents, and fly ash. When the landfill was closed in 1976, it was not capped
and an intermittent stream on the site flowed through a large drum pile and the fly ash pile and
emptied into the Roanoke River,approximately two miles southeast of the landfill.There was
also a sludge disposal pit on site. The contaminants identified on site include lead,cadmium,
zinc, silver, iron, benzene, substituted benzene, chlorinated ethane, and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). Based on review of the materials provided by the commenters, it is
apparent that the fly ash disposed at the site is emission control dust from an electric arc furnace,
138 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council to the RCRA Docket Information Center regarding the CCW
RTC,June 11, 1999,Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council and the Citizens Coal Council to the RCRA
Docket Information Center regarding the CCW RTC,June 14, 1999 and Letter from the Hoosier Environmental
Council,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC,September 24, 1999.
139 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000. Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis
Ruddy regarding Review of Causative Factors for Coal Combustion Waste Damage Cases,November 29,2000.
140 Letter from HEC,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy,February,2002.
141 Compendium of nineteen alleged coal combustion wastes damage cases,May 3,2007.
142 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council and the Citizens Coal Council to the RCRA Docket Information
Center regarding the CCW RTC,June 14, 1999 and Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council,et.al.,to
Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC,September 24, 1999.
60

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
not fossil fuel combustion waste. This site did not receive fossil fuel combustion waste and
therefore is not applicable.143
74. Gavin Impoundments'
44
According to Ohio EPA representatives,the Gavin Plant ash ponds are used for the disposal of
ash from the Ohio Power Gavin Plant. The fly ash pond is no longer receiving ash, but has not
yet been closed. The facility has not conducted ground water monitoring, but has submitted a
ground water monitoring plan and will be required to monitor as part of their closure activities
for the fly ash pond. The bottom ash pond is still receiving wastes. There is no ground water
monitoring for the bottom ash pond. The representatives could not confirm the presence of any
suspected impacts and the State has not undertaken any regulatory action at the site. There is no
evidence of damage at this site. Therefore,this site is categorized as a case without documented
evidence of proven or potential damage to human health or the environment.
75. Kyger Creek Power Plant Impoundments145
According to Ohio EPA representatives,the Kyger Creek Plant surface impoundments are used
for the disposal of ash from the Ohio Valley Electric Kyger Creek Power Plant. Bottom ash is
disposed of in the bottom ash pond, although most of the facility's bottom ash is used by Black
Beauty, an on-site company which sells products containing bottom ash. While there is no
ground water monitoring around the bottom ash pond, Ohio EPA staff are unaware of any issues
related to this pond.
76. Lake Erie,Ohio146
Commenters provided a study of trace element concentrations in sediments, surface water,and
biota in proximity to an ash disposal basin along the shore of Lake Erie. The study noted that
sediment concentrations in the proximity of the basin had the potential for adverse effects on
benthos (oligochatetes) and fish in early life stages. In addition, the study observed changes in
fish behavior(e.g., possibly due to avoidance)near the basins. The study findings,however, do
not conclusively implicate coal combustion waste as the source of the observed behavioral
changes. There is insufficient evidence to confirm that fossil fuel combustion wastes are the
source of contamination in this case.
143 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
144 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Revised Identification of New Candidate Damage Cases,
December 7,2001.
145 Ibid. •
146 Memorandum from SA1C to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
61

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
77. Muskingum River Power Plant Impoundments147
According to Ohio EPA representatives,the Ohio Power Muskingum River Power Plant disposes
of bottom ash in ponds located next to the plant. The representatives confirmed that there are no
monitoring wells at the site. They indicated, however, that elevated levels of iron and
manganese have been detected in facility production wells. These observations have led the
State's hydrogeologists to suspect that there might be some impacts from the bottom ash ponds.
The representatives, however, stated that the levels of iron and manganese detected are below the
relevant secondary MCLs. Because there are no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs at
this site,the evidence is not sufficient to categorize this case as a proven or potential damage
case under EPA's definitions. Therefore,this site is categorized as a case without documented
evidence of proven or potential damage to human health or the environment.
The fly ash pond originally consisted of two ponds in series. One of the ponds has recently been
closed and capped, while the other continues to accept waste. At the time that the fly ash pond
was closed,the facility installed ground water monitoring wells around the perimeter of the
entire fly ash disposal area and five years of monitoring data now are available. According to the
Ohio EPA representatives, monitoring has detected some statistically"out of range"values for
iron, manganese, and TDS. These observations have led the State's hydrogeologists to suspect
that there might be some impacts from the fly ash ponds. The representatives, however, stated
that the levels detected are below the relevant secondary MCLs. Because there are no
exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs at this site,the evidence is not sufficient to
categorize this case as a proven or potential damage case under EPA's definitions. Therefore,
this site is categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to
human health or the environment.
78. Muskogee Environmental Fly Ash Disposal Site,Oklahoma148
Commenters provided a printout from the Superfund Archive identifying this site as a Superfund
site. The information provided,however,does not identify the constituents of concern,the
reason for inclusion of this site in the Superfund database, or otherwise indicate that any
contamination at this site is associated with fossil fuel combustion wastes. There is insufficient
information available to identify the extent and nature of damages present and attribute them to
fossil fuel combustion wastes.149
147 Ibid.
148 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC,September
24, 1999.
149 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
62

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
79. Public Service Co Fly Ash Disposal Site,Oklahoma15°
Commenters provided a printout from the Superfund Archive identifying this site as a Superfund
site. The information provided,however, does not identify the constituents of concern,the
reason for inclusion of this site in the Superfund database, or otherwise indicate that any
contamination at this site is associated with fossil fuel combustion wastes. There is insufficient
information available to identify the extent and nature of damages present and attribute them to
fossil fuel combustion wastes.1 1
80. Star Coal Company#6 Landfill152
No information available
81. Star Coal Company#14 Landfill
153
No information available
82. Stuart Station Impoundments154
According to Ohio EPA representatives,the Stuart Station ash ponds are used for the disposal of
ash from the Dayton Power&Light Stuart Station. The State has ground water monitoring data
for wells near the ash ponds and older data from facility production wells. According to the
State's hydrogeologists,the facility relocated their production wellfield due to ground water
quality impacts of"undetermined origin." The monitoring data also show a statistical increase
over background concentrations. The specific constituents showing increases were not
identified, but there are no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs at the site,according to
the Ohio EPA representatives. The State's hydrogeologists also indicated that the impacts
observed may be either from the ash ponds or from coal piles located in the area. Because there
are no exceedances of primary or secondary MCLs at this site,the evidence is not sufficient to
categorize this case as a proven or potential damage case under EPA's definitions. Therefore,
this site is categorized as a case without documented evidence of proven or potential damage to
human health or the environment.
150 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC,September
24, 1999.
151 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
152 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Revised Identification of New Candidate Damage Cases,
December 7,2001.
153 Ibid.
Isa Ibid.
63

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
83. Thompson Landfill,Michigan 155
This site is an abandoned landfill. Commenters cited a MDEQ study that allegedly shows
arsenic greater than Michigan"cleanup criteria"attributable to the landfill. This document and
quantitative data supporting the alleged damages were not available. Recent information from
the MDEQ, however, confirms that ground water contamination is present and that the site is
being remediated. There is no information on whether wastes other than coal combustion wastes
might be present that could contribute to the contamination. There is no information on whether
the alleged contamination extends off-site. There is insufficient information available to identify
the extent of ground water contamination, or to positively identify the source of the
contamination.'56
84. Turns Coal Company Elkhart Mine,Illinois157
This site is an underground mine that disposes of coal processing waste and coal combustion
waste in a diked surface lagoon. Commenters provided monitoring data showing exceedances of
the secondary MCLs for sulfate, chloride,and total dissolved solids in a single well at the site.
The data for this well also show an increase in these concentrations since the placement of coal
combustion waste began. The other wells at the site do not show similar exceedances or trends.
There is no quantitative data on the presence of other constituents at the site. There is
insufficient data on hydrogeology at the site,the location of coal combustion waste placement at
the site, or on activities other than coal combustion waste placement at the site to conclude that
the impacts identified are due to coal combustion waste placement. Although there is some
quantitative evidence of contamination,the available data are limited to a small number of
constituents. There also is insufficient information to identify the extent of the contamination or
confirm the source of the contamination.158
85. Western Farmers Electrical Fly Ash Site,Oklahoma159
Commenters provided a printout from the Superfund Archive identifying this site as a Superfund
site. The information provided, however, does not identify the constituents of concern,the
reason for inclusion of this site in the Superfund database, or otherwise indicate that any
155 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC,September
24, 1999.
156 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
157 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter-
Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases,April 20,2000.
158 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
159 Letter from the Hoosier Environmental Council,et.al.,to Dennis Ruddy regarding the CCW RTC,September
24, 1999.
64

Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments July 9,2007
contamination at this site is associated with fossil fuel combustion wastes. There is insufficient
information available to identify6the extent and nature of damages present and attribute them to
fossil fuel combustion wastes."4)
•
•
160 Memorandum from SAIC to Dennis Ruddy regarding Final Revised Report on Resolution of 18 Previously
Indeterminate Candidate Damage Cases,March 5,2003.
65

RECEIVEDIDENRIDWR
NOV 27 2018
Water Resources
Permitting Section
Attachment 3
Largest U.S. Coal Ash Pond to Close, But Future Rules
Still Undecided
National Geographic News, Rachel Cernansky
August 10, 2012

Largest U.S.Coal Ash Pond Little Blue to Close,But Future Rules Still Undecided
V
Largest U.S. Coal Ash Pond to Close, But Future Rules Still
Undecided
By Rachel Cernansky, For National Geographic News
PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/08/120809-little-blue-run-coal-ash-pond-to-close/[11/15/2016 1:55:32 PM]

Largest U.S.Coal Ash Pond Little Blue to Close,But Future Rules Still Undecided
f
r i.
:Jr
4.
ilia
�•
VIA4 ' ` is i �w' 1. ,L_
�a •
4 -�;� is i *k w. , M, •4.
c.3' - �L:.:�}t .- I # min . / I y �" s • i, .,
fyq E
•
. ;.4 '' `• ; - a .
d !
t •
6-
' •
• `jr -a .; A .moo`�. -, ..
J.
e
se
% NI.' al
,,,r .f • irk a 4
4 1 n , • z' 4
A r• .) ^ ' -
Little Blue Run coal ash pond stands out vividly beneath the Ohio River in this 2002 image from space.The site
faces shutdown, but the U.S. government is stymied on whether coal ash (seen in the inset photo below)should
be deemed hazardous waste.
PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY NASA
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/08/120809-little-blue-run-coal-ash-pond-to-close/[11/15/2016 1:56:24 PM]

Largest U.S.Coal Ash Pond Little Blue to Close,But Future Rules Still Undecided
RTESY NASA
Neighbors recall promises that the eerie azure lake known as "Little Blue"would be made into a
recreational jewel, complete with swimming, bike trails, and sailboats.
But the sprawling pond, its blue somewhat faded in recent years, delivered more blight than benefits
to its rural surroundings near the West Virginia border in southwestern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
officials now have initiated shutdown of the facility south of the Ohio River, one of the largest U.S.
impoundments for waste ash from coal power plants.
(Related Quiz: "What You Don't Know About Electricity")
Little Blue Run's operator, FirstEnergy, an electricity company based in Akron, Ohio, agreed to
develop a plan to shut down the facility in a consent decree filed July 27 in federal court. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) characterized its agreement with
FirstEnergy as a proactive move, to ensure the site "will not create an imminent and substantial
endangerment to health or the environment." But for years, neighbors have complained about the
site's impact on land, air, and water, detailing the site history and their woes, for example, at a 2010
federal hearing on whether the U.S. government should step in and regulate coal ash as a hazardous
waste.
Environmentalists praised the plan to shut down the 1,700-acre (688-hectare) Little Blue Run,
saying it was the first time a regulatory agency has taken such aggressive action on a coal ash pond.
But the larger question of how the United States will address coal ash—at 140 million tons a year,
one of the nation's largest waste streams—is still unanswered. Nearly four years since a dam
collapse in Kingston, Tennessee, spilled 1.1 billion gallons (4 billion liters) of coal ash sludge into the
Emory and Clinch rivers and the surrounding environment, regulations are stalled at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA).
(Related: "Giant Toxic Coal Ash Spill in Tennessee")
"Little Blue is one of hundreds and hundreds of sites like this throughout the country," said Lisa
Widawsky Hallowell, a lawyer with the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) in
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/08/120809t1ittle-blue-run-coal-ash-pond-to-close/[11/15/2016 1:43:05 PM]

,argest U.S.Coal Ash Pond Little Blue to Close,But Future Rules Still Undecided
. Washington, D.C.
Combustion Residue
Coal, which for years provided half the electricity in the United States, doesn't disappear entirely up
the smokestack when it is burned at a power plant. While U.S. reliance on coal is decreasing in favor
of now-cheaper natural gas, there is still the issue of the leftover "combustion residuals" and ash.
Environmentalists have been warning for decades about the hazard of coal ash landfills and
impoundments.After years of putting off action, the EPA finally drafted a regulatory proposal in the
wake of the Kingston spill. The agency agreed that coal ash contains low concentrations of a range of
metals that raise health and environmental concerns, such as arsenic, selenium, cadmium, lead,
and mercury. Without proper protections, these contaminants can leach into water.
(Related: "The High Cost of Cheap Coal")
When the Little Blue Run impoundment opened in 1974, it had no liner to contain the coal ash.The
Pennsylvania DEP noted in its court filing that monitoring at the site indicated that groundwater
degradation "is or may be occurring" due to leaching from the pond. The toxin arsenic and
contaminants such as sulfates and chlorides were found in groundwater near the impoundment—a
serious concern,because nearby households rely on private wells for drinking water.
(The pond's sometime iridescent blue color, markedly different from the earthy hue of the nearby
Ohio River, is a matter of some dispute. NASA, which captured the contrast from the International
Space Station in 2002, attributed it to "materials suspended in the water." FirstEnergy spokesman
Mark Durbin said in a phone interview that the color was due to "background calcium sulfite"in the
water and the action of light reflection and refraction at the particular water depth. In any case,he
says, as years have passed, the bright blue has diminished to whitish or gray.)
Over the years, state regulators have dealt with leaks as they occurred, and have strengthened some
requirements; for instance, current Pennsylvania regulations prohibit construction of new,unlined
residual waste impoundments.
But the U.S. government has been stymied on the question of whether coal ash should be regulated
as a hazardous waste.The EPA has worked over the years with industry to promote so-called
"beneficial uses" of coal ash, for example, as a binder in concrete or bricks. Opponents of the
hazardous waste designation say it would discourage such recycling, which would reduce the need
http://news.nationalgeographic.corn/news/energy/2012/08/120809-little-blue-run-coal-ash-pond-to-close/[11/15/2016 1:43:05 PM]

Largest U.S.Coal Ash Pond Little Blue to Close,But Future Rules Still Undecided
for landfills and waste ponds.
(Related: "Seeking a Safer Future for Electricity's Coal Ash Waste")
The EPA is weighing two proposed alternatives. One would establish mandatory federal regulations
and phase out surface impoundments—the type of storage pond at Little Blue Run in Pennsylvania
and at the Tennessee Valley Authority site that collapsed at Kingston in 2008. The second approach
would be to classify coal ash as nonhazardous, and leave enforcement to the states.
When asked why a decision still had not been made 26 months after the EPA first published its two
approaches, an agency spokesperson noted the large amount of public response. "We are reviewing
the more than 450,00o comments received on the proposed rule and will finalize the rule pending a
full evaluation of all the information and comments,"the spokesperson said.
The EIP and ten other environmental groups sued the EPA this past spring, seeking court
intervention to force the agency to act.
Aquatic Impact
Dennis Lemly, a research biologist with the U.S. Forest Service who has spent decades studying the
impacts of coal ash on fish, thinks that the issue has been an easy one for regulators to put off; he
said contamination and its impacts often go unnoticed until it's too late. "Unless massive toxicity
occurs, no one looks for it or documents a problem," he said.
Lemly focused much of his research on one such case, a massive discharge of coal ash into North
Carolina's Belews Lake (pronounced locally as "blues") in the 1970s. Selenium levels in the lake
skyrocketed, and fish were found with misshapen jaws,visibly curved spines and eyes protruding
from the body as though they were ears. Parent fish accumulated selenium in their bodies and
passed it into their eggs.
Due to this bioaccumulation, says Lemly, adults could swim around with selenium levels exceeding
5,000 times the original water concentration and look perfectly normal. But after eggs hatched,
selenium caused tissues and bones to deform in the developing young fish. Once that happens, they
do not usually make it very long.The pollution ultimately killed off 19 of the 20 species that lived in
the lake.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/08/120809-little-blue-run-coal-ash-pond-to-close/[11/15/2016 1:43:05 PM]

Largest U.S.Coal Ash Pond Little Blue to Close,But Future Rules Still Undecided
Lemly laments that, despite the evidence,little has been done to eliminate or minimize known risks
to aquatic life. His concerns are the focus of a paper he coauthored for an upcoming issue of the
journal Environmental Science and Technology.
Jim Roewer, executive director of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, which represents the
power industry on the coal ash issue, acknowledged the damage that occurred in Belews Lake, but
said it was an extreme example with no parallel today. He said he disagrees with the contention that
substances in coal ash leach into the environment.
"Coal ash doesn't have that kind of a characteristic. It generally doesn't go anywhere if proper
procedures are put in place,"he said.The utility group opposes regulation of coal ash as a hazardous
waste, and has supported the alternative of leaving regulation to the states.
One important focus of coal ash research currently under way is whether coal ash contamination is
affecting aquatic systems, even absent a major spill. There's no question that a catastrophic collapse
like the one at Kingston has a lingering impact.Avner Vengosh, a Duke University geochemistry
professor,was one of a team of researchers who conducted an i8-month sury_e_y after the spill in
Tennessee.The researchers found that,while surface waters were recovering quicker than many
expected, arsenic levels of up to 2,000 parts per billion had accumulated in the pore water-water
trapped within river-bottom sediment-of downstream rivers.The EPA's limit to protect aquatic life
is 150 parts per billion.
Vengosh's team is now studying the day-to-day impact of the coal ash waste sites on North Carolina's
waterways,where there has not been a headline-grabbing impoundment failure. He says the
research, which is still under way, is finding elevated levels of arsenic, selenium, and boron similar
to those seen in Tennessee 18 months after the 2008 spill.
"The local environmental agencies, they know about it, it's not like a pirate discharge,"he said.
"Because coal ash is not defined by the EPA as a hazardous waste, there's not any regulation for
effluent generated from coal ash."
According to EIP, groundwater or surface water has been identified as contaminated in at least 157
coal ash disposal sites nationwide.
"Regulatory agencies have not heeded the lessons from 45 years of wildlife poisoning," said Lemly.
"One of these days, Belews Lake may pale in comparison to some of the other damage cases that are
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/08/120809-little-blue-run-coal-ash-pond-to-close/[11/15/2016 1:43:05 PM]

Largest U.S.Coal Ash Pond Little Blue to Close,But Future Rules Still Undecided
ongoing."
This story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy
Challenge.
http://news.nationslgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/08/120809-little-blue-run-coal-ash-pond-to-close/[11/15/2016 1:43:05 PM]

Attachment 4
Coal Ash - The toxic threat to our health and environment
A Report from Physicians for Social Responsibility
and Earthjustice
September 2010

„.70
•I ol
aAsh The toxic threat to our
health and environment
A REPORT FROM PHYSICIANS
FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND EARTHJUSTICE
t a .
L
-4011111166„ert,
By
Barbara Gottlieb with
Steven G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT
and Lisa Gollin Evans

Coal Ash
The toxic threat to our
health and environment
A REPORT FROM
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND
EARTHJUSTICE
By
Barbara Gottlieb with
Steven G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT
and Lisa Gollin Evans

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to Tim K.Takaro, MD, MPH, MS; Roberta Richardson,
MD; and Molly Rauch, MPH for their careful reading of the text; to Rebecca Abelman for
research support and copy editing; and to Jared Saylor for editing.
Cover Art: David Stuart
ABOUT EARTHJUSTICE
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent
places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth,and to defending the right of all
people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and
strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and
communities. We've provided legal representation at no cost to more than 700 clients. For
more information, visit www.earthjustice.org.
ABOUT PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
PSR has a long and respected history of physician-led activism to protect the public's
health. Founded in 1961 by physicians concerned about the impact of nuclear proliferation,
PSR shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize with International Physicians for the Prevention
of Nuclear War for building public pressure to end the nuclear arms race.Today, PSR's
members, staff,and state and local chapters form a nationwide network of key contacts
and trained medical spokespeople who can effectively target threats to global survival.
Since 1991, when PSR formally expanded its work by creating its environment and health
program, PSR has addressed the issues of global warming and the toxic degradation of our
environment. PSR presses for policies to curb global warming, ensure clean air, generate
a sustainable energy future, prevent human exposures to toxic substances,and minimize
toxic pollution of air, food, and drinking water.
SEPTEMBER 2010
Printed with soy inks on 100%post-consumer recycled paper by a union printer.

Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
1. HEALTH IMPACTS OF COAL TOXICANTS 1
2. FROM CONTAINMENT TO CONTAMINATION: THE RISK OF EXPOSURE 7
3. EVIDENCE OF HARM: THE DAMAGE CASES 15
4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS 22
NOTES 24

Executive Summary . . . . . . • ka. ii.
oal ash,one of the dirtiest secrets in
C
American energy production,burst into ` AI+_
ro
the U.S.consciousness three days be- - �
fore Christmas,2008 when an earthen ''r'""r ,--,'":*r
wall holding back a huge coal ash disposal pond
failed at the coal-fired powerplant in Kinston,
g 4:„.„--
■ ■ "Tennessee.The 40-acre pond spilled more than �� _---�
1 billion gallons of coal ash slurry into the adjacent '' .,
•
river valley,covering some 300 acres with thick, A
r
toxic sludge,destroying three homes,damaging
many others and contaminating the Emory and *_ y-' a
Clinch Rivers.' 3-‘,-:„.. 4.
- "`- . .. '4'
When the U.S.Environmental Protection .-,._ •{ P.4 ''`'" -
Agency tested water samples after the spill,they '..-:- .5iii.. - 7;i4,
found
found toxic heavy metals including arsenic,which c+ I
they measured at 149 times the allowable stan- _
dard for drinking water Water samples also con- ._�{,, '� ' z• -NI_
tamed elevated levels of other toxic metals: lead, 4.4. l'.''' l''''-' 4 , :'R *`� `-
thallium,barium,cadmium,chromium,mercury, - 7:4 t .q
and nickel.
Despite that catastrophic spill in Tennessee,the
full dimensions of the health threats from coal ash -► _='` , ,,
are just beginning to register with the American "r'" - -_-,s' . ,,'I. _ =Yr
public.Coal ash is the waste product left over after _.•
coal is combusted,or burned.Many people are
still not aware of how toxic coal ash is,much less
how much coal ash is generated each year and how o
grossly mismanaged its disposal is:
• While the toxic contents of coal ash may vary
depending on where the coal is mined,coal Two dozen homes were destroyed or damaged by the 2008
ash commonly contains some of the world's coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee.
I

vi • COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
deadliest toxic metals:arsenic,lead,mercury, less dramatic scenario: the slow leakage of toxic
cadmium,chromium and selenium.s pollution from disposal sites such as ponds and
landfills.
• These and other toxicants in coal ash can cause Toxic pollution,some of it cancer-causing,can
cancer and neurological damage in humans. and does escape from some of those sites,accord-
They can also harm and kill wildlife,especially ing to the EPA."This occurs in a variety of ways,
fish and other water-dwelling species. most frequently when coal ash comes into contact
with water,allowing toxics to"leach"or dissolve
• Coal ash is the second-largest industrial waste out of the ash and percolate through water.Coal
stream in the U.S.,after mining wastes.4 ash toxics have leached from disposal sites in well
over 100 communities,carrying toxic substances
• Coal ash is disposed in approximately 2,000 into above-ground and underground waterways
dump sites across the nation:at least 629 wet ash including streams,rivers,aquifers,and drink-
ponds 5 and 311 dry landfills at power stations, ing water wells,forcing some families to find new
at least 100 offsite dry landfills,6 and 750 Mac- drinking water supplies.Several coal ash-contam-
tive dumps,''and hundreds of abandoned and Mated sites are federal Superfund sites,including
active mines (as fill).8 one entire community that has been designated a
Superfund toxic site due to the contamination of
• Coal ash dumps likely exist in every state in the its water supply by coal ash.12
U.S.due to the widespread use of coal to gener- Large quantities of coal ash are"recycled,"
ate electricity in the nation's 495 coal-fired power presenting another potential route of exposure to
plants and hundreds of industrial boilers.°•' coal ash toxics.Some states allow coal ash to be
used as structural fill,agricultural soil additive,
After the Tennessee spill,public attention fo- top layer on unpaved roads,fill for abandoned
cused at first on the possibility of more sudden mines,spread on snowy roads,and even as cinders
catastrophes. But the most common threat that - on school running tracks.These uses may expose
coal ash poses to public health comes from a coal ash to water,increasing the risk of leaching.
Coal ash is also dangerous
if inhaled,so some of these
forms of recycling may en-
'' i`. danger human health from
airborne particles,even
g where no water is involved.
`` •'� The EPA has document
v,A ed that coal ash contains
toxic materials,and that
these toxicants can and do
escape from disposal sites.
, :. .
It has confirmed and mea-
sured toxic leaching into
water supplies.And it has
identified specific sites at
s` •
which humans have been
�-. exposed to coal ash tox-
ics,whether from drinking
contaminated water,eating

• COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT • vii
contaminated fish,or breathing"fugitive dust."P • Fluidized bed combustion (FBC) wastes are gen-
Yet as of late 2010,no federal standards exist to erated by a specialized combustion technology
regulate how coal ash is disposed or where and in which a heated bed of sand-like material is
how it can be recycled.Instead, a patchwork of in- suspended (fluidized) in a rising jet of air.FBC
sufficient state regulations allows widely disparate waste may include fly ash and bottom ash and
uses of and disposal methods for coal ash.This re- tends to be more alkaline because of the lime-
port examines the risks to public health that result stone used in the process.
from that inadequate regulation and highlights
the damage that has occurred in the absence of The EPA has found that living next to a coal ash
strong,federally enforceable safeguards.The disposal site can increase your risk of cancer or
report concludes with recommendations for effec- other diseases,especially if you live near an unlined
tive policy reforms that could significantly protect wet ash pond that contains coal ash comingled with
human health. other coal wastes and you get your drinking water
Given the high toxicity of coal ash's constitu- from a well. According to the EPA's peer-reviewed
ents,the growing number of proven and potential "Human and Ecological Risk Assessment for Coal
damage cases,and the prospect of more damage Combustion Wastes,"people in those circumstances
cases emerging as toxicants reach peak concen- have as much as a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer
tration in the coming years,the magnitude of from drinking water contaminated by arsenic,one
coal ash as a threat to human health is likely only of the most common and dangerous pollutants in
beginning to emerge. coal ash."This risk is 2,000 times greater than the
EPA's goal for reducing cancer risk to 1 in 100,000.
WHAT IS COAL ASH AND HOW TOXIC IS IT? That same risk assessment says that living near ash
ponds increases the risk of health problems from
Coal ash has different physical and chemical prop- exposure to toxic metals like cadmium,lead,and
erties depending on the geochemical properties of other pollutants.
the coal being used and how that coal is burned. Typically,coal ash contains arsenic,lead,mer-
cury,cadmium,chromium and selenium,as well
• "Fly ash"consists of the fine powdery particles of as aluminum,antimony,barium,beryllium,bo-
minerals,plus a small amount of carbon,that are ron,chlorine,cobalt,manganese,molybdenum,
carried up the smokestack by the exhaust gases. nickel,thallium,vanadium,and zinc.16 All can be
toxic.16 Especially where there is prolonged expo-
• "Bottom ash"is a coarser material that falls to sure,these toxic metals can cause several types of
the bottom of the furnace. cancer,heart damage,lung disease,respiratory
distress,kidney disease,reproductive problems,
• "Boiler slag"is created from the molten bot- gastrointestinal illness,birth defects,impaired
tom ash that,when cooled in contact with water bone growth in children,nervous system impacts,
in wet-bottom boilers,forms pellets of a hard, cognitive deficits,developmental delays and behav-
glassy material. ioral problems.In short,coal ash toxics have the
potential to injure all of the major organ systems,
• Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) waste is the by- damage physical health and development,and
product of air pollution control systems used to even contribute to mortality.
reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions from coal- Adding to the toxicity of coal ash is that some
fired power plants."Scrubbers"spray lime or power plants mix coal with other fuels and wastes,
limestone slurry into the flue gas,where it reacts such as used tires and even hazardous wastes.In
with the sulfur to form calcium sulfite that is addition,when coal ash is disposed with coal re-
processed to make FGD or synthetic gypsum. fuse,a highly acidic waste,the resulting mixture is

•
viii ■ COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
significantly more toxic and prone to release met- that would otherwise go up the smokestacks.When
als into the environment.17 Utilities that manage those pollutants are captured, they are shifted from
coal ash in ponds often mix coal refuse with coal the air to the coal ash.19 Mercury and other pot-
ash,a practice that greatly increases the cancer lutants that previously contributed to air pollution
risk to nearby residents who get their water from are now becoming solid wastes—and when they
drinking wells!' leach into water,their toxicity is carried into the
Not only is coal ash toxic,it is likely to grow in- water.The EPA speaks of"ensuring that emissions
creasingly dangerous.Air pollution control technol- being controlled in the flue gas at power plants are
ogies—scrubbers,selective catalytic reduction,and not later being released to other environmental
activated carbon injection technologies to capture media."20 Unfortunately,that's exactly what is hap-
mercury and other hazardous air pollutants—cap- pening: One toxic environmental problem is being
ture an increasing proportion of the coal pollutants traded for another.

•
1. Health Impacts of Coal Toxicants . . .
1
oal ash contains a range of toxic con-C
and damage to the peripheral nervous system.
stituents that are known to leach,leak, According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and
or spill out of coal ash disposal sites and Disease Registry(ATSDR),there is some evidence
adversely affect human and environ- that in childhood,long-term exposure to arsenic
mental health.We summarize here the effects on may result in lower IQ scores and exposure to arse-
the human body that can be caused by exposure nic in the womb and early childhood may increase
to nine of the most common toxic contaminants in mortality in young adults.23 Many of arsenic's ef-
coal ash.21 fects are dose-and time-dependent.Repeated low
levels of exposure over an extended period of time
ARSENIC can produce effects similar to a one-time high level
of exposure.
Arsenic is an ancient and well-known poison and a Contaminated drinking water is a primary route
dangerous environmental contaminant.In recent of arsenic exposure.Scientific studies have shown
years it has been widely used as a wood preserva- that exposure to arsenic in drinking water results
tive in treated lumber to construct decks,play- in an elevated risk of urinary tract cancers (can-
ground equipment,fences,utility poles and piers. cer of the bladder,kidney,ureters,etc.).Both the
Because of its excessive toxicity,arsenic has now level of exposure and the duration of exposure
been banned in wood for most residential settings, are significant factors,according to a 2010 article
including decks and play sets.Arsenic is present in in the journal of the American Association for
coal ash and has been shown in numerous cases to Cancer Research.Reporting on a study in Taiwan
leach from ash and contaminate drinking water. of residents whose well water was contaminated
Arsenic produces a variety of adverse health ef- with naturally occurring arsenic, the article found
fects.Ingesting very high levels can result in death. a"significant"trend of increased cases of urinary
Chronic exposure to arsenic in drinking water can tract cancer as exposure levels increased.24
cause several types of cancer,including skin can- The duration of exposure was also signifi-
cer,bladder cancer,lung cancer and kidney can- cant,especially at high levels of exposure.Those
cer.Recent studies have linked arsenic ingestion who had been drinking arsenic-contaminated
to cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus.22 well water since birth—that is, those with the
Exposure to lower levels can cause nausea and longest-term exposure—exhibited a four-to five-
vomiting,decreased production of red and white fold increased risk of urinary cancers.The study
blood cells,and cardiovascular effects including also found that exposure from birth may increase
abnormal heart rhythm,damage to blood vessels, urinary cancer risk much later in life.This find-

2 ■ COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
ing of a long latency period (the time that elapses lead to death.Children living near waste sites con-
from exposure until the time of illness) suggests taming boron and boron compounds are likely to
that people whose drinking water is contaminated be exposed to higher-than-normal levels through
by arsenic from coal ash should be monitored inhaling boron-containing dust,touching soil,and
long-term for urinary tract cancer,even if they stop swallowing contaminated soil.
drinking the contaminated water." Boron is an essential micronutrient for plants,
In addition to drinking water,arsenic can en- where it plays a role in cell division,metabolism,
ter the body via other pathways.Inhaling sawdust and membrane structure.However,while it is need-
from construction with arsenic-treated lumber can ed as a nutrient, there is a small range between
greatly increase the danger of lung cancer,as it can deficiency and excess uptake or toxicity.Dangerous
be absorbed through the lungs.Inhaling arsenic levels of boron may occur in soils that have been
from coal ash fugitive dust can likewise pose a dan- contaminated by pollutant sources such as coal ash
ger to human health.Arsenic can also be absorbed from coal-fired power plants."
through the skin,which is why its use in decks and
play equipment was outlawed.Children who play CADMIUM
near spilled coal ash or where there is fugitive dust
may be at risk of arsenic exposure. Cadmium is a metal widely used in manufactur-
Because arsenic occurs naturally as an element ing.Dietary exposure to cadmium is possible from
distributed widely in the earth's crust,we are ex- shellfish and plants grown on cadmium-contami-
posed to constant low levels of arsenic from air nated soils.Fortunately,oral ingestion of cadmium
and water.Normally,air contains a background results in low levels of absorption.The lungs,how-
concentration of less than 0.1 micrograms per ever,readily absorb cadmium,so inhalation expo-
cubic meter,and drinking water less than 5 mi- sure results in much higher levels of absorption.
crograms per liter,but water levels can be signifi- This makes cadmium a potential hazard from coal
cantly higher,as can exposure from other sources. ash dust,which may be released into the environ-
Thus,health concerns involving arsenic exposure ment when dry coal ash is stored,loaded,trans-
from coal ash must take into account the cumula- ported,or kept in uncovered landfills.Chronic
tive effect of acute exposure from ash combined exposure can result in kidney disease and obstruc-
with background exposure and exposure from tive lung diseases such as emphysema. Cadmium
other sources. may also be related to increased blood pressure
(hypertension) and is a possible lung carcinogen.
Cadmium affects calcium metabolism and can re-
BORON
sult in bone mineral loss and associated bone pain,
Boron occurs in nature as an essential plant nutri- osteoporosis and bone fractures.
ent.It is used in a variety of products and processes
ranging from detergents and cleaning products CHROMIUM
to the production of glass,fiberglass and ceram-
ics.Breathing moderate levels of airborne boron While chromium (III) is an essential nutrient in
causes non-persistent irritation of the nose,throat, the body,the other common form of chromium,
and eyes.Airborne exposure most commonly oc- chromium (VI),is highly toxic and is frequently
curs in the workplace,for example,where borates found in coal ash.When ingested via contami-
are mined or processed.However,ingestion (eat- nated water,chromium (VI) can cause stomach
ing or drinking) of large amounts of boron can and small intestine ulcers.Frequent ingestion can
result in damage to the testes,intestines,liver, cause anemia and stomach cancer. Contact with
kidney,'and brain.Exposure to large amounts of the skin by some compounds of chromium (VI)
boron over short periods of time can eventually can result in skin ulcers.When inhaled in large

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT • 3
amounts,chromium (VI) can cause lung cancer, delays and abnormalities,reduced IQ and mental
breathing problems such as asthma and wheezing, retardation,and behavioral problems. State agen-
and nose ulcers. cies regularly issue fish consumption advisories to
caution women of child-bearing age and children
LEAD against eating mercury-contaminated fish.The
FDA has set a limit for safe consumption of 1 part
Lead is a very potent neurotoxicant that is highly per million of methylmercury in fish.29
damaging to the nervous system.Its dangers have
been acknowledged,if not fully understood,for
thousands of years.Health effects associated with MOLYBDENUM
exposure to lead include,but are not limited to, Molybdenum is a metal with an extremely high
neurotoxicity,developmental delays,hypertension, melting point that is often used to strengthen steel.
impaired hearing acuity,impaired hemoglobin It is found in the human body in small quantities,
synthesis,and male reproductive impairment.27 and some foods naturally contain molybdenum
Importantly,many of lead's health effects may oc- such as liver,eggs,and some grains.
cur without overt signs of toxicity.Scientists have As a contaminant,molybdenum exposure is of
long recognized that children are particularly sensi- concern from inhalation of dust or ingestion.This
tive,with high levels of lead resulting in swelling of may occur from exposure to dust on food or on
the brain,kidney disease,effects on hemoglobin the hands,or if molybdenum in the air is inhaled
and possible death.Adverse effects in children can and then coughed up and swallowed.Exposure
also occur well before the usual term of chronic ex- can occur in mining,and the Occupational Safety
posure can take place.Children under 6 years old and Health Administration has set an occupational
have a high risk of exposure because of their more exposure maximum permissible limit at 5 mg per
frequent hand-to-mouth behavior.It is now well ac- cubic meter of air in an 8-hour day. Chronic expo-
cepted that there is no safe level of lead exposure, sure to molybdenum can result in excess fatigue,
particularly for children.28 Harmful levels of lead headaches and joint pains.
exposure can result from drinking water contami- Some molybdenum compounds have been
nated by coal ash and from exposure to coal ash shown to be toxic to rats.Although human toxicity
contaminated soils. data are unavailable,animal studies have shown
that chronic ingestion of more than 10 mg/day of
•
MERCURY molybdenum can cause diarrhea,slowed growth,
low birth weight and infertility,and can affect the
Another well-known neurotoxicant,mercury has lungs,kidneys,and liver.
the dangerous capacity to bioaccumulate,or build
up in animal tissue.When mercury leaches from
coal ash into the soil or water,it is converted by THALLIUM
bacteria into methylmercury,an organic form Thallium, a metal found in trace amounts in the
that can be absorbed by small organisms and the earth's crust,enters the environment primarily
larger organisms that eat them.As it moves up the from coal-burning and smelting. Once in the envi-
food chain, the concentration of methylmercury ronment,it is highly persistent and enters the food
increases.When it has accumulated to high con- chain by being absorbed by plants and building
centrations in fish, this becomes a major pathway up in fish and shellfish.Eating food contaminated
for human exposure. with thallium may be a major source of exposure
Mercury is particulary toxic to the develop- for most people;however, the ATSDR lists
ing nervous system.Exposure during gestation, "[D iving near hazardous waste sites containing
infancy,or childhood can cause developmental thallium"as a path to exposure;in fact,it is the

4 ■ COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
only path which the ATSDR notes"may result in Humans are susceptible to similar effects as well as
higher than normal exposures."30 Other paths in- additional neurological impacts.
elude touching thallium,breathing in low levels of Selenium exposure also affects fish,which absorb
thallium in air and ingesting low levels in the metal through their gills or by eating contami-
water,or,for children,eating soil contaminated nated food sources such as worms.Extremely high
with thallium. levels of selenium have been found to accumulate
Exposure to high levels of thallium can result in fish and amphibians living in coal ash-contami-
in harmful health effects.Workers who inhale nated waters and wetlands,if they survive exposure
thallium over several years report nervous system to the toxin.As confirmed by laboratory studies,
effects such as numbness of fingers and toes. selenium accumulation can cause developmental
Ingesting large amounts of thallium over a short abnormalities in fish and amphibians and has led to
time has been shown to lead to vomiting,diar- the death of entire local fish populations.Selenium
rhea,and temporary hair loss,along with adverse is bioaccumulative,meaning it is passed up the food
effects on the nervous system,lungs,heart,liver, chain in increasing concentrations,and excessive
and kidneys.Ingesting thallium can even lead amounts have been found in water snakes,small
to death.It is not known what the effects are of mammals,birds and humans.
ingesting low levels of thallium over a long time.
Studies in rats have shown adverse developmental
effects from exposure to high levels of thallium, ■ • ■
and some adverse effects on the reproductive sys-
tem after ingesting thallium for several weeks.It
is not known if breathing or ingesting thallium Concern also exists about the risks to health
affects human reproductions' from coal ash toxicants in combination.While
the properties of coal ash toxicants are under-
SELENIUM stood as they function individually,little is known
about what happens when these toxic substances
Selenium is a common element,an essential nu- are mixed—as routinely happens in coal ash.
trient,and readily available in a variety of foods Concurrent exposure to multiple contaminants
including shrimp,fish,meat,dairy products,and may intensify existing effects of individual con-
grains.It is readily absorbed by the intestine and taminants,or may give rise to interactions and
is widely distributed throughout the tissues of the synergies that create new effects.For example,
body,with the highest levels in the liver and kid- aluminum,manganese and lead all have adverse
ney.While selenium is used by the body in a variety effects on the central nervous system;barium,
of cellular functions,too much can be harmful, cadmium and mercury all have adverse effects on
as cantoo little.The recommended daily intake is the kidney.Where several coal ash contaminants
55 to 70 micrograms.Excess selenium intake can share a common mechanism of toxicity or affect
occur in both animals and humans living in areas the same body organ or system,exposure to sev-
with elevated selenium in the soil.Most grasses eral contaminants concurrently produces a greater
and grains do not accumulate selenium,but when chance of increased risk to health.32 Yet the EPA
an animal consumes plants that do accumulate has not taken into account in its risk assessments
selenium (some up to 10,000 mg/kg),they can the possibility of synergistic interactions,despite
develop a condition called the"blind staggers." the common occurrence of multiple contaminants
Symptoms include depressed appetite,impaired in combination in coal ash.ss Figure 1 summarizes
vision,and staggering in circles.High expo- the effects of some of the most harmful coal ash
sures can ultimately lead to paralysis and death. contaminants on the body.

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT @8 5
Figure 1. Health Impacts of Coal Toxicants
Mercury*, *�'
*
Mercury poses particular risk to oLeaf{
children, infants and fetuses_ Exposure to lead can result in
Impacts include nervous ,u brain swelling, kidney disease,
"'� , cardiovascular roblems. nervous
system damage and p
/--+ system damage, and even death,
developmental defects ..4, It is accepted that there is
like reduced IQ and
mental retardation. no safe level of lead exposure,
� particularly for children.
.u• -
Chromium° °Arsenic*
Ingestion of chromium Ingestion of arsenic can
can cause stomach and ' lead to nervous system
intestinal ulcers, anemia, damage, cardiovascular
and stomach cancer. issues, and urinary tract
Frequent inhalation can01cancers. Inhalation and
cause asthma, wheezing, t r absorption through the
70
and lung cancer. t skin can result in
lung cancer and skin
LPL 44 cancer, respectively.
Selenium® t Y�1
Selenium is used in 0 Boron
many bodily functions, Inhalation of boron
but deficiencies or �► can lead over the
excesses can be bad �J \ short-term to eye,
for one's health. f V 1 nose, and throat
Excess intake of ,%?\ irritation. Ingestion
selenium can result Ar( of large amounts,
in a host of /// however, can result
neurological effects, , in damage to the testes,
including impaired visionA intestines, liver, kidneys,
and paralysis, and even death. and brain, and eventually
lead to death.
Other Toxicants
Antimony Cadmium Molybdenum Thallium
Eye, skin irritation Emphysema In animals: Nervous system damage
Stomach pain, ulcers Kidney disease Slowed growth Lung, heart, liver,
Lung disease Hypertension Low birth weight kidney problems
Lung cancer Infertility
*Children are particularly at risk

6 ■ COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
B
Jf
�.
111 i
_4, 4111111000:'. ref ►7
3 c 1t %.,. ,A14 x .•,
►+ \ 1!
{ ti .

2. From Containment to Contamination:
The Risk of Exposure • • • • • • • • •
COAL ASH DISPOSAL: HOW, WHERE, for details.) Ponds lined with clay are also subject
AND HOW SAFE? to leaching dangerous amounts of toxics to under-
lying groundwater.The greatest level of protection
Utility companies have three basic options for
disposing of their ash.If the ash is dry,it can is afforded by composite liners,constructed from
be disposed in landfills.According to the EPA, various layers including human-made materials,
an estimated 36 percent of the coal combustion such as a plastic membrane like high-density poly-
waste generated by utilities in 2007 was disposed ethylene,placed over clay or geosynthetic clay.
However,these liners have a finite lifespan,so truly
of in dry landfills,frequently on-site at the power
plant where the coal was burned. Coal ash may permanent safe storage of coal ash toxicants will
also be mixed with water and stored in so-called require ongoing diligence well into the future.
"ponds"—some more than 1,000 acres—and some Despite the obvious danger to human health as
constructed only with earthen walls.These wet sociated with coal ash disposal,it is hard to deter-
disposal areas are called"surface impoundments" mine precisely how many coal ash disposal areas
and in 2007 accounted for 21 percent of coal ash there are in the U.S.In 2009,the EPA requested
information from electric utilities operating wet
disposals'The remaining 43 percent of coal ash
was reused in a variety of industrial and other ap- ash ponds.The EPA received information on 629
plications,discussed at the end of this section. coal ash ponds in 33 states."Because this count
The EPA has found that two factors dramatically included groups of ponds at some sites, the num-
increase the risk that coal ash disposal units pose, ber of power plants with ash ponds was 228.The
both to human health and to ecosystems: (1) the EPA's 2010 Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated
use of wet surface impoundments rather than dry that the number of active landfills was more than
landfills,and (2) the absence of composite liners
the 311 known dumps utilized at power plants.An
to prevent leaking and leaching.Surface impound- estimated 149 power plants utilize an unspecified
ments (wet ash ponds) consistently pose higher
number of landfills located outside the plants'
risks than do landfills."Some surface impound- boundaries,adding to the total number of land-
risks
Although the number of states and sites is
ments are little more than pits in the earth,totally
lacking protective liners,with native soils as the hard to specify with precision,there appears to be
bottom and sides.These unlined wet disposal areas disposal of coal ash in at least 46 states."
constitute a disproportionate number of the"dam-
age cases"where coal ash toxics are documented to Susceptible populations
have escaped from disposal facilities and damaged With coal ash disposal sites located in most of the
human health or the community." (See section 3 50 states,the threat to public health affects many

8 ■ COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
communities.However, that threat is not shared nities live near a disproportionate share of coal ash
equally.Many coal ash disposal sites are located in disposal facilities 40
rural areas,where land availability and lower land Children are another susceptible population.
prices make it cheap to purchase the multi-acre This is due in part to their size:any exposure they
sites necessary for ash ponds and landfills—and suffer is more significant for their small bodies than
where the power plants that generate the ash are it would be for an adult.In addition,children's
also frequently located.In fact,the majority of organ systems,particularly the nervous system,are
coal ash disposal sites are on the power plant site, still undergoing development and are thus more
thus avoiding costly transportation of the ash,but susceptible to the effects of toxics exposure.This is
concentrating the pollution.Low-income commu- particularly the case during gestation (in utero) and
infancy,and it remains true throughout childhood.
Children also breathe more rapidly than adults and
HOW MUCH COAL ASH IS THERE? their lungs are proportionately larger,thus increas-
Coal ash constitutes one of the largest waste ing their susceptibility to airborne toxics.Finally,
streams in the United States.The American young children are prone to hand-to-mouth behav
Coal Ash Association, an industry group, iors that expose them to higher levels of ambient
estimates that coal combustion generated contaminants,such as the"fugitive dust"that can
approximately 131 million tons of coal ash blow off of exposed coal ash.
in 2007.4'The Environmental Protection
Agency, noting that this figure excludes PATHWAYS TO EXPOSURE
smaller coal-fired power plants (those
generating between 1 and 100 megawatts The toxic contaminants in coal ash follow various
per year), has suggested that a more routes,or pathways,to make their way into what we
accurate figure is 140 million tons of coal eat,drink or breathe.Some escape from coal ash by
waste annually.42 The EPA estimates that leaching or dissolving into water,subsequently con-
the storage capacity for all existing coal taminating underground aquifers (groundwater)
ash ponds and landfills is approximately or surface waters like rivers and streams.Some are
864,000 acre feet. This is enough coal ash to consumed when people eat fish that have been con-
flow continuously over Niagara Falls for four taminated by coal ash-exposed water or sediments.
days straight. Coal ash is the second largest Coal ash toxicants also travel through the air as
industrial waste stream in the United States, fine particles or dust or over the ground and other
second only to mine wastes.
surfaces,due to erosion,runoff,or settling dust.
The surface water path
•
Coal ash contamination of surface waters such as
streams,rivers,ponds,lakes,and wetlands poses
a serious threat to the life forms that live in and
eat from those waters.The most dramatic acts of
contamination occur when impoundment retain-
ing walls give way,spilling enormous quantities of
coal ash slurry directly into surface waters.The
rupture of the retaining dam at the Kingston,
Tennessee,coal ash waste pond spilled more than
Enough coal ash is stored in waste ponds and 1 billion gallons of coal ash slurry into the Emory
landfills to flow over Niagara Falls for four River.Although it is the best known example of a
consecutive days. coal ash pond failure,it is not the only case.For
example,a rupture occurred in August 2005 when

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT • 9
a dam failed at the Martin's Creek Power Plant containing very high levels of arsenic,selenium,
in eastern Pennsylvania,allowing more than 100 and boron—directly into streams,rivers and
million gallons of coal ash-contaminated water to lakes.At the majority of power plants,the permits
flow into the Delaware River.Arsenic levels in the allowing these discharges contain no limits on the
river jumped to levels that exceeded water quality levels of heavy metals and other toxics that can be
standards,and a public water supply was temporar- released into surface water.
ily closed downstream.The response action cost
$37 million's Leaching into groundwater
Some coal ash impoundments are rated for the Far more common than a dam break is leaching of
degree of danger they pose to the communities contaminants from ponds and landfills: the pro-
and environments downstream.According to the cess by which toxic materials in coal ash dissolve
EPA rating system,a"high"hazard rating indicates in water and percolate through the earth.The dis-
that a dam failure is likely to cause loss of human solved toxics,called"leachate,"can endanger pub-
life.A"significant"hazard rating means that failure lic health and the environment by contaminating
of the impoundment would cause significant eco- surface water or groundwater used for drinking
nomic loss,environmental damage,or damage to supplies.Leaching may be less spectacular than a
infrastructure.In 2009,the EPA found that of the rupture,but it happens with much greater frequen-
629 ash ponds it identified,only 431 were rated.Of cy46 and may continue to release toxic substances
those,50—more than one in ten—had a"high" into the environment for decades.
hazard rating and 71 had a"significant"rating.' Leaching can expose people to dangerous toxi-
The number of coal ash dams with high and sig- cants at levels above safe drinking water standards.
nificant hazard ratings is likely to rise much higher The amount of leaching that takes place at coal
because almost 200 coal ash dams are not yet rated. ash storage facilities varies greatly from place to
Currently no federal regulations exist to require place,reflecting the type of coal ash that is stored,
hazard safety ratings. its concentration and acidity,and the nature of the
Dramatic failures aren't the only source of sur- disposal site.As a result,leachate concentrations
face spills;smaller spills occur when impoundment are different in different sites and vary for different
dikes and dams leak less significant amounts,or elements 47 The rate of leaching maybe affected
impoundments overflow in heavy rains or floods. by a number of factors:the size of the disposal
In addition,both coal ash ponds and landfills pond,pond depth,and the amount of pressure the
often discharge coal ash-contaminated waters di- waste creates;the underlying geology(the types
rectly into surface water.In one documented case, of soil and rock that lie underneath);the gradi-
at the U.S.Department of Energy's Savannah River ent or slope of the land;and how far beneath the
Project in South Carolina,a coal-fired power plant pond or bottom of the landfill an aquifer or under-
transported fly ash mixed with water to a series of ground stream might lie.What most determines
open settling ponds.A continuous flow of that wa- the amount of leaching is not the coal,however,
ter exited the settling ponds and entered a swamp but the robustness of the storage site.The single
that in turn discharged into a creek.Toxicants most important factor is whether the disposal site
from the coal ash poisoned several types of aquatic is lined,with composite liners being the most ef-
animals inhabiting the wetlands:bullfrog tadpoles fective in keeping the ash from contact with water.
exhibited oral deformities and impaired swimming Another essential safeguard is a leachate collec-
and predator avoidance abilities,and water snakes tion system that collects the leachate that develops
showed metabolic impacts.According to the EPA, and pumps the dangerous chemicals back into the
the impacts were"caused by releases from the ash lined unit.
settling ponds."45 A more common occurrence is Verified damage from leaching has occurred at
the permitted discharge of ash-laden water—often dozens of dump sites throughout the U.S.,contami-

10 ■ COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
nating drinking water,streams,and ponds and kill- federal government defines as a hazardous waste.
ing wildlife.For example,in Gambrills,Maryland, Here are some of the most elevated readings the
residential drinking wells were contaminated after EPA observed:
fly ash and bottom ash from two Maryland power
plants were dumped into excavated portions of • The highest leaching level for arsenic was
two unlined quarries.Groundwater samples col- 18,000 parts per billion (ppb).This amount is
lected in 2006 and 2007 from residential drinking 1,800 times the federal drinking water standard
water wells near the site indicated contamination and over three times the level that defines a
with arsenic,beryllium,cadmium and lead,among hazardous waste.
other suspected"constituents of concern."Testing
of private wells in 83 homes and businesses in ar- ■ The concentration of antimony in coal ash leach-
eas around the disposal site revealed exceedances ate reached 11,000 ppb,also 1,800 times the fed-
in 34 wells of Maximum Contaminant Levels,the eral drinking water standard for this pollutant.
highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in
drinking water.48 In November 2007,power plant • For selenium,the highest leaching level found
owner Constellation Energy settled with residents by the EPA was 29,000 ppb,a level that is 580
of Gambrills for$54 million for poisoning water times the drinking water standard,29 times the
supplies with dangerous pollutants. hazardous waste threshold,and 5,800 times the
Other documented cases of harm from leaching water quality standard.
are presented in section 3.
• The EPA found that barium could leach to the
How toxic is coal ash leachate? level of 670,000 ppb,which is 335 times the
As the discussion of pathways indicates,dangerous drinking water standard and almost seven times
substances in coal ash can leach out of disposal fa- the hazardous waste threshold.
cilities and expose humans to serious health risks.
A report released by the EPA in 2009 documented • For chromium,the highest leaching level found
that many of those toxicants leach at concentra- by the EPA was 73 times the federal drinking
tions high enough to seriously endanger human water standard and more than 1.5 times the
health.The findings reflected the EPA's adoption threshold for hazardous waste.50
of new and improved analytical procedures that,
according to the EPA,are better able to determine Not only are these levels high enough to harm
how much toxic material would leach out of coal human health,they are also many times higher
ash and scrubber sludge.49 The EPA's conclusions than the leaching levels that the EPA previously
greatly altered our understanding of the toxicity of reported:for arsenic,more than 76 times higher
coal ash leachate. than the highest levels reported and for antimony,
The report analyzed 73 samples of coal ash more than 916 times the earlier levels.51 In short,
waste of different types and analyzed the physi- the new and more sensitive test shows far higher
calro erties, the content of elements,and the levels of leachingof known toxic substances.
P P
leaching characteristics.What the report found The report notes that the leach test results
was that for some coal ashes and under some represent a theoretical range of the potential con=
circumstances, the levels of toxic constituents centrations of toxics that might occur in leachates
leaching out of coal ash can be hundreds to rather than an estimate of the amount of a toxic
thousands of times greater than federal drink- that would actually reach any given aquifer or
ing water standards.Several toxic pollutants, drinking water well.It cautions that"comparisons
including arsenic and selenium,leached in some with regulatory health values,particularly drink-
circumstances
rinkcircumstances at levels exceeding those which the ing water values,must be done with caution."52

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Y.3 11
Figure 2. Coal Ash is EVEN MORE TOXIC than Previously Thought
I am the dunking
alter standard.
Col ash contains metals like arsenic,antimony,chromium n
a d selenium that can pose serious
threats to human health,including increased risk of cancer,stomach ailments,and lung and heart
problems,The question is,how much of these toxic metals does coal ash contain?Recent data
generated by the U.S.EPA using new testing methods show that toxic metal concentrations found in
coal ash samples are as much as 1,800 times greater than federal safe dnnking water standards.
That's of serious concern,considering that current methods of coal ash disposal often lead to
contaminated drinking water,Though you may not be able to taste elevated levels of arsenic or
other metals in your tap water your health may very well feel the effects To better understand the
magnitude of these differences,consider how a 200-pound Miami Dolphin measures up with some of 0."*.=.a•' 144'1
the sea's largest creatures.
Levels of chromium found in coal ash samples were 73 times
higher than the federal drinking water standard.A large full
grown cera weighs roughly 73 times more than a 00-
1 x 73 pound Miami Dolphin.
sf
Levels of cadmium found in coal ash samples were
sso times higher than the federal drinking water
ly standard.A right whale weighs roughly a 80 limes
x 580 �e more than a 200 pound Miami Dolphin.
x1800 =
Levels of arsenic and antimony found in coal ash samples were 1800
times higher than the federal drinking water standard,A blue whale
weighs roughly 1800 times more than a 200-pound Miami Dolphin.
itortroban by Joshua Herttaeh erne
However,the new leach tests consider a number of the wider range of conditions and values that the
factors that earlier tests didn't take into account. new tests take into account,the EPA itself found
These include the pH (acidity) of the ash itself,the that the prediction of leaching was done"with
acidity of the environment,and the variety of other much greater reliability."53 For these reasons,we
conditions that coal ash encounters in the field accept the new data as the basis for addressing the
when it is disposed or recycled.The EPA noted potential impacts coal ash has on human health.
that an evaluation using a single set of assumptions
is insufficient to reflect real-life conditions and Consumption of fish
"will,in many cases,lead to inaccurate conclu- Even if people are not drinking contaminated water,
sions about expected leaching in the field."With their health may be threatened if they eat fish from

12 ■ COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
water sources contaminated by coal ash toxicants.
There are several pathways by which the water(and
the fish) can become contaminated:runoff and ero-
sion;airborne ash particles that settle on the water;
contaminated groundwater that migrates into sur- oddl.
face water;direct discharge of coal ash runoff due to - t
heavy precipitation or flooding;and direct discharge • "* S•' "
of ash pond water and landfill leachate through
pipes from waste units.Once the toxics are in the
water or sediment,fish can absorb them through
their gills or by eating contaminated food sources
(algae,worms,and other fish food sources have all
been shown to absorb coal ash toxicants),passing -
these pollutants up the food chain to humans 5h
A well documented case of toxic fish contami-
nation is that of Belews Lake.Belews Lake,near
Winston-Salem,North Carolina,served as a cool- be allowed to dry,resulting in wind dispersion
ing reservoir for a large coal-fired power plant. of dried ash.Landfills may not be covered daily
Fly ash produced by the power plant was disposed or capped,also resulting in unsafe levels of ash
in a settling basin,which released selenium- blowing from the disposal site.Where coal ash is
laden water back to the lake.Due to the selenium used for fill in construction sites and engineering
contamination: projects,or on agricultural fields as a"soil amend-
ment,"it can blow or erode and travel over land
• 19 of the 20 fish species originally present in the as well as through surface waters.Windblown par-
reservoir were entirely eliminated,including all ticulates from dry disposal—so-called"fugitive
the primary sport fish. dust"—can also arise when coal wastes are loaded
and unloaded, transported,or when vehicles travel
• Selenium fish impacts persisted for 11 years. through ash disposal sites and nearby communities
and coal ash is spread or compacted.
• Eight years after the flow of selenium-laden Coal ash is dangerous if inhaled,making fugi-
water to the lake was ended,the state issued tive dust a serious health concern.The health
a fish advisory for selenium,urging people to threat arises from minute particles of dust known •
reduce their consumption of fish from Belews as particulate matter,which may be composed of
Lake.The advisory remained in effect for seven various substances.Airborne particles of fly ash,
more years.55 if breathed in,can affect the lungs and bronchii.
Of particular concern are the extremely small par-
• Adverse impacts to birds feeding on contami- tides known as"fine particulate matter" (PM2.5).
nated fish persist,decades after the coal ash was These can lodge deep within the lung,where they
released into the cooling pond. can affect the lung lining,causing inflammation,
altering immunological mechanisms,and increas-
Over land and by air ing the risk of cardiopulmonary disease.56 They
Coal ash also follows land and air pathways to can or even pass through the lungs into the blood,
result in human exposure.Coal ash disposal op- • causing serious adverse health effects ranging
erations can generate dangerous quantities of air- from triggered asthma attacks to increased mortal-
borne ash,due to mismanagement of both ponds ity rates.People with pre-existing chronic obstruc-
and landfills.Ash ponds in arid environments may tive pulmonary disease,lung infection or asthma
l i

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT • 13
are particularly susceptible to coal ash effects,as nificant risks,"adding that"Even at the median risk,
are people with type II diabetes mellitus.57 yearly management leads to a PM10 concentration
When coal ash blows from dry storage sites, almost an order of magnitude above the NAAQS....
particulate matter can readily exceed the national [It is even] "uncertain whether weekly controls
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that exist would have the potential to cause NAAQS ex-
for levels of particulate matter in the air.In the ceedences...only daily controls can definitively
EPA's own words, "there is not only a possibility, be said not to cause excess levels of particulates in
but a strong likelihood that dry-handling [of coal isolation."59 Yet,as the EPA itself notes,many states
ash] would lead to the NAAQS being exceeded do not require daily cover to control fugitive dust
absent fugitive dust controls."58 To compound the at coal ash landfills and most states do not require
problem,high background levels of particulate caps on coal ash ponds to control dust 6°
matter may add to the potential for fugitive dust Workers and nearby residents run the risk of
from coal ash to lead to significant human being exposed to significant amounts of fugitive
health risks. dust.Residents living near power plants,as well
Protective practices to control dust,such as as workers at the plants,may be subject to expo-
moistening dry coal ash or covering it,can minimize sure to dust when coal ash is loaded. Residents
the dangers to health from this source.Yet at some living along transport routes may be exposed
coal ash dump sites,dust controls are applied only to emissions during transportation.Residents
monthly or even yearly.The EPA found such infre- living near dry landfills and eroding ash ponds
quent practices to"have the potential to lead to sig- may be exposed both during ash unloading and
.. 4 ..
•
F .at •„'t — _ ` .c ice' •',,.S elo 1,111 r
iwei
......:-P-"Atv % It.t\\ 111
ri
-,,,„1. ,. , ,, / . -- . .
, ..,__
- t. e „..ik
ilt
-Il
ill
41,
4 .. -,sem_..,...iiiwpivr r �- ill :011,`, . t ,s,
iffoi.
: 4¢'` t ii 1,, " ,
Ito ION.ISO
'' .`Sri ,�. �',- 4 ,-tr.,
• -.,.. s." 44 s'A
1 t
M
Reuse of coal ash as fill in rural Illinois encroaches on private property and threatens drinking water wells at the
Rocky Acres fill site in Oakville, Illinois. The Illinois EPA advised residents to stop drinking their well water.

14 Si COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
subsequently due to windblown emissions.Due COAL ASH REUSE: ADDITIONAL
to multiple routes of exposure,residents who live PATHWAYS TO EXPOSURE
near landfills are likely to be exposed to more dust
Approximately 40 percent of coal ash is"recycled"
for longer periods of time.
in engineering,manufacturing,agricultural and
other applications rather than being disposed62
EXPOSURE AND PEAK CONCENTRATIONS Fly ash,which hardens when mixed with water
In addition to being geographically widespread,
and limestone,can be used in making concrete.
coal ash is also persistent over time,raising long- Bottom ash is sometimes used as an aggregate in
term concerns and challenges in regard to health. road construction•and concrete,and FGD gyp-
Chemicals move at different rates through ground- sum sometimes substitutes for mined gypsum in
water,so when contaminants leach out of coal ash agricultural soil amendments and in making wall-
board.Ash is also used in structural fills and road
disposal sites,some take longer than others to
reach places where they may expose humans to construction projects,spread as an anti-skid sub-
risk.The EPA has conducted sophisticated mod- stance on snowy roads,and is even used as cinders
cling to estimate how long leaching substances on school running tracks.And perhaps as much
would take to reach their maximum concentra- as 20 percent of the total coal ash generated in the
tions in well water.For unlined surface impound- U.S.is dumped in mines as fill.
ments,the median average years until peak well This recycling offers a significant economic
water concentrations would occur is estimated to benefit to the utilities and industries that generate
be 74 years for selenium,78 years for arsenic,and coal ash:they generate income from its sale and
97 years for cobalt.In comparison,if the surface avoid costs of its disposal.However,some forms of
coal ash recycling raise health concerns,especially
impoundment were clay-lined,the median aver-
age years until peak concentration rises to 90 years where the ash is not"encapsulated,"that is,not
for boron and selenium, 110 years for arsenic,and bound to other materials and in a loose particulate
270 years for cobalt.The comparable time periods or sludge form.Unencapsulated coal ash when ex
for these materials escaping from composite-lined posed to water is subject to leaching.This poses a
units are in the thousands of years.b' potential problem in several forms of coal ash recy-
The implication of these projections is that coal cling,such as when coal ash is sprinkled on snowy
roads or used to fill mines,or when used as fill in
ash toxicants are going to be with us—and with
our descendants—for a very long time.Because construction projects. Other forms of recycling ap-
many coal ash contaminants are persistent in the pear to minimize the potential threats to health.
environment,they do not disintegrate or lose their Applications where the ash is encapsulated (bond-
toxicity.They may be contained or may disperse ed with other substances) such as in concrete and
into the environment but they never really"go wallboard seem to be the most stable and least
likely to leach.However these uses may still pose a
away."They remain in the environment and con-
tinue to pose exposure risks for years,even genera- hazard to the construction workers who must cut,
drill or perform other dust-generating activities.In
tions.Unless coal ash disposal is required to corn-
general,further testing is needed on many forms
ply with modern engineering safeguards,we can
expect to see increased levels of human exposure of coal ash recycling,especially the unencapsulat
ed ones,in order to establish with greater certainty
to coal ash toxics in the future.Taking a longer
view, the persistence of coal ash toxics is a health- their potential impacts on human health.
based argument for reducing our reliance on coal
as a means of generating electricity.

3. Evidence of Harm:
The Damage Gases • • • • • • • • • •
lie potential risk of coal ash to ourT
standards known as Maximum Contaminant
health and environment is clear.But is Levels(MCL's).MCLs are the highest level of a
the risk only theoretical?Or has coal contaminant that is allowed in drinking water
ash actually caused harm to real people and are enforceable standards;67
in real communities?
The law requires the EPA to examine docu- • These toxics must be found at a distance from
mented cases of the disposal of coal combustion the waste storage unit"sufficient...to indicate
wastes"in which danger to human health or the that hazardous constituents have migrated to
1 environment has been proved."63 Where proven the extent that they could cause human health
damage is found,the EPA can require corrective concerns;"
measures such as closure of the unit,capping the
unit,installation of new liners,groundwater treat- ■ A scientific study has provided documented
ment,groundwater monitoring,or combinations evidence of another type of damage to human
of these measures.The EPA has formally identified health or the environment;or
63"proven and potential"damage cases where coal
ash poison has contaminated drinking water,wet- ■ An administrative ruling or court decision
lands,creeks,or rivers.64 In addition, two nonprofit presents an explicit finding of specific damage
organizations,Earthjustice and the Environmental to human health or the environment.68
Integrity Project,using monitoring data and other
information in the files of state agencies,have docu- In addition to cases of"proven damage," the
mented an additional 70 cases shown to have caused EPA also recognizes cases of"potential damage."
contamination.°This brings the total number of The EPA defines potential damage cases as "those
damage cases to almost 140,with more still to be cases with documented MCL exceedances"—
investigated.In 38 of these cases,toxics are known toxics levels exceeding the allowable standard—
to have migrated beyond the property belonging to "that were measured in ground water beneath
the utility company and into a nearby community.° or close to the waste source."69 In these potential
The EPA does not make damage case determi- damage cases, the association with coal combus-
nations lightly.For"proven damage"to be found, tion wastes is established,but the hazardous sub-
evidence must show one or more of the following: stances have not migrated to the extent that they
could cause human health concerns—yet.As the
• Toxics have been found and measured in earlier discussion of peak concentrations indi-
ground water,at levels above health-based cates,leaching from coal ash often continues for

16 COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3. Coal Ash Groundwater and/or Surface Water Contamination Sites
iti FY
�� i
1
.<,
.,
!>
• : :' 1r i .
111111, '
Vic %
yip \.,. - -
<> Environmental Integrity Project,
Sierra Club and Earthjustice
Damage Cases'°
IN EPA Damage Cases" ,.,
ilii
years and may endanger local residents years or failure. This is a small reminder that where
even generations later. toxic substances are concerned,accidents do
Taken together,these requirements cre- happen, and may lead to ecological and health-
ate a high bar for the designation of a damage threatening consequences.
case—making it all the more disturbing that so
many damage cases have been identified. PROFILES OF SELECTED DAMAGE CASES
Two-thirds of the proven damage cases show
damage to ground water—a serious concern, When a damage case occurs,what does it look
since ground water feeds drinking water wells. like?What impacts does it have on local communi-
The leaching occurred at different types of ties?The majority of damage cases result not from
storage facilities: four unlined landfills,five breakages,but from leaching.This process is invis-
unlined surface impoundments, six unlined ible and gradual,often occurring over a number
sand and gravel pits, and one due to a liner of years.It is detected by monitoring and testing of
failure at a surface impoundment.72 This dem- ground and/or surface waters,procedures that are
onstrates that unlined storage was far and away not routinely conducted at most coal ash disposal
the leading cause of ground water contamina- sites.The damage cases profiled here begin to tell
tion. But even a lined storage pond resulted in the story of how coal ash impacts our health and
contamination,in the case of an unanticipated our environment.
1

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT • 17
LEACHING FROM DISPOSAL SITES manganese,chloride,and iron at levels above the
state's Enforcement Standards and arsenic above
Virginia:Residential wells contaminated
with vanadium and selenium the state's Preventive Action Level.State environ-
From the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s,Virginia mental officials considered this one of the most
seriously affected coal ash sites in Wisconsin.
Power operated a disposal site for the Yorktown
Power Station,storing fly ash from coal and petro- New York:Landfill contaminates wells with lead,
leum coke in abandoned sand and gravel pits.Six a potent neurotoxicant •
years after the last load of coal ash was disposed of, A leaking dump containing fly ash,bottom ash,
area residents reported that the water in their drink and other material generated by the Dunkirk
ing wells had turned green.Studies found their
Steam Station on Lake Erie contaminated drink-
wells were contaminated with nickel,vanadium,ar- ing water wells with lead,a very potent neurotoxi-
senic,beryllium,chromium,copper,molybdenum,
and selenium.Fifty-five homes had to be placed on cant that can harm the developing nervous system
at even low levels of exposure.
public water,as their well water was too dangerous
The landfill owner was required to cease receiv-
to drink.In addition,heavy metal contamination q
ing coal ash wastes,to conduct extensive remedia-
existed in ground water around the fly ash disposal
tion,and to close the facility.Post-closure ground
areas,in onsite ponds,and in the sediments of a
water and surface water monitoring and mainte-
nearby creek.Six hundred feet of the creek had to
nance were expected to continue for 30 years after
be relocated to minimize contact with the fly ash 7a
final closure of the entire facility.
disposal areas,even though years had passed.This
site became the Chisman Creek Superfund Site, COAL ASH USED AS FILL MATERIAL
which was listed on the nation's list of most polluted IN CONSTRUCTION
Superfund sites,the National Priorities List(NPL).75
Indiana: Town is declared a Superfund site
Montana:Leaking unlined coal ash pond due to coal ash
contaminates drinking wells, ranches The Northern Indiana Public Service Corporation
At the PPL Montana Power Plant in Colstrip, (NIPSCO) deposited an estimated 1 million tons
Montana,leaking unlined coal ash ponds of fly ash in Town of Pines,Indiana.The ash was
contaminated drinking water wells with high levels buried in a leaking landfill and used as construc-
of metals,boron,and sulfate. The community lo- tion fill in the town,where it contaminated drink
cated near the power plant had to be supplied with ing water wells throughout the town with toxic.
safe drinking water. The plume of contamina- chemicals,including arsenic,cadmium,boron and
tion stretches at least a mile from the power plant, molybdenum.Hundreds of residents were put on
affecting ranchers far from the waste ponds. municipal water,and Town of Pines was declared a
Superfund site.
Wisconsin: Contamination migrates offsite
into private drinking-water wells Virginia: Use of coal ash in constructing a golf course
At the WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill,fly ash and leads to groundwater contamination with heavy metals
bottom ash were dumped into an old sand and A 216-acre golf course in Chesapeake,Virginia,
gravel pit.The facility was unlined and the under- was built using 1.5 million cubic yards of fly ash.
lying soil consisted of sands and gravel with minor When groundwater at the golf course was tested,
amounts of silt and clay,believed to be relatively arsenic,boron,chromium,copper,lead,and vana-
permeable.Contamination from the facility ap- dium were detected,indicating a potential threat
pears to have migrated to off-site private wells: to nearby residential drinking water wells.As the
Ground water monitoring of those wells found contaminants had not yet been detected off of the
them to be contaminated with sulfate,boron, site,this was classified as a potential damage case 75

18 • COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
COAL ASH IMPACTING LIVES: PORTRAIT OF R.G. HUNT
R. G. Hunt lives in hair began to fall out, and
Waterflow, New Mexico, on /4.-t' their eyesight worsened.
land his family has owned .i q The children's teachers
for four generations. As reported that the kids also
the town's name suggests, > had difficulty with simple
they drank from a fresh- tasks of concentration and
water well on the property, .1 comprehension.
and for
ears his sheep1110‘11For two years, the
Y
grazed nearby and drankfamily bought drinking
from natural springs and
water and carried it
an arroyo (a dry creek bed ' into their home until
that runs during the rainy _ - they could afford the
season)—until the mid- .,_ connection fees for the
1970's. .t public water system.
In 1972 a utility company °-• ` "Once we stopped using
built the San Juan Power :�- '�^ the well," Hunt recounts,
• •
Plant next to Hunt's land 4 r ` '`: ; ., .' "we began, slowly, to
and began using the dry • v.1..; �,�ti i improve." He, his wife,and
. .
arroyo to discharge their "} u +' �°`'w'.. their kids had been sick
wastewater.The company //,,, ►a r for more than ten years.
also buried coal ash ins , • .�. , s . p Hunt's animals suffered
nearby dry streambeds, 441:174`s. Le• ' • 'Y .�..ti s. a'I as well. "I watched 1,400
rather than building surface sheep slowly suffer and
impoundments with protective liners. Lacking die from the lack of safe drinking water," he
effective containment, the ash leached into told Congress. "Within two years I lost my
underground aquifers, contaminating Hunt's entire sheep herd and took outside jobs,
water with high levels of arsenic, selenium, rather than risk selling contaminated meat to
potassium, chromium, lead, sulfate,and other my customers."
toxicants. In 1984 the EPA fined the utility company
"By 1975 after the dumping of the coal and required it to line the ponds. However,
ash began, my family started to get sick," the utility arranged to bury their fly ash in
Hunt told the U.S. House of Representatives unlined pits in the neighboring San Juan Coal
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Mine. As a result, fly ash and scrubber sludge
in formal testimony in December 2009. "I continue to contaminate the Hunts'arroyo
was diagnosed with heavy
metal poisoning and groundwater.
with extremely high arsenic, iron, lead, and Hunt's closing words to Congress indicate
selenium levels. I lost nearly 100 pounds in less his deep disillusionment: "My experience is
than a year. I was so weak I couldn't stand or that the energy industry cannot be entrusted
work, and wasn't expected to live." with innocent lives or to regulate themselves,
Hunt did survive, although he and his wife for the good of the community, in lieu of a
suffered from indigestion, diarrhea, nausea, profit for their stockholders. I urge you to take
and vomiting and had problems with mental every measure available to you to prevent this
focus and comprehension. Their children also from happening to anyone, anywhere in our
had constant indigestion and diarrhea,their nation, ever again."76

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT • 19
UNPREDICTABLE FAILURES and contaminate the environment.An unlined
North Dakota:Lined coal ash ponds leak coal ash pond in Cartersville,Georgia,developed
arsenic and selenium a sinkhole that ultimately reached four acres and a
At the United Power Coal Creek Station,a power depth of 30 feet.An estimated 2.25 million gallons
plant in North Dakota,surface impoundments of coal ash and water were released into the tribu
tary of a local creek,causing a temporary arsenic
were built with protective linings.However,the
spike in a public drinking water source.Remedial
linings of several impoundments developed severe
action followed,involving dredging coal ash from
leaks within a few years of construction. Ground
water monitoring at the site showed arsenic and the creek.79
selenium in excess of health-based levels.The state
eventually required that the ponds be relined with CONTAMINATION OF WATER AND FISH
a composite liner.77 Texas:Selenium contamination leads to fish kills
and fish consumption advisories
Georgia:Millions of gallons spill into creek Discharges from coal ash ponds poisoned fish
from a huge sinkhole with high levels of selenium at three reservoirs in
This sinkhole highlights the many ways in which Texas—and,through the fish, the selenium poten-
toxic substances can escape from storage areas tially reached human beings.The reservoirs—the
COAL ASH IMPACTING LIVES: PORTRAIT OF GAYLE QUEEN
During the ten years that Gayle Queen lived financial security and her health. "My biggest
in Gambrills, Maryland, a small community monetary asset, my home, is worthless," she
south of Baltimore, a power company dumped stated. "I may have to file for bankruptcy." In
4.1 million tons of coal ash near her home. addition, according to the 56-year-old Mrs.
Trucked in from another community, the coal Queen, "My doctor has told me I have the
ash was deposited into an unlined sand and lungs of an 80-year-old woman because of
gravel pit with excavations as deep as 80 feet. breathing in the coal ash. I am terrified about
The dumping created two problems. Ash my future health."
dust went airborne, meaning "we all breathed She also worries about the health of her
the dust in,"according to Mrs. Queen. And children and grandchildren. "They drank the
while there was supposed to be no contact water, bathed in it, brushed their teeth and
between the coal ash and surface or ground breathed in this dust. Will they get a disease,
water, dangerous chemicals did leach out too? No one can tell me for sure. But I do
of the unlined pit. From 1999 through 2007, know they never should have been exposed
tests showed that arsenic, iron, manganese, to this stuff."
and sulfate were leaching at dangerous levels, Mrs. Queen, testifying before the U.S.
eventually entering an aquifer that supplies the Congress, called on the government to pre-
community's drinking water and contaminat- vent coal ash contamination from happening
ing residents' private wells. again,adding, "If the Environmental Protec-
Mrs. Queen, who has a well at her home, tion Agency had the authority to require liners
noted, "I rely on my well water to provide and force power companies not to dump close
cooking, drinking and bathing water." to drinking water systems, what happened to
Because of the coal ash contamination, me and my community would not happen to
Mrs. Queen fears that she has lost both her anyone else."79

f
20 • COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Brandy Branch Reservoir in northeastern Texas become pregnant not to consume any fish from the
along the Louisiana border,the Welsh Reservoir reservoir whatsoever.That advisory remained in
northeast of Dallas,and the Martin Lake Reservoir effect for 12 years.8°
southeast of Dallas—all received contaminated
run-off from power plants.In response to elevated Tennessee: Toxics damage fish,plants,
levels of selenium in fish in the reservoirs, the and small mammals
Texas Department of Health issued fish consump- At the Department of Energy's Chestnut Ridge
don advisories,in one case warning people to,eat Operable Unit 2 in Oak Ridge,Tennessee,coal ash
no more than eight ounces of fish from the res- slurry was stored in a pond created by building an
ervoir per week.Another advisory urged children earthen dam across a creek. Constructed to hold 20
under six and women who were pregnant or might years'worth of ash,after only 12 years it was filled
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE FROM COAL ASH
Besides being documented banded water snakes, slider
in damage cases, the effects turtles, barn swallows and
of coal ash residues on wild- # muskrats. Bullfrogs accumulate
life have been the focus of ' both selenium and arsenic.82
published scientific studies. 3 Exposure to coal ash con-
These studies show that coalf' • taminants may lead to death
ash presents significant risks, 4''; : o or cause other, lesser effects.
especially to aquatic and semi- m Coal ash toxicants often build
-
aquatic organisms. Its effects up in animals' organs, including
Duck embryos damaged by
range from producing physical the reproductive organs, where
deformities in fish and am- selenium contamination they can negatively influence
phibians, to wiping out entire (Utah). reproductive rates. Sublethal
populations.81 effects also include physi-
Plants and animals that inhabit coal ash- cal abnormalities that can influence critical
contaminated sites accumulate toxic ele- behaviors, such as feeding, swimming speed
ments, including arsenic, cadmium, copper, and predator-avoidance reflexes. In one
and lead, sometimes in very high concentra- study,83 scientists raised Southern Leopard
tions. Among plants, high levels of accumula- Frog tadpoles on either sand or coal ash-
tion have been noted in algae (for copper); contaminated sediment. Ninety percent of the
arrowhead (copper and lead); cattails (cop- tadpoles exposed to the contaminated sedi-
per), and sago pondweed (for arsenic and ment displayed abnormalities of the mouth,
chromium). Among invertebrates, plankton while none of the control individuals did.
accumulate high levels of selenium; cad- Contaminated tadpoles also had decreased
disflies of cadmium, chromium and cop- developmental rates and weighed signifi-
per; Asiatic clams of cadmium and copper; cantly less. These and other abnormalities can
crayfish of copper and selenium; crickets have a negative impact on population survival
of chromium; and earthworms of arsenic, rates. Coal ash contaminants can also affect
chromium, and selenium. Moving up the food the abundance, diversity and quality of food
chain, bullhead minnows, sunfish, largemouth resources, thus creating substantial indirect
bass, and bluegill have all been documented effects that ripple up through food chains to
to accumulate high levels of selenium, as have impact higher life forms.

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Il 21
SELENIUM
Scientific studies have shown that selenium that is 580 times the drinking water standard,
can have devastating impacts on fish popula- 29 times the hazardous waste threshold, and
tions. Selenium can bioaccumulate in fish until 5,800 times the water quality standard.86
it is up to 5,000 times as concentrated in their In the coal ash-contaminated Belews Lake
bodies as in the surrounding water, causing in North Carolina, 19 of 20 fish species were
anemia; heart, liver,and breathing problems; eliminated due to selenium contamination.
and deformities.84 Surviving fish ex-
Because selenium concentrates in the yolk hibited deformities
of developing embryos, stunting their devel- and serious patho-
opment and causing organ abnormalities in logical problems.67
the larval fish, it can contribute to death in
the affected fish and reproductive failure of The photograph shows
the local species population.85 a spinal deformity in ti
These effects reflect the extremely high fish, attributed to sele-
levels of selenium found in coal ash. While 10 nium from coal ash.
micrograms of selenium per liter of water—a
concentration of 10 ppb—can cause total
population collapse in a reservoir, coal ash
can produce leachate with selenium concen-
trations of 29,000 parts per billion, a level
to within four feet of the top of the dam. Once the percentages of deformed heads and eroded fins.
pond was full,slurry was released over the dam Elevated concentrations of selenium,arsenic,and
directly into the creek,resulting in contamination possibly thallium were found in largemouth bass.
of the creek,spring water and groundwater with Selenium was also absorbed by plants,creating a
toxics.The local creek was found to be under se- possible pathway to exposure for soil invertebrates
vere stress,with no fish populations in some areas and small mammals.Elevated readings of arsenic,
and downstream sunfish populations having high selenium and lead were found in small mammals.88

4. Policy Implications ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■
Because of its array of severe effects
on human health and the environ-
ment,coal—across all of its life cycle,
including coal ash—must be addressed '` r
in a public health context.Use of coal is also an
ethical issue. Corporations that burn coal and
generate coal ash must not be free of responsibil- /`
ity for the consequences they unleash on human
ii
and environmental health.Rather,coal's contami- "
nants must be handled in ways that minimize their
impacts on human health and the planet.The
responsibility for that handling must fall first on
11(
those who produce,utilize,dispose,and reuse coal
and its waste products.
Because coal ash contains such high levels of
dangerous toxics,its disposal and reuse call for
high levels of prudence and care.From a health
and medical perspective,the situation calls for - _
application of the"precautionary principle."The 4'
precautionary principle states that where an action '•
risks causing harm to the public or to the environ-
k °
ilkment,the burden of proof that it is not harmful
falls on those who would take the action.In other aro'
words,rather than waiting until harm has oc-
-.,.., r
curred,we should require those who want to use
coal ash to demonstrate that the proposed use is
safe.It is the same principle applied by the Food
and Drug Administration to keep our food supply we tolerate?" the precautionary principle asks,
safe,and it is a wise one to apply when dealing with "What actions can we take to prevent harm?"
leaking,leaching, toxic substances. When we distribute arsenic,lead,mercury,
In contrast to a classical risk assessment or selenium into the environment,we expose
approach,which asks, "How much harm can ourselves and our children to compounds that

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ■ 23
rob us all of our poteni
al for full development, ash should only be permitted when research
while also harming the much broader biotic indicates that the toxic chemicals in coal ash
community.Yet our duty as health professionals will not migrate from the ash in quantities that
and environmental stewards includes the pose a threat to human health or the environ-
responsibility to protect people from harm, ment during the entire lifecycle of the reuse
especially those who cannot protect themselves, application.
such as children.The precautionary principle
supports an approach to policy-making that • Particular care must be taken to assess the
emphasizes our responsibility to actively promote health and environmental impact of the unen-
human and environmental health,for ourselves capsulated use of coal ash before such uses are
as well as for future generations.89 allowed to continue Q0 This includes the reuse
We have the knowledge and resources to make of coal combustion waste in agriculture and as
appropriate decisions to protect public health and anti-skid material on roads.Large unencapsulat
the environment,and therefore, the responsibility ed uses,such as unlined and unmonitored fills,
to do so.Prudent,precautionary options available must be prohibited or treated as disposal sites
that should guide the handling of coal ash include: and be required to maintain all the necessary
safeguards.
• Incorporating the best available elements of pre-
ventative hazard design in storage and disposal • Research is needed to determine the possible
facilities.These include engineered composite health effects from coal combustion waste on
liner systems,leachate collection systems,long- workers who are exposed to ash and sludge at
term ground water monitoring,and corrective disposal facilities,construction projects and
action (cleanup standards),if these systems fail. manufacturing plants.
• Phase out the wet storage of coal ash, the dispos- • In view of the immense amount of coal ash
al of coal ash in mines and unprotected landfills, generated in the U.S.and its disposal and reuse
and the disposal or reuse of unencapsulated ash in nearly every state and territory of the nation,
where it is exposed to surface or ground water. it is essential that the EPA enact federally
enforceable safeguards that protect the health
• Pursuing further independent research and and environment of every citizen equally
assessment of coal ash recycling.Reuse of coal and effectively.

24 IN COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
NOTES Proposed rule.http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/
special/fossil/ccr-rule/fr-corrections.pdf.
1 Testimony of Stephan A. Smith,DVM, Executive Director, 14 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.Submitted to the U.S. and Emergency Response,Office of Resource Conservation
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. and Recovery."Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal
January 8, 2009. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index. Combustion Wastes."Draft EPA document.P.ES-7.April 2010.
cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e918d2f7-9e8b-
411e-b244-9a3a7c3359d9. 15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hazardous and
Solid Waste Management System;Identification and Listing of
2 Ibid. Special Wastes;Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from
3 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste Electric Utilities." [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640;FRL-9149-4]
and Emergency Response,Office of Resource Conservation Proposed rule.
and Recovery. "Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of 16 All except molybdenum are listed as toxics by the Agency for
Coal Combustion Wastes."Draft EPA document.April 2010. Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a federal
Page 2-4. public health agency of the U.S.Department of Health and
4 Testimony of Lisa Evans,Attorney,Earthjustice, before the Human Services.Some molybdenum compounds have been
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources,Committee shown to be toxic to rats.Although human toxicity data are
on Natural Resources,U.S.House of Representatives.June unavailable,animal studies have shown that chronic ingestion
10, 2008. http://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/ of more than 10 mg/day of molybdenum can cause diarrhea,
evans-testimony-emrsubcom.pdf. slowed growth,low birth weight,and infertility and can affect
5 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.Information Request the lungs,kidneys and liver.
Responses from Electric Utilities: Responses from Electric 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1999). Report to
Utilities to EPA Information Request Letter:Database of Sur- Congress,Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels.Vol-
vey Responses.http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/ ume 2—Methods,findings,and recommendations.Office of
special/fossil/surveys/index.htm#surveyresults. Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Washington,DC.EPA
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact 530-R-99-010.March 1999.
Analysis for EPA's Proposed Regulation of Coal Combustion 18 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste
Residues (CCR) Generated by the Electric UtilityIndustry and EmergencyResponse,Office of Resource Conservation
April 30,2010 at 34. and Recovery."Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal
7 U.S.Department of Energy.Coal Combustion Waste Manage- Combustion Wastes."Draft EPA document.April 2010.
ment Study,ICF Resources,Incorporated,February 1993 at 19 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Research and
page 1 of Executive Summary. Development,Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
8 Earthjustice.Waste Deep:Filling Mines is Profit for Industry, from Electric Utilities—Leaching and Characterization Data
But Poison for People,February 2009, http://earthjustice. (EPA-600/R-09/151).December 2009.p.ii.
openissue.com/sites/default/files/library/reports/ 20 Ibid. •
earthjustice_waste_deep.pdf. 21 Casarett&Doull's Toxicology:The Basic Science of Poisons.
9 In 2008, coal's share of total net electricity generation in Ed. Curtis D. Klaassen. 7th edition, 2007. McGraw-Hill
the U.S.was 48.2 percent.U.S.Energy Information Admin- Corporation.
istration.Independent Statistics and Analysis.Electric Power 22 Kosnett M J."Chronic Health Effects of Arsenic in Drinking
Industry 2008:Year in Review,http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ Water:A Brief Summary."PowerPoint.University of Colorado
electricity/epa/epa sum.html. Health Sciences Center.Undated.
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact 23 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR),
Analysis for EPA's Proposed Regulation of Coal Combustion U.S.Department of Health&Human Services.ToxFAQs for
Residues (CCR) Generated by the Electric Utility Industry. Arsenic.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2.html.
April 30,2010 at 21.
24 Chen GL,Chiou H-Y,Hsu L-I,Hsueh Y-M,Wu M-M,WangY-H,
11 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency."Summary of Proven and Chen G.J."Arsenic in Drinking Water and Risk of Urinary
Cases with Damages to Groundwater and to Surface Water," Tract Cancer:A Follow-up Study from Northeastern Taiwan."
Appendix,"Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prey;19(1)January 2010.
Identification and Listing of Special Wastes;Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities."Proposed rule. 25 Ibid.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ 26 International Programme on Chemical Safety(IPCS):"Execu-
ccr-rule/fr-corrections.pdf. dye Summary of the Environmental Health Criteria for Boron
12 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste. (EHC 204)."1998.http://wwwgreenfacts.org/en/boron/l-3/
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments.July 9, boron-5.htm#OpO.
2007.Downloaded from http://www.publicintegrity.org/as- 27 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Integrated Risk Infor-
sets/pdf/CoalAsh-Docl.pdf mation System,Lead and Compounds (inorganic) (CASRN
en "Hazardous and Solid
7439-92-1),available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.
13 U.S.Environmental Protection
cy. htm.
Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Special Wastes;Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from 28 Gilbert S:G. and Weiss B.A Rationale for Lowering the
Electric Utilities." [EPA HQ-RCRA 2009-0640; FRL•9149-4] Blood Lead Action Level From 10 to 2 pg/dL.Neurotoxicol-

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ■ 25
ogy Vol 27/5,September 2006,pp 693-701.http://dx.doi. 43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hazardous and
org/10.1016/j.neuro.2006.06.008. Solid Waste Management System;Identification and Listing of
29 Gilbert S.G. (lead author)."Scientific Consensus Statement Special Wastes;Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from
on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelop-
mental
Electric Utilities." [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640;FRL-91494]
mental Disorders."Developed by the Collaborative on Health Proposed rule,Appendix,page 430.http://www.epa.gov/osw/
and the Environment's Learning and Developmental Dis- nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/fr-corrections.pdf.
abilities Initiative.Released February 20,2008.http://www. 44 Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR)—Surface
healthandenvironment.org/working_groups/learning/r/ Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings,EPA530-
consensus. F-09-006.June 2009 (updated August 2009). http://www.
30 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR), epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/
U.S.Department of Health&Human Services.ToxFAQs for index.htm.
Thallium,CAS#7440-28-0.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/ 45 Kosson D,Sanchez F,Kariher P,Turner L.H.,Delapp R,Sei-
tf.asp?id=308&tid=49. gnette P.2009.Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
31 Ibid. from Electric Utilities—Leaching and Characterization Data.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
32 Mary A.Fox,PhD,MPH,Assistant Professor,Johns Hopkins and Development.EPA-600/R-09/151.http://www.epa.gov/
Bloomberg School of Public Health.Written testimony before nrmrl/pubs/600r09151/600r09151.pdf Page xi.
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy
46 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste.
and Commerce,Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Hearing.December 10,2009. "Coal Combustion Waste,Damage Case Assessments."July 9,
2007.
33 Foran J.A. "Comments on the Draft U.S. EPA Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes." 47 Kosson D,Sanchez F,Kariher P,Turner L.H.,Delapp R,Sei-
February 5,2008.Earthjustice. gnette P.2009.Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
from Electric Utilities—Leaching and Characterization Data.
34 Barry Breen,Acting Assistant Administrator,Office of Solid U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
Waste and Emergency Response,U.S.Environmental Protec- and Development.EPA-600/R-09/151.http://www.epa.gov/
tion Agency.Testimony delivered to Committee on Transporta- nrmrl/pubs/600r09151/600r09151.pdf.
tion and Infrastructure,Subcommittee on Water Resources
and the Environment,U.S.House of Representatives,April 48 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency."Hazardous and Solid
30, 2009. http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/wa- Waste Management System;Identification and Listing of Spe-
ter/20090430/EPA%20Testimony.pdf. cial Wastes;Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Elec-
tric Utilities."Proposed rule,Appendix,page 425.http://www.
35 RTI. "Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/
Combustion Wastes. Draft document." Prepared for ccr-rule ro df.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid p p p
Waste. 2007. http://www.publicintegrity.org/assets/pdf/ 49 Kosson D,Sanchez F,Kariher P,Turner L.H.,Delapp R,Sei-
CoalAsh-Doc2.pdf. gnette P.2009.Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
from Electric Utilities—Leaching and Characterization Data.
36 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
"Coal Combustion Waste,Damage Case Assessments."July 9, and Development.EPA-600/R-09/151.http://www.epa.gov/
2007. nrmrl/pubs/600r09151/600r09151.pdf.
37 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,"Information Request 50 Evans L."Failing the Test.The Unintended Consequences of
Responses from Electric Utilities."http://www.epa.gov/epa-
Controlling Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power
waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/index.htm. Plants."Earthjustice.May 2010. http://www.earthjustice.org/
38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact sites/default/files/library/reports/failing_the_test_5-5-10.pdf.
Analysis for EPA's Proposed Regulation of Coal Combustion 51 U.S.EPA,Report to Congress:Wastes from the Combustion of
Residues (CCR) Generated by the Electric Utility Industry. Fossil Fuels.March 1999.Cited in Evans L."Failing the Test.
April 30,2010 at 34. The Unintended Consequences of Controlling Hazardous
39 Id.at 16-17. Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants." Earthjustice.
40 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.Hazardous and Solid May 2010, http://www.earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/
Waste Management System;Identification and Listing of Spe- library/reports/failing_the_test_5-5-10.pdf.
cial Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From 52 Kosson D,Sanchez F,Kariher P,Turner L.H.,Delapp R,Sei-
Electric Utilities;Proposed Rule,75 Federal Register 35128, gnette P.2009.Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
June 21,2010 at 35230. from Electric Utilities—Leaching and Characterization Data.
41 American Coal Ash Association Educational Foundation."Coal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
Ash Facts."http://www.coalashfacts.org/. and Development.EPA-600/R-09/151.http://www.epa.gov/
42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous and nrmrl/pubs/600r09151/600r09151.pdf Page xi.
Solid Waste Management System Identification and Listing 53 Ibid,page ix.
of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals 54 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,"What Are the Envi-
from Electric Utilities.Proposed rule.Page 344.http://www. ronmental and Health Effects Associated with Disposing of
epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ CCRs in Landfills and Surface Impoundments?" EPA-HQ-
ccr-rule-prop.pdf. RCRA 2009-0640-0078.
1

26 • COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
55 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste. 68 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hazardous and
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments.July 9, Solid Waste Management System;Identification and Listing of
2007.Downloaded from http://www.publicintegrity.org/as- Special Wastes;Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from
sets/pdf/CoalAsh-Docl.pdf. Electric Utilities." [EPAHQ.RCRA-2009-0640;FRL-9149-4]
56 Ruhl L,Vengosh A,Dwyer G.S.,Hsu-Kim H.,Deonarine A., Proposed rule. Page 8. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/
Bergin M.and Kravchenko J."Survey of the Potential Envi-
industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/fr-corrections.pdf.
ronmental and Health Impacts in the Immediate Aftermath 69 In addition,EPA defines a"potential damage case"as one
of the Coal Ash Spill In Kingston,Tennessee."Environmental where offsite exceedances of secondary drinking water
Science&Technology,volume 43,No. 16, 2009.American standards are found. See: U.S. Environmental Protection
Chemical Society. Agency. "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System;
57 Ibid. Identification and Listing of Special Wastes;Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities. [EPA-HQ-
58 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,"Inhalation of Fugi- RCRA-2009-0640;FAL-9149-4]Proposed rule.Page 7.http://
five Dust:A Screening Assessment of the Risks Posed by Coal www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/
Combustion Waste Landfills."September 2009. fr-corrections.pdf.
59 Ibid. 70 These damage cases include the 39 documented in this report
60 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency."Estimation of Costs and the 31 cases described in:The Environmental Integrity
for Regulating Fossil Fuel Combustion Ash Management at Project(EIP)and Earthjustice.2010.Out of Control:Mount-
Large Electric Utilities Under Part 258."Prepared by DPRA ing Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites (Feb. 24, 2010),
Incorporated.November 30,2005. http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/
61 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency."What Are the Envi- news_02_24_10.php.
ronmental and Health Effects Associated with Disposing of 71 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.2010.Hazardous and
CCRs in Landfills and Surface Impoundments?" EPA-HQ- Solid Waste Management System;Identification and Listing of
RCRA 2009-0640-0078. Special Wastes;Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From
62 Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Electric Utilities;Proposed Rule,75 Fed.Reg.35128,(June21,
Solid Waste and Emergency Response,U.S.Environmental 2010),and USEPA.2007.Office of Solid Waste,Coal Combus-
Protection Agency.. Testimony delivered to Committee on tion Waste Damage Case Assessments(July 9,2007).
Transportation and Infrastructure,Subcommittee on Water 72 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste.
Resources and the Environment,U.S.House of Representa- "Coal Combustion Waste,Damage Case Assessments."July 9,
tives,April 30,2009.http://transportation.house.gov/Media/ 2007.
file/water/20090430/EPA%20Testimony.pdf. 73 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste.
63 "Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments.July 9,
of Fossil Fuels(Final Rule)."Federal Register 65:99(May 22, 2007. Downloaded from http://www.publicintegrity.org/as-
2000)p.32218 sets/pdf/CoalAsh-Docl.pdf
64 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hazardous and 74 Ibid.
Solid Waste Management System;Identification and Listing of 75 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hazardous and
Special Wastes;Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Solid Waste Management System;Identification and Listing
Electric Utilities." [EPA HQ.RCRA 2009-0640; FRL-9149-4] of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals
Proposed rule. Page 8. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/ from Electric Utilities."Proposed rule,Appendix,page 426.
industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/fr-corrections.pdf.
http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/fos-
65 Stant J."Out of Control:Mounting Damages from Coal Ash sil/ccr-rule/ccr-rule-prop.pdf.
Waste Sites."February 24,2010.Environmental Integrity Proj- 76 Testimony of R.G.Hunt before the U.S.House of Represents
ect and Earthjustice.http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/ tives,Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.December
news_reports/news_02_24_10.php.StantJ.Editor.In Harm's 10,2009.
Way:Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Ameri-
cans and Their Environment.Environmental Integrity Project, 77 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste.
Earthjustice and Sierra Club. August 26,2010.http://www. Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments.July 9,
earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/report-in-harms-way. 2007. Downloaded from http://www.publicintegriry.org/as
pdf sets/pdf/CoalAsh-Docl.pdf.
66 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste. 78 Ibid.
•
"Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments."July 9, 79 Testimony of Gayle Queen before the U.S.House of Represen-
2007.See also 75 Fed.Reg.816,869 n.78&80(Jan.6,2010). tatives,Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.December
See also Stant J."Out of Control:Mounting Damages from 10,2009.
Coal Ash Waste Sites." February 24, 2010. Environmental 80 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste.
Integrity Project and Earthjustice.http://www.environmen- Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments.July 9,
talintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php. 2007. Downloaded from http://www.publicintegrity.org/as-
67 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency."Drinking Water Con- sets/pdf/CoalAsh-Docl.pdf.
taminants." http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/ 81 Rowe C.L.,Hopkins W.A.,CongdonJ.D.2002.Ecotoxicological
index.html. Implications of Aquatic Disposal of Coal Combustion Residues

COAL ASH: THE TOXIC THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT • 27
in the United States:A Review. Environmental Monitoring • Controlling Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power
and Assessment.8-0:207-276,2002. Plants."Earthjustice.May 2010.http://www.earthjustice.org/
82 Ibid. sites/default/files/library/reports/failing_ihe_test 5.5-10.pdf.
83 John D.Peterson,Vikki A.Peterson,Mary T.Mendonca(2008). 87 Lemly A.D.(2002)."Symptoms and implications of selenium
Growth and Developmental Effects of Coal Combustion toxicity in fish:the Belews Lake case example."Aquatic Toxi-
Residues on Southern Leopard Frog(Rana sphenocephala) cology 57.
Tadpoles Exposed throughout Metamorphosis.Copeia:Vol. 88 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste.
2008,No.3,pp.499-503.(American Society of Icthyologists Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments.July 9,
and Herpetologists) http://www.asihcopeiaonline.org/doi/ 2007. Downloaded from http://www.publicintegrityorg/as-
abs/10.1643/CG-07-047?journalCode=cope. sets/pdf/CoalAsh-Doc l.pdf.
84 Lemly A.D.(December 8,2009)."Coal Combustion Waste is 89 Gilbert S.G."Public Health and the Precautionary Principle."
a Deadly Poison to Fish."Prepared for United States Office Northwest Public Health.Spring/Summer 2005.University of
of Management and Budget Washington,D.C. Washington School of Public Health&Community Medicine.
85 Ibid. 90 The term"unencapsulated use"refers to the reuse of coal
86 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., Characterization ash in an unaltered form,such as use as fill,soil amendment,
of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using anti-skid material and blasting grit.In contrast,encapsulated
Multi-Pollutant Control Technology—Leaching and Charac- uses,such as the incorporation of coal ash in concrete or
terization Data (EPA-600/R-09/151) Dec 2009,http://www. wallboard,involve manufacturing processes that may effec-
epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09151/600r09151.html. See also, tively alter or provide long-term containment of hazardous
Evans L."Failing the Test—The Unintended Consequences of contaminants.

Ci; E A RT H J U S T I C E PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
� Because the earth needs a good lawyer 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1012
,11' Washington, DC 20009
1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 702
Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Telephone: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail]
Fax: [phone] Web:www.psr.org
Web:www.earthjustice.org
•
rots-
V NOBEL,l
\ PEACE \/
PRIZ
US Affiliate of International Physicians for
the Prevention of Nuclear War

RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
NOV 272018
Water Resources
Permitting Section
Attachment 5
Duke 316(b) Alternate Schedule Request
March 10, 2015

(• DUKE Environmental Services
ENERGY. Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte,NC 28202
Mailing Address:
Mail Code EC13K/P.O.Box 1006
Charlotte,NC 28201-1006
March 10, 2015
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources RE CEIVEDIDENR1DwR
Division of Water Resources
NPDES Unit 2.01`
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Water Q Sect or
Subject: 316(b) Alternate Schedule Request
Duke Energy Carolina, LLC and Duke Energy Progress, LLC Permitting
Attention Sergei Chernikov:
Final regulations to establish requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities were
published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (i.e. regulations implementing §316(b)of the Clean
Water Act) with an effective date of October 14, 2014. The regulation applies to stations that
commenced construction prior to or on January 17, 2002 and have a design intake flow greater than 2
million gallons per day (MGD), utilize 25% of the water withdrawn for cooling purposes and are point
sources per the NDPES program.The stations Duke Energy has identified as being subject to the rule are
provided in Table 1.
The regulation requires the submission of information listed in 40 CFR 122.21(r). The extent of the
information that is required to be submitted per station is based on the actual intake flow (AIF). For
stations that have an AIF less than or equal to 125 million gallons per day(MGD), the regulation requires
the following information to be submitted:
§122.21(r)(2) Source Water Physical Data
§122.21(r)(3)Cooling Water Intake Structure Data
§122.21(r)(4)Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data
§122.21(r)(5) Cooling Water System Data
§122.21(r)(6) Chosen Method(s)of Compliance with Impingement Mortality Standard
§122.21(r)(7) Entrainment Performance Studies
§122.21(r)(8) Operational Status

For stations that have an AIF greater than 125 MGD,the regulation requires the above information to be
submitted and, unless waived,the following additional information:
§122.21(r)(9) Entrainment Characterization Study
§122.21(r)(10) Comprehensive Technical Feasibility and Cost Evaluation Study
§122.21(r)(11) Benefits Valuation Study
§122.21(r)(12) Non-water Quality and Other Environmental Impacts Study
The timing of the submission of the above information is connected to the timing of the NPDES permit
renewal application for the station. The regulation states that for a station whose current effective
NPDES permit expires after July 14, 2018, information required to be submitted must be included with
the subsequent NPDES permit renewal application. For stations whose current effective permit expires
on or before July 14, 2018, the owner may submit a request to the permit Director for an alternate
schedule for the submission of the above information'.
As shown in Table 1, every Duke Energy station in North Carolina either has an effective permit that
expires prior to July 14, 2018 or has a NPDES permit that has been administratively continued while the
permit is in the renewal process. Duke Energy hereby requests an alternate schedule for each of these
stations.The requested submittal date for the 316(b) information is provided in Table 1.
As indicated in Table 1, the Duke Energy stations that have an AIF greater than 125 MGD, with the
exception of Brunswick Nuclear Station, are located on reservoirs. Under the remanded Phase II 316(b)
Rule, stations located on reservoirs were not required to conduct entrainment monitoring. These
stations, therefore, will have to conduct 2-years of entrainment monitoring to complete the
§122.21(r)(9) submission. Entrainment monitoring has been conducted at the Brunswick Nuclear
Station; however, Duke Energy will need to evaluate whether the data collected is sufficient to satisfy
the requirements in the recently finalized rule.
The data collected during the 2-years of monitoring are necessary to complete the benefits valuation
study (§122.21(r)(11)); therefore, this submittal cannot be finalized until after the entrainment
monitoring is completed and results analyzed. Furthermore, the regulations require the Comprehensive
Technical Feasibility and Cost Evaluation, Benefits Evaluation and the Non-water Quality and Other
Environmental Impacts to be peer reviewed. Duke Energy estimates that approximately five years will be
needed to complete all the necessary studies and submission, based on the following:
— 1 year for the development of the Entrainment Characterization Study plans, which includes
preparing the plans, and review and approval of the plans by NCDENR.
— 2 years to conduct the entrainment monitoring.
— 1 year to complete the Entrainment Characterization Study Report, Comprehensive Technical
Feasibility and Cost Evaluation Study, Benefits Valuation Study and Non-water Quality and Other
Environmental Impacts Study.
— 1 year to complete the Peer Review.
This timeframe is very similar to the schedule presented in the proposed rule. Upon submission of the
above information, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR)determines what, if any,
I Refer to§125.95(a)(1)and(2)

controls are necessary to address entrainment. Once BTA for entrainment is determined, a compliance
schedule will be developed to complete §122.21(r)(6) Chosen Method(s) of Compliance with
Impingement Mortality Standard.
The stations with an AIF less than or equal to 125 MGD have fewer submittal requirements; however,
these stations were either not subject to the remanded rule or have undergone extensive changes to
the operation since they were last evaluated. As a result, Duke Energy will need to develop a new
submittal for each of these stations. Duke Energy will attempt to use available historical information;
however, additional field work may be needed at some sites to complete the Source Water Physical
Data and Baseline Biological Characterization Data submissions. EPA concluded that 39 months will be
adequate for facilities with an AIF less than 125 MGD to complete all the required submissions. Given
the requirements will be implemented through the NDPES permit, Duke Energy request these submittals
are due with the NPDES permit renewal applications due after July 14, 2018.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact myself at 704-382-9622 or nathan.craig aC�duke-
energy.com.
Si rely, /�
cCy
ath n Crai
Senior Environmental Specialist
Duke Energy
Attachment
A

Table 1:316(b)Alternate Schedule Request =.
Duke Energy Carolinas,LLC and Duke Energy Progress,LLC • .
r
WOES Peendt Currant WOES Requested Deter to Submit Andripated Neat WOES Subnittaf Requirements,unless
PLANT )MamOw Cooing Method Actual Intake Flow Aherne.Schedule Request
Expiration Date 316(0)Isdoranedee Permit Expiation Dela wNred
Duke Energy would Ike to request the 316(b)submittals to be due with the subsequent NPDES 02)-r(5),r)7)-r(13)
once-through cooling(OTC) Permit application due after July 14,2016,assuming a 5-year expiration date from the r(6)to be submitted after BTA for
BRUNSWICK NCO0O7064 estuary AIF>125 MGD 11/30/2016 6/2/2021 11/29/2021 expiration date of the current NPDES permit entralnmernt is determined
Duke Energy would like to request the 316(b)submittals to be due with the subsequent NPDES r12)+(5),r(7)-113)
cooling water reservoir defined as 4.5-years Prom the effective Permit application,assuming a 5-year expiration date from the effective a date of the renewed
r(6)to be submitted after BTA for
5016060 NOO003425 water.of the U.S./if from reservoir>125 MGD 3/31/2012 date of the renewed permit TBD permit. entrainment is determined
Duke Energy would the to request the 316(b)submittals to be due with the subsequent NPDES r(2)-15),r(7)-r(13)
cooling water reservoir defined as 4.5-years from the effective Permit application,assuming a S-year expiration date from the effective date of the renewed r(6)to be submitted after CIA for
ASHEVILLE N00000396 waters of the U.S.AIF from reservoir 125 MUD 12/31/2010 date of the renewed permit TBD permit. entrainment is determined
A renewal application was submitted on Aug.14,2014.An alternate schedule request for the
316(6)submittals was submitted on Jan.9,2015.Duke Energy requested the 316(b)submittals r(2)-r1S),r(7)r(13)
cooling water reservoir defined as to be due with the subsequent NPDES Permit application due after July 14,2011,assuming a 5- r(6)to be submitted after BTA for
MCGUIRE NOOO24392 waters of the U.S.Alf from reservoir>125 SAGO 2/28/2015 8/31/2029 2/27/2020 year expiration date irons the expiration date of the current NPDES permit. entrainment Is determined
An alternate schedule request was submitted with the NPDES application renewal submitted on
Oct.9 2014.Duke Energy requested the 316(b)submittals to be due with the subsequent 12)-r(S),07}x(13)
coding water reservoir defined as NPDES permit renewal application due after July 14,2018,assuming a 5-year expiration date r(6)to be submitted after BTA for
ALLEN NaC04979 waters of the U.S.AIF from reservoir>125 MGD 5/31/2015 12/1/2019 5/29/2020 from the expiration date of the current permit entrainment Is determined
An alternate schedule request was submitted with the NPDES application renewal submitted on
Oct.9 2014.Duke Energy requested the 316(b)submittals to W due with the subsequent 12)415),r(7)-r(13)
cooling water reservoir defined as NPDES permit renewal application due after July 14,2018,assuming a S-year expiration date 0)to be submitted after BTA for
MARSHALL NCOOO4967 waters of the U.S.AIF from reservoir>125 MGD 4/30/2015 10/31/2019 4/28/2020 from the expiration date of the current permit. entrainment Is determined
Duke Energy would like to request the 316(b)submittals to be due with the subsequent NPDES r(2)4(5),r(7}r(13)
cooling water reservoir defined as Permit application due after luly 14,2018,assuming a 5-year expiration date front the r16)to be submitted after BTA for
BELEWS CREEK NCOO244O& waters of the U.S.AIF torn reservoir>125 MOD 2/28/2017 8/31/2021 2/27/2022 exaltation date of the current NOES permit. entrainment h determined
Duke Energy would like to request the 316(b)submittals to be due with the subsequent NPOES
cooling pond(classification as AIF from coating pond>125 4.5-years from the effective Permit appikation due after July 14,2018,assuming a 5-year expiration date from the
SUTTON NC0OO1422 Waters of the US In review) MGD 12/31/2016• date of the permit TBD expiration date of the current NPDES permit. 780.a minimum r(2)-0)
Duke Energy would like to request the 316(b)submittals to be due with the subsequent NPO[5
closed-cycle cooling(coo0ng 4.5-years front the effective Permit application,assuming a S-yeer expiration Gtr from the effective date of the renewed
MAYO NO0O38377 towers) Alf<125 MOD 3/31/2012 date Of the renewed permit TBD permit r(2)+(6)
Duke Energy would like to request the 316(b)submittals to be due with the subsequent NPDES
closed-cycle cooling(cooling 4.5-years from the effective Permit application,assuming a S-year expiration date from the effective date of the renewed
SHEARON HARRIS NO0O395$6 towers) AIF<125 MGD 7/31/2011 date of the renewed permit T8O permit. r(2)-r(8)
Duke Energy would like to request the 316(b)submittals to be due with the subsequent NPDES
closed-cycle cooling(cooling Permit application due after July 14,2013,assuming a 5-year nplration date from the
CUFFSIDE NC0005088 towers) Alf<125 MGD 7/31/2015 1/31/2020 7/29/2020 expiration date of the current NPDES permit. 112)-r(8)
Duke Energy would like to request the 316(b)submittals to be due within 3-years of the
closed-cycle cooling(cooling effective date of the renewed NPDES permit.Assuming an effective date of 8/31/2016 this date
BUCK NCO0O4774 towers) Alf<125 MOD 8/31/2016 8/31/2019 8/30/2021 would be 8/31/2019. r(2)+(e)
Duke Energy would like to request the 316(b)subrettab to be due within 3years of the
closed-cycle cooling(cooling effective date of the renewed NPDES permit.Assuming an effective date of 4/3/3017,this date
DAN RIVER NCO0O345$ towers) AIF<12S MGO 4/30/2017 4/3/2020 4/29/2022 would be 4/3/2020. r(2)-r(8)
Duke Energy would like to request the 316(b)submittals to be dor with the subsequent NPDES
dosed-cycle cooling(cooling pond 4.5-years from the effective Permit application,assuming a S-yeer aspiration date from the effective date of the renewed
N.F.LEE NC0003417 not defined as waters of the U.S.) AIF<125 MGD 5/31/2013 date of the renewed permit TBD permit. 12)-r(8)
•A NPDES application for Sutton was submitted to NCDENR on Feb.23,2015.Duke Energy requested the 316(b)submittals to be dor with the next NPDES permit application,assuming a 5-year permit tern.
The Smith Energy Complex receives water from a local municipality;therefore,the station Is not subject to the rule