CASE NO. 17-6155 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TENNESSEE …...Michael S. Kelley BPR No. 014378 Briton S....

CASE NO. 17-6155

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TENNESSEE CLEAN WATER NETWORK AND TENNESSEE SCENIC RIVERS ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant.APP

ON APPEAL FROM

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ APPENDIX VOLUME 1

Anne E. Passino, BPR No. 027456 SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER 1033 Demonbreun Street, Suite 205 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 921-9470 [email protected] Frank S. Holleman, III Nicholas S. Torrey SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER 601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Telephone: (919) 967-1450 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association (Additional Counsel on Following Page)

Michael S. Kelley BPR No. 014378 Briton S. Collins BPR No. 30110 KENNERLY, MONTGOMERY &

FINLEY, P.C 550 Main Street, Suite 400 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 546-7311 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Tennessee Clean Water Network Dated March 15, 2018

Case: 17-6155 Document: 63 Filed: 03/15/2018 Page: 1

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association (continued) Austin D. Gerken, Jr. SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER 43 Patton Ave., Suite 304 Asheville, NC 28801 (828) 258-2028 [email protected]


TABLE OF CONTENTS TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S APPENDIX VOLUME 1

TENNESSEE CLEAN WATER NETWORK and TENNESSEE SCENIC RIVERS ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

Defendant-Appellant.

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155

On appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Tennessee No. 3:15-cv-00424

EXHIBIT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT APPENDIX PAGE RANGE

J150 Environmental Integrity Project, Public Comment on draft NPDES Permit No. TN0005428 for TVA’s Gallatin Fossil

Plant (Jun. 13, 2011) 2-21

J16 Aerial Photograph of Red Water Entering the Cumberland River from the NRS

23

J113 AECOM, Powerpoint Presentation, Gallatin Ash Pond Closures: General Process for Ash Removal and Pond

Lining (Mar. 20, 2015) 25-54

J59 Excerpts, Arcadis, Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Project Summary and Risk Assessment Report (Nov. 24,

2014) 56-111

J247 Email from Michael Gray and attached Regulatory Inspection Summary Reporting Form (Aug. 21, 2014)

113-114

J249 Compliance Inspection Report, Permit No. TN0005428, TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant (Apr. 25, 2016)

116

J137 Email from Robert Alexander to Vojin Janic re: Today’s Inquiry on TVA Gallatin NPDES & closed ash landfill

(Sept. 30, 2010) 118

J92 Excerpts, Lang memo to Combs Intermediate Storage Alternative, Final (Rev. 1) Technical Memorandum, TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant – Sumner County, Tennessee, TVA

Project ID: 202216 (Feb. 3, 2012)

120-135

J270 TVA, TDEC Consent Order: Environmental Investigation Plans

137-140



Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant.

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155



PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES' APPENDIX VOLUME 1

Joint Exhibit 150

Environmental Integrity Project, Public Comment on draft NPDES Permit No. TN0005428 for

TVA’s Gallatin Fossil Plant (Jun. 13, 2011)

TCWN et al. v. TVA, 17-6155 Appendix Vol. 1 Page 1


TVGF_108625

ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT

By Email and certified mail

Mr. Vojin Janjic

Manager, Permit Section Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control Sixth Floor, L&C Annex 40 I Church Street

Nashville, TN 37243-1534

June 13, 2011

l['l D ooiJ+d--i I;\\-:-:;

1 Thomas Circle, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 main: 202-296-8800 fax: 202-296-8822 www.environmentalintegrity.org

RECEIVED JUN 1 6 2011

TN Oivi::,iOI'> ()f VVater Poliution Control

Re: Public Comment on Draft NPDES Permit No. TN0005428 for TV A's Gallatin Fossil Plant

Dear Mr. Janjic:

Please accept these comments from the Environmental Integrity Project, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Earthjustice, the Tennessee Clean Water Network, the Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Southern Environmental Law Center ("commenters") on the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit number TN0005428 for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Gallatin Fossil Plant.

Preventing coal ash effluent from degrading Tennessee's waterways is critically important, and the Clean Water Act requires TDEC to take steps to minimize effluent discharges. The draft permit, in violation of the Clean Water Act, fails to impose legally required effluent limits, fails to impose adequate monitoring, and fails to address discharges through seeps and groundwater migration. TDEC is legally obligated to consider technology-based effluent limits, as discussed

in detail below, and is obligated to consider technologies that can reduce or eliminate discharges. It is clear that rudimentary settling systems do virtually nothing to prevent the discharge of dissolved metals and other pollutants, 1 yet TDEC has failed to consider any alternative other than continued reliance on existing settling ponds. TDEC must vet the availability of state-of-the-art

1 See, e.g., Memorandum from James A. Hanlon, Director, US EPA Office of Wastewater Management, to Water Division Directors, "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Pennitting of Wastewater Discharges from Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) and Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Impoundments at Steam Electric Power Plants" Attachment A, 3 (June 7, 2010) [hereinafter "Hanlon memo"].

Page 1of20

100% PCW R<C·~~~21 @ ~~;;.



TVGF_108627

pollution controls, identify best available technology (BAT) as defined by the Clean Water Act, and impose technology-based effluent limits that achieve pollution reductions consistent with BAT.

Please find a more detailed discussion of these and additional concerns below. Thank you for

considering our comments.

Page 2 of 20

FlECE!VED JUN l 6 2011

Poilul!on C'.::'.·ntrol



TVGF_108628

Contents

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 5

1. TDEC must establish numeric technology-based effluent limitations for Outfall 001 .............. 5

A. TBELs are the minimum level of protection required by law .......................................... 5

B. TDEC is required to use its Best Professional Judgment to set case-by-case TBELs ..... 8

1. TDEC must evaluate available alternative technologies .................................................. 8

11. It is arbitrary to rely on the potential for future dry handling without an enforceable

condition requiring this conversion during the permit term .................................................... 9

111. The permit could impose TBELs with a compliance schedule based on dry handling 9

IV. The permit provides no BPJ analysis ........................................................................... 9

C. The proposal for Best Management Practices in lieu of numeric limits is unlawful ..... 10

I. Public participation ........................................................................................................ 10

11. TDEC, not TVA, must derive permit limits ............................................................... 10

111. Numeric limits are feasible ......................................................................................... 11

2. TDEC must establish water quality-based effluent limitations to protect water uses .............. 11

A. The WQBEL analysis does not accurately reflect background stream conditions ........ 11

B. The WQBEL analysis presented by TDEC suggests that WQBELs are required for

aluminum, iron, mercury, and selenium .................................................................................... 12

1. Aluminum ....................................................................................................................... 12

11. Iron .............................................................................................................................. 12

111. Mercury ...................................................................................................................... 12

1v. Selenium ..................................................................................................................... 12

C. The WQBEL analysis using Gallatin intake water as a surrogate for background water

quality would suggest that WQBELs are required for aluminum, iron, and manganese .......... 13

1. Aluminum ....................................................................................................................... 13

11. Iron .............................................................................................................................. 13

111. Manganese .................................................................................................................. 13

Page 3 of ZO



TVGF_108629

3. Monitoring requirements must be strengthened to allow for accurate assessment of water

quality impacts .............................................................................................................................. 14

4. TDEC has impermissibly authorized TV A to violate Tennessee's Antidegradation Statement.

....................................................................................................................................................... M

5. The draft permit fails to address all known discharges ............................................................. 15

A. Seeps ............................................................................................................................... 15

B. Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 16

6. TDEC does not have adequate information to support a variance from thermal discharge

limitations under Clean Water Act§ 3!6(a) ................................................................................. 16

7. TDEC must impose Clean Water Act § 3 l 6(b) limitations ...................................................... 17

8. The draft permit must address structural stability ..................................................................... 17

8. Mislabeling of Permit ............................................................................................................... 18

I 0. Mistaken References to Bull Run .......................................................................................... 18

A. BMP Conditions ............................................................................................................. 18

B. Free Water Volume ........................................................................................................ 18

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 18

Page 4 of 20

RECEl\/c.:··; . L. I.

llJN l 6 2011

Ti'J D·' ''-.,· /\'-~~, P·::.::, -~r'.Jr. ( .-,1,-,.'



TVGF_108630

Background

The NPDES permit for the Gallatin Fossil Plaot expired on November 29, 2009.2 TVA sent a permit renewal application on May 21, 2009. 3 The current draft permit was issued on May 17, 2011.4

The Gallatin Fossil Plant is located on the Cumberland River in Gallatin, TN. This waterway is an importaot natural resource for Tennessee, with scenic and water quality value. 5 The Cumberland River is currently classified for domestic water supply, industrial water supply, fish & aquatic life, recreation, livestock watering & wildlife, irrigation, and navigation. 6

Under the Clean Water Act (CW A) aod the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act (TWQCA), TDEC is required to prevent water pollution by limiting the discharge of pollutants. As discussed in detail below, the CW A and the TvVQCA require that TDEC set technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs) that reflect the ability of available technologies to reduce or eliminate pollution discharges. In addition, if a discharge of pollutants could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards, then TDEC must set water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs). The only limitations in the draft permit are for those pollutants addressed in EPA's

outdated Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs). 7 However, the CWA and the TWQCA require numeric effluent limitations for all pollutants discharged.

1. TDEC must establish numeric technology-based effluent limitations for Outfall 001

A. TBELs are the minimum level of protection required by law.

2 TDEC Gallatin Fossil Plant NPDES Permit TN0005428 (Nov. 30, 2005). 3 Letter from Gordon G. Park, TVA, to Joe E. Holland, TDEC, "Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) - Gallatin Fossil Plant (GAF) - NPDES Permit No. TN0005428 - Application for Renewal "(May 21, 2009). 4 TDEC, Gallatin Fossil Plant NPDES Penni! TN0005428 (draft, May 17, 2011) [hereinafter "Draft Permit"]. 5 Tem1essee Rivers assessment Program, the Tennessee Rivers Assessment Summary Report (1998), available at http://tn.gov/environrnentlwpc/pubications/pdf/1998%20 TN Rivers Assessment Report.pdf. 6 Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1200-04-04.12 (Feb. 2010). 7 The pollutants are pH, oil & grease, and total suspended solids. See Draft Permit, supra note 4, at 1. Sec also US EPA, Stean1 Electric PoH'er Generating Point Source Catego1J·: £.{fluent Lin1itations Guidelines, Pretreatn1ent Standards and New Source Performance Standards, Final Rule, 47 Fed. Reg. 52,290 (Nov. 19, 1982) [hereinafter "Effluent Limitations Guidelines''].

Page 5 of 20



TVGF_108631

TBELs afford the minimum level of water quality protection required by the CW A. 8 EPA made clear in a recent memo that "[t]echnology-based effluent limitations constitute a minimum floor of controls that must be included in a permit, irrespective of the discharger's effect on the quality of the receiving water."9 Pursuant to the CW A and TDEC's own regulations, TBELs must reflect pollutant controls constituting the "best available technology economically achievable" (BAT), and these effluent limitations "shall require the elimination of discharges of all Pollutants if the Administrator finds, on the basis of information available to him [sic J ... that such elimination is technologically and economically achievable." 10

The EPA promulgates ELGs from time to time, but the ELGs applicable to the steam electric industry are, at almost thirty years old, dramatically outdated. 11 The existing ELGs have been used in the draft permit for pH, oil & grease, and total suspended solids, but this alone does not fulfill TDEC's obligations under the Clean Water Act. Where the EPA has not yet promulgated ELGs, the CWA requires TDEC to stand in the shoes of the EPA and use its best professional judgment (BP J) to set case-by-case TBELs for those pollutants covered in NPDES permits. 12

According to the CW A and EPA guidance, "an authorized state must include technology-based effluent limitations in its permits for pollutants not addressed by the effluent guidelines for that industry."13

Although the EPA has not yet promulgated new ELGs, it has recognized the toxicity of coal combustion wastewater. The steam electric power generating industry is the second largest

8 40 C.F.R. § 122.44 ("[E]ach NPDES permit shall include conditions meeting the following requirements ... Technology-based effluent limitations and standards based on: effluent limitations and standards promulgated under section 301 of the CW A, or new source performance standards promulgated under section 306 of CW A, on [sic] case-by-case effluent limitations determined under section 402(a)(l) of CW A, or a combination of the three, in accordance with§ 125.3 of this chapter"): 40 C.F.R. § 125.3 ("Technology-based treatment requirements under section 301 (b) of the Act represent the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act"). 9 Hanlon memo, supra note 1, at Attachment A, 1; see also American Petroleum Institute v. E.P .A. 661 F.2d 340, 344 (5'" Cir. 1981) ("Section 301, in a radical departure from earlier Acts, goes further, to establish 'technologybased' li1nitations. These li1nitations require industry, regardless of a discharge1s effect on water quality, to e1nploy defined levels of technology to meet effluent limitations. Analogous to a strict liability standard, this section mandated technological improvements and itnposed stringent pollution restrictions even where the discharge caused no discernible harm to the environ1nent."). 10 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(b)(2)A); see also Telll. Comp. R. & Regs. 1200-04-05-.08(l)(a) ("[E]ffluent limitations shall be designed to require application of the best practicable control technology currently available and application of the best available technology economically achievable in accordance with requirements of [the CWA]." 11 Effluent Limitations Guidelines, supra note 7. 12 33 U.S.C. § 13 l l(b)(2)A); 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(a)(l)(B), 1342(b) (describing approved state permitting programs); 40 C.F.R. §§ 125.3(c), 125.3(d) (listing factors that must be considered by permit writers in setting case-by-case TBELs); NRDC v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("States issuing permits pursuant to § l 342(b) stand in the shoes of the agency, and thus must similarly pay heed to § 131 l(b)'s technology-based standards when exercising their BPJ. Thus, notwithstanding Industry's contrary assertions, States are required to co1npel adherence to the Act's technology-based standards regardless of whether EPA has specified their content pursuant to § 1314(b)."). u Hanlon memo, supra note 1, at Attachtnent A, 2. E:~ c.; i \/

Page 6 of 20

.;\· ,-;;. :;



TVGF_108632

discharger of toxic pollutants in the nation, and the toxicity of these discharges is primarily driven by metals and other elements associated with coal combustion waste handling and FGD systems. 14 EPA recognized the seriousness of the problem in its 2009 Detailed Study Report:

An increasing amount of evidence indicates that the characteristics of coal combustion wastewater have the potential to impact human health and the environment. Many of the common pollutants found in coal combustion wastewater (e.g., selenium, mercury, and arsenic) are known to cause environmental harm and can potentially represent a human health risk. Pollutants in coal combustion wastewater are of particular concern because they can occur in large quantities (i.e., total pounds) and at high concentrations (i.e., exceeding Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)) in discharges and leachate to groundwater and surface waters. In addition some pollutants in coal combustion wastewater present an increased ecological threat due to their tendency to persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in organisms, which often results in slow ecological

. ti II . '' 15 recovery limes o owmg exposure.·

The EPA identified several contaminants of concern in a 2009 review of industry discharges, 16

and identified additional contaminants of concern in a risk assessment associated with solid

waste rulemaking. 17 Table I combines these lists. TBELs should be set for all listed coal ash constituents:

Table 1: Coal combustion waste constituents of concern requiring TBELs

Aluminum Chromium Manganese Selenium

Antimony Cobalt Mercury Thallium

Arsenic Copper Molybdenum Zinc

Boron Fluoride Nickel

Cadmium Iron Nitrogen

Chlorides Lead Phosphorus

14 US EPA, Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, 72 Fed. Reg. 61,335. 61,342 (Oct. 30, 2007). 15 US EPA, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Categ01y: Final Detailed Study Report, EPA 82 l-R-09-008, 6-2 (Oct. 2009) [hereinafter "Steam Electric Report"]. 16 Id. at 6-3 (arsenic, boron, cadmium, chlorides, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nitrogen, phosphorous, selenium, and zinc); see also Hanlon memo, supra note 1, at Attachment B, 3 (noting that several chemicals including aluminum and nickel exceeded water quality criteria in coal ash effluent). 17 Antimony, cobalt, molybdenun1, and thallium were all associated with risk in the full-scale risk analysis; chron1iun1, fluoride, and manganese were not modeled in the full-scale analysis but all showed hazard quotients greater than one when screening values were adjusted with a median attenuation factor derived from the full-scale analysis of other constituents, indicating that they are likely to present a significant risk. U.S. EPA, Hun1an and Ecological Risk Assessment al Coal Combustion Wastes, ES-6 to ES-8, 4-21 (draft, April 2010).

Page 7 of 20



TVGF_108633

B. TDEC is required to use its Best Professional Judgment to set case-by-case TBELs.

TDEC must follow the requirements of the CW A in its administration ofNPDES permits, and

the goal of the CWA is to eliminate pollutant discharges. 18 Although a zero-discharge goal is not strictly attainable in all settings, the best available technologies must be applied in an effort to get as close as possible to zero discharge. TDEC can and must consider the same mandatory factors that the EPA would consider in setting national effluent limitations, including the age of the facility, the process employed, engineering aspects of various control techniques, process changes, and non-water environmental impacts. 19 While a thorough review of available

technologies including their cost and performance is required, much of this analysis can be drawn from EPA's Steam Electric reports, the most recent of which was issued in October 2009w EPA has made extensive materials available to state permit writers, and over the course of its multi-year study of the steam electric industry it has coordinated directly with state and

. l . . 21 reg10na permit wnters.

i. TDEC must evaluate available alternative technologies

Part ofTDEC's responsibility in exercising best professional judgment is considering all available, economically achievable technologies.22 A technology is considered "available" if it is practicable, even ifit has not yet been applied.23 A technology is economically achievable ifthe best-performing facilities in the industry can implement it.24 Many technologies are can reduce or even eliminate pollutant discharges from coal-fired power plants. Especially relevant here is dry ash handling, a process that produces little or no wastewater. The EPA Steam Electric report

notes that 13% of surveyed coal plants dry-handle bottom ash, and 65% of surveyed coal plants dry-handle fly ash.25 This technology easily passes the tests of availability and achievability. In

18 NRDC v. EPA, 863 F.2d 1420, 1426 (9'h Cir. 1988) ("BAT should represent 'a commitment of the maximum resources economically possible to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges.'"). 19 NRDC v. EPA, 859 F.2d at 183; 33 U.S.C. * 1314(b)(2)(B). 20 Steam Electric Report, supra note 15. 21 Id.; see also Hanlon memo, supra note 1. 22 33 U.S.C. § 13 l l(b)(2)A); see also Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1200-04-05-.08(1 )(a) ("[E]ffiuent limitations shall be designed to require application of the best practicable control technology currently available and application of the best available technology economically achievable in accordance with requirements of [the CW A]."). 23 Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp. v. Train, 537 F.2d 620, 636 (2d Cir. 1976) ("That no plant in a given industry has adopted a pollution control device which could be installed does not mean that the device is not 'available.'"). 24 Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177. 226 (5'h Cir. 1989) (requiring that BAT be based on "the performance of the single best-performing plant in an industrial field."). 25 Stean1 Electric Report. supra note 15, at 5-3 to 5-5.

Page 8 of 20 !V ['1

\J ,_Cj (



TVGF_108634

fact, TVA is apparently planning to convert to dry ash handling at the Gallatin plant by 2016,26

and the draft permit alludes to ash pond closure.27

ii. It is arbitrary to rely on the potential for future dry handling without an enforceable condition requiring this conversion during the permit term.

TV A may be planning to convert to dry ash handling, but this an unenforceable promise and it does not absolve TDEC of its legal obligations. It is important to remember that TVA made the same promise in 1988, announcing that "because of concerns about groundwater contamination, TV A is moving away from wet ash disposal techniques to dry stacking."28 Even if TV A does undertake the announced conversion, it appears that the conversion could happen as late as October 2016, which will be after the end of the new permit term. TDEC has a responsibility to evaluate technologies that could reduce discharges of toxic pollutants in the interim. These could include, for example, the evaporation systems and other technologies discussed in connection

with the treatment of flue gas desulfurization wastes.29

iii. The permit could impose TBELs with a compliance schedule based on dry handling

If the permit is premised on a conversion to dry ash handling, and there is truly no way to improve on TV A's settling system in the meantime, then the permit must (I) document such a finding in a BP J analysis, and (2) impose limits based on the level of control that will be achieved with dry ash handling systems by a reasonable date certain.

iv. The permit provides no BPJ analysis

Although TDEC has made an effort to present some form ofBPJ analyses in recent NPDES permits for other TV A plants, 30 it has inexplicably failed to make even a minimum effort in this draft permit. TDEC must make a serious effort-it must evaluate control technologies including

26 TVA, Progress Report on TVA Facilities Pursuant to SJR 784 (March 30, 2011). 27 Draft permit, supra note 4, at 20. 28 TVA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Inspection 2008-12283-02. Review of the Kingston Fossil Plant Ash Spill Root Cause Studv And Observations About Ash Management, Appendix C. 15 (July 23. 2009) (citing W.M. Bivens, Vice President of Power Engineering and Construction, to Morris G. Herndon, Manager ofDan1 Safety Program, December 29, 1988, Archived TVA files, Tennessee). 29 See, e.g., Steam Electric Report, supra note 15, at 4-26 to 4-50. 30 See, e.g., IDEC. Kingston Fossil Plant NPDES permit TN0005452. at R-26 (draft, Oct. 11. 2010)

Page 9 of 20



TVGF_108635

dry ash handling, and it must use its best professional judgment to set BAT-based TBELs in the

permit.

C. The proposal for Best Management Practices in lieu of numeric limits is unlawfnl

As in other permits, TDEC is here requiring TVA to submit a Best Management Practices (BMP)

plan after the permit is issued.31 This is problematic in two ways:

i. Public participation.

The proposal for a future BMP plan denies the public an opportunity to participate in the development of the BMP plan. The draft permit specifically provides that the undefined BMPs to be proposed by TV A "are incorporated as permit conditions."32 The Clean Water Act mandates

the opp01iunity for public review and comment on permit conditions snch as the futnre BMP plan. 33 In the present case, there is no reason that TV A could not have provided the proposed BMP plan in its application or in a supplement to its application so that the public could review it prior to permit issuance.

ii. TDEC, not TV A, must derive permit limits.

The draft permit leaves the development of the BMPs to the unguided discretion of TVA. The

permit's provisions for a BMP plan impose no conditions other than to "document the relationship between operations and effluent metals concentrations."34 TDEC cannot relinquish its obligations under the CW A in this manner.35 In other situations in which BMPs are permitted in lieu of numeric limits, such as in the construction general permit, TDEC defines the requirements for the BMP plan with specificity both in the permit and in a separate manual and also reviews the set of proposed BMPs before issuing permit coverage.

31 Draft pennit, supra note 4, at 21. ·12 Id. at 27. 33 See 33 U.S.C. * 125l(e); see also Waterkeeper Alliance. Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 399 F.3d 486, 503 (2"' Cir. 2005) (holding that the terms of a nutrient managen1ent plan [a type of best management practice] are effluent limitations that must be included in NPDES permits and must also be subject to public participation). 34 Draft permit, supra note 4, at 21, 27. 35 See, e.g., Waterkeeper Alliance, 399 F.3d at 498-503 (holding that nutrient management plans (a type of best inanage1nent practice] must be included in NP DES permits and 1nust be reviewed by permitting agencies before pem1its are issued).

Page 10 of 20 !='. r• ;: I I/ C p\ ,.._ '-~1 1-.» I '•' [M, l~_j

, ,, 1· · ,. ·in 1• .iuJ\ f 0 l.U,I



TVGF_108636

iii. Numeric limits are feasible.

BMPs cannot be a substitute for legally required TBELs. It unlawful to rely on BMPs when it is

possible to set numeric discharge limits.36 As discussed above, EPA reports and other documents provide ample information about available, economically achievable technologies to make the establishment of numeric limits feasible.

2. TDEC must establish water quality-based effluent limitations to protect water uses.

The Clean Water Act and Tennessee regulations mandate that where the discharge of pollutants would cause or contribute to violations of water quality criteria in receiving waters, TDEC must set WQBELs sufficient to prevent such violations.37 The analysis of whether or not such violations are expected to occur is found on page 22 of the rationale under the heading "Water

Quality Based Calculations for Toxics and Other Substances."38

A. The WQBEL analysis does not accurately reflect background stream conditions.

The analysis of the likelihood of water quality criteria violations, a process also known as a reasonable potential analysis, requires estimates of the background concentrations of the pollutants being discharged. 39 The draft permit substitutes one-half of the lowest applicable water quality criterion for each pollutant's background concentration.40 These values do not correspond to actual background concentrations, and using them obscures all instances in which background concentrations exceed water quality criteria. These substitute values are therefore not a reasonable proxy for background water quality. Better alternatives exist. For example, TVA is required to sample intake water, and TDEC has access to these sampling results.41 Where a

result is below detection, the detection limit can be used as a proxy for the background concentration.

If TDEC does not have an adequate background water quality database then it should require TVA to provide one. TDEC is obligated to determine whether GAF's discharges have the

36 See 40 C.F.R. * 122.44(k). 37 33 U.S.C. 1312(a); Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs.* 1200-04-05-.04(l)(g). 38 Draft permit, supra note 4, at Rational Page 22. 39 Id. at Rationale Page 20. 40 Id. at Rationale Page 19. 41 Intake sampling results are included, for example. on Form 2C of TV As application for the Gallatin NPDES permit. TVA, supra note 3.

Page 11of20



TVGF_108637

reasonable potential to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards. TDEC's

regulations regarding permit effluent limitations and standards make it clear that it is the responsibility of the permit applicant to provide the required information.42

B. The WQBEL analysis presented by TDEC suggests that WQBELs are required for aluminum, iron, mercury, and selenium.

i. Aluminum. The long-term average aluminum concentration in Gallatin effluent is reported as 1,600 µg/L. 43

This exceeds the calculated maximum allowable effluent concentration of 474.2 µg/L, which is based on the chronic criterion for fish & aquatic life.44 Gallatin effluent is therefore expected to cause a violation of aluminum water quality criteria, and TDEC must set a WQBEL for aluminum.

ii. Iron. The daily maximum iron concentration Gallatin effluent is reported as 520 µg/L. 45 This exceeds the calculated maximum allowable effluent concentration of389.5 µg/L, which is based on the criterion for human consumption of water & organisms.46 Gallatin effluent is therefore expected to cause a violation of iron water quality criteria, and TDEC must set a WQBEL for iron.

m. Mercury. The WQBEL analysis uses a background mercury concentration (0.09 µg/L) 47 that exceeds the criteria for human consumption of organisms and human consumption of water and organisms (both 0.05 µg/L). 48 This means that any addition of mercury from the Gallatin plant would contribute to a violation of water quality criteria. In this case, TDEC is required to set a zerodischarge WQBEL for mercury.

iv. Selenium. The long-term average concentration of selenium reported in TV A's application for the Gallatin NPDES permit is 28 µg/L. 49 This exceeds the calculated maximum allowable effluent

42 Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1200-4-5-.05(2) (the NPDES permit application must include "such engineering reports, plans and specifications as are required" and the Co1111nissioner "may subsequently request additional reasonable infonnation as required in order to make the pennit decision," even after issuing a notice of completeness). 43 Draft permit, supra note 4, at Rationale Page 26. 44 Id. at Rationale Page 22. 45 Id. at Rationale Page 26. 46 Id. at Rationale Page 22. 47

Id. 1· I L_ \j 48 Id. 49 TV A application for Gallatin NPDES permit supra note 3, Fann 2C. j UN l fi (_ 0 i '1

Page 12 of 20



TVGF_108638

concentration of27.3 µg/L, which is based on the chronic criterion for fish & aquatic life.50

Gallatin effluent is therefore expected to cause a violation of selenium water quality criteria, and

TDEC must set a WQBEL for selenium.

C. The WQBEL analysis nsing Gallatin intake water as a surrogate for background water quality wonld suggest that WQBELs are required for aluminum, iron, and manganese.

Gallatin draws water from the Cumberland River at a point immediately adjacent to the plant and roughly 3 miles upstream of Outfall 001. It seems reasonable to assume that this intake water is representative of the quality of Cumberland River at Outfall 001. TVA is required to monitor the intake water for the same analytes included in outfall monitoring,51 and the results are reported in the NPDES application,52 making them readily available. It seems, then, that the intake water results would have been a more reasonable proxy for background conditions. We substituted

these values for the half-of-detection limit values in the WQBEL analysis. This alternative analysis suggests that WQBELs are required for the following:

i. Aluminum. The long-term average concentration of aluminum in Gallatin intake water is reported to be 480 µg/L. 53 This suggests that aluminum in the receiving water exceeds the chronic criterion for fish & aquatic life, 87 µg/L. 54 In this case any addition of aluminum would contribute to a violation of water quality criteria, and TDEC must set a zero-discharge WQBEL for aluminum.

ii. Iron. The long-tenn average concentration of iron in Gallatin intake water is reported to be 330 µg/L. 55 This suggests that iron in the receiving water exceeds the criterion for human consumption of water & organisms, 300 µg/L. 56 In this case any addition of iron would contribute to a violation of water quality criteria, and TDEC must set a zero-discharge WQBEL

for iron.

iii. Manganese.

50 Draft pennit, supra note 4, at Rationale Page 22. 51 Id. at 25. 52 See TV A application for Gallatin NP DES permit supra note 3. 53 Id. at fom1 2C. 54 Draft permit, supra note 4, at Rationale Page 22. 55 TV A application for Gallatin NPDES permit, supra note 3, Form 2C. 56 Draft permit supra note 4, at Rationale Page 22.

Page 13 of 20



TVGF_108639

The long-term average concentration of manganese in Gallatin intake water is reported to be 54 µg/L. 57 This suggests that iron in the receiving water exceeds the criterion for human consumption of organisms, 50 µg/L. 58 In this case any addition of manganese would contribute to a violation of water quality criteria, and IDEC must set a zero-discharge WQBEL for manganese.

3. Monitoring requirements must be strengthened to allow for accurate assessment of water quality impacts.

The discussion ofWQBELs above makes it clear that IDEC does not have sufficient data to assess the impacts of Gallatin effluent on the Cumberland River. In order to adequately fulfill its

obligation under the CW A to prevent violations of water quality criteria, IDEC must require TVA to sample more frequently and for more pollutants. Specifically, TVA should be required to monitor both effluent and background stream water for all of the pollutants listed in Table 1 on a monthly basis. Without this information IDEC cannot reliably determine that water quality is being protected.

4. IDEC has impermissibly authorized TV A to violate Tennessee's Antidegradation Statement.

According to the draft permit, IDEC has determined that the receiving waters for the Gallatin plant are "available conditions water.''59 Tennessee law has specific requirements regarding the showing that TV A must make in order to obtain permission to degrade receiving waters in this situation:

(3) Available conditions exist where water quality is better than the applicable criterion for a specific parameter. In available conditions, new or additional degradation for that parameter will only be allowed if the applicant has demonstrated to the department that reasonable alternatives to degradation are not feasible.

(a) Analysis of reasonable alternatives shall be part of the application process and shall include a discussion of the feasibility of all potential alternatives, plus the social and economic considerations and environmental consequences of each. Alternatives analyses shall include, at a minimum, completed and accurate Worksheets A and B for public sector applicants or Worksheets A and G for private system applicants, except

57 TV A application for Gallatin NPDES permit, supra note 3, Fonn 2C. 58 Draft permit, supra note 4, at Rationale Page 22. 59 Id. at Rationale Page 13.

Page 14 of 20



TVGF_108640

where these worksheets are inappropriate for the activity, in which case applicants may substitute materials that provide equivalent information. These forms are found in the EPA guidance document entitled Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards: Workbook (EPA 823/B-95-002) (Economic Guidance). Reasonable alternatives for the various activities include, but are not limited to the following actions. 60

The draft permit asserts that "the applicant has demonstrated to the department that reasonable alternatives to new or increased degradation to the available conditions waters are not feasible."61 This is problematic for two important reasons. First, TVA has not undertaken the legally required minimum analysis of reasonable alternatives. The worksheets mentioned above are not included in the permit or in the permit application. Second, TV A could not have demonstrated that degradation is the only option given the

array of pollution controls, including dry ash handling, that are available, and given the acknowledgement that a conversion to dry ash handling is feasible and in fact contemplated (see discussion ofTBELs above). Absent a credible showing that there are no reasonable alternatives, Tennessee's Antidegradation Statement requires TDEC to prevent any

degradation of the Cumberland River.

5. The draft permit fails to address all known discharges.

The Gallatin plant discharges pollutants to the Cumberland through the outfalls described in the permit, but it also discharges pollutants through unpermitted seeps and a hydrological connection

between contaminated groundwater and the river.

A. Seeps.

The Stantec Phase II report for Gallatin notes seven seeps around the ash ponds, two of which are immediately adjacent to the Cumberland River.62 The Phase I report noted seepage around the closed ash disposal area.63 These seeps may be discharging pollutants to the Cumberland River and should be addressed in the NPDES permit. These seeps appear to constitute a continual source of additional pollutant loading not accounted for in the reasonable potential analysis. TDEC also must assess whether discharging through seeps is consistent with BAT

based requirements for TBELs.

60 Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs.~ 1200-04-03-.06. 61 Draft pennit, supra note 4, at Rationale Page 13. (,

2 Stantec Consulting Services, lnc .. Report o_fGeotechnical Ex11loration and Slope Stabili~y Evaluation. Ash Pond I Stilling Pond Complex, Gallatin Fossil Plant (May 27, 2010). ''' Stantec Consulting Services. Inc., Report a/Phase I Facilitv Assessment, Appendix E, 4 (June 24. 2009).

Page 15 of 20

TCWN et al. v. TVA, 17-6155Appendix Vol. 1Page 16


TVGF_108641

B. Groundwater.

The most recent groundwater report for Gallatin's closed ash disposal area includes current and historical monitoring results that show high concentrations of beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium in well 19.64 Well 19 is a shallow well immediately adjacent to the Cumberland River, and the groundwater potentiometric surface presented in the groundwater report suggests that

local groundwater is moving toward the river. This means that the high concentrations of beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium found in well 19 are being discharged to the Cumberland River. This is another discharge that should be addressed in the NPDES permit, at a minimum through an updated reasonable potential analysis.

6. TDEC does not have adequate information to support a variance from thermal discharge limitations under Clean Water Act§ 316(a).

Section 3 l 6(a) of the Clean Water Act addresses thermal discharges, and it allows a source of a

thermal discharge to obtain a variance from a proposed limitation by demonstrating that a less restrictive limitation will "assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife."65 While we appreciate the preparation of a Clean

Water Act 3 l 6(a) thermal variance report, the report and underlying study do not appear to support a variance from applicable thermal effluent limitations. First, as the report acknowledges, the relevant sampling site downstream of the Gallatin plant has met TV A's own screening criteria under the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF Al) only once of the last six years.66 Even assuming that a RFAI score of 42 is a reliable indicator of a balanced, indigenous

population (BIP) of aquatic wildlife (which it may not be), sampling in the relevant stretch of the Cumberland River has typically resulted in lower scores. At the very least, these scores require "more in depth" analysis of the extent to which Gallatin's discharges interfere with the maintenance of B!Ps.67 The report concludes that the results of sampling upstream and downstream of GAF are sufficiently similar to support a variance. However, the sampling results

themselves appear to undercut this conclusion. For instance, five fewer native fish species and two fewer benthic species were found downstream of Gallatin than upstream in 2008.68 In any

case, it is unclear whether the RF AI scoring criteria will ensure the maintenance of BIPs to the

64 TV A, Gallatin Fossil Plant Abandoned Ash Disposal Area Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Report, October 2010 (November 19, 2010). ''

5 33 U.S.C. S 1326(a). 66 Draft pennit, supra note 4, at Rationale Page 43. 67 Id. at Rationale Page 39. 68 Id. at Rationale Page 41. (; i \/ ~ ;

Page 16 of 20 ; '.11\1 ? [} 'i1



TVGF_108642

extent that they are based on data collected between 1998-2007 as opposed to historic data representative of genuinely healthy river conditions for aquatic life.

7. TDEC must impose Clean Water Act§ 316(b) limitations.

The permit appears to absolve TV A of its responsibility under Clean Water Act § 3 l 6(b )69 to minimize fish impingement and other adverse impacts of cooling water intake structures. Although EPA has temporarily suspended their Phase II 316(b) rule, it has also stated that,

pending the issuance a revised rule, "all permits for Phase II facilities should include conditions under section 3 l 6(b) of the Clean Water Act developed on a Best Professional Judgment basis."70 The draft permit does appear to acknowledge this requirement, but does not specifically list the Phase II rule requirements or conditions that are being applied to Gallatin. Instead, the permit rationale states that "TV A shall continue of [sic] the current 316(b) BPT determination pending reissuance ofEPA's final Phase II rule."71 If, as appears to be the case, TDEC is currently proposing to defer imposition of conditions reflecting a case-by-case evaluation of best technology available (BT A), then this is flatly inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean

Water Act. TDEC must evaluate BT A, require conditions to minimize adverse impacts including fish impingement and entrainment, and explicitly identify those conditions in the permit.

8. The draft permit must address structural stability.

Structural failures of ash disposal areas affect water quality, as evidenced most graphically by the Kingston accident. Staniec has made a number of recommendations about structural stability after a comprehensive review of Gallatin disposal areas. 72 These include, for example, a mitigation program for slope stability weak spots in the Bottom Ash Pond A divider dike and the toe area along the north side of Pond E.73 Stantec's suggestions should be included as permit

conditions.

69 33 U.S.C. § 1326(b). 70 Memorandum from Benja1nin Grun1bles, Assistant Ad1ninistrator, US EPA Office of Water, to Regional Ad1ninistrators. "llnple1nentation of the Decision in Riverkeeper, Inc., .. EPA, Remanding the Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase II Regulation'" (March 20, 2007). 71 Draft permit, supra note 4, at Rationale Page 26. 72 See Stantec, su11ra note 65, at 28. 7' Id.

Page 17 of 20



TVGF_108643

8. Mislabeling of Permit

The entire permit is labeled "Rationale." We assume that the rationale is intended to begin

after page 27 of the permit. This error should be corrected in the final permit.

•

10. Mistaken References to Bull Run

There are several references in the draft permit to the Bull Run fossil plant.

A. BMP Conditions.

The draft permit at page 27 calls for the BMPs to be "site-specific to BRF operations." We assume that this should be "GAF" instead, and request that this be corrected in the final permit.

B. Free Water Volume.

On page 5 of the Rationale, there is a section concerning deletion of free water volume requirements. We assume that this was mistakenly pasted from a Bull Run permit because (I) there are references to "BRF" in the text of the section, and (2) the draft permit for Gallatin includes free water volume requirements. 74 We understand TDEC does not normally correct the Rationale when issuing final permits, but this is a significant error that

could lead to future misunderstanding.

Conclusion

As described above, Tennessee and Federal law require TDEC to protect human health and the environment by setting stringent water quality-based and technology-based effluent limits with the goal of eliminating all pollution discharges. We urge TDEC to remember that the risk management process in NPDES permitting underestimates the true risks of Gallatin' s coal ash waste stream. The water quality criteria used by TDEC treat each

chemical in isolation, yet we know that the Gallatin waste stream contains many toxins with

74 Id. at 18. Appendix Sa, Appendix Sb. Page 18 of 20 '·1 \\



TVGF_108644

common endpoints. These chemicals presumably have a combined risk that is at least additive, and may be synergistic. The water quality criteria do not capture either possibility. We also urge TDEC to remember that background concentrations of several pollutants in Gallatin's waste stream already pose significant risks such that any discharge from Gallatin will be adding to a preexisting problem. This is one of the reasons why we are insisting that

TVA and TDEC take zero-discharge technologies seriously.

We appreciate your review of these comments. When issuing the final permit, please respond separately to each numbered comment, including each subheader, and provide affirmative notice to commenters via email (see below).

Sincerely, .~7

. --- // ~~!/c~~

Abel Russ Attorney Environmental Integrity Project One Thomas Circle, Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005 (202) 263-4453 [email protected]

Abigail Dillen Staff Attorney Earthjustice 156 William Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10038 (212) 791-1881 x221 [email protected]

Joshua Galperin Southern Alliance for Clean Energy PO Box 1842 Knoxville, TN 37901 (865) 637-6055 x23 [email protected]

Stephanie Durman Matheny

Staff Attorney Page 19 of 20



TVGF_108645

Tennessee Clean Water Network P.O. Box 1521

Knoxville, TN 37901 (865) 522-7007 xi 02 [email protected]

Axel C. Ringe Vice Conservation Chair TN Chapter Sierra Club 865-397-1840 [email protected]

Susannah Knox Associate Attorney Southern Environmental Law Center 60 I West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (919) 967-1450 [email protected]

Cc:

Connie Kagey & Mark Nuhfer Tennessee NPDES State Program US EPA, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303

Via Email and Certified Mail

. \ '

Page 20 of 20





v.


( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155




Joint Exhibit 16

Aerial Photograph of Red Water Entering the Cumberland River from the NRS



TCWN et al. v. TVAAppendix Vol. 1Page 23





v.


( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155




Joint Exhibit 113

AECOM, Powerpoint Presentation, Gallatin Ash Pond Closures: General Process for Ash

Removal and Pond Lining (Mar. 20, 2015)





v.


( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155




Joint Exhibit 59

Excerpts, Arcadis, Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Project Summary and Risk Assessment

Report (Nov. 24, 2014)



GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT MONITORINGPROJECT SUMMARY AND RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT

Tennessee Valley Authority

Gallatin Fossil Plant

NonRegistered Site 831324

Prepared by

Tennessee Valley Authority

and

ARCADIS US Inc

Knoxville Tennessee

November 24 2014



TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant

NonRegistered Site 831324

Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Project Report November 2014

DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION

certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my

direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel

properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted Based on my inquiry of the person

or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the

information the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief true accurate

and complete I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information

Print Name Cia7

Signature

Gallatin Fossil Plant Manager

Date ZSIf




NonRegistered Site 831324Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Project Report –November 2014

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview

The Tennessee Valley Authority TVA

Gallatin Fossil Plant GAF is an activecoalfiredpower plant located approximately 4.5

miles south southeast of the Town of

Gallatin in Sumner County Tennessee

When the plant was originally brought online

in 1959 coal combustion byproducts were

sluiced and treated in a series of ash ponds

located on the western edge of the site see

map at right until the ponds reached

capacity and were closed in 1970 This 57

acre former ash management area is

officially referred to as the Class II Non

Registered Site NRS 831324 and is

currently covered with vegetation The

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation TDEC Division of Solid Waste

Management requested TVA to assess NRS 831324 The key findings of the assessment

project included an assessment of groundwater quality and impacts an ecological risk

assessment and a human health risk assessment

Regulatory Background and Assessment Trigger

TVA developed a closure plan for NRS 831324 in 1997 that included provisions to carry out

groundwater monitoring TDEC approved the installation of a series of three monitoring wells in

2000 and TVA began collecting groundwater data in October 2000 In September 2008

concentrations of beryllium cadmium and nickel detected in groundwater samples collected

fromwell GAF19R located down gradient of the former ash management area see map on the

next page were detected at levels above the TDEC maximum contaminant levels MCLs

Because the concentrations of these constituents were above the groundwater protection

standards GWPS for NRS 831324 this result triggered the need for an assessment

monitoring project to determine whether coal combustion byproducts in NRS 831324 have or

will impact groundwater at the GAF site or pose any threat to public or private water supplies

near NRS 831324

Cumberland River

Gallatin Fossil

Plant

FormerAsh

Management

Area

Flow





iii

Groundwater Monitoring Wells

within NRS 83_ 1324

NRS 831324 was officially placed in assessment status by TDEC in February 2009 Spear

2009 and the monitoring assessment project was initiated in April 2011 when TDEC approved

TVA’s GAF Groundwater Assessment Plan for NRS 831324 Spear 2011 TVA’s GAF

property is surrounded by the Cumberland River on three sides and because of the proximity of

the Cumberland River to the NRS 831324 the assessment monitoring project included both

the wells associated with monitoring NRS 831324 and monitoring data from the Cumberland

River

Assessment Approach

To gather the data necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Groundwater Assessment Plan

TVA installed 11 new groundwater monitoring wells in September and October 2011 This

increased the total number of wells in the groundwater monitoring network in and around NRS

831324 to 14 see map below Data for groundwater water samples collected from the wells

during compliance sampling events were used as well as with porewater data collected from 15

locations nine lysimeters and six groundwater assessment wells soil data collected from

seven locations representing ash soil

fill and native alluvial soil and information on the

hydrogeologic setting of NRS

831324 to complete the three

key elements of the assessment

_ Groundwater Quality

Assessment see Sections

3.1 – 3.5 and Appendices A

through I

_ Ecological Risk Assessment

see Section 3.6 and

Appendix J

_ Human Health Risk

Assessment see Section 3.7

and Appendix K

Key Findings

The conclusions drawn from each of the assessment activities provide valuable input for the risk

management decision making process for NRS 831324 The key findings from the

assessment project are





iv

_ Groundwater impacts are limited Groundwater at NRS 831324 flows toward the

Cumberland River and vertical gradients in the shallow bedrock water near NRS 831324

are markedly upward This effectively constrains the extent of impacts from NRS 83

1324 to groundwater within the GAF boundaries since there are no private properties

affected by NRS 831324 These findings were confirmed based on NRS 831324 data

groundwater leachate and soil sampling data consideration of physical site

characteristics including flow rate flow direction and application of the MODFLOW model

the industry standard groundwater flow and transport model originally developed by the

United States Geological Survey

_ Groundwater impacts are predicted to remain limited in the future The model was

used to evaluate both current conditions uncapped and post closure conditions 30 years

into the future with flexiblemembrane liner cap system and soil cover over NRS 831324

Differences between scenarios and benefits from the cap are minimal and in each case

impacted groundwater is predicted to remain completely within the GAF boundaries

_ Potential risks to human health and ecological receptors associated with groundwater

discharging to surface water were addressed through the ecological and human health risk

assessments

o Groundwater data were compared to relevant ecological screening values for a

refined

list

of constituents of potential ecological concern beryllium cadmium nickel

and zinc Only concentrations in well GAF19R exceeded the screening values

o Considering the weight of evidence – which includes the screening value

comparison whole effluent toxicity testing and surveys of the shoreline habitat fish

and benthic macroinvertebrate communities – there are no adversepopulationlevelimpacts expected for aquatic ecological receptors in the Cumberland River

o Drinking water is not affected Groundwater at NRS 831324 is not used as

potable water and the nearest potable water intake is 2.5 miles downstream on the

Cumberland River Calculated surfacewater concentrations were below

drinking water criteria for all constituents of potential concern Therefore it is

highly unlikely that there are any siterelated impacts to any drinking water supply

o The Cumberland River is used for a variety of recreational activities therefore a

massbalance was used to predict surfacewater concentrations that people might be

exposed to in the Cumberland River through swimming fishing and boating





v

Calculated surfacewater concentrations were below drinking water criteria

and recreational water criteria for all constituents of potential concern Further

there are no known fish consumption advisories for the Cumberland River

In summarygroundwater impacts are limited to within the boundaries of the GAF site there are

no adverse population level impacts expected for aquatic ecological receptors drinking water is

not affected and there are no exceedances of criteria for recreational use





vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1

1.2 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION 1

1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION 2

1.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK AND SAMPLING HISTORY 2

2 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 4

2.1 SITE STRATIGRAPHY 4

2.2 GROUNDWATER OCCURENCE 5

2.3 PRECIPITATION 5

2.4 RIVER HYDROLOGY 5

3 ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND IMPACTS 7

3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANTS 7

3.2 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION 9

3.3 GROUNDWATER FLOW RATE AND DIRECTION OF FLOW 11

3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDWATER USERS 14

3.5 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 14

3.6 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY 19

3.7 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY 21

CONCLUSIONS 23

REFERENCES 25





vii

LIST OF TABLES

1 Existing and Historical Compliance Well Construction Details

2 Assessment Project Wells Construction Details

3 Summaryof Alluvial and Bedrock Water Quality Assessment Sample Results

4 Summaryof Ash Porewater Water Quality Assessment Sample Results

5 GAF19R GAF26 and GAF20GAF27 Vertical Gradient Analysis

6 Hydraulic Conductivity Values Summary

7 Boring Lithology for Model Development

8 Hydraulic Conductivities by Model Strata

9 Model Metal Partition Coefficients

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Site Location Map

2 NRS Facility Existing and Historical Compliance Wells

3 Cumberland River Elevations at GAF and Old Hickory Dam 1989 2014

4 Total Suspended Solid Time Series 2009 2014

5 Wells Utilized in the Assessment Project

6 Assessment Soil Sampling Locations by Type

7 SiteWide Potentiometric Contours May 23 2012

8 Mean Concentrations of Assessment Dataset Concentrations by Media

9 Maximum Concentrations of Assessment Dataset Concentrations by Media

10 MaximumConcentrations of Assessment Alluvium Bedrock Data versus Mean Ash

Porewater Concentrations

11 Hydraulic Conductivity Sampling Locations

12 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Ranges by Strata

13 Groundwater Model Domain

14 Site Topographic and Bathymetry Contours

15 Lithology from Borings Wells Used to Construct Model Geologic Geometry

16 Waste Layer Model Thickness

17 Top of Overburden Alluvium Residuum Model Layer

18 Top of HermitageBigby Canon Combined Bedrock Model Layer

19 Top of Carters Bedrock Model Layer

20 Model Precipitation Distribution

21 Model Hydraulic Conductivity Zone CrossSection West to East through NRS 83

1324





viii

APPENDICES

A Construction Logs and Lithology for Compliance and Assessment Wells

B GAF NRS Facility Groundwater Time Series Data 2000 2014

C Groundwater Assessment Sampling Laboratory Data 2009 2014

D Ash Porewater Sampling Laboratory Data 2011

E TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant Water Use Survey Submitted to TDEC 2011

F Pittsburgh Materials Environmental Testing Geochemical Lab Data

G Test America Nashville Partition Coefficient Test Results

H Model Simulation Results Cumberland River Discharge Area COPC Concentration

Distributions

I Model Simulation Results Layer and CrossSection COPC Concentration Distributions

J Ecological Screening Evaluation of Groundwater Discharges

K Screening Level Human Health Risk Assessment





ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AADA Abandoned Ash Disposal Area Former NRS Designation

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CCP coal combustion products

COPEC constituent of potential ecological concern

COPC constituent of potential concern

CTI CTI Engineers Inc

DSWM Division of Solid Waste Management

ESC Environmental Science Corporation

GAF Gallatin Fossil Plant

GWPS Groundwater Protection Standard

inyr inches per year

Jh hydraulic gradient

Kd metal partitioning coefficients

Kh horizontal hydraulic gradient

MCL maximum contaminant level

MSL mean sea level

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NRS NonRegistered Site

PACE Pace Analytical Inc

PMET Pittsburgh Materials Environmental Technology

project groundwater assessment monitoring project

QAQC quality assurancequality control

SCR selective catalytic reduction

SLHHRA screening level human health risk assessment

TAN Test America Nashville

TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency





1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

This project details the groundwater assessment monitoring project project for an area of the

Tennessee Valley Authority TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant GAF located in Gallatin Tennessee –

a 57acre former ash management area on the western side of the property formally referred to

as the Class II NonRegistered Site NRS 831324 The work in NRS 831324 follows the

actions outlined in the approved TVA GAF AADA Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan CTI

Engineers Inc CTI 2010 written in accordance with Rule 0400 1101047a6iv and as

directed by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation TDEC Division of

Solid Waste Management DSWM

The GAF NRS facility was placed in assessment status by TDEC in a February 23 2009 letter

from TDEC to TVA Spear 2009 Groundwater assessment monitoring was performed

because sample levels of beryllium cadmium and nickel concentrations were above their

respective TDEC maximum contaminant level MCL in down gradient facility well GAF19R

during the September 24 2008 semiannual detection monitoring groundwater sampling event

Receipt of the April 18 2011 letter from TDEC accepting the TVA GAF AADA Groundwater

Quality Assessment Plan Spear 2011 initiated the project

1.2 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION

The project was created to determine if coal combustion products CCP constituent leachate

from the GAF NRS facility have or will impact groundwater at NRS 831324 or pose any threat

to public and private water supplies near NRS 831324 as well as the concentration rate and

extent of migration of such constituents The area of the assessment includes the GAF NRS

facility the ultimate receptor of ash leachate from the NRS 831324 Cumberland River and its

users and the migration path between the two sites

Principal field investigation activities consisted of sampling groundwater ash porewater and soil

to characterize ambient conditions Analysis focused on sample results for inorganic

constituents in aqueous and soil forms water level measurements permeability measurements

and geochemical samples to either directly assess impacts or build inputs to other investigatory

tools used in the project These additional tools include development of a computer model to





2

represent current conditions and model groundwater leachate migration and discharge

described in Section 3.5 a risk assessment to evaluate CCP impacts on inriver ecological

receptors described in Section 3.6 and a human health risk assessment described in Section

3.7

1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION

The GAF plant site is located approximately 4.5 miles south southeast of Gallatin on the right

bank of the Cumberland River Old Hickory Lake at approximate river mile 142 in Sumner

County Tennessee Figure 1 The GAF site occupies Odom’s Bend peninsula and is

surrounded on three sides by the Cumberland River Old Hickory Lake The GAF contains four

generating units having a total capacity of 1,300 megawatts GAF operations began in 1959

and CCP were sequentially deposited in Ash Ponds A through E until the capacity of Pond E

was fully reached and operations ceased These four contiguous ash ponds have a combined

area of approximately 57 acres and form what is now referred to as NRS 831324 NRS 83

1324 has remained dormant since operations ceased in 1970 NRS 831324 was formerly

referred to as the Abandoned Ash Disposal Area AADA and is named as such in legacy

documents presented in this Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Project Report At the

request of TDEC a closure plan was prepared for NRS 831324 and final closure was

approved in February 1997 As part of the closure plan compliance groundwater monitoring

began at NRS 831324 in 2000

1.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK AND SAMPLING HISTORY

The approved groundwater monitoring network for NRS 831324 originally consisted of one

upgradient GAF21 and two down gradient wells GAF19 and GAF20 installed in 2000 into

the alluvial material underlying NRS 831324 at the inception of the facility’s groundwater

monitoring plan These wells were sampled for the parameters listed in the closurepostclosure

plan TVA 1995 approved February 18 1997 by TDEC DSWM Due to continuing problems

with sample turbidity TDEC approved the closure of well GAF19 in 2003 and the installation of

replacement well GAF19R under a minor modification to the facility's groundwater monitoring

plan Well GAF19R has been included in the groundwater monitoring network since that time

Use of well GAF21 for background monitoring was discontinued following a 2year period of

quarterly baseline monitoring of replacement well GAF22 installed in 2009 After this point

well GAF21 was utilized only to provide water level measurements for development of

potentiometric maps until its closure in March 2013 Two bedrock wells GAF26 and GAF27





3

were installed near GAF19R and GAF20 respectively in 2011 to monitor the upper bedrock

down gradient of NRS 831324 and were added to the compliance well network for the

July 2012 groundwater monitoring event Figure 2 includes a site plan showing well locations

Table 1 shows construction details and well construction logs and lithology for compliance wells

are provided in Appendix A Wells GAF26 and GAF27 are referred to by their original

designations R3 and R2 respectively on the well construction logs and lithology Appendix A

Monitoring wells were sampled quarterly between November 2000 and November 2002

and semiannually thereafter until implementation of groundwater assessment monitoring in April

2009 which returned to quarterly sampling During the Groundwater Detection Monitoring

Program samples were analyzed for the 17 inorganic constituents listed in Appendix I of Rule

0400 110104.400 1101047 TDEC 2013 With initiation of the Assessment Monitoring

Program the complete 0400 1101047 Appendix II parameter

list

was collected and results

indicated no detections of the Appendix II organic constituents and no inorganic constituents

beyond those listed in Appendix I Therefore subsequent groundwater assessment monitoring

and quarterly baseline monitoring events have been limited to those inorganic constituents

detected in the April 2009 event pursuant to 0400 1101047a6iii III

TDEC suspended requirements to monitor and report cobalt data from NRS 831324 on

November 21 2011 personal communication AD Spear to RL Hooper Naturally occurring

cobalt associated with concretionary mineral deposits found in the alluvial sediments near NRS

831324 was shown to be the likely source of elevated cobalt concentrations in groundwater

Park 2001 TDEC subsequently approved the alternate source demonstration for cobalt as

naturally occurring in a February 10 2003 letter Majors and Spear 2003 Future cobalt

monitoring will be limited to that required to establish a sitespecific groundwater protection

standard GWPS for cobalt in connection with the NRS 831324 risk assessments

Sample analyses were performed by the TVA Environmental Chemistry Laboratory

Chattanooga Tennessee from 2000 until March 2007 Subsequent sample analyses have

been conducted primarily by Environmental Science Corporation ESC located in Mt Juliet

Tennessee occasionally by TestAmerica Nashville TAN located in Nashville Tennessee and

Pace Analytical Inc PACE located in Green Bay Wisconsin





4

2 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 SITE STRATIGRAPHY

NRS 831324 is located within the Nashville Basin physiographic province a moderately

dissected gently undulating plain in central Tennessee formed by erosion of the Nashville

Dome NRS 831324 is situated on the northwestern flank of the Nashville Dome and bedrock

in this region generally dips a few feet per mile to the northwest Although major faulting is rare

in the region of NRS 831324 bedrock is extensively jointed due to fracturing of strata during

dome uplift Joints are generally oriented parallel and normal to the main structural axis of the

Nashville Dome which locally trends northeast southwest

Ash thickness through NRS 831324 is 0 to 32 feet thick averaging approximately 15 feet

thick Pleistocene age alluvial terrace deposits and residual soils mantle bedrock beneath NRS

831324 GAF site investigations conducted in 1952 in what is now NRS 831324 indicated

a combined thickness of alluvium and residuum ranging from 8 to 79 feet and averaging

approximately 40 feet Benziger 1952 The terrace deposits are predominantly composed of

silty to sandy clay with minor amounts of gravel Residuum derived from weathering of

underlying bedrock is present beneath the alluvium and consists of clay and

silt

with

occasional chert fragments Limestone units of the Hermitage Carters and Lebanon

Formations comprise bedrock beneath the site Bedrock exposures elsewhere on the GAF site

indicate that the bedrock dips gently to the southeast which is directly opposed to regional dip

Local variations in dip caused by repeated warping of the dome are common in the region

Benziger and Kellberg 1953 Jointing is a controlling factor in bedrock weathering and

subsurface groundwater movement Benziger 1952 reported that some joints observed in rock

cores were incipient with little or no evidence of dissolution while others were enlarged by

dissolution forming open conduits for groundwater flow In many areas weathering of vertical

joint faces has

left

deep clay filled channels with pinnacles of sound rock between channels

Although limestones present beneath NRS 831324 are susceptible to karstification and

sinkhole development no sinkholes were observed in the preplant topography in the immediate

vicinity of NRS 831324 Benziger 1952





5

2.2 GROUNDWATER OCCURENCE

Local groundwater recharge occurs by infiltration of precipitation The first occurrence of

groundwater beneath the GAF NRS 831324 site occurs in the alluvial terrace deposits and

residual soils Site well water level data indicate shallow groundwater flowing toward the

Cumberland River at depths from approximately 10 to 33 feet beneath the facility in Quaternary

age alluvial deposits As indicated on Figure 2 groundwater movement is generally southwest

across NRS 831324 from higher topographic areas to the Cumberland River Old Hickory

Lake where shallow groundwater ultimately discharges through the riverbed It appears that all

groundwater flowing under NRS 831324 is discharged to surface waters and none is known to

leave NRS 831324 as underflow

2.3 PRECIPITATION

There is no meteorological station at the site therefore meteorological data have been

compiled from two National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA stations

located in Lebanon Tennessee one within the city Station 405118 and one at the airport

Station 405108 These NOAA stations were selected because they are in close proximity to

the GAF and high quality data were available for a continuous 20plus year period The NOAA

data includes daily rainfall from 1988 to 2010 The mean annual precipitation from 1988 to 2010

was 49.71 inches the minimum and maximum amounts in this same period were near 33 and

74 inches respectively The wettest months over this period have typically been June through

August and the driest months have typically been September through November

2.4 RIVER HYDROLOGY

The GAF site is on a peninsula surrounded by the Cumberland River on three sides a stretch

that is a portion of Old Hickory Lake Lake levels are regulated by Old Hickory Dam

approximately 25 river miles downstream The river gauge at the GAF site has a relative short

3year available historical record 2011 to 2014 therefore headwater data from Old Hickory

Dam are presented for a 25year span 1989 to 2014 alongside the GAF site river gauge

information Figure 3 river elevations at the dam are expected to vary less than 1 foot from

what is observed at the GAF The GAF gauge data show some noise in the dataset likely due

to faulty equipment therefore any data point showing a 3foot or greater drop and rebound over

a 3day period was eliminated from the dataset as such occurrences are likely not realistic





6

Lowflow estimates through the section of the Cumberland River bordering the GAF is based on

flow around Carthage Tennessee approximately 65 miles upstream of the GAF and 3 miles

downstream of Cordell Hull Dam This gauging point is the closest upstream of the GAF and

should represent a more conservative estimate of flow than what is actually measured at NRS

831324 Site National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits specify that a 1Q10

value should be used for a lowflow condition calculation a value equal to the least 1day flow in

a 10year span This value is 848 cubic feet per second or 548 million gallons per day for the

Cumberland River in the area of the GAF NRS 831324 The 1Q10 analysis for Carthage

Tennessee is based on a dataset from 1974 the year after Cordell Hull Dam was completed

and river hydraulics changed to 2014





7

3 ASSESSMENT OFGROUNDWATER QUALITY AND IMPACTS

3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANTS

Constituents listed in Table 2 of the approved TVA GAF AADA Groundwater Quality

Assessment Plan CTI 2010 are routinely sampled at NRS 831324 during compliance

sampling events Sample analytical results for those specified constituents are compared to site

GWPS which are based on applicable TDEC MCLs from Rule 0400 110104 TDEC 2013

Appendix B provides time series displaying sampled groundwater concentrations from facility

wells between October 2000 and July 2014 with applicable GWPS

The TVA GAF AADA Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan CTI 2010 identifies historical

groundwater MCL exceedances noted at the NRS 831324 for beryllium cadmium mercury

nickel and silver Only beryllium cadmium and nickel continue to be observed above site

GWPS and only at one well GAF19R in the facility compliance well network These three

constituents have been observed above the current GWPS in well GAF19R since that well was

first sampled in 2006 with cadmium and nickel showing no clear trend throughout the well’s

sampling history and beryllium concentrations showing an overall decreasing trend All other

constituents in well GAF19R and all constituents in well GAF20 routinely are below the

GWPS and have a stable or decreasing trend This is consistent with what would be expected

from a mature ash waste facility that has reached some equilibrium with the surrounding

environment

Recent improvements in sampling technique have generally improved sample turbidity and by

reducing the influence of colloidal borne material represented by turbidity or Total Suspended

Solids TSS values have made the samples more representative of groundwater

concentrations As noted in Section 1.4 inability to control sample turbidity was cause for great

concern in the early years of NRS 831324 monitoring and led to the replacement of well

GAF19 Full implementation of lowflow or micropurge techniques USEPA 2010 in 2010

have greatly reduced observed solids content in the well Figure 4 Metals results prior to 2010

were likely influenced by bias contributions from colloidal borne materials

Nonroutine observations of elevated arsenic selenium and thalliumhave been observed since

2013 This period coincides with three important concurrent events since that time





8

1 persistent issues with laboratory quality assurance quality control QAQC2 inter laboratory comparison of arsenic testing

3 ongoing construction of a flue gas desulfurization FGD scrubber and dry fly ash collection

system onsite on the southeastern face of NRS 831324 along the GAF discharge channel

The impact of each of these events is described briefly below

Arsenic concentrations from 2000 through 2012 were observed to be below or near reporting

limits for all facility wells All down gradient well arsenic results increased by one to two orders

of magnitude in the January 2013 monitoring event which launched a year long four quarter

interlaboratory comparison utilizing since laboratories running laboratory and field splits ieidentical samples for well GAF19R During this comparison the primary laboratory ESC

performing the work at that time indicated some issues with QAQC for metals analysis

especially arsenic Five of the six laboratories indicated results that were consistently below the

GWPS including ESC the primary laboratory although PACE indicated an arsenic

concentration consistently above the GWPS An actual cause for this was never resolved

however the preponderance of laboratory information indicated that arsenic in well GAF19R

was likely not above the GWPS The TVA GAF NRS Groundwater Assessment Monitoring

Report October 2013 Williams 2013 summarizes this effort Subsequent samples have been

processed by ESC PACE and TAN as crosschecking results for QAQC purposes has

continued During January 2013 through July 2014 selenium and thallium have occasionally

and erratically been detected at elevated concentrations in some but not all laboratory data and

never above the GWPS This is likely related to differences between laboratory analysis or

some other non iterant issue and does not follow the historical behavior of these constituents

The metals data reported by different laboratories between January 2013 and May 2014 were

inconsistent primarily because each laboratory employed slightly different handling methods

and procedures While these variations have been very useful in initiating a conversation with

the laboratories regarding steps to refine QAQC practices to eliminate analytical bias due to

the uncertainty in the dataset generated during this time the data from January 2013 through

May 2014 are not appropriate for use in the sensitive analyses included in this assessment

project The laboratory data collected in 2013 and after are valid but vary widely between

laboratories and are generally not reflective of historical results collected in 2000 through 2013

The potential influence of construction activities for the new scrubber construction on the

southeastern face of NRS 831324 which included large scale dewatering and largescale





9

concrete grout injection for foundation construction have the potential to influence both the

groundwater hydrology and groundwater chemistry in a portion of the NRS 831324 Mass

withdrawals of groundwater involved in dewatering combined with excavation activities could

cause microvariations in groundwater flow vector and rate across the southeastern end of the

NRS 831324 Injection of large quantities of concrete grout in the subsurface to act as the

foundation for the scrubber could raise pH temporarily as lime constituents leach which inturn

could mobilize sorbed metals spike trace metals constituents These activities are large in scale

and sporadic and represent temporary changes in a rather long water quality history at the site

Therefore all data collected through July 2014 are presented but for purposes of model

analysis and risk assessment calculations only the 2years of data from July 2010 through July

2012 will be used for the above reasons

3.2 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Identification of the source of observed contaminants in groundwater was completed through

sampling of groundwater ash porewater and soil samples during the groundwater assessment

monitoring period from 2009 through 2014

To complete intended groundwater and ash porewater sampling supplemental wells were

installed solely to support the project Five new 2inch diameter wells were installed in

SeptemberOctober 2011 to complement existing water quality sampling locations and

groundwater level measurement points Appendix A provides well construction diagrams and

lithology Two bedrock wells GAF26 and GAF27 were placed adjacent to existingdowngradientalluvial compliance wells GAF19R and GAF20 respectively to serve as paired

monitoring locations to measure water quality in the bedrock and bound the vertical extent of

contamination A third well GAFS3 was installed adjacent to wells GAF19R and GAF26 and

screened through the alluvial transition zone between the vertical horizons of GAF19R and

GAF26 Two additional bedrock wells GAFR1 and GAFR4 were installed hydraulically

upgradient of NRS 831324 into bedrock to provide representative background information

Six new 1inch diameter wells GAFGP1 GAFGP2 GAFGP3 GAFGP4 GAFGP5 and

GAFGP6 were installed in the interior of NRS 831324 and screened at the base of the

saturated ash waste Figure 5 shows a map of all wells and Table 2 summarizes the location

and details of all wells





10

Groundwater samples were collected from existing facility wells and newly installed wells

Facility groundwater monitoring wells have been sampled quarterly since the initiation of

groundwater assessment monitoring in February 2009 for constituents on the NRS facility

compliance list All compliance groundwater monitoring results from facility wells between

October 2000 and July 2014 including GAF26 and GAF27 are presented graphically in

Appendix B Wells GAFR1 and GAFR4 provided insufficient yield for sampling Well GAFS3

was sampled for the NRS facility compliance constituent

list

in October 2012 Table 3 includes

results for well GAFS3 and lists a summary of alluvial and bedrock down gradient compliance

well water quality samples from July 2010 through July 2012 Appendix C presents detailed

groundwater analytical results from the groundwater assessment monitoring period 2009 to

2014 for these wells

Ash porewater was sampled from nine existing lysimeters and the six new installed 1inchdiameterwells at locations shown on Figure 5 Nine lysimeters GAF105 GAF120 GAF205

GAF3 05 GAF320 GAF405 GAF420 GAF505 and GAF5 20 had been installed into the

ash for a previous study in 2005 Mays 2006 situated as five pairs extending across the

interior of NRS 831324 with each pairing having a lysimeterextending 5 and 20 feet into ash

By definition lysimeter samples are dissolved fraction samples because they are siphoned into

the device through a porcelain surface During sampling in August 2011 seven of the

lysimetersproduced sufficient yield for submitting samples to the laboratory and two others did

not The six 1inch diameter wells were sampled on September 1 2011 using lowflow

sampling through a peristaltic pump and field filtered for collection of dissolved constituents from

the NRS facility constituent list Because the wells were temporary and hardly developed

samples were filtered to reduce bias of colloidal borne metals contributions Table 4 provides

results for all porewater samples Appendix D presents detailed groundwater analytical results

from the 2011 ash porewater sampling

Comparisons of the groundwater assessment monitoring dataset show that water quality from

the leachate sample of the saturated lower ash within NRS 831324 ash Table 4 and the

underlying alluvium and bedrock Table 3 have relatively similar water quality The ash

porewater has mean and maximum concentrations of dissolved arsenic and antimony that are

more than an order of magnitude higher than what is observed in the nonwaste media alluvium

and bedrock Concentrations of beryllium cobalt nickel silver and zinc are at least an order

of magnitude higher in the alluvium than either the ash

fill or the bedrock samples Vanadium

concentrations were observed an order of magnitude or more higher in the ash porewater and





11

alluvium than in the bedrock All other constituents are within an order of magnitude between all

three media with mercury not measured in detectable concentrations of any well sample The

bedrock samples show equal or lesser concentrations for all constituents Trace metals

concentrations observed in well GAF19R have uniquely higher trace metals concentrations

than any other well considered within this assessment including wells screened within the

saturated ash inside NRS 831324 Beryllium and cadmium concentrations observed in

compliance network well GAF19R are at least an order of magnitude greater and nickel at

least three times greater than other down gradient wells

Soil sampling was conducted at locations outside NRS 831324 for native soils and at

locations within the NRS representative of the source ash waste

fill

Undisturbed samples were

collected in August and September 2011 using Shelby tube samplers Alluvial soil samples

were collected from boreholes for wells GAF26 and GAF27 at vertical horizons matching the

screened interval for wells GAF19R and GAF20 representative of the alluvium at NRS 83

1324 and the immediate environment surrounding the well screens Samples from the

screened section of the well GAFS3 borehole were collected to be representative of the

transitional zone of the alluvium An additional four samples were collected inside of NRS 83

1324 near to the surface to assure collection of unsaturated samples including three ash waste

samples G1 G41 and G6 proximate to 1inch well locations and one sample of earthen

fill

G7 In total seven samples of ash soil

fill and native soil alluvium were collected Soil

samples were analyzed for trace metals by TAN for geochemical constituents by Pittsburgh

Materials Environmental Technology Inc PMET of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania and for falling

head permeability tests for vertical hydraulic conductivity by SME of Knoxville Tennessee To

enhance the dataset of ash waste constituency historical metals data collected from lysimeter

locations were also utilized Figure 6 shows a map of all soil sampling locations by type

3.3 GROUNDWATER FLOW RATE AND DIRECTION OF FLOW

A snapshot of sitewide groundwater levels was collected from facility wells assessment wells

piezometers and other wells across the GAF property Most wells were measured on May 23

2012 but some wells that were inaccessible due to installed instrumentation or controlled

access were supplied within a week of this date Sitewide groundwater contours generated

from this snapshot in conjunction with Cumberland River elevation information are shown on

Figure 7 This figure depicts a flow field across NRS 831324 that follows topography peaking

at the local highpoint within the

rail

loop and flowing out radially towards the Cumberland River





12

There is not a continuous saturated aquifer monitored at NRS 831324 therefore the

potentiometric flow field is a mixture of several different aquifers monitored at NRS 831324

The installation of wells GAF26 and GAF27 allowed for observation of groundwater vertical

gradients between the overburden and bedrock down gradient of NRS 831324 along the

Cumberland River proximate to the area of discharge Vertical gradient calculations are the

difference in measured water level surface total hydraulic head from paired locations divided

by the vertical distance between the bottom elevations of the two screened intervals to estimate

vertical flow direction and magnitude Estimation of vertical gradient vectors and magnitude at

NRS 831324 has previously been restricted due to the lack of paired overburden bedrock

wells Comparisons of potentiometric heads from paired wells were measured immediately

before sampling of nine quarterly monitoring events from July 2012 through July 2014 Table 5Gradients are presented as unitless vectors indicating a degree of inclination of the water table

with positive values inferring upward flow and negative values inferring downward flow In each

instance upward flow from bedrock to the overburden is indicated This indicates shallow

bedrock beneath NRS 831324 discharges groundwater upward into the alluvium or directly

into the Cumberland River

To enhance understanding of flow through NRS 831324 historical hydraulic conductivity

values from previous investigations around the GAF site were combined with additionalsinglewelltesting carried out during the assessment period These efforts follow previous work on

hydraulic testing of either onsite or of the same geologic strata near to NRS 831324 by Tucci

1989 Law Engineering 1995 an unpublished TVA field effort from 2003 Mactec Engineering

2004 Stantec 2010 SME 2011 and URS 2012 For those layers lacking an adequate

quantity of values or adequate spatial coverage additional wellspiezometers were selected or

installed for testing Picking an appropriate hydraulic test for selected wells and piezometers

depended on the characteristics of the well Pump testing was the preferred method of

hydraulic conductivity testing but slug testing was utilized for wellspiezometers that could not

sustain pumping with time or whose diameter was too small to install the pumping equipment

downhole

Execution of pump tests followed the procedure set out in American Society for Testing and

Materials ASTM D 405096 1996 Each well was analyzed by traditional pumptesting

evaluation methods Cooper and Jacob 1946 Theis 1935 and Neumann 1975

methodologies depending on assumed fit of aquifer characteristics and quality of interpretation





13

For slug testing two tests were typically employed at each location and the best quality data

was used for interpretation Curve matching fitting was employed for analysis of each set of

results using the techniques of Bouwer and Rice 1976 Cooper et al 1967 and Hvorslev

1951 based on the assumed aquifer characteristics and the quality of fit

TVA environmental sampling personnel conducted the hydraulic conductivity testing during

selected dates in September 2011 and May 2012 Data for pump tests and slug tests were

analyzed using AquiferTest version 3.5 Waterloo Hydrogeologic 2002 and utilizing a variety of

analysis methods the analysis that best fit conditions in the field or provided the best fit to the

data was selected as a representative value

Data evaluated for all testing was collected from pressure transducers installed in the well

which collected water level measurements every 2 seconds for the duration of the tests Table

6 summarizes single well hydraulic test results including characteristics of the well and

computed aquifer properties for the screened interval of the wellpiezometer Figures 8 through

10 show ranges and means of calculated aquifer hydraulic conductivities by media Figure 11

shows the locations of the singlewell hydraulic tests and Figure 12 shows the ranges of

observed hydraulic conductivities at GAF

Discharge estimates from groundwater underneath NRS 831324 to the Cumberland River

presented herein use mean groundwater levels measured at facility monitoring wells between

May 2000 and January 2013 to calculate horizontal hydraulic gradients and groundwater

seepage Williams 2013 The average horizontal hydraulic gradient Kh near NRS 831324

is approximately 0.0172 based on Figure 2 The geometric mean of measured horizontal

hydraulic conductivity of alluvial deposits near NRS 831324 is 4.1E5 centimeters per second

1.2E01 feet per day Table 6 An effective soil porosity _ of 0.2 is assumed in estimating

the horizontal seepage velocity v through the soil zone Applying Darcy’s Law ie v

KhJh_ the average horizontal seepage velocity between NRS 831324 and the Cumberland

River of approximately 3.7 feet per year is conservatively estimated





14

3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDWATER USERS

A survey of groundwater supply users within a 1mile radius of the center of NRS 831324 was

performed in 2011 The 1mile survey boundary primarily encompasses GAF property except

for a small area across the Cumberland River to the west and south of NRS 831324

Boggs 2011 TVA obtained well records from TDEC Division of Water Supply for individual

users for Sumnerand Wilson Counties to assess potentially impacted offsite water sources As

noted in the TVA GAF AADA Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan any potential

contamination emanating from the NRS facility would be limited in vertical and areal extent and

would not migrate beneath private property before discharging into the Cumberland River CTI

2010 Groundwater discharge would occur as seepage through the riverbed and therefore

would not transverse the river and impact groundwater resources on the opposite side

Sections 3.6 and 3.7 address potential effects of ash leachate on the Cumberland River The

GAF Water Use Survey is located in Appendix E This survey was previously transmitted to

TDEC in a June 1 2011 letter fromSAHadfield to TDEC Hadfield 2011

3.5 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

The NRS facility and down gradient monitoring wells are located in proximity to the Cumberland

River which is the dominant regional hydrologic feature The down gradient contaminant plume

boundary for NRS 831324 is defined as the river's edge Any potential contamination

emanating from the solid waste facility would be limited in vertical and areal extent and would

not migrate beneath private property Because the groundwater vertical gradients between

NRS 831324 and the Cumberland River are markedly upward any contaminant migration

from the facility into bedrock would be expected to discharge upward either into the alluvium

prior to reaching the river or into the river itself Groundwater contamination is effectively limited

both horizontally and vertically to the GAF site boundary and discharges to the Cumberland

River are reflected as impacts to surfacewater Impacts to surface water are addressed

through risk assessments covering both the ecological health of the Cumberland River and

potentially to human health through various exposure pathways Both of these efforts will be

informed by output from a site groundwater model

A groundwater model was developed to confirm the contaminant pathway confirm both the

vertical and horizontal extent of contamination quantify the contaminant loadings to the

Cumberland River and estimate the resulting instream porewater contaminant concentrations





15

at the interface of groundwater and surface water for the risk assessment The groundwater

model can simulate the hydrogeological flow conditions at NRS 831324 and model reactive

contaminant transport leveraging historical data with targeted information collected during the

assessment phase to save on the effort of a larger field investigation The model is based on

inherently and justifiable conservative assumptions where no data or ambiguous data exists

and additional “ real world” data was gathered for installation into the model where the burden of

conservatism is unreasonable and outweighs the cost to collect the data

Software used for the groundwater flow and transport model creation is MODFLOW McDonald

and Harbaugh 1988 a threedimensional finite difference groundwater flow model originally

developed by the United States Geological Survey and released to the public domain in 1983

MODFLOW is widely viewed as the industry standard for groundwater flow modeling of layered

porous media currently sold by Schlumberger Water Services

Figure 13 shows the model domain encompassing most of the GAF site peninsula bounded on

three sides by the Cumberland River The dimensions of the model’s horizontal extent run

roughly 9,804 feet by 9,132 feet consuming an area of nearly 2,063 acres on a grid of 9,196 by

8,476 model grid squares measuring 1.08 square feet each The top of the model is

representative of ground surface river bottom which spans between roughly 400 feet above

mean sea level msl and 585 feetmsl The bottom of the model elevation is 350 feetmsl

The first step in the groundwater flow and transport model development is to define the

hydrogeologic framework for the flow component of the model once a robust and reliable

groundwater flow model is established the transport component of the model can be

developed The surface topography of the model was created from a mixture of aerial light

detection and ranging information mixed with inriver bathymetry Figure 14 Descending

layers were interpolated from lithology of the available 285 borings at NRS 831324 Figure 15

Table 7 The model subdivided into stacked lithologic strata presented here in descending

order ash waste Figure 16 alluvium residuum Figure 17 Hermitage bedrock layer

representing both the BigbyCannon and Hermitage layers Figure 18 and Carters bedrock

Figure 19 The Lebanon bedrock is the last layer considered because it should be comfortably

below the main transport action The top of the Lebanon was assumed at 400 feetmsl due to

limited boring information and the relatively limited role this layer was expected to serveNoncontiguouslayers are represented as contiguous across the site but shown in non contiguous

areas at a near zero layer thickness Flow on NRS 831324 begins as precipitation over the





16

majority of the site excluding surface water bodies which is treated as constant hydraulic head

boundaries Precipitation infiltration a fraction of overall rainfall due to evapotranspiration and

overland runoff will permeate down through the overburden along the soil or into the bedrock

beneath then travel horizontally until discharged through the riverbed into the Cumberland

River

Flow model development started with assigning flow boundary conditions to different aspects of

the model The sides of the model indicated in yellow on Figure 13 are noflow boundaries

impenetrable boundaries to where water does not cross Surface water bodies are listed as

constant head boundaries indicated in blue on Figure 13 always maintaining a set water

surface based on inputted real world data Portions of the Cumberland River outside the

constant head boundaries are inactive cells Mean hydraulic conductivity values from Table 6

are applied to the applicable strata layer created as detailed above Water levels from the

May 23 2012 snapshot collection shown on Figure 7 were installed as initial conditions for all

wells and surface water bodies Initial recharge over NRS 831324 was set at 10 inches per

year inyr or roughly 20 of mean annual precipitation a conservatively high assumption

The flow model was run until steady state was reached and an observation of departure

between observed “realworld” water levels and predicted model water levels was quantified as

several different metrics including a root mean squared value A sensitivity analysis was run on

multiple 60plus flow calibration scenarios subtly adjusting rainfall and individual hydraulic

conductivity values to minimize the root mean squared error before achieving an acceptable

flow model all within reason Final precipitation values used included 6.5 inyr within NRS 83

1324 8 inyr over the coal pile and all other nonsurface water locations at 5 inyr Figure 20

Different precipitation values for respective areas represent differences in porosity of those

mediums These are within range or conservatively exceed Central Basin Aquifer recharge

values estimated for this region to range from 4.1 to 7.8 inyr and averaging 5.6 inyr Hoos

1990 Table 8 lists the final hydraulic conductivities used for the model with a crosssection

shown on Figure 21 All hydraulic conductivities used in the model were within the established

range of respective test values

The initial step in development of the transport model is defining which constituents of potential

concern COPCs were to be modeled Because this model

will

largely feed the risk

assessment the risk assessors ARCADIS separated all NRS compliance constituents down to

the eight most concerning COPCs based on observed field sampling concentrations arsenic

beryllium cadmium chromium nickel selenium vanadium and zinc The ash source term the





17

representative spatial origin of COPCs within the model is composed of the entirety of NRS

831324 This assumes COPC concentrations within NRS 831324 are consistent

throughout and are equal to the larger concentration of the average COPC value of the ash

porewater dissolved fraction concentrations listed in Table 4 and the largest single value of

down gradient well total fraction concentrations from the 2year period July 2010 through

July 2012 from Table 3 As mentioned previously data prior to 2010 was truncated due to

sample turbidity concerns and data from 2013 and after were truncated due to concerns over

persistent laboratory issues interlaboratory comparison testing and ongoing construction near

the southeastern corner of NRS 831324 along the plant discharge channel Five of eight

constituents concentrations selected were maximum values observed in well GAF19R which

has uniquely higher trace metals concentrations than any other well considered within this

assessment including wells screened within the saturated ash inside the NRS 831324 The

ash source termwithin the model assumes a conservatively steady state concentration through

the entire modeling sequence and not declining due to weathering which is likely more

representative of actual site conditions

Developing reactive flow transport necessitates populating the strata potentially interacting with

the groundwater flow down gradient of the ash source term with a potential capacity for

sorption This is the ability of the material to attract and retain CCP constituents for extended

periods and impede their transport process Materials between NRS 831324 and the

Cumberland River are only alluvium and bedrock bedrock is not typically known for its ability to

transform or impede CCPs therefore only sorption characteristics for alluvium were

considered This involved collection of geochemical samples from selected boreholes during

soil sampling described in Section 3.2 from the alluvial borehole for wells GAF26 GAF27 and

GAFS3 Results of geochemical and mineralogical analysis of these samples by PMET are

provided in Appendix F Soil samples were also sent to TAN for soil batch testing per ASTM

C1733 2010 for calculation of metal partitioning coefficients Kd This process involved

cycling through groundwater collected from NRS 831324 on February 13 2012 dosed to

known concentrations of COPCs and varied pH values pHs of 4 6 and 8 through columns of

NRS 831324 soil samples Three pHs were tested due to bracket expected pHs at the site a

pH of 6 was later selected to represent ambient site conditions based on observed field

conditions Tests were conducted at a recommended liquidtosolid ratio of 251 using 5 grams

of soil for each mixture Appendix G provides TAN Kd test results Laboratory test values were

compared to theoretical values utilizing geochemical data from Appendix F in a geochemical





18

speciation model MINTEQA2 USEPA 2011 and the lesser of the two were selected for use

in the model Table 9 Kd values were selected to be used for arsenic beryllium chromium

and selenium due to agreement between laboratory and theoretical values Kd values were not

selected for cadmium nickel vanadium and zinc due to relatively limited impact or

disagreement between theoretical and laboratory values

Two scenarios were run for each of the eight COPCs The first scenario was a Current

Condition which modeled NRS 831324 based on the current day and ran for approximately

56 years 20,500 days This represented the approximate period of time that ash has been in

NRS 831324 End of simulation is representative of current groundwater conditions and

concentrations The second scenario was a PostClosure Condition of the closed facility which

considered resultant concentrations from the first scenario as initial conditions and modeled for

an additional 30 years 10,960 days with a flexible membrane liner cap with soil cover over

NRS 831324 represented by a reduced yearly infiltration of 0.372 inyr over that facility

Model geometry of land topographical elevations river bathymetry and ash thickness are all

modeled on current site conditions

Because the model is directly supporting the risk assessment the primary metrics considered in

model output were the percentage by area of porewater discharge directly to the Cumberland

River that exceeded the hazard quotient of 1 and the maximum COPC concentration

discharged to the Cumberland River Results of simulated plume migration and subsequent

discharge area into the Cumberland River showing concentrations where groundwater meets

surface water for each of the eight COPCs for the worstcase conditions are shown in Appendix

H Appendix Table H1 shows two of the eight cases this worstcase occurred at some point

during the current condition uncapped phase beryllium nickel and two additional cases the

worstcase occurred during the postclosure capped condition cadmium zinc In four of the

eight cases no discharges to the Cumberland River Sediments exceeded a hazard quotient of 1

arsenic chromium selenium and vanadium indicating negligible contributions of these

constituents to the Cumberland River sediments from groundwater Model graphics exports of

each of the bottom of ash layers bottom of alluvium layers upper bedrock Carters andcrosssectionsfor the worstcase scenario are shown for each constituent in Appendix I Groundwater

COPC plume distribution in each case develops similarly in terms of being contained

completely on GAF property until discharged to surface water





19

As outlined above numerous conservative assumptions are made within the groundwater

model These assumptions provide worst case simulation results that are then used through the

following risk assessment Conservative assumptions include no weathering of the ash

material use of the highest constituent concentrations from the assessment period between

well groundwater and porewater an assumed uniform distribution of highest concentration

throughout NRS 831324 and using the lesser of the laboratory and theoretical partition

coefficient for each COPC

3.6 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Appendix J presents an ecological screening evaluation Results from this screening evaluation

are intended to provide input for risk management decision making while maintaining a

conservative approach protective of ecological receptor populations and communities The

benthic invertebrate community is the focus of this screening evaluation as these receptors are

in direct contact with the porewater in the transition zone The assessment evaluates the

potential for adverse effects to the benthic invertebrate community from exposure to

constituents in groundwater from NRS 831324 Groundwater from NRS 831324 may

discharge into the transition zone i e the zone where groundwater mixes with surface water of

the Cumberland River

Section 3.2 provides that groundwater samples have been collected from wells GAF19R and

GAF20 for approximately 14 years The sampling technique changed to lowflow sampling in

2010 which reduced the amount of suspended solids in the samples Therefore groundwater

data collected during the 2 years between the implementation of low flow sampling and

concerns over laboratory data were used in the screening evaluation

The screening process began with a comparison of average groundwater concentrations from

the 2year period with ecological screening values see Appendix J for methodology The

screening approach is conservative in nature at first as the exposure pathways for ecological

receptors include sediment porewater comprised of subsurface groundwater discharging to

surface water Because this is the point at which the benthic invertebrate community is exposed

to groundwater constituents a model was used to predict concentrations in sediment porewater

in this transition zone These predicted concentrations were compared with ecological

screening values to further refine the

list

of selected constituents of potential ecological concern





20

COPECs spatial and temporal scales and refined exposure estimates were utilized On

average beryllium cadmium nickel and zinc measured in groundwater exceeded their

respective ecological screening value The model predicted porewater concentrations indicated

exceedances for these constituents as well however beryllium was only exceeding in 2 of the

total discharge area approximately 2.8 acres The impact of beryllium on a spatial scale under

current conditions is de minimus but cadmium nickel and zinc were retained for further

evaluation Only well GAF19R had exceedances for all three COPECs –cadmium nickel and

zinc Given that this is the source term entered into the model for predicting porewater

concentrations this offers a worstcase scenario A capped scenario was also evaluated

where the results of the modelpredicted porewater concentrations were carried out 30 years

into the future with additional inputs from the source limited by a hypothetical cap over the

NRS 831324 Similar to the predicted current sediment porewater concentrations cadmium

nickel and zinc still exceeded a hazard quotient of 1 and the relatively unchanged modeling

results suggest that installation of a cap on NRS 831324 would not yield a significant

reduction in risks in the groundwater transition zone

The results from this assessment are focused on the benthic invertebrate community as a

whole The weighing of evidence considers the uncertainties associated with the available data

This includes the fact that that the initial screening used ecological screening values derived

using just a few species and a limited number of studies per species Their robustness and

ultimate relationship to the assessment endpoint is limited and uncertain which was balanced

by consideration of sitespecific benthic invertebrate community data TVA conducts annual

aquatic macroinvertebrate community surveys near NRS 831324 These surveys have shown

a trend each year of comparable or better scores near the transition zone than upstream

reference areas therefore the invertebrate community downstream of the NRS shows no

differences from the upstream area that is unimpacted by the NRS There is also no impact to

fish communities as diverse communities were noted to use both downstream and upstream

river habitat

TVA believes it is reasonable to assess risks to the benthic invertebrate community by using the

macroinvertebrate community survey results in conjunction with the groundwater and predicted

porewater data evaluation to balance any uncertainty with realworld information and use this

information for guiding risk management The assessment concludes that adversepopulationlevelimpacts are not expected for aquatic ecological receptors potentially exposed toashrelatedmetals in the Cumberland River This is based on a final weighing of evidence for NRS





21

831324 that considers the spatial scale of exposures to model predicted COPECs and the

macroinvertebrate community surveys results from the Cumberland River

3.7 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Appendix K presents a screening level human health risk assessment SLHHRA TheSLHHRAevaluates the potential for adverse effects to human health from exposure to constituents

detected in groundwater in NRS 831324 that may discharge into the transition zone i e the

zone where groundwater mixes with surface water of the Cumberland River

Groundwater samples have been collected fromwells GAF19R and GAF20 for approximately

14 years The sampling technique changed to low flow sampling in 2010 which reduced the

amount of suspended solids in the samples Therefore groundwater data collected during the

past 2 years between the implementation of lowflow sampling and concerns over laboratory

data were used in the SLHHRA

Groundwater is not used as a potable water supply at NRS 831324 The nearest water

supply wells are across the Cumberland River in the shallow bedrock aquifer that is deeper than

the shallow groundwater impacted at NRS 831324 The nearest potable water intake is 2.5

miles downstream of NRS 831324 It is unlikely that NRS related constituents would be found

in potable water supplies near NRS because hydrogeological divides are present within theonemilelimit The Cumberland River acts as a barrier isolating shallow groundwater in the NRS

vicinity from the region on the opposite side of the river TVA 2011 Therefore it is highly

unlikely that constituents originating at NRS 831324 would impact a potable water supply

The Cumberland River is used for swimming fishing and recreational vehicles eg motor

boats cruising tubing skiing jet skis The condenser cooling channel that leaves the GAF is a

popular fishing spot in the winter Therefore recreational use of the Cumberland River is a

potential exposure location that is considered in the SLHHRA

The only potential exposure point for human receptors would be within the Cumberland River

Therefore a massbalance was used to predict NRS 831324 related constituent

concentrations in surface water above the transition zone The average horizontal groundwater

seepage velocity between NRS 831324 and the Cumberland River is 3.7 feet per year The

modeled potential discharge zone is approximately 143.6 acres approximated by geospatial

tracing using geographic information system Input constituent concentrations were either the

groundwater exposure point concentration or the average concentration in ash porewater Site





22

specific parameters used in the mass balance included area of transition zone annual

precipitation and the 1Q10 flow rate which is the lowest expected flow rate in a 10year span

COPCs for groundwater were selected by comparing the maximum constituent concentration to

drinking water criteria See Appendix K for methodology The following COPCs were identified

for groundwater aluminum beryllium boron cadmium cobalt iron manganese and nickel

see Appendix K for additional details However because groundwater is not used as a

potable water supply at NRS 831324 potential exposures to constituents in groundwater were

not further evaluated Rather estimated surface water concentrations were used to identify

surface water COPCs to evaluate potential recreational user exposures in the Cumberland

River Estimated surface water concentrations were all below drinking water criteria and

recreational water criteria for all constituents therefore no COPCswere identified for surface

water

The results of the SLHHRA indicate that constituents present in groundwater were detected at

concentrations above screening levels for potable use of the groundwater However

groundwater is not used as a potable water supply at NRS 831324 therefore no exposure or

risk is expected Groundwater concentrations were used to estimate concentrations that could

be present in the Cumberland River surface water above the transition zone The predicted

concentrations are below both drinking water criteria and criteria for recreational water use

Alternate concentration limits ACLs were derived for groundwater that would not result in

adverse effects to recreational uses of the Cumberland River in the vicinity of GAF Constituent

concentrations in groundwater will be compared with ACLs in future evaluations





23

CONCLUSIONS

The GAF NRS facility was placed into groundwater assessment monitoring due to TDEC MCL

exceedances of berylliumcadmium and nickel in well GAF19R These constituents continue

to be observed above site GWPS at one well GAF19R in the facility compliance well network

These three constituents have been observed above the current GWPS in well GAF19R since

that well was first sampled in 2006 with cadmium and nickel showing no clear trend throughout

the well’s sampling history and beryllium concentrations showing an overall decreasing trend

All other constituents in well GAF19R and all constituents in well GAF20 are routinely below

the GWPS and have a stable or decreasing trend

Although CCP constituents have been observed in detectable levels in NRS 831324downgradientbedrock well sample results those concentrations exist well below applicable GWPS

and levels observed in the alluvial wells Because the groundwater vertical gradients between

NRS 831324 and the Cumberland River are markedly upward any contaminant migration

from the facility into bedrock would be expected to discharge upward either into the alluvium

prior to reaching the river or into the river itself The down gradient contaminant plume

boundary for NRS 831324 is defined as the river's edge Groundwater discharge would occur

as seepage through the riverbed and therefore would not transverse the Cumberland River

and impact groundwater resources on the opposite side Any potential contamination

emanating from the solid waste facility would be limited in vertical and areal extent and would

not migrate beneath private property Groundwater contamination is effectively limited to

the GAF site boundary and simulated discharges to the Cumberland River show

predicted concentrations that are below both drinking water and for recreational water

criteria

The model was used to evaluate both current conditions uncapped and postclosure

conditions 30 years into the future with flexible membrane liner cap and soil cover over NRS

831324 Differences between scenarios and benefits from the cap are minimal and in each

case impacted groundwater is predicted to remain completely within the GAF boundaries

The results of the ecological screening evaluation indicates that when predicted concentrations

of ash related metals in the transition zone were initially compared to ecological screening

values beryllium cadmium nickel and zinc were selected as COPECs Subsequently a

refined evaluation was conducted by reevaluating COPECs utilizing the results of a spatial





24

scale analysis a capped scenario analysis and refinement of exposure estimates and

evaluating the results of whole effluent toxicity tests and the result of macroinvertebrate

communities surveys in the Cumberland River The results suggest that exposure of the benthic

invertebrates to siterelated COPECs is not likely to measurably degrade the community The

weight of evidence of the refined evaluation shows that adverse population level impacts are not

expected for the aquatic receptors potentially exposed to ashrelated metals in the Cumberland

River

The results of the SLHHRA indicate that constituents present in groundwater were detected at

concentrations above screening levels for potable use of the groundwater However

groundwater is not used as a potable water supply at NRS 831324 therefore no exposure or

risk is expected Groundwater concentrations were used to predict concentrations that could be

present in the Cumberland River transition zone The predicted concentrations are below both

drinking water criteria and criteria for recreational water use

The results of the SLHHRA indicated the lack of potential risk from exposure to surface water

at GAF There is no expected risk from direct exposure to groundwater since groundwater is not

a drinking water source Therefore it is proposed to continue monitoring groundwater

however at a reduced frequency so that monitoring is done on a semiannual basis This

frequency will provide adequate data to monitor the NRS considering the consistent trends over

the past years Further it is proposed that concentrations in groundwater are assessed by

comparing them to ACLs protective of the exposure pathways at the GAF ie exposure to

surface water by recreational users of the Cumberland River in the vicinity of GAF Along with

continuing groundwater monitoring at a reduced frequency TVA proposes to perform benthic

invertebrate monitoring in the vicinity potentially affected by the NRS if deemed necessary

TVA also proposes to mitigate groundwater impacts by reducing infiltration through

maintenance activities in the NRS footprint as needed

Fill

material will be placed and graded

for maintenance of

flat

areas and areas in need of additional cover The material will be used

for minor regrading and shaping in order to promote positive surface runoff and reduce

infiltration Grading will focus on the areas where erosion or ponding occurs The graded areas

will be sloped to drain and covered with two feet of cover soil and vegetated




NonRegistered Site 831324Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Project Report –October 2014

FIGURES



THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK



TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324

GroundwaterAssessmentMonitoringProjectReport

–October

2014

Figure

1

SiteLocation

Map



TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324


–October

2014

Figure

2NRS

FacilityExisting

and

HistoricalCompliance

WellsGroundwaterLevelsbased

on

observations

September

15

2011



TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324


–October

2014

Figure

3CumberlandRiverElevations

at

GAF

and

Old

Hickory

Dam

1989_2014

441442443444445446447448449450451452

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

CumberlandRiverElevationft_msl

Old

Hickory

Dam

Headwater

Elevation

RiverElevation

at

GAF



TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324


–October

2014

Figure

4TotalSuspendedSolidTimeSeries

2009_2014



TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324


–October

2014

Figure

5WellsUtilized

in

the

AssessmentProject



TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324

GroundwaterAssessmentMonitoring

ProjectReport

–October

2014

Figure

6

AssessmentSoilSamplingLocations

by

Type





Figure 7 Site_Wide Potentiometric Contours May 23 2012





Figure 8 Mean Concentrations of Assessment Dataset Concentrations by Media

Figure 9 Maximum Concentrations of Assessment Dataset Concentrations by Media

0.1

1

10

100

1000

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Fluoride

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Silver

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

Alluvium

Bedrock

Ash Porewater

0.1

1

10

100

1000

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Fluoride

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Silver

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

Alluvium

Bedrock

Ash Porewater





Figure 10 Maximum Concentrations of Assessment Alluvium Bedrock Data versus Mean Ash

Porewater Concentrations

0.1

1

10

100

1000

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Fluoride

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Silver

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

Alluvium

Bedrock

Ash Porewater





Figure 11 Hydraulic Conductivity Sampling Locations



TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324

GroundwaterAssessmentMonitoring

ProjectReport

–October

2014

Figure

12

FieldHydraulic

Conductivity

Ranges

by

Strata



TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324


–October

2014

Figure

13

GroundwaterModelDomain





Figure 14 Site Topographic and Bathymetry Contours

Coordinates in TN State Plane NAD27





Figure 15 Lithology from BoringsWells Used to Construct Model Geologic Geometry





Figure 16 Waste Layer Model Thickness

Contours in 4_ foot increments for definition





Figure 17 Top of Overburden Alluvium Residuum Model Layer






Figure 18 Top of HermitageBigby_ Canon CombinedBedrock Model Layer






Figure 19 Top of Carters Bedrock Model Layer




TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324


–October

2014

Figure

20

ModelPrecipitationDistribution



TVA

GallatinFossilPlant

Non

Registered

Site

83

1324


–October

2014

Figure

21

ModelHydraulic

Conductivity

Zone

Cross_Section

West

to

Eastthrough

NRS

83_

1324





v.


( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155




Joint Exhibit 247

Email from Michael Gray and attached Regulatory Inspection Summary Reporting Form (Aug.

21, 2014)



TVGF_108647



TVA 20449 [07-10-2012]

Regulatory Inspection Summary Reporting Form Environmental Permitting and Compliance (EP&C)

Date of Inspection & Duration: TVA Operations Inspected: Operations manager:

8/21/2014 GAF Operations Clay C. Cherry

Purpose of Inspection:(Routine Compliance, NOV Follow-up, Permit Renewal)

Routine Compliance with NPDES permit

Media Inspected: Name of Inspector & Agency: NPDES Mike Thornton & Souraya Fathi (TDEC - DWR)

Operations personnel participating or contacted during inspection:(Name and Title)

Michael Gray (GAF Environmental Scientist), Bill Brock (GAF Maintenance Specialist), Stephanie Sorrell (GAF Technical Services Analyst)

Observations or problems identified by inspector:

None identified. One comment made to repair/move NPDES sign at DSN 001. Sign had already been ordered as part of the P&CC Pond D spillway project.

Samples Collected:

None

Records reviewed and photos taken:

pH calibrations, ash pond dike inspections, chemical pond & ash pond closure planning

Deficiencies:

None identified

Submitted by: Signature:(Note if submitted electronically) Michael T. Gray electronic submittal

Interim Communication & Summary Report Routing Guidance:

A summary of the inspection is to be provided by the REP to the Operations management and to the EP&C Organizations Sr. Env Manager on the date of the inspection.

Additionally, this form will be provided to the Operations management and e-mailed to the appropriate EP&C Organizations Sr. Env Manager by the close of business on the date of the inspection. Operations management should be advised to forward the summary to the appropriate Operations Executives.

EP&C Organizations Sr. Env Managers will review the summary, provide a short synopsis, and forward to the EP&C Vice President, and all EP&C Organizational and Compliance Sr. Managers by the close of business on the date following the inspection.

Upon completion, this form shall be submitted to the Organization EDMS Representative and to the Environmental Correspondence - Inspections mailbox via Outlook.

TVGF_108648





v.


( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155




Joint Exhibit 249

Compliance Inspection Report, Permit No. TN0005428, TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant (Apr. 25,

2016)



TVGF_108621





v.


( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155




Joint Exhibit 137

Email from Robert Alexander to Vojin Janic re: Today’s Inquiry on TVA Gallatin NPDES &

closed ash landfill (Sept. 30, 2010)



TSRA-GAF011127





v.


( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155




Joint Exhibit 92

Excerpts, Lang memo to Combs Intermediate Storage Alternative, Final (Rev. 1) Technical

Memorandum, TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant – Sumner County, Tennessee, TVA Project ID: 202216

(Feb. 3, 2012)



February 3, 2012

Ms. Rachel B. Combs Program Manager – CCP Engineering Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market St. Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

RE: Intermediate Storage Alternative Final (Rev. 1) Technical Memorandum TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant – Sumner County, Tennessee TVA Project ID: 202216

Dear Ms. Combs:

URS is pleased to provide Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with this final technical memorandum presenting intermediate storage alternatives for Coal Combustion Products (CCP) at the Gallatin Fossil Plant (GAF) located in Sumner County, Tennessee. The following final submittal updates the construction costs, airspace, and footprint information for the Rail Loop Landfill following revised concept design and cost estimates prepared for the PPD and Siting Study Report.

The new scrubbers at GAF are expected to be online in April 2015, and therefore, the Rail Loop Landfill project schedule is being expedited to accommodate the above date. However, there are several hurdles associated with the Rail Loop Landfill requiring that an intermediate storage alternative (contingency plan) be developed. Therefore, URS has prepared the following technical memorandum presenting intermediate storage alternatives to provide short-term CCP storage as a contingency in the event of a fatal flaw or delay to the project. In addition, these alternatives will also be incorporated into the 20-year storage plan for the facility.

Please do not hesitate to call the undersigned at 216.622.2300 (office)/216.272.5808 (mobile) for Keith, or 919.461.1344 (office)/919.868.2363 (mobile) for Gabe, if you have any questions or comments on this submittal.

Sincerely, URS Corporation

Gabriel W. Lang, P.E. Keith Mast, P.E. Project Manager Vice President

cc: Bryan Partin - TVA

1600 Perimeter Park Dr., Suite 400Raleigh, NC 27560 919-461-1100 Tel

919-461-1415 Fax www.urscorp.com

TVGF_110049



Intermediate Storage Alternative

Final (Rev. 1) Technical Memorandum

Gallatin Fossil Plant Gallatin, Tennessee

PREPARED FOR: Tennessee Valley Authority

PREPARED BY: URS Corporation

1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400 Morrisville, NC 27560-8421

FEBRUARY 3, 2012

Deliverable ID: Gallatin Facility‐LFP1Onsite‐00004

TVGF_110050



INTERMEDIATE STORAGE ALTERNATIVE FINAL (REV. 1) TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 3, 2012

Page 1 of 14

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................2 1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE .............................................................................3

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Objective and Purpose ....................................................................................................... 4

2.0 INTERMEDIATE STORAG E ALTERNATIVES ...................................................5 2.1 Baseline – Expedited Rail Loop Landfill .......................................................................... 5

2.2 Alternative 1 – On-Site Storage in Pond A ........................................................................ 6

2.3 Alternative 2 - Off-Site Storage at the Hartsville Site ..................................................... 10

2.4 Alternative 3 – Beneficial Use in Ponds E and A as Structural Fill ................................ 10

2.5 Alternative 4 – Hauling Off-Site to Municipal Landfill .................................................. 12

3.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................13 4.0 PATH FORWARD ....................................................................................................14

Attachments Attachment A Table 1 - Summary of Intermediate Storage Alternatives

Attachment B Baseline - Rail Loop Landfill Drawings

Attachment C Alternative 1 - Pond A Storage Facility Drawings

Attachment D Alternative 2 - Hartsville Site Drawings and Haul Route Map

Attachment E Alternative 3 - Pond E Complete Fill Drawings

Attachment F Alternative 4 – Map of Haul Route to Municipal Landfill (Murfreesboro)

Attachment G Rail Loop Landfill Contingency Schedule

Attachment H Meeting Minutes: Meeting 1 – September 8, 2011

Meeting 2 – October 19, 2011

TVGF_110051




Page 2 of 14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In April 2015, the new dry scrubbers will be installed at GAF and at that time, dry CCP material (comingled fly ash/gypsum byproduct) will require storage or disposal. The current selected storage location for dry CCP material is an on-site landfill in the Rail Loop. The project schedule for the Rail Loop Landfill project is being expedited to accommodate the above scrubber date. However, there are several hurdles associated with the Rail Loop Landfill requiring that an intermediate storage alternative (contingency plan) be developed. These potential hurdles include obtaining tribal approval for a 100-meter Rock Cairn buffer, potential TDEC permitting delays, and/or construction delays. These hurdles could result in the Rail Loop Landfill not being available by the scheduled scrubber startup date of April 2015.

Therefore, URS has developed the following intermediate dry CCP storage alternative plan to provide short-term storage as a contingency in the event of a fatal flaw or delay to the project. In addition, these alternatives will also be incorporated into the 20-year storage plan for the facility. Each of these alternatives is presented for comparison with the baseline condition (expedited Rail Loop Landfill). Four primary alternatives were developed for intermediate storage, including:

Baseline – Expedited Rail Loop Landfill

Alternative 1 – On-site storage in Pond A

Alternative 2 – Off-site storage at the Hartsville Site

Alternative 3 – Beneficial reuse in Ponds E and A as Structural Fill

Alternative 4 – Hauling off-site to Municipal Landfill

Two meetings (Meetings 1 and 2, see Attachment H) were held with CCP Engineering during the course of this intermediate storage study to review preliminary findings and to discuss the path forward. Based upon the results of these meetings and the study, it was concluded that the project will proceed with the expedited Rail Loop Landfill Project and utilize Alternative 4 – Hauling Off-Site to Municipal Landfill as a contingency in the event project delays occur and the landfill is not available at the time the scrubbers come online. Concurrent with the above activities, Alternative 3 – Beneficial Reuse in Ponds E and A will be pursued in a global perspective under a separate project. If the beneficial use pursuit is successful, the availability date for the Rail Loop Landfill Project could be delayed.

In the event that a fatal flaw associated with the Rock Cairns is identified, Alternative 1 – On-site Storage in Pond A will be selected to meet the 20-yr storage plan. However, potential risks associated with constructing a dry storage facility in a highly active karst area and potentially seismically active area suggest that further investigation of this alternative be delayed until the need for this facility is confirmed through an early decision on the Rock Cairns setback for the Rail Loop Landfill. Close attention will need to be paid to the timeline for this early decision, as preliminary scheduling suggests that delays in performing engineering studies could result in a much longer trucking contingency.

TVGF_110052




Page 3 of 14

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

URS was retained by TVA to provide the following study to identify potential intermediate storage alternatives in the event a fatal flaw or delay is identified in the Rail Loop Landfill project. The recent announcement of the commissioning of the dry scrubbers at GAF in April 2015 requires that a contingency plan be in place for the project. The engineering services were provided in accordance with URS’ proposal titled Phase 1 Siting Study New On-Site CCP Landfill (Rail Loop) – Rev. A dated April 7, 2011.

This Technical Memorandum summarizes the results of our study and provides discussion and figures/drawings illustrating the alternatives for an intermediate dry CCP storage facility that would be available to meet both a short-term storage need as well as be incorporated into TVA’s 20-year storage plan for GAF.

1.1 Background

1.1.1 GAF Wet Ash Handling

Historically, GAF has managed ash by wet sluicing fly ash into Pond E and bottom ash into Pond A (see Figure 1-1). Bottom ash is first sluiced into the Bottom Ash Pit and then transferred to Middle Pond A and Pond A through a series of channels. Pond A then discharges into the Stilling Ponds for eventual discharge into the Cumberland River. Fly ash is sluiced into the south end of Pond E, and Pond E discharges at its north end into Stilling Pond C.

Figure 1-1: GAF Wet Ash Handling

TVGF_110053




Page 4 of 14

However, as a result of elevated TSS readings, the fly ash sluicing operations have transitioned to a rim ditch operation in Middle Pond A and all sluice streams are currently being discharged into Bottom Ash Pond A (for additional details, refer to the Pond E Alternative Storage Tech Memo (Rev. B), dated October 24, 2011). Dry fly ash from the rim ditch is being placed into Pond E to facilitate future closure of the facility.

In the near future, TVA intends to transition from a wet sluiced ash disposal system to a dry ash disposal system as a part of a new company-wide directive. The first step in this transition will include the installation and commissioning of a dry scrubber in April 2015. The dry scrubber will generate a dry comingled ash/gypsum byproduct. This dry CCP will be stored in silos and then hauled to a storage facility for disposal. Bottom ash will continue to be wet sluiced to Bottom Ash Pond A until FY 18 when a dewatering system is installed. At that time, the entire facility will generate dry CCP for storage. TVA has projected that GAF, after transitioning from a wet sluiced ash disposal system to a dry ash disposal system, will produce approximately 306,000 yd3 per year of coal combustion products, of which 197,000 yd3 consist of fly ash, 38,000 yd3 of bottom ash and 71,000 yd3 per year of comingled fly ash and gypsum byproduct.

1.1.2 Rail Loop

During the first Intermediate Storage Alternatives Meeting held on September 8, 2011 (refer to the Meeting 1 Minutes in Attachment H), URS identified that there is a potential to construct two landfills in the Rail Loop (North and South), with each capable of providing approximately 14 or more years of CCP storage. Subsequently, when the two landfills are combined, they will provide sufficient storage to meet TVA’s 20-year storage plan. However, each of these landfills is currently bounded at 100 meters to the west by potentially historically significant Rock Cairns. Formal approval to construct the landfills within this setback is required from the tribes which could result in delays or potentially a fatal flaw to the project. The original project schedule was intended to reduce risks in spending engineering dollars prior to receiving tribal and regulatory approvals and resulted in the first cell being available in December 2017. However, as a result of the recent announcement of the dry scrubber commissioning in April 2015, the project schedule was accelerated to overlap engineering activities with permitting approvals, resulting in engineering services being performed at risk in order to have the first cell availability in April 2015. In addition, an early decision on the Rock Cairns setback has been requested.

1.2 Objective and Purpose

The purpose and objective of this study are to identify intermediate dry CCP storage alternatives to provide short-term storage as a contingency in the event of a fatal flaw or delay to the Rail Loop Landfill project and to facilitate the dry scrubber project storage needs. In addition, these alternatives are also to be incorporated into the 20-year storage plan for the facility. Conceptual drawings and cost estimates have been prepared for each alternative to aid in the evaluation and selection of a preferred alternative.

TVGF_110054




Page 5 of 14

2.0 INTERMEDIATE STORAGE ALTERNATIVES

As discussed above, intermediate dry CCP storage alternatives are necessary to provide short-term storage as a contingency in the event of a fatal flaw or delay to the Rail Loop Landfill project and to facilitate the new dry scrubber project storage needs. A conceptual project schedule has been prepared that demonstrates the timing of making an early decision on the Rock Cairn setback and the resultant delay in having an operational storage facility (see Attachment G). In summary, if a decision were made in February 2012 and Phase 2 engineering services for intermediate storage were to proceed in July 2012, the facility would not be available until Nov. 2015, approximately 7 months after the commissioning of the scrubber project. This suggests that decisions on proceeding with intermediate storage alternatives need to be made early in the Phase 2 engineering work for the Rail Loop Landfill.

For comparative purposes, a baseline case has been developed for the expedited Rail Loop Landfill project. In addition to the baseline case, URS has developed four primary alternatives for intermediate dry CCP storage. Conceptual drawings and cost estimates have been prepared for each alternative to aid in the evaluation and selection of a preferred alternative. The four primary alternatives include:

Baseline – Expedited Rail Loop Landfill

Alternative 1 – On-site storage in Pond A

Alternative 2 – Off-site storage at the Hartsville Site

Alternative 3 – Beneficial reuse in Ponds E and A as Structural Fill

Alternative 4 – Hauling off-site to Municipal Landfill

Discussions of the site conditions, potential risks and estimated costs for each of the above alternatives is provided in the sections below and supporting figures are included in the Attachments.

2.1 Baseline – Expedited Rail Loop Landfill

2.1.1 Site Considerations

As noted previously, the selected method of storage for GAF is the design and construction of an on-site landfill in the Rail Loop. Based upon current estimates, a 20-year lined landfill at GAF will need approximately 6.1 million cubic yards of disposal capacity. Due to site and economic constraints, sufficient area does not currently exist in the Rail Loop to construct a single facility to meet this need. Rather, two potential landfill sites were developed, identified as the North and South Rail Loop Sites. When combined, these landfills could meet the project needs by providing over 10 million cubic yards of total storage capacity. Additional details on these landfills are provided below and in Attachment B.

Northern Rail Loop

•Footprint area of approximately 54 Acres.

•Estimated storage capacity of 5.5 million cubic yards.

• Bounded to the west by the Rock Cairn Buffer and to the south by cemeteries and a shallow rockslope.

•Requires relocation or termination of the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) agreement.

TVGF_110055




Page 6 of 14

Southern Rail Loop

•Footprint area of approximately 43 Acres.

•Estimated storage capacity of 4.8 million cubic yards.

•Bounded to the west by the Rock Cairn Buffer and to the north by a cemetery.

•The shooting range and Live Well building require relocation.

The most prevalent consideration for the site is the need to obtain a memorandum of agreement from the Tribes to develop a landfill within a 100 meter buffer of the rock cairns (estimated 18-month period). Other potential hurdles include the need to modify or terminate the WMA, and relocate the shooting range and cemeteries.

2.1.2 Potential Risks

The primary (highest) risks associated with constructing the landfill in the Rail Loop include the potential for delays and fatal flaw associated with the Rock Cairns. Secondarily (low to moderate) risks include karst remediation, WMA agreement modification or termination, shooting range relocation, expediting the project schedule and performing the work at risk and rock blasting.

2.1.3 Estimated Costs

Cost estimates for the proposed landfill construction were developed by URS for comparative purposes. The costs developed for the landfill were limited to engineering, construction and hauling for the first cell only. Costs were not included for operation, closure, or post-closure maintenance. The results of our estimates indicate that a total first cell construction cost of $23 to $24 million is anticipated (2011 Dollars). With hauling and engineering fees included, this results in a total cost per yd3 of $25 to $27.

2.2 Alternative 1 – On-Site Storage in Pond A


The potential for constructing a landfill within the Bottom Ash Pond A (Pond A) was originally proposed during the Phase 1 Siting Study for the CCP Landfill, dated March 16, 2010. However, based upon meetings with TDEC, it was understood that regulatory approval of a lined storage facility over an existing ash pond would be difficult at best. Subsequent to this meeting, additional feedback from TDEC and their desire to not construct a landfill off-site that requires trucking of material, suggests TDEC may have moderated their earlier opposition. However, there are several other site considerations that may impact the feasibility of the alternative including the presence of karst geology, very loose sluiced ash and difficulty in establishing monitorability for the facility. From URS’ review of historical geotechnical information for the site, only limited subsurface information exists in the vicinity of Pond A and this information is limited to the perimeter pond dikes. At TVA’s request to prepare a reasonable storage estimate, URS elected to perform a limited subsurface investigation in Pond A in the vicinity of the storage facility. The investigation included three test pit excavations and three borings. Due to potential concerns with aggravating the karst activity in the pond, the borings were only extended to the top of rock and backfilled immediately with bentonite above the top of the existing clay seam. The boring and test pit locations were surveyed in the field by TVA and the locations are shown in Figure 2-2 below.

TVGF_110056




Page 7 of 14

Figure 2-2 – Surveyed Test Pit and Boring Locations (North direction up)

TVGF_110057




Page 8 of 14

Table 2-2 below summarizes the findings during the test pits and borings subsurface investigation.

Table 2-2 – Subsurface Investigation Observations

Test Pit / Boring Number

Depth Material Observations

Test Pit 1 0 – 6 ft. Fly ash with 1” to 12” stratifications of bottom ash

6 – 15 ft. Groundwater infiltration into excavation, Loose Fly ash with

1” to 12” stratifications of bottom ash.



1” to 12” stratifications of bottom ash



1” to 12” stratifications of bottom ash

Boring APA-1 0 – 19.0 ft. Loose Fly Ash

19.0 – 22.5 ft. Clayey Soil

22.5 ft. Bedrock

Boring APA-2 0 to 29.0 ft. Loose Fly Ash

29.0 – 40.5 ft. Clayey Soil

40.5 ft. Bedrock

Boring APA-3 0 – 25.7 ft. Loose Fly Ash

25.7 – 28.7 Clayey Soil

28.7 ft. Bedrock

As noted in the table above, loose sluiced fly ash exists throughout the area of the pond investigated to depths ranging from 19.0 to 29.0 feet below existing grade and bedrock at depths ranging from 22.5 to 40.5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater was measured at depths ranging from 6 to 11 feet below ground surface. Considering the presence of thick layers of loose sluiced ash, significant depths to bedrock, shallow groundwater and karst activity at the site, specialized subsurface construction techniques are anticipated. When loaded with 100 feet or more of dry CCP material, the above conditions could result in excessive settlements, static and seismic slope instability, and sinkhole development.

To address the above concerns, URS has evaluated several options for disposing of the dry CCP produced at GAF. Some of the options evaluated were:

Option 1 - Construction of a soil mixed, stabilized containment berm around the perimeter of theproposed landfill.

Option 2 - Construction of 10-inch diameter grout-filled columns under the entire landfillfootprint for support of the landfill.

TVGF_110058




Page 9 of 14

Option 3 - In-situ construction of a slurry wall on two sides, east and west, of the proposedlandfill, followed by overexcavation and replacement of a portion of the sluiced ash.

Option 4 - Construction of a 15-foot high ash surcharge on the proposed landfill footprint topreload the sluiced ash.

For each of the above alternatives, a subsurface grouting remediation program consisting of “cap grouting” is anticipated to reduce the potential for sinkhole development. Additional measures to reduce sinkhole activity would include a low permeability liner throughout the footprint and diversion of surface water flows around the perimeter. In addition, for monitorability, a double liner system is included that would provide a separate leachate leakage monitoring zone below the landfill liner and above the existing groundwater level.

Based upon cost comparisons of the above options, Option 1 was deemed the most feasible. This option involves the construction of a soil mixed, stabilization berm to provide static and seismic stability for the perimeter landfill slope (refer to the drawings in Attachment C). The base of the landfill would still be susceptible to settlement with applied load as well as liquefaction. However, this movement would be contained within the stabilized berm and addressed through crowning of the landfill base. In addition, a remedial grouting program “cap grouting” would be performed throughout 20% of the landfill area. This grouting program would be designed to fill potential voids and create a seal at the clay/rock interface. It should be noted that this option should be considered preliminary and confirmation of this remediation technique will require additional subsurface investigations and analyses.

Following stabilization of the subsurface conditions as noted above, a lined storage facility will be constructed. For intermediate storage purposes, the facility would be designed as a 30-acre double-lined landfill constructed in the southwest portion of Pond A, providing approximately 2,400,000 yd3 of disposal capacity. This volume would produce a fill life of 7 years. However, based upon our review of the site, the potential does exist to expand the facility to 60+ acres and provide for 20-yrs of storage capacity. Preliminary liner grades have been established to limit the need for off-site fill, maximize available air space and reuse of available ash material. Following site grading, a 5-foot imported clay geologic buffer system will be constructed and overlain by a dual liner system (double 60 mil HDPE, and composite drainage net) constructed with a 12-inch imported sand and 12-inch fly ash protective cover layer. Leachate would be directed to two sumps where it would be pumped temporarily to Stilling Pond B. Upon completion of an on-site treatment facility (assumed to be located within 1 mile), the leachate will then be rerouted via a force main.

2.2.2. Potential Risks

The primary (highest) risks associated with constructing the storage facility in Pond A include the potential for karst activity, instability of the loose sluiced ash, remediation costs and regulatory approval for construction over an ash pond. Secondarily (low to moderate) risks include performing Phase 2 engineering services at risk to facilitate availability in 2015.


Cost estimates for the proposed landfill construction were developed utilizing the landfill template and standard fees prepared by URS for all facilities in 2010. For comparative purposes, the costs developed for the landfill were limited to engineering, construction and hauling for the first cell only. Costs were not included for closure, operation, post-closure, etc. Costs associated with the remedial programs described above were based upon conversations with specialty geotechnical contractors. The results of our estimates indicate that a total first cell cost of $35 to $39 million is anticipated (2011 Dollars), which

TVGF_110059




Page 10 of 14

results in a total cost per yd3 of $25 to $28. There is a significant risk associated with karst activity and stabilization of the loose fly ash. While attempts have been made to quantify the costs associated with remediation of the risks, these costs should be considered conceptual until additional investigations and analyses are completed. Significant variations in these costs can occur.

2.2.3 Conclusions

Constructing an intermediate storage facility in Pond A does appear to be a feasible alternative for potentially providing short-term and long-term storage. However, due to the conceptual nature of this study, additional Phase 1 level investigations and analyses are recommended prior to proceeding with this alternative. In addition, the risks associated with karst activity during any intrusive work need to be considered and evaluated.

2.3 Alternative 2 - Off-Site Storage at the Hartsville Site


The former TVA Hartsville Nuclear Site (see Attachment D), just south of State Highway 25 is approximately 26.5 road miles away from GAF by road and 41 miles by barge (and 2 miles by truck). Sufficient area does exist off the main entrance to the facility to construct an intermediate storage facility. However, this area would require 1,600 feet of transmission utilities relocation and stream mitigation to facilitate the landfill, as well as a barge unloading facility at the southwest corner of the property (on non-TVA owned land) and use of a shared access road to haul from the barge unloading facility to the landfill. The landfill construction would generally follow the standard landfill liner construction required per TDEC regulations and anticipated at the Rail Loop Landfill described above. However, the site is located within two counties and is likely to be subject to the Jackson Law requiring both Smith and Trousdale County approval.


The primary (highest) risks associated with constructing the landfill at Hartsville include the cost impacts to the plant associated with barging and trucking the material 40+ miles for disposal over the disposal life of the facility. Secondarily (low to moderate) risks include Jackson Law approval, using and maintaining a shared access road, barge operation and permitting impacts, utility relocation and facility impacts, and expediting the project schedule and performing the work at risk.


Cost estimates for the proposed landfill construction were developed utilizing the landfill template and standard fees prepared by URS for all facilities in 2010. For comparative purposes, the costs developed for the landfill were limited to engineering, construction and hauling for the first cell only. Costs were not included for closure, operation, post-closure, etc. Due to hauling distance (see Attachment D, 41 miles by barge and 2 miles by truck), Hauling costs have been estimated by URS to be approximately $24 to 28 million (2011 Dollars). URS has estimated that at this cost, the first 4 years of CCP storage at the Hartsville site would cost TVA $43 to 49 million.

2.3.4 Conclusions

The Hartsville site has extensive hauling costs and other risks as outlined above that do not make it a viable intermediate storage alternative.

2.4 Alternative 3 – Beneficial Use in Ponds E and A as Structural Fill

As an alternative to constructing a storage facility within an existing ash pond, a feasible alternative may include placing the dry CCP material as structural fill in the ponds to facilitate closure (see Attachment

TVGF_110060




Page 11 of 14

E). However, there are several potential hurdles for this alternative including: the current NPDES permit does not allow for the placement of dry CCP, a new and unpermitted CCP stream (comingled ash and gypsum byproduct) would be introduced, and TDEC’s reluctance to permit dry material placement in historically wet ponds. However, Tennessee Senate Bill No. 1559, which was approved on May 20, 2009, does not preclude the use of coal ash for fill or in wastewater treatment units. In addition, prior direction from TDEC on the Bull Run Facility (BRF), indicated that top of ash elevations for closure in the ash ponds could be designed to the top of dike elevations. Based upon our conversations with TVA during Meeting No. 2 (see Attachment H), we understand that this alternative will be considered on a global basis for all facilities and that correspondence with TDEC will be initiated under another project. Presented below are some additional discussions on how this technique could be applied to GAF.


On October 24, 2011 URS submitted the Pond E Storage Alternatives Technical Memorandum, Revision B, which included alternatives for placing dry ash in Pond E. Each pond filling alternative was developed consistent with the concept around Trans-Ash’s current maintenance efforts, but with the main objective of facilitating future closure of the ash pond complex to the greatest extent possible without compromising stability.

The selected alternative in the Pond E Storage Alternatives Technical Memorandum was the filling all of Pond E to the current lowest top of dike elevation of el. 472 ft. The ash would need to be placed in zones (a total of six) due to the extent of the filling area to allow for controlled surface water drainage. Each fill zone would be sloped at a minimum 2% grade to interior drainage ditches extending east-west between each zone and to a perimeter stormwater ditch. Prior to closure of the pond, the perimeter ditches will be routed to the water surface boundary at the northern end of Pond E and discharge through the existing spillway into the Stilling Ponds. This technique currently provides approximately 4 years of storage capacity.

Additional grading techniques will also be considered as part of future studies to maximize available storage space in the event this alternative becomes feasible. In addition, as discussed during Meeting 1 (see Attachment H), as part of future studies, URS will evaluate other alternatives that limit the amount of new stormwater discharge points and still meet the overall goals of the project. As a result of filling in the entire Pond E area, the coal pile runoff and stormwater basin force main flows that currently discharge into Pond E would need to be rerouted into Pond A.


The primary (highest) risks associated with this alternative are the regulatory approval of the dry CCP material as beneficial reuse in the ponds by TDEC. Secondarily (low to moderate) risks include potential for limited future storage capacity (2 to 3 years) following the scrubber commission, depending upon final closure grades, and the need for future monitoring of the site with the addition of a new CCP stream.


In developing a disposal cost estimate for this alternative, it was assumed that the only costs incurred would be hauling and initial disposal of the material into the ponds and the associated engineering costs with establishing closure grades. All other cost (i.e. closure, operation, post-closure, etc.) were assumed to be incurred under other projects. The results of our estimates indicate that a total cost of $6 to $9 million is anticipated (2011 Dollars), which results in a total cost per yd3 of $8 to $12.

2.4.4 Conclusions

Beneficial reuse of dry CCP material as part of closure is a viable and cost effective alternative to provide short-term storage of the material. However, the likelihood of obtaining regulatory approval appears to be low. In either event, the alternative is worth future pursuit.

TVGF_110061




Page 12 of 14

2.5 Alternative 4 – Hauling Off-Site to Municipal Landfill

2.5.1 Site Conditions

Allied Waste Services’ Middle Point Landfill located at 750 E. Jefferson Pike, Murfreesboro, TN is the nearest Subtitle D landfill that accepts CCP materials. The hauling route is approximately 37 miles on public roads (see Attachment F). Utilizing the disposal quantities provided above (approximately 306,000 yd3 per year), it is estimated that up to 50 – 20 yd3 trucks would run five days per week on public roads.


The primary (highest) risks associated with trucking the material off-site is public and regulatory opposition to trucks being on the road. Secondarily (low to moderate) risks include feasibility for only a limited duration (i.e. 1 to 3 years), public road impacts and uncertainties in disposal quantities and remaining capacity at Murfreesboro.


At TVA’s request, the hauling and tipping fees for this alternative were obtained from TVA’s RHO&M Group and indicate a cost of $32-33 per cubic yard. These costs do not include any additional fees for loading facilities, operating costs, road improvements, engineering costs, etc.

2.5.4 Conclusions

Hauling of the dry CCP material to an off-site municipal landfill is considered to be viable short-term disposal alternative and is reasonable to use as a contingency in the event the Rail Loop Landfill project is delayed. A milestone has been added to the landfill project schedule to identify the timing for starting the coordination and procurement efforts to facilitate hauling off-site. However, this alternative is not considered to be a viable long-term storage alternative due to public and regulatory opposition and potential improvements to public roads.

TVGF_110062




Page 13 of 14

3.0 CONCLUSIONS

The results of the intermediate storage study suggest that the two most viable and readily available alternatives are Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 4 – Trucking to Off-Site Municipal Landfill can be incorporated into the Rail Loop Landfill project as a contingency in the event project delays occur and the landfill is not available at the time of the scrubber commissioning in April 2015. Additionally, Alternative 3 – Beneficial Reuse in Ponds E and A can be pursued with the goal of providing short-term, economical storage in the ponds.

However, if long-term storage is needed and/or a fatal flaw associated with the Rock Cairns is identified, Alternative 1 or 2 would be become viable. When comparing these two alternatives, on-site storage in Pond A (Alternative 1) is considered to be the more feasible alternative. However, potential risks associated with constructing a dry storage facility in a highly active karst area and potentially seismically active area suggest that further investigation of this alternative be delayed until the need for this facility is confirmed through an early decision on the Rock Cairns setback for the Rail Loop Landfill. Close attention will need to be paid to the timeline for this early decision, as preliminary scheduling suggests that delays in performing engineering studies could result in a much longer trucking contingency. Alternative 2 – Off-Site Storage at Hartsville was considered to not be feasible due to the long-term transportation costs and hurdles associated with obtaining municipality and regulatory approval.

TVGF_110063




Page 14 of 14

4.0 PATH FORWARD

Based upon the discussions from the two meetings (Meetings 1 and 2, see Attachment H) held with CCP Engineering during the course of this intermediate storage study, it was concluded that the project will proceed with the expedited Rail Loop Landfill Project and utilize Alternative 4 – Trucking to Off-Site Municipal Landfill as a contingency in the event project delays occur and the landfill is not available at the time of the scrubber commissioning in April 2015. Concurrent with the above activities, Alternative 3 – Beneficial Reuse in Ponds E and A will be pursued for all facilities, in a global perspective, under aseparate project. If the beneficial use pursuit is successful, the availability date for the Rail Loop Landfill Project could be delayed.

In the event that a fatal flaw associated with the Rock Cairns is identified, Alternative 1 – On-site Storage in Pond A will be selected to meet the 20-yr storage plan. However, potential risks associated with constructing a dry storage facility in a highly active karst area and potentially seismically active area suggest that further investigation of this alternative be delayed until the need for this facility is confirmed through an early decision on the Rock Cairns setback for the Rail Loop Landfill. Close attention will need to be paid to the timeline for this early decision, as preliminary scheduling suggests that delays in performing engineering studies could result in a much longer trucking contingency.

TVGF_110064





v.


( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

No. 17-6155




Joint Exhibit 270

TVA, TDEC Consent Order: Environmental Investigation Plans



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Appendix Volume 1 of Plaintiffs-

Appellees was filed electronically on March 15, 2018, through the Court’s

Electronic Filing System, which will send notice of the filing by operation of the

Court’s Electronic Filing System to all parties indicated on the electronic filing

receipt, at the addresses listed below. Parties may access this filing through the

Court’s electronic filing system.

David D. Ayliffe James S. Chase Lane E. McCarty Frances Regina Koho TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant-Appellant, TVA

Eric M. Palmer Ala. Assistant Solicitor General STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae State of Alabama et al.

Douglas H. Green Margaret K. Fawal VENABLE LLP [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, the Edison Electric Institute, and the National Mining Association (Additional counsel on following page)

Carlos C. Smith, Lead Counsel Larry L. Cash Mark W. Smith Robert F. Parsley M. Heith Frost [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae Tennessee Valley Public Power Association, Inc.


Nash E. Long Brent A. Rosser Elbert Lin HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Samuel L. Brown F. William Brownell Kristy A. Niehaus Bulleit HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for Amici Curiae, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce &Industry, Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Energy Institute of Alabama, Mississippi Energy Institute, Association of Tennessee Valley Governments, Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation, Kentucky Farm Bureau, Utility Water Act Group, Kentucky Industrial Utility Customers, Inc. I further certify that the following parties have been served by priority U.S. Mail: Andy Beshear Kentucky Attorney General Kent A. Chandler Kentucky Asst. Atty. General Sam Flynn Kentucky Asst. Atty. General STATE OF KENTUCKY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601 (502) 696-5300 Counsel for Amicus Curiae the Commonwealth of Kentucky

Peter C. Tolsdorf Leland P. Frost MANUFACTURERS’ CENTER FOR LEGAL ACTION 733 10th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 637-3000 Of Counsel for The National Association of Manufacturers

(Additional counsel on following page)


Steven P. Lehotsky Michael B. Schon U.S. CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER 1615 H Street N.W. Washington, DC 20062 Of Counsel for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America

Leslie A. Hulse Assistant General Counsel AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL 700 2nd Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 (202) 249-6131 Of Counsel for American Chemistry Council

/s/ Anne E. Passino ANNE E. PASSINO


CASE NO. 17-6155 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TENNESSEE …...Michael S. Kelley BPR No. 014378 Briton S....

Documents

Transcript of CASE NO. 17-6155 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TENNESSEE …...Michael S. Kelley BPR No. 014378 Briton S....