ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT May 30, 2012 Anthony J. Alexander President and Chief Executive Of?cer FirstEnergy Corporation 76 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 James H. Lash President FirstEnergy Generation Corporation 76 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 Richard G. Mende Director 1 1 Thomas Circle. Suite 900 i Washington, DC 20005 I main: 202-295?8800 fax: 202-296-8822 Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested irstEnergy Generation Corporation, Bruce Mans?eld Plant PO. Box 128 Shippingport, PA 15077-0128 CT Corporation System Registered Agent for Via Certi?ed Mail, Return Receipt Requested FirstEnergy Corporation FirstEnergy Generation Corporation 116 Pine Street, Suite 320 Harrisburg, PA 17101 RE: Notice of Violations and Notice of Intent to Sue FirstEnergy Generation Corporation for Violations of the Clean Water Act, Clean Streams Law, Emergency Planning and Comm unity Right-to-Kn ow Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at the Little Blue Run Coal Ash Impoundment in Beaver County, PA and Hancock County, WV Dear Sirs: We are writing on behalf of the Little Blue Regional Action Group and its members or ??Citizens?) to provide you with notice of their intent to ?le suit against FirstEnergy Corporation and FirstEnergy Generation Corporation (?FirstEnergy?) for signi?cant and ongoing violations of the Clean Water Act Clean Streams Law, 1 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 9 W3 as amended the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at FirstEnergy?s Bruce Mans?eld Plant?s Little Blue Run Coal Ash Impoundment (?Little Blue Run,? ?Impoundment? or ?Little Blue Run Impoundment?), located in Greene Township, Beaver County, and Grant District, Hancock County, West Virginia. Unsafe disposal of coal ash is dangerous, threatening the health of local communities, making groundwater unsafe to drink, harming aquatic life and wildlife, and polluting rivers and streams. The unlined Little Blue Run Coal Ash Impoundment is the largest coal ash pond in the United States, with a permitted area that spans nearly 1,700 acres.5 The coal combustion waste or ?coal ash?) dumped into the Impoundment is a solid waste that meets the criteria for a hazardous waste and is known to contaminate ground and surface waters with toxic pollutants. In addition to directly discharging pollution into surface waters, unlined coal ash impoundments, like Little Blue Run, leach toxins into groundwater and nearby rivers and creeks. As is more fully explained below, FirstEnergy is violating the CWA by discharging pollutants from Outfalls 021 and 022 in violation of the terms and conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. In addition, FirstEnergy is: violating RCRA by disposing of coal ash in a manner that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment; violating the CSL by discharging pollutants that have polluted and continue to pollute the groundwater and surface water of the Commonwealth of and violating EPCRA by failing to report releases of toxic chemicals from the Little Blue Run Coal Ash Impoundment and recycling of toxic chemicals at the Bruce Mans?eld Plant. By failing to comply with the environmental laws detailed in the preceding paragraph, FirstEnergy has injured or threatened to injure, and will continue to injure or threaten to injure, the health, environmental, aesthetic, and economic interests of LBRAG and its members. These injuries or risks are traceable to FirstEnergy?s violations at the Little Blue Run Coal Ash Impoundment, and redressing those ongoing violations will redress the Citizens? injuries or risks. After providing notice, Citizens are entitled to bring suit against ?any person . . . alleged to be in violation? of an ?ef?uent standard or limitation? established under the and against ?any person . . . who has contributed to or who is contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.?7 In addition, the CSL prohibits the discharge of substances that cause pollution to surface water or 2 35 P. s. 9? 691.1 et seq. 3 42 U.S.C. ??n11001?11050. 4 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 5 See Bureau of Waste Management, Dep?t Envtl. Prot. Form 13-A: Modification to Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Permit for Solid Waste Disposal Permit No. 300558 (issued Oct. 11, 2005), at 5 (Apr. 5, 2006) (providing that the permit area is 1,694.9 acres) [hereinafter ?2006 Waste Permit Amendment?]; U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency Database of Survey Results Excel Sheet, at (providing that Little Blue is the largest coal ash surface impoundment in the country based on either surface area or storage capacity). 6 33 U.S.C. l365(a)(1). 7 42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B). groundwater, and also declares pollution of groundwater or surface water to be a nuisance. 3 After providing notice, Citizens may bring suit under this law to abate the discharges that cause pollution and the pollution itself.9 Finally, citizen suit provision authorizes citizens to bring a suit against an owner or operator of a facility for failing to? ?complete and submit a toxic chemical release form under [42 U. S. C. These citizen suit provisions also allow the recovery of reasonable attorney and expert fees 1n addition to other costs by prevailing plaintiffs. Therefore, Citizens may bring suit to enjoin illegal discharges of pollution, compel compliance with the conditions of an NPDES permit, enjoin waste disposal activities that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment, abate pollution and such a potential endangerment, compel compliance with reporting requirements, impose civil penalties, recover attorneys? fees and costs of litigation, and obtain other appropriate relief. In accordance with Section 505(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act, Section 11046(d)(1) of EPCRA, and Clean Streams Law, this letter serves to notify you that LBRAG intends to ?le suit in federal district court any time beginning sixty (60) days after the postmarked date of this letter.11 In accordance with Section 7002(b)(2)(A) of RCRA, 12 this letter serves to notify you that LBRAG intends to ?le suit in federal district court any time beginning ninety (90) days after the certi?ed receipt of this letter.? I. BACKGROUND FirstEnergy owns and operates the Bruce Mans?eld coal? ?red power plant and the nearly 1,000?acre Little Blue Run Coal Ash Impoundment.14 During the process of burn1ng coal, the Bruce Mans?eld plant generates coal ash pollution and other waste, which it sends via a seven? mile pipeline to the nearby Impoundment for disposal.? The permitted area of the nearly 1,000- acre Impoundment (including buffer acreage) is 1,694.9 acres in total, approximately 60% of which is in and the rest of which is in West Virginia. 16 None of the Impoundment is lined; there is no barrier to prevent pollution in the coal ash from reaching groundwater.l7 8 35 P.S. 691.301, 691.1, 691.401, 9 35 P.S. 691.601. 10 42 U.S.C. 11046(a)(1)(A)(iv). See 33 U.S.C. 1365(b)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 11046(d), and 35 P.S. 691 .601(e). ?2 42 U.S.C. 6972(b)(2)(A). ?3 40 CPR 254.2. 14 Letter ?'om Richard Mende, Director, Bruce Mans?eld Plant, FirstEnergy, to Richard Kinch, US. Environmental Protection Agency Re: Request for Information Under Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, at 4 (Mar. 26, 2009) [hereinafter ?2009 FirstEnergy EPA Dam Survey Response?]. The permitted area for the Impoundment is 1,694.9 acres, and the acreage of the Impoundment proper is 967 acres. Id. 15 Civil Envtl. Consultants, Inc., Joint Permit Application for Power Company Proposed Expansion of the Little Blue Run Disposal Facility, Section 4.0 (Jan. 13, 2005). Power Company was FirstEnergy Generation Corporation? 3 predecessor in interest, and Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. are FirstEnergy? contracted engineering ?rm. 162006 Waste Permit Amendment, at 5; Figure 1. 17 FirstEnergy, ?FirstEnergy Generation Corp. Responses to ?Questions for DEP and FirstEnergy? (Prepared by the ?Citizens Against Coal Ash? and Environmental Integrity Project) 7?8 (Aug. 22, 2011); PADEP Power Company, Consent Order and Agreement 5 (entered into Jan. 26, 1996). 3 Well over 20 billion gallons18 of coal ash are held back from the Ohio River?a major drinking water source for communities?by only an earth and rock dam that has been classi?ed as ?high hazard,? meaning a breach of the dam would cause ?probable? loss of about 50,000 human lives.? This disposal of coal ash to a large unlined pond has caused widespread pollution in local groundwater, springs, and surface water. In addition, FirstEnergy has piped large and increasing quantities of toxic pollutants like selenium through the impoundment to the Ohio River, causing pollution of that river. The disposal activities violate RCRA and the CSL, the discharge to the Ohio River violates the CWA and CSL, and the failure to report the large amounts of pollutants being released to the environment violates EPCRA. This pollution was entirely foreseeable, yet FirstEnergy and its predecessors repeatedly failed to take steps necessary to protect the community and the environment. The lmpoundment resulted from irstEnergy?s predecessor damming the valley in which the Little Blue Run stream ?owed. During the initial approval process, FirstEnergy?s predecessor showed the residents of the area bucolic images of a man-made lake that could be used for leisure activities. Even though the valley to be ?lled was replete with seeps indicating highly permeable pathways for water to travel through the underlying strata, irstEnergy claimed that underground migration of pollutants would not occur. As far back as 1994, however, PADEP recognized that the lmpoundment was polluting groundwater and springs, reminded FirstEnergy it had to predict what pollution would occur in the future, and suggested that various abatement techniques had not been properly evaluated.20 Despite this realization, in 1997 FirstEnergy obtained exemptions from normal requirement for an impermeable liner that would have served to prevent pollution reaching the groundwater.2 For nearly 20 years, instead of trying to control the source of the pollution, FirstEnergy has been trying to control seepage where it has emerged into the property of residents, but this strategy has proved just as ineffective as placing a band-aid on a gaping wound. FirstEnergy has been chasing the pollution as the polluted zone has expanded, but it has failed to cut off the source of that pollution. It is now time for irstEnergy to ?nally recognize that it must tackle the pollution problems at their root by staunching the ?ow of polluted water from the lmpoundment to the surrounding groundwater. In addition, FirstEnergy must clean up the pollution it has 18 Bureau of Waste Management, Dep?t Envtl. Prot. Form 12R: Operation Plan, Phase II, Minor Demonstration Permit Modi?cation Application for Solid Waste Disposal Permit No. 300558 (issued Oct. 11, 2005), at 1 (Mar. 28, 2011) (providing that the lmpoundment was 46,800 cubic yards below full capacity of 135,400,000 yards in April 2004 and that the plant produces 4.2 million cubic yards of coal ash annually, which means the site is nearing capacity 8 years later) [hereinafter ?201 I Waste Permit Application?]. A 2009 letter from FirstEnergy con?rms that the lmpoundment contained 62,600 acre-feet of coal ash as of March 26, 2009, which is equivalent to well over 20 billion gallons. 2009 FirstEnergy EPA Dam Survey Response, at 4; see, OnlineConversion.com, (accessed Sept. 22, 2011). ?9 See, 2009 FirstEnergy EPA Darn Survey Response, at 2; 32 Pa. Stat. Ann. 694.102; 25 Pa. Code 105.1 (de?ning ?[h]igh hazard darn? as darn so located as to endanger populated areas by its failure?); Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, Federal Guidelines for Dam Sa?aty: Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams 6 (Apr. 2004) (?Dams assigned the high hazard potential classi?cation are those where failure or mis? operation will probably cause loss of human life?). 2? Letter from D.K Hartner, PA DEP, to Robert 0, Johns, Penn Power Co. (May 2, 1994). 21 In the Matter of Power Co., Consent Order and Agreement, 7 (Sept. 25 1997). 4 caused, minimize direct exposure pathways to the Impoundment, and reduce the ongoing ?ow of highly toxic selenium and boron to the Ohio River. II. VIOLATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT FirstEnergy is violating the Federal Clean Water Act and Clean Streams Law, which implements the CWA in at Little Blue Run by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of NPDES permit No. PA0027481.22 The NPDES Permit authorizes discharges of speci?c pollutants from speci?ed outfalls and prohibits other types of discharges. The Clean Water Act grants citizens the authority to bring suit against ?any person . . . alleged to be in violation? of an ?ef?uent standard or limitation? established under the CWA and to seek penalties for such violations.23 ?Ef?uent standard or limitation? means ?an unlawful act under subsection (1) of section 1311[,] . . . an ef?uent limitation or other limitation under section 1311 or 1312[,] [or] a permit condition thereof issued under section 1342.?24 Accordingly, citizens may bring suit to compel compliance with the terms and conditions of its NPDES permit and enjoin the discharge of pollutants without an NPDES permit, and may seek civil penalties for such violations. A. Failure to Comply with NPDES Permit No. PA0027481 FirstEnergy is in violation of its NPDES permit for discharges of selenium and boron in quantities or concentrations ?that may cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to . . . the environmen Part C, Paragraph of FirstEnergy?s NPDES Permit states: This permit does not authorize any discharge (storm water or non-storm water) which contains any pollutant that may cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment due to its quantity or concentration.25 22 See Dep?t Envtl. Prot. NPDES Permit No. PA0027481 for the Bruce Mans?eld Plant (issued to FirstEnergy Dec. 1, 2006 and amended on Mar. 28, 2008 and Apr. 22, 2008) [hereina?elg ?2006 NPDES Permit?]. The Commonwealth of received approval ?'om EPA to implement the Clean Water Act?s NPDES program on June 30, 1978. See 67 Fed. Reg. 55,841-01, 55,842. The Commonwealth issues permits, including the 2001 NPDES Permit, pursuant to this authority under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Streams Law. See, e. 25 Pa. Code 963.1 (de?ning a Part 1 Permit as an NPDES permit ?issued by the Department under section 5 of The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. 691.5) and section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. 1342)?); 33 U.S.C. 1342(i). According to a 2006 Memorandum of Understanding between the DEP and the West Virginia DEP, although several hundred acres of the 1,600-acre Little Blue Run Impoundment permitted area are in West Virginia, was granted primary (but not exclusive) permitting and enforcement authority at the entire site. West Virginia DEP PADEP, Memorandum of Understanding for the FirstEnergy Little Blue Run Surface Impoundment (Jan. 25, 2006). 23 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1). 2? Id. 1365(f). 25 NPDES Permit, Part C, Para. 13(0), at Me. Citizens may enforce the terms and conditions of a NPDES permit, including narrative conditions.26 1. Selenium Discharges from Outfa11022 FirstEnergy is violating Part C, Paragraph of its permit by discharging selenium ?om Outfall 022 in quantities and concentrations high enough to cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment. Selenium is a toxic pollutant under the NPDES program.? Selenium is a bioaccumulative pollutant that is harmful to ?sh and other aquatic life at levels as low as ?ve micrograms per liter. Selenium can impede the growth and survival of juvenile ?sh, and of adult ?sh that were exposed to excessive selenium suffer skeletal deformities. Releasing selenium into rivers and lakes can decimate ?sh populations and make the surviving species unsafe to eat. The Commonwealth of has established Water Quality Standards and Criteria for toxic substances such as selenium to protect human health and the environment.28 Water Quality Based Ef?uent Limits and Waste Load Allocations are designed to protect aquatic life by limiting pollutant loads ?'om speci?c facilities to surface waters. In 2005, PADEP calculated a WLA of 54.33 ug/l for selenium for Outfa1122 based on FirstEnergy?s representations in its NPDES permit application that the volume of process wastewater ?ow was approximately 3.8 million gallons per day and selenium concentrations averaged 40 ug/l.29 In other words, PADEP determined that discharges of 54.33 ug/l with an average ?ow of 3.8 loadings of 1.7 pounds per day or higher?will cause or contribute to exceedances of PA WQC in the Ohio River.30 FirstEnergy is violating its permit by discharging selenium at levels above what PADEP determined would cause or contribute to violations of the water quality criteria for aquatic life because it is discharging selenium from Outfall 022 at greater concentrations, and the actual ?ow from Outfall 022 is much higher than the ?ow rate PADEP based its determination on. First, FirstEnergy is discharging selenium in wastewater at much higher concentrations than the levels that PADEP has already determined would cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to the environment. FirstEnergy?s most recent Application, dated May 24, 2011, states that it is discharging selenium from Outfall 022 at concentrations as high as 141 ug/l, with the average concentration of at least three samples at 94.4 ug/l.? The values reported 2? 33 U.S.C. 1365(t); Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. Portland, 56 F.3d 979, 986?89 (9th Cir. 1995) (?The plain language of [33 U.S.C. 1365] authorizes citizens to enforce all permit conditions?). 27 See, 9. g. 40 C.F.R. Pt. 122, Appendix D, Tbl. 25 Pa. Code ?D93.8c, Tbl. 5. 28 25 Pa. Code ?D93.8c. 29 See PADEP, Pollution Report, Bruce Mans?eld Plant, NPDES Permit No. PA0027481, Part 11, Water Quality Limits (Aug. 2005) [hereinafter ?2005 Pollution Report?]. Although PADEP calculated the LA based on 3.8 MGD ?ow, the total average ?ow reported for Outfall 022 in the 2004 permit application was 5.47 MGD: 3.8 MGD process wastewater plus 1.67 MGD for wastewater from the toe drain, right abutment, and left abutment non-process wastewater). 2004 NPDES Permit Application. FirstEnergy reported discharging a 3average of 40 ug/l of selenium from Outfall 022 process and non-process wastewater combined). Id. 31 2011 NPDES Permit Application, at Analysis Results Table for Pollutant Group 2, Module 5, Outfall O22 Effluent, column 3 The PADEP requires that FirstEnergy?s NPDES Application reports ?Levels Present? for each pollutant that are representative of actual current discharge values speci?cally values ?taken within the past year? or ?from the past year of data.? FirstEnergy, NPDES Permit Renewal Application for Permit No. for 6 in the 2011 NPDES Permit Renewal Application represent actual current discharge values?? speci?cally, values ?'om samples ?taken within the past year? or ?from the past year of data.?32 Therefore, FirstEnergy has violated and continues to violate the prohibition at Part C, Paragraph of the NPDES permit each day it discharged selenium at concentrations greater than 54.33 ug/l at a ?ow rate of 3.8 MGD (or higher) at least between May 24, 2010 and the date of this letter, and all future discharges within these parameters. Second, in addition to increasing concentrations of selenium, the actual average flows are much higher than the 3.8 MGD ?ow rate used by PADEP to calculate the WLA and disclosed in the 2004 and 2011 applications as the average ?ow for process wastewater.33 For example, ?ow from Outfall 022 exceeded 3.8 MGD in 18 of 24 months between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011 according to FirstEnergy?s discharge monitoring reports.34 Wastewater ?ows ranged from 8.9 to 11.72 MGD between February and May of 201 1, and averaged 5.8 MGD for the year.35 Even if the concentration of selenium discharges remained at the level disclosed in the 2004 application, FirstEnergy is still discharging selenium at levels that cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to the environment because the ?ow from Outfall 022 is signi?cantly greater than the 3.8 MGD PADEP based its WLA calculation on. For example, discharges of 40 ug/l of selenium with an average daily ?ow rate above 5.093 MGD results in daily loadings that exceeds 1.7 pounds per day threshold for determining whether a discharge would cause or contribute to violations of water quality criteria. Since January 1, 2007, the reports of the average daily ?ow from Outfall 022 has exceeded 5.093 MGD in at least 15 months: February 29, 2008, March 31, 2008, April 30, 2009, December 31, 2009, January 31, 2010, February 28, 2010, March 31, 2010, May 31, 2010, June 30, 2010, January 31, 2011, February 28, 2011, March 31, 2011, April 30, 2011, May 31,2011, June 30, 2011. For each of the ?fteen months where ?ow exceeds 5.093 MGD, FirstEnergy is in violation of its permit each day of that month. All future discharges within these parameters also violate Part C, Paragraph 13 (C) of the NPDES permit. Table 1 (below) provides just a few examples to show that actual loadings of selenium to the Ohio River are at least 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than the 1.7 pounds per day that PADEP determined would cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to the environment due to an increase in the concentration of selenium and/or actual ?ow rates that are much higher than what was disclosed in the permit applications. the Bruce Mans?eld Plant, Analysis Results Table for Pollutant Group 2, Module 5, Outfall 022 Ef?uent, at 1, 11. 3b (Submitted to PADEP on May 26, 2011) [hereina?er ?201 1 NPDES Permit Application?]. 32 2011 NPDES Permit Application, at 1,11. 3b. 33 The total average flow reported for Outfall 022 in the 2011 permit application is 4.7 MGD: 3.8 MGD process wastewater plus 0.92 MGD for wastewater from the toe drain, right abutment, and left abutment non- process wastewater. 2011 NPDES Pennit Application. FirstEnergy reported discharging a average of 94.4 gig/l of selenium from Outfall 022 process and non-process wastewater combined). 1: FirstEnergy, Discharge Monitoring Reports Submitted to PADEP (Jan. 2010?Dec. 2011). Id. Table 1. Selenium Discharges From Outf31122 Reported Reported Wastewater Loading (lbs/day) Concentration of Volume (MGD) Selenium(ug/l) PADEP WLA 54.33 3.8 1.7 as: any: 40 1 1.72 3 .9 (2004 application avg.) (Mar. 2011 actual) 40 5.8 1.9 (2004 application avg.) (2011 annual avg.) 94.4 11.72 9.2 (2011 application avg.) (Mar. 2011 actual) 94.4 5 .8 4.6 (2011 application avg.) (2011 annual avg.) Therefore, FirstEnergy has violated and continues to violate Part C, Paragraph of its NPDES permit. irstEnergy has discharged, and continues to discharge, selenium from Outfall 022 at quantities and concentrations high enough to ?cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment? in violation of its NPDES Permit, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Streams Law. Each discharge of selenium from Outfall 022 at quantities or concentrations that exceeds threshold of 54.33 ug/l at 3.8 MGD or 1.7 pounds per day or otherwise causes or contributes to an impact on aquatic life or poses a substantial hazard to the environment as described above is a separate violation of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Streams Law. 2. Boron Discharges from Outfa11021 FirstEnergy is violating Part C, Paragraph of its permit by discharging boron from Outfall 021 in quantities and concentrations high enough to ?cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to . . . the environment.? Boron is a pollutant that is required to be tested by dischargers under the NPDES program.? Boron is highly toxic to plants and algae, inhibiting growth, protein content, content and and chronic exposure to even low levels of boron can impair development in ?sh.37 3? See, e.g. 40 CPR. Pt. 122, Appendix D, Tbl. 25 Pa. Code ?D93.8c, Tbl. s. 37 World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety: Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) for Boron, available at 8 The Commonwealth of has established Water Quality Standards and Criteria for boron to protect the environment.38 Outfall 021 discharges pollution to Little Blue Run Stream, a small stream that runs approximately 1,200 feet directly from the impoundment to Mill Creek, which runs another 500 feet before emptying into the Ohio River.39 Water flow in the Little Blue Run Stream is composed primarily of discharges from the Impoundment, which is the only source that releases pollution into the stream; therefore, all boron pollution in this stream is caused by discharges from the impoundment.40 The chronic PA WQC for aquatic life for boron is 1,600 ug/l and the acute criterion is 8,100 ug/l.41 For every single quarter for the last ?ve years of available data, FirstEnergy?s own reports reveal concentrations of boron at the Little Blue Run Stream surface water monitoring location immediately adjacent to and of Outfall 021 (SW-3) higher than the chronic PA WQC for aquatic life for boron.? In fact, FirstEnergy discharged such high levels of boron that, in the past ?ve years of available data, concentrations of boron exceeded the acute WQC for aquatic life at in 9 of 20 quarters.43 Furthermore, in its most recent NPDES permit application, FirstEnergy reports discharging boron from Outfall 021 at concentrations as high as 1,660 ug/l, which exceeds the chronic PA WQC for this pollutant.44 FirstEnergy has discharged, and continues to discharge, boron from Outfall 021 at concentrations high enough to ?cause or contribute to an impact on aquatic life or pose a substantial hazard to the environment? in violation of its NPDES Permit, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Streams Law. Each day FirstEnergy discharged boron from Outfall 021 at levels that violate the NPDES Permit in the last ?ve years, each day in each quarter that FirstEnergy reports boron concentrations above PA WQC at SW-3 in the last ?ve years, and all future discharges within these parameters is a separate violation of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Streams Law. RCRA AND CSL VIOLATIONS FirstEnergy?s own monitoring data show that the Impoundment itself and the seeps and surface water on the West Virginia side of the impoundment may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment, violating RCRA.45 In addition, the impoundment is discharging pollutants to groundwater in without a permit, 3" 25 Pa. Code ?D93.8c, Tbl. 5. 39 2005 Pollution Report, at 3; References: Stick Diagram; 2011 NPDES Permit Application, Drawing No. 12; CEC, Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report for FirstEnergy Corp., Little Blue Run Bypass Pipeline Project, at 11 (May 5, 2000). 4? Id. 41 25 Pa. Code 93.8c, tbl. 5. 42 FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Landfills and Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly and Annual Water guality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (2006?2011). Id. 44 201 1 NPDES Permit Application. Therefore, the discharges of boron from Outfall 021 violate Part C, Paragraph 45 42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B). violating the CSL.46 Furthermore, these past and ongoing discharges have caused the groundwater around the impoundment to become polluted, violating the CSL.47 A. Surface Water Mark?s Run, a local stream in West Virginia, has been polluted by the coal combustion waste FirstEnergy has disposed of in the Impoundment at levels that are in excess of applicable standards and may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment. There are a number of distinct, active seeps carrying polluted water from the Impoundment that connect to Marks Run in addition to the general movement of groundwater. See Figure 3 attached. Many of these seeps exceed PA drinking water standards4 for boron, iron, manganese and sulfate; one exceeds the stande for chloride. See Figure 3 attached. Clear concentration gradients going from the impoundment water to the seeps and streams that discharge into the Mark?s Run watersth to Marks Run itself have been observed for ammonia, arsenic, boron, sulfate, nitrate, ?uoride, sodium, TDS, and chloride. See Figures 2, 4 and 6 (red points are close to the impoundment, blue points are further away, as shown on Figure 2) attached. Temporally, most parameter concentrations at most points increased ?om 2000 to 2011. Thus, Marks Run is polluted, the data show that the Impoundment is the source of the pollution, and that pollution is getting worse. The pathway for the pollution is through the various permeable layers that underlie the Impoundment. At minimum, sensitive ?sh and crops could be imperiled by the observed levels of boron and amphibians could be affected by the high levels of arsenic. Furthermore, WVDEP considers sulfate to be a ?de?nite stressor? of stream benthic ecology when it exceeds 417 mg/l and a ?likely stressor? when it exceeds 290 mg/l. The sulfate level measured in Marks Run was just over 500 mg/l in Q1 2011. Figure 6 attached. In addition, the levels of manganese, boron, and sulfate in Marks Run exceed drinking water standards. Figure 5. Thus, the levels of pollution in Mark?s Run are high enough that they may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment. Residents of the area have stated that amphibians used to live near a spring that feeds Mark?s Run, but they disappeared in recent years. The area feeding into Mark?s Run contains good amphibian habitat, but few amphibians were observed, indicating that the pollution has already reduced the amphibian population. This is consistent with the screening data and the observed upward trend in concentrations. As discussed below, these observations are also consistent with the groundwater data. This shows that the observed surface water pollution caused by the waste in the Impoundment has already affected the amphibian population in the vicinity of Mark?s run. With regard to the Impoundment itself, Canada geese, ducks, shorebirds, killdeer (a type of plover), and passerine birds all utilize the permit area. In addition, birds rest and shorebirds feed in shallow water/sediments. The area would be good bald eagle feeding habitat for preying on waterfowl due to numerous dead trees to serve as perches. Furthermore, many animal tracks cross the mud?ats. Local residents reported that there are numerous deer in the vicinity. For the 4?5 35 PS. 691.301Code 109.202. 10 water in the Impoundment, based upon the concentrations of selenium that FirstEnergy is discharging from the Impoundment, it is likely that the concentration of selenium in the Impoundment is highly toxic to freshwater ?sh and chronically toxic to saltwater ?sh.49 In addition, based upon information and belief, deer could be affected by molybdenum in the Impoundment. With respect to the six indicator parameters, the concentrations of six indicator parameters in the Impoundment water are shown in red on Figure 8 attached. The measurements of contamination in the Impoundment show that: 0 Fish and aquatic life could be affected by boron. Amphibians could be affected by arsenic, ?uoride 3mg/l), and TDS 6,100 mg/l); 0 Birds could be affected by ?uoride. 0 Aquatic plants and crops could be affected by boron. Benthic ecology could be affected by the high levels of sulfate 3,300 mg/l) and conductivity (>7,000 umhos/cm). In addition to the seeps or springs to the east of the Impoundment that discharge to the Mark?s Run watershed, there are a number of others to the northeast. Boron, manganese, and sulfate levels exceed drinking water standards for most of the seeps that connect to the Impoundment. Figure 3 attached. In addition, for the water coming ?'om these seeps: Sensitive ?sh could be affected by boron. Amphibians could be affected by arsenic. Aquatic plants and crops could be affected by boron. FirstEnergy has disposed and continues to dispose into the unlined Impoundment millions of cubic yards of coal ash containing the very pollutants observed in high concentrations in the surface water and seeps. Thus, this waste is causing pollution in the surface water in the Impoundment itself, the seeps that are connected to and ?owing from the Impoundment, and the upper reaches of Marks Run. This pollution may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment in violation of RCRA. The observed pollution in the seeps shows that a large area of groundwater in has been polluted by discharges of harmful and toxic chemicals from the Impoundment, in violation of the CSL. B. Groundwater There is no dispute that the Impoundment is causing groundwater pollution. A letter from irstEnergy to Mr. and Mrs. Jim Smith dated April 27, 2011 admits that their drinking water well became contaminated with chloride, sulfate, calcium, TDS, and magnesium between 49 As shown above, the concentration of selenium in the Impoundment water is approximately 94 ug/l, while the EPA limit is 71 ug/l for saltwater chronic exposure and 5 ug/l for freshwater chronic exposure. See ll 2007 and 2011.50 The letter candidly admits this was caused by pollution from the Impoundment. This well is located to the east of the Impoundment in West Virginia. This illustrates that the groundwater plume is spreading in this direction, as do the increasing concentrations at seeps in West Virginia during this time. Other data con?rm that the spread of groundwater pollution is widespread. For example, analysis of data ?om well MW-3B, adjacent to the Impoundment to the northeast, shows that as the water level in the Impoundment increased between 1987 and 1998, the concentration of sulfate in this groundwater monitoring well also increased. See Figure 7 attached. The concentration exceeded the relevant state standard for sulfate in 1989 and is now approximately four times that standard. See Figure 7 attached. This shows that the Impoundment has discharged polluted water to the groundwater and continues to do so. Careful analysis of the available monitoring data shows that the concentrations of arsenic, boron, chloride, iron, manganese, and sulfate exceed groundwater standards most consistently to the north, but, apart from arsenic, there are also localized exceedances around the Impoundment that are probably caused by localized groundwater ?ow. See Figure 8 attached. This shows that the groundwater ?ow is generally to the north towards the Ohio River and east and west following local topography, but that there may be isolated areas close to the impoundment where the ?ow pattern does not conform to the general pattern. Data distributions for these parameters show elevated concentrations in most of groundwater samples taken downgradient from the Impoundment in comparison to background sample concentrations. Figures 1 and 9 (red is downgradient) attached. These parameters are typical of coal ash pollution. For arsenic, approximately 10% of the downgradient samples exceed the drinking water standard, for boron approximately 25% exceed, for chloride over 40% exceed, for iron approximately 45% exceed, and for manganese and sulfate approximately 50% exceed drinking water standards. Figure 9 attached. Comparing groundwater monitoring data for these indicator pollutants from wells within 1000 feet of the Impoundment to similar data from wells further away con?rms that the closest wells are generally most contaminated, but that many wells over 1000 feet from the Impoundment are severely polluted as well. Figure 10 attached. Exceptionally, chloride levels are higher beyond the 1000 foot distance and exceed 1000 mg/L (four times the drinking water standard) at 5 relatively distant wells. Figure 10 attached. The locations of the wells with the highest chloride levels are below the dam between the Impoundment and the Ohio River, showing that this area is severely affected by pollution from the Impoundment. Figure 11 attached. This is also the area where the levels of arsenic in the groundwater exceed drinking water standards. Figure 8 attached. Spatially, the observed groundwater pollution is worse and extends farthest to the north, but there is also widespread sulfate, manganese, and iron groundwater pollution to the east and northeast. Overall, the results show that the past and ongoing discharges from the Impoundment to the groundwater have caused widespread groundwater pollution that exceeds drinking water standards in violation of the CSL. In addition, the contamination in the groundwater caused by the disposal of solid waste in the Impoundment may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment in violation of RCRA. 50 Letter from Richard E. Sliper, Mgr., Major Projects, FirstEnergy to Mr. and Mrs. Jim Smith (Apr. 27, 2011). 12 IV. EPCRA VIOLATIONS FirstEnergy is in violation of EPCRA for failing to report discharges of toxic chemicals to surface waters from the Impoundment and the toxic chemicals recycled on and off-site for at least the past ?ve years. The Bruce Mans?eld Plant and its coal ash surface impoundment are subject to the reporting requirements in section 313 of EPCRA.51 The Bruce Mans?eld plant and the Impoundment are connected by a pipeline, are owned and operated by the same person, and are relatively near each other. Section 313(a) of EPCRA requires the owner or operator of a covered facility to complete a toxic chemical release form every year for each toxic chemical ?that was manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities exceeding the toxic chemical threshold quantity.?52 EPCRA requires that for each toxic chemical used in excess of an applicable threshold quantity, ?the owner or operator must submit to EPA and the State in which the facility is located a completed EPA Form The reporting threshold for toxic chemicals manufactured or processed at a facility is 25,000 pounds per year.54 The list of toxic chemicals that are subject to the requirements of section 11023 of EPCRA includes: arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc.55 Because the Bruce Mans?eld plant has manufactured or processed over 25,000 pounds of each of the aforementioned toxic chemicals per year for the last ?ve years, FirstEnergy must submit a completed EPA Form for all releases and discharges of chemicals from the power plant and the coal ash impoundment. Form requires an owner or operator to report: (1) discharges of the toxic chemical to surface water from the facility, and (2) toxic chemicals used in both on-site and off-site recycling.56 Yet, FirstEnergy has failed to report discharges of toxic chemicals from the Little Blue Run Coal Ash Impoundment to surface waters and the toxic chemicals used in on?site and off-site recycling. A. Failure to Report Discharges of Toxic Chemicals from the Little Blue Coal Ash Impoundment to Surface Waters FirstEnergy pipes coal ash, scrubber sludge, and other waste generated by the Bruce Mans?eld power plant from the plant to the nearby Impoundment, and the Impoundment in turn discharges pollution into tributaries of the Ohio River and directly into the Ohio River. Under Section 5.3 of Form R, the owner or operator is required to report the quantity of the toxic 5? The requirements of EPCRA 1 1023 ?apply to owners and operators of facilities that have 10 or more full-time employees and that are in Standard Industrial Classi?cation Codes 20 through 39 (as in effect on July 1, 1985) and that manufactured, processed, or otherwise used a toxic chemical listed under subsection of this section in excess of the quantity of that toxic chemical established under subsection of this section during the calendar year for which a release form is required under this section." 42 U.S.C. 11023(b)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R. 372.22. 52 42 U.S.C. 11023(a); 40 C.F.R. 53 40 C.F.R. 5" 42 U.S.C. 110236); 40 CPR. 55 42 U.S.C. 11023(c); 40 C.F.R. 372.65. 56 See U.S. EPA, Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions, EPA 260-R-10-001 (December 2010), available at 13 chemical discharged into receiving streams or water bodies.57 The 2010 EPA Form Instructions clarify the reporting requirements for toxic chemical discharges to surface water under section 5.3 and instruct the owner or operator to: Enter the total annual amount of the EPCRA Section 313 chemical released from all discharge points at the facility to each receiving stream or water body. Include process outfalls such as pipes and open trenches, releases from on-site wastewater treatment systems, and the contribution from stormwater runoff, if applicable.58 However, the facility TRI reports for the past ?ve years indicate that, in violation of EPCRA, the facility is not reporting discharges of toxic chemicals from the Impoundment to surface waters. Speci?cally, FirstEnergy has failed to accurately report discharges of arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc to surface waters. From 2006 to 2010,59 FirstEnergy reported transferring millions of pounds of toxic chemicals from the Bruce Mans?eld power plant to the Impoundment.60 Yet FirstEnergy claims it discharged zero or signi?cantly fewer pounds of the same toxic chemicals to surface waters.51 For example, between 2006 and 2010, FirstEnergy reported transferring 477,562 pounds of arsenic to the Impoundment, but reported discharging zero pounds of arsenic to surface waters. Similarly, FirstEnergy reported transferring 157,943 pounds of selenium to the Impoundment for the sam?c; time period, yet claimed discharging only 1,000 pounds of this pollutant to surface waters. 62 While surface impoundments may reduce some percentage of certain pollutants in wastewater discharges, the EPA has made clear that it is impossible for settling ponds to remove 100% of metals in wastewater. A report issued by EPA after an extensive study of power plant wastewater discharges and treatment technologies found that ef?uent from ash ponds contained metals, mainly in the dissolved form, even where concentrations of total suspended solids (TS S) were low.64 As EPA explained: Settling ponds can reduce the amount of TSS in wastewater, as well as speci?c pollutants that are in particulate form, provided that the settling pond has a suf?ciently long residence time; however, settling ponds are not designed to reduce the amount of dissolved metals in the wastewater. The FGD wastewater 57 US. EPA, Form 5.3, form 9350-1 (October 2009), available at 53 US. EPA, Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions at 43?44. 59 The TRI report for 2011 for the Bruce Mans?eld Plant is not available online as of the date of this notice letter. To the extent that FirstEnergy has failed to report discharges of chemicals to surface waters from the Little Blue Run Impoundment in 2011, these are also violations of section 313 of EPCRA. :11) See Attachment A (Bruce Mans?eld Plant TRI Facility Reports). 62 i3: 63 Id. 64 US. EPA, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report, EPA 008, (October 2009), available at 14 entering a treatment system contains signi?cant concentrations of several pollutants in the dissolved phase, including boron, manganese, and selenium. These dissolved metals are likely discharged largely unremoved from FGD wastewater settling ponds.? According to EPA, coal ash surface impoundments do not eliminate or even signi?cantly reduce metals in wastewater discharges; therefore, the amount of pounds of toxic chemicals FirstEnergy stated it discharged to surface waters ?'om the Bruce Mans?eld Plant and its coal ash impoundment?zero in some cases?cannot be accurate. FirstEnergy is violating section 313 of EPCRA by failing to report discharges of toxic chemicals ??om the Impoundment to surface waters. B. Failure to Report Quantities of Toxic Chemicals Recycled FirstEnergy uses coal combustion waste generated by pollution scrubbers to create gypsum that is used to make wallboard.66 Sections 8.4 and 8.5 of Form require an owner or operator to report the total quantity of each toxic chemical, for which the facility must report under EPCRA, recycled on-site and off-site during the year. For purposes of section 313 of EPCRA, EPA de?nes recycling as ?the recovery for reuse of a toxic chemical from a gaseous, aerosol, aqueous, liquid, or solid stream. . . 3?67 EPA interprets recycling as the recovery of a toxic chemical from a waste stream followed by the reuse of that chemical.68 ??Recovery? is the act of extracting or removing the toxic chemical from a waste stream.?69 Recovery includes: (1) the reclamation of the toxic chemical from a stream that entered a waste treatment or pollution control device or process where destruction of the stream or destruction or removal of certain constituents of the stream occurs (including air pollution control devices or processes, wastewater treatment or control devices or processes, Federal or State permitted treatment or control devices or processes, and other types of treatment or control devices or processes); and (2) the reclamation for reuse of an "otherwise used" toxic chemical that is spent or contaminated and that must be recovered for further use in either the original or any other operations.70 In determining whether a quantity is reportable recycling under EPCRA, facilities should include the amount of a toxic chemical that was recovered on?site and made into a reusable product during the reporting year4-26. 66 See FirstEnergy, Recycling: North America?s Largest Recycling Project, (last visited on Apr. 24, 2012). EPA, Interpretations of Waste Management Activities: Recycling, Combustion for Energy Recovery, Treatment for Destruction, Waste Stabilization and Release 10 (1999), available The use of coal combustion waste in wallboard manufacturing is commonly referred to by industry as ?recycling.?71 In fact, FirstEnergy itself boasts that the Bruce Mans?eld recycling facility is ?North America?s largest recycling proj ect.?72 By the company?s own admission, the plant converts 450,000 tons of scrubber byproduct, which contains toxic chemicals, into commercial-grade gypsum that is used to produce half a million tons of wallboard annually.73 Yet, FirstEnergy has not reported any quantity of any toxic chemical that has been recycled on- site or off-site on its Form reports. FirstEnergy?s recycling of coal combustion waste into gypsum that is used to make wallboard is ?recycling? as de?ned in EPCRA. Therefore, FirstEnergy is violating section 313 of EPCRA by failing to report the quantities of toxic chemicals that are recycled on and off?site V. CONCLUSION FirstEnergy has violated, is currently violating, and will continue to violate the federal Clean Water Act, Clean Streams Law, the Emergency Flaming and Community Right?to?Know Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at its Little Blue Run Coal Ash Surface Impoundment. Accordingly, LBRAG intends to ?le suit to enjoin and abate the violations described above, ensure future compliance with federal and state law, obtain civil penalties, recover attorneys? fees and costs of litigation, and obtain other appropriate relief. If you have any questions regarding the allegations in this notice or believe any of the foregoing information may be in error, please contact either Lisa Hallowell or Richard Webster at the numbers listed below. In the absence of any questions, we would also welcome an opportunity to discuss a resolution of this matter prior to the initiation of litigation if you are prepared to remedy the violations discussed above. Sincerely, (?x/my ls/ Richard Webster Lisa Widawsky Hallowell, Esq. Richard Webster, Esq.* PA Bar ID 207983 *Admitted in New York and New Jersey Environmental Integrity Project Public Justice 1 Thomas Circle, Suite 900 1825 Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC. 20006 rwebster@publicjustice.net (202) 294?3282 (202) 797-8600 Counsel for Citizen Group: The Little Blue Regional Action Group, 145 Francis Drive, Georgetown, PA 15043 71 See American Coal Ash Association, Advancing the Management and Use of Coal Combustion Products, Frequently Asked Questions, (last visited Apr. 24, 2012). 72 FirstEnergy, Recycling: North America?s Largest Recycling Project, (last visited on Apr. 16 CC: Lisa Jackson Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 1 101A Washington, DC 20460 Shawn M. Garvin Via Certi?ed Mail, Return Receipt Requested Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 1650 Arch Street (3PM52) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested U.S. Department of Justice 950 Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 Linda Kelly, State Attorney General Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Of?ce of Attorney General 16?'1 Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Michael Krancer Via Certi?ed Mail, Return Receipt Requested Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Of?ce Building 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Kareen Milcic, P.E. Via Certi?ed Mail, Return Receipt Requested Environmental Engineering Manager Department of Environmental Protection 400 Waterfront Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4745 Vince Brisini Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Deputy Secretary, Waste, Air, Radiation, and Remediation Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Of?ce Building 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 17 Kelly Hefner Via Certi?ed Mail, Return Receipt Requested Deputy Secretary, Water Management Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Of?ce Building 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Mark Holstine Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Executive Director West Virginia Solid Waste Management Board 601 57th Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 Kenneth Reisinger Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Bureau Director, Bureau of Waste Management Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 69170 Harrisburg, PA 17106?9170 18 - 43' .- Populations; . . a? Figure 1: Approximate Up gradient/Downgradient Division of Measurement Points (Blue is Upgradient). Source: FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls and Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly and Annual Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Quarter 1, 2011). In Buffer -Ye6b.13" Figure 2: Measurement Points Within. and Outside 1000 ft Buffer (Red is Within) Source: FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls and Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly and Annual Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Quarter 1, 2011). Figure 3: Concentrations at Springs and Seeps Compared to MCL (red exceeds standards) Source: FirstEnergy, orrn 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls &Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Qtr 1, 2011). ARSENIC Exceeds I Below A BORON . Exceeds A SULFATE Exceeds. 0 Below Exceeds 0 Below Figure 4: Concentration Distributions at Springs and Seeps. Source: FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls and Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly and Annual Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Quarter 1, 2011). ARSENIC BORON CHLORIDE 1. 0- 0.8' 0. 6- 0.4- s-zt a. 2. 8-28 3-17 DOBERMAN-Z DOBERMANJ 5-3 1 BYARD 8-30 LR-Z 1 LR-2 BYARD I 5-32 I 5-33 I 8-28 5-29 5-23 8-21 I I I I 3.35? DOBERMA 2 OBERMAN-Z 1owls] 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 05 1:0 1:5 2.0 100 2b0 300 IRON MANGANESE SULFA TE 1.0- 0.8- 0.6' 0.4- 0.2- 74.. ea 6 QBERMANA .S-EB I LR11 e1} 5-31 DOBERMAN-Z 3-8-32 3-33 3-34 3-35 3-29 BYARD 5-23 8-28 3-21 8-31 a: a 3.21 I 3-29 5-35 $23 I 5-34 I 3-33 .J s?aA 8?32 5 -9A -31 DOBERMMII-Z 1:0 125 0 2 3 Concentration mg/L 500 1600 1500 Buffer -6- Out Quali?er Detect Non-Detect Figure 5: Concentrations In Surface Water Compared to MCL (red exceeds standards). Source: FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls &Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Quarter 1, 2011). CHLORIDE BORON 0 Exceeds 0 Below ARSENIC I Exceeds I Below Exceeds mi I . wag SULFATE Exceeds Exceeds 0 Below Figure 6: Concentration Distributions in Surface Water (red is <1000 ft, blue is 1000 ft) Source: FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls &Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Qtr 1, 2011). ARSENIC BORON CHLORIDE 1.0- 0.6- 0.4- 3-31 MARKS RUN SW-5 SW4 S-1E-MC sw?ar i SW4 I MARKS RUN SW-T SW45 3" S-SDCD 3?310 MARKS RUN SW-S 0.015 4 6 100 200 300 . Out 400 MANGANESE SULFA TE 0. 6- 0. 2- eds-M?s" 5-1 1-MC sw-a MARKS RUN 0 8-310 sw-4 5-3060 3-310 MARKS RUN SW4 3-3060 Quali?er I Detect Non-Detect SW0.00 a.'05 o.'10 o.'20 0.25 Concentration mg/L 2600 3600 40'00 Figure 7: Changes in Water Levels and Chemistry in an Example Well From 1980 to Present. Source: FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls and Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly and Annual Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (1973 to 2011). MW-3B Sulfate and Water Levels Sulfate Concentration (mg/L) 1200 000? 600' 4e0- 200' Water Level (ft msl) 10501 1040 1030 1020 1010 1985 1990 1995 2600 Ybar Figure 8: Concentrations In Groundwater Compared to MCL (red exceeds the standards) Source: am? .. ARSENIC U. Er ., . - Exceeds was . .203 a Exceeds Below Maia w_ - 0 Below ?357? ml?u?? ?.mama-13a, m5 BORON Wake our-7n i . cars-1:: - .74 mw-u- l. meme . Run A were . Run . El" 45?5?? i ?*?ge??wimumj! ?3535 9T3 I .Vif" may. new 53 425 .. .. elW-fa 3 81tilts-5R:- I 1" [:03 ?new; .r .- arts-?5m 'l I ?3 Linear" )1 ?"5914 it mew-5IRON Exceeds I . i Below 0) Exceeds I Below .. 5? umeBlue Run Lake .. mam l- . mm We are" Run imam! . MR _?tmm .. . . a I 3.511 r" he. we. ,uwac ewe-es.- a. 11?. -u-t Wig-?O aw? i, I . $.ens-5c.?15 - q- . xi 3? qayvl'abgoa-1 19$? - ,3 . as ?Zeu FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls &Disposa1 Impoundments, Quarterly Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Quarter 1, 2011). CHLORIDE Exceeds I 0 Below SULFATE OJ Exceeds I Below Figure 9: Approx. Up- and Downgradient Concentration Distributions in Groundwater (red is down-gradient) Source: FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls &Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Qtr. 1, 2011). ARSENIC BORON CHLORIDE 1. 0? .: Population Ml? A +3 i 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 1000 2000 3000 4000 IRON MANGANESE SULFATE MW-15A Quali?er Fw-?aa law-Ea i - Detect 5i 1 . . MW-QEH 0 Non-Detect 500 1000 1500 2000 Concentration mg/L Figure 10: Concentration Distributions in Groundwater (red is <1000 ft, Blue is 1000 ft) Source: irstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls &Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Quarter 1, 2011). ARSENIC BORON CHLORIDE 1.0- MW-1 Mfr-135] ,0 0.8- 0.0- at 0.4- Buffer ?in?In Out 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0 '1 2 3 4 1000 2000 3000 4000 IRON SULFATE Quali?er 421: . Detect 0 Non-Detect IJF-Y- 13A 2 a 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Concentration mg/L oride mg Figure 11: Distribution of Chloride Contamination Source: FirstEnergy, Form 14R: Residual Waste Land?lls and Disposal Impoundments, Quarterly Water Quality Analyses (submitted to PADEP) (Quarter 1, 2011).