Urgent Need for Groundwater Monitoring at Ameren s Labadie, Meramec, and Rush Island Plants

Transcription

1 May 23, 2013 Ms. Sara Parker Pauley Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO Via Re: Urgent Need for Groundwater Monitoring at Ameren s Labadie, Meramec, and Rush Island Plants Dear Ms. Parker Pauley: On behalf of the Labadie Environmental Organization and the Sierra Club, we urge and implore the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to act immediately to require comprehensive groundwater monitoring of known and/or likely contamination at Ameren Missouri s Labadie, Meramec, and Rush Island power plants in the St. Louis area. For the past 60 years, Ameren has been dumping coal ash into unlined ponds at these plants. 1 There is every reason to assume that groundwater at all three plants is contaminated with coal ash constituents that endanger public health and the environment. However, DNR has not yet exercised its authority to require groundwater monitoring at any of these plants. DNR must act now, for two main reasons: 1. Residents near each of these plants use groundwater for domestic purposes. DNR must determine the scope and extent of contamination at each plant, determine the direction(s) of any plumes traveling off-site, and take appropriate action to ensure that the plants neighbors are not using contaminated groundwater or threatened by contaminants headed toward them. 2. Ameren is in various stages of seeking DNR s approval to build coal ash landfills at each of these plants. DNR should know whether the existing plant sites are contaminated before authorizing Ameren to build any additional coal ash disposal facilities at these sites. The following facts underscore the urgency of our request. 1 Ameren started disposing of coal ash into an unlined ash pond or ponds at the Meramec plant in St. Louis County in 1953, at the Labadie plant in Franklin County in 1970, and at the Rush Island plant in Jefferson County in The coal ash sits in the ponds, is treated for ph only, and is then discharged in large quantities (millions of gallons per day) into the Mississippi (Meramec and Rush Island) and Missouri (Labadie) Rivers pursuant to DNR-issued NPDES permits. Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1120, 1 Brookings Drive, St. Louis, Missouri (314) ; FAX: (314) ;

2 Ms. Sara Parker Pauley May 23, 2013 Page 2 of 9 A. Groundwater Contamination Has Existed At the Meramec Plant Since At Least An Ameren report in DNR s files shows that the company found groundwater contamination at the Meramec site 25 years ago, in Ameren s tests detected pollutants associated with coal ash. 3 The concentrations of iron, boron and manganese exceeded the state s water quality criteria for groundwater. 4 The report stated that the occurrence of boron in the downgradient wells represents the influence of the ash ponds. 5 As Ameren has acknowledged, [b]oron and sulfate are the primary indicator parameters for coal ash leachate. 6 The contamination found by Ameren in 1988 was associated with one of the two ash ponds above which Ameren is now proposing to build a coal ash landfill. While that ash pond (Pond 489) is now apparently lined, there is no indication that any of the contamination has been cleaned up. Moreover, four of the six active ash ponds at the Meramec sites including the other pond above which Ameren seeks to build its proposed coal ash landfill (Pond 495) are unlined. B. Significant Leakage Has Occurred From The Unlined Labadie Ash Pond Since In its 1992 NPDES permit renewal application, Ameren mentioned that the 154-acre, unlined ash pond that has been in operation since 1970 had two leaks totaling approximately 50,000 gallons per day. In addition, DNR noted two additional leaks during its 2011 annual inspection. 7 Ameren reportedly constructed a slurry wall some 590 feet long and 30 feet deep, which apparently reduced the amount of visible leakage. 8 These leaks were observed by the naked eye. Leakage can be visually observed only for the portion of the ash ponds that is above grade. Groundwater monitoring is necessary to detect leakage that occurs below ground. The company has not conducted groundwater monitoring to determine the scope of contamination on-site and the direction(s) in which it may be traveling off-site. 2 CH2MHill, Prepared for Union Electric Company, Meramec Plant, Hydrogeologic Assessment of Potential Impacts of Meramec Ash Ponds on Local Groundwater and Surface Water, Dec. 16, Received from DNR in response to a Sunshine Law request filed August 31, Id. at 18, table 4. 4 Id. at 20, table 5. 5 Id. at 7. 6 Natural Resource Technology, Inc., Prepared for Ameren Energy Generating Company, Phase I Hydrogeological Assessment Report, Coal Combustion Product Impoundments, Coffeen Energy Center, Montgomery, IL, at TSD000035, available at 7 Draft Revised NPDES Permit for Labadie Energy Center, MO , Feb. 8, 2013, Fact Sheet at two pages after Page 11 See also DNR Inspection Report, Oct. 11, Id., Fact Sheet at 9.

3 Ms. Sara Parker Pauley May 23, 2013 Page 3 of 9 C. Ameren Relies On Unlined Ash Ponds, The Riskiest Method Of Ash Disposal, At All Three Plants. While all ash ponds, lined and unlined, pose a risk of groundwater contamination, unlined ash ponds are the riskiest method of coal ash disposal. According to EPA: The disposal of CCRs [coal ash] in unlined waste management units, but particularly in unlined surface impoundments can pose significant risks to human health and the environment from releases of CCR [coal ash] toxic constituents to ground water and surface water. 9 As EPA explained: because of the mobility of metals and the large size of typical disposal units, metals (especially arsenic) have leached at levels of concern from unlined landfills and surface impoundments. 10 As of December 2012, studies by EPA and non-profit organizations have documented 203 sites contaminated by coal ash disposal facilities ponds and landfills, lined and unlined. 11 Those sites exist in 37 states. No Missouri site is on the list, for the simple reason that DNR has not yet required groundwater monitoring at coal ash ponds. Ameren continues to use a total of eight unlined ash ponds, and three lined ash ponds, at these three plants. Since the Meramec plant began operating in 1953, Ameren has used ten different ash ponds at the site. 12 Of the six ash ponds remaining in active use, four are unlined and three date to the 1950s. 13 In 2012, the EPA inspected the Meramec plant s six active ponds for structural stability and rated them all as poor EPA, Proposed Rule, Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System, Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities, 75 Fed. Reg , (June 21, 2010) ( EPA Proposed Coal Ash Disposal Rule ), available at 10 EPA Proposed Coal Ash Disposal Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at EPA, Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, July 9, 2007, available at ; Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice, Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, Feb. 24, 2010, available at MountingDamagesFromCoalAshWasteSites.pdf ; Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, In Harm s Way: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment, Aug , available at ; Environmental Integrity Project, Risky Business, Dec. 12, 2011, available at See also interactive map and related information at Earthjustice, In Harm s Way: Coal Ash-Contaminated Sites, 12 Letters from Ameren to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 4, 2009 and Mar. 26, 2009, with attachments, available at and Ameren Missouri Ash Pond Listing, available at 13 Id. 14 USEPA, Summary Table for Impoundment Reports, June 27,

4 Ms. Sara Parker Pauley May 23, 2013 Page 4 of 9 The Labadie plant uses one unlined ash pond, dating to the plant s opening in 1970, and one lined ash pond. 15 The Rush Island plant uses one unlined ash pond, in use since the plant s opening in The presence of so many old, unlined (and lined) ponds presents significant contamination concerns. With contamination already documented at the Meramec site, a history of significant leaks at the Labadie site, and another old, unlined ash pond at Rush Island, the only way to determine the extent and significance of groundwater contamination at all three sites is to conduct comprehensive, scientifically-sound groundwater monitoring. D. There Is Extensive Groundwater Contamination at Ameren s Illinois Plants. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ( IEPA ) has required Ameren s Illinois affiliate to conduct groundwater monitoring at coal ash ponds at its Illinois power plants. Not surprisingly, Ameren has found extensive groundwater contamination at power plants across the state. At the Venice plant, across the Mississippi River from the St. Louis Arch, Ameren started using unlined ash ponds along the Mississippi River in the 1950s and stopped using them when it converted the plant from coal-burning to gas- and oil-burning in Unfortunately, taking coal ash ponds out of service does not remove the risks that they pose. When IEPA required Ameren to conduct groundwater monitoring as part of the 1995 renewal of the plant s operating permit, Ameren found that coal ash contaminants had continued leaking out of the Venice s plant s ash ponds and through the groundwater. Today, concentrations of arsenic and boron exceed state drinking water standards for arsenic and boron over 400 feet downgradient from the ponds. 18 In early 2009, IEPA directed Ameren to commence groundwater monitoring at active coal ash disposal sites at its other plants across the state. 19 Not surprisingly, Ameren has found groundwater contamination at numerous sites. In June 2012, the IEPA issued four Violation Notices to Ameren, charging that [o]perations at ash impoundments have caused violations of the Groundwater Quality Standards for arsenic, 15 See documents referenced in fn Id. 17 Letter from Ameren to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Mar. 25, 2010, at 5, available at 18 Id. at 8-10; and Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club, In Harm s Way: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment, Aug , at 51-55, available at See generally IEPA web site, AmerenUE Venice Station Ash Pond Closure, at 19 Letter from Ameren to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Mar. 25, 2010, at 7, available at

5 Ms. Sara Parker Pauley May 23, 2013 Page 5 of 9 boron, iron, manganese, and ph at its Meredosia plant, 20 for boron, manganese, sulfate, and TDS at its Coffeen plant, 21 for manganese, ph, sulfate, TDS, and zinc at its Newton plant, 22 and for boron, manganese, ph, sulfate, and TDS violations at its Grand Tower plant. 23 Furthermore, Ameren is undertaking groundwater remediation at its Duck Creek plant, 24 is required to install a groundwater collection trench and close an ash pond at the Hutsonville plant pursuant to a site-specific rule adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board, 25 and is still working on groundwater monitoring assessments for its Duck Creek, Joppa, and Hutsonville plants. 26 In short, the lesson from Illinois is that if you look for groundwater contamination at coal ash ponds, particularly unlined ponds, you will find it. As Ameren admits: [M]eeting groundwater quality standards in the areas immediately surrounding ash ponds built 40, 50, even 60 years ago can be very challenging. 27 There is no reason to believe that groundwater in Missouri is somehow immune to contamination from coal ash ponds. The circumstances here are directly analogous to those in Illinois. The only meaningful difference between Ameren s Illinois plants and its Missouri plants is that IEPA has required groundwater monitoring whereas DNR has not yet done so. In all other material respects, however, Ameren s Illinois ash ponds are indistinguishable from those in Missouri. In both states, Ameren relies largely on unlined ash ponds in wet environments - near large rivers (and, in Illinois, some lakes). In both states, the ash ponds are 40, 50, and 60 years old. 28 In other words, in both states meeting groundwater quality standards can be very challenging 29 or, stated more directly, ash pond leakage is likely causing violations of groundwater quality standards. In Illinois, the state has required Ameren to examine the matter and produce data; in Missouri, the state has failed to act. 20 Violation Notice W , issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to Ameren for the Meredosia Generating Station, June 27, A copy is attached hereto. 21 Violation Notice W , issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to Ameren for the Coffeen Generating Station, June 27, A copy is attached hereto. 22 Violation Notice W , issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to Ameren for the Newton Generating Station, June 27, A copy is attached hereto. 23 Violation Notice W , issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to Ameren for the Grand Tower Generating Station, June 27, A copy is attached hereto. 24 See IEPA s Ash Impoundment Strategy Progress Reports at IAC Part Ameren, Statement of Reasons, Apr. 9, 2013, at 7 (p. 16 of 70), In re Site-Specific Rule for the Closure of Ameren Energy Resources Ash Ponds, available at 27 Id. at 6 (p. 15 of 70) (emphasis supplied). 28 Compare the charts prepared by Ameren regarding its coal ash disposal facilities in Missouri and in Illinois, attached hereto and available at (Illinois) and (Missouri). 29 Ameren, Statement of Reasons, Apr. 9, 2013, at 6 (p. 15 of 70), In re Site-Specific Rule for the Closure of Ameren Energy Resources Ash Ponds, available at

6 Ms. Sara Parker Pauley May 23, 2013 Page 6 of 9 E. While DNR has recognized the need for groundwater monitoring at Ameren s ash ponds, it has neglected to take action. DNR has apparently decided to include groundwater monitoring requirements for power plants ash ponds when it renews each plant s NPDES permit. This approach might be fine in theory, but in reality it has two enormous flaws. First, the NPDES permits for these three plants are long-expired, and promises that renewal permits are about to be issued have proven illusory. Whereas NPDES permits are issued for five-year terms, the Labadie permit was last issued in 1994 and has been expired since 1999 (i.e. for 14 years), the Meramec permit was last issued in 2000 and has been expired since 2005 (i.e. for 8 years), and the Rush Island permit was last issued in 2004 and has been expired since DNR s efforts to issue renewal permits have repeatedly faltered. DNR prepared two draft renewal permits for the Labadie permit, in 1999 and 2009, but failed to publish either one for public comment. It ultimately published another draft renewal permit for public notice in February 2013, but then withdrew it in March DNR prepared a draft renewal permit for the Meramec plant in 2005, but never published it for public comment. DNR published a draft renewal permit for the Rush Island plant in 2011, but did not issue a final version and has subsequently stated its intent to publish another version of a draft renewal permit. The following chart summarizes this state of affairs. Labadie Meramec Rush Island Current NPDES permit issued Current NPDES permit expired Drafts prepared but not published for 1999, public comment (or finalized) Drafts published for public comment but then withdrawn or not finalized Number unlined/unlined ash ponds (all without groundwater monitoring) Feb 2013, withdrawn Mar unlined 1 lined 4 unlined 2 lined Nov unlined Second, the approach that DNR seems to be favoring would take an excessively-long period of time before groundwater monitoring would commence (three years after the renewal permits are ultimately issued in final form), and before groundwater monitoring results would be submitted to DNR and thus available to the public (four and one-half years after the renewal permits are ultimately issued in final form). In other words, if by some miracle DNR issued renewal permits, first in draft and then in final form, for the Meramec, Labadie, and Rush Island plants during 2014, then Ameren would not have to commence groundwater monitoring until 2017 and would not have to submit groundwater monitoring results until 2018 or 2019.

7 Ms. Sara Parker Pauley May 23, 2013 Page 7 of 9 Compare this snail s pace envisioned by DNR with the events in Illinois. IEPA instructed Ameren in early 2009 to commence groundwater monitoring at all of its active coal ash ponds. 30 Ameren began collecting groundwater data within about one and one-half years, by late Ameren already has extensive experience in this endeavor, and can surely ramp up a groundwater monitoring program at its Missouri sites in short order if directed to do so. F. Ameren s Neighbors Rely on Groundwater and Are Therefore At Risk of Drinking Contaminated Water. Neighbors of Ameren s Labadie, Meramec, and Rush Island plants rely on groundwater for drinking and other domestic purposes. All of the Labadie plant s Franklin County neighbors for miles around rely on groundwater, many of the Rush Island plant s neighbors rely on groundwater, and although the area around the Meramec plant is more developed, there are several residential groundwater wells nearby the plant. The attached maps show the location of groundwater wells based on well log data obtained from DNR in response to a Sunshine Law request. Immediate groundwater monitoring is essential to determine where contamination exists at the three Ameren plants, where the plume(s) may be traveling, and whether nearby residents are already or may be soon exposed to contaminated drinking water. G. DNR Must Obtain Data Regarding the Groundwater Impacts of the Existing Ash Ponds Before It Can Determine Whether Ameren s Proposed Landfills Can Be Effectively Monitored. Meramec and Rush Island Plants: Ameren is proposing to build coal ash landfills above existing ash ponds at the Meramec and Rush Island plants. While DNR has told Ameren in writing that groundwater monitoring should be performed contemporaneous with or as part of the Detailed Site Investigation ( DSI ), Ameren has apparently refused to do so and DNR has apparently relented. In May 2012, DNR responded to Ameren s feasibility study regarding the concept of building a landfill above ash ponds by stating: Additional groundwater monitoring beyond the requirements of 10 CSR (11)(B)4.B may be necessary to ensure adequate 30 Letter from Ameren to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Mar. 25, 2010, at 7, available at 31 Natural Resource Technology, Inc., prepared for Ameren Energy Generating Co., Phase 1 Hydrogeological Assessment Report, Coal Combustion Product Impoundment, for the Coffeen plant at TSD , for the Edwards plant at TSD , and for the Grand Tower plant at TSD , all available at Natural Resource Technology, Inc., prepared for Ameren Energy Generating Co., Phase 1 Hydrogeological Assessment Report, for the Meredosia plant at TSD and for the Newton plant at TSD , both available at

8 Ms. Sara Parker Pauley May 23, 2013 Page 8 of 9 environmental protections are in place at the Energy Centers due to the presence of unlined ash ponds. 32 When DNR rejected Ameren s initial Detailed Site Investigation Work Plans in August 2012, it reiterated the need for groundwater monitoring as part of the DSI: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources Water Protection Program is requiring groundwater monitoring of the existing fly-ash disposal ponds that the Utility Waste Landfill (UWL) will be constructed over. The GSP [Geological Survey Program] recommends the piezometers be constructed as potential future permitted monitoring wells, and that groundwater quality data be collected from those wells quarterly during the Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) monitoring period. In particular, groundwater samples should be collected and analyzed for constituents which may be found associated with fly-ash. A list of appropriate constituents will be developed as part of the work plan revision process. 33 While DNR made it plain that it wanted to see groundwater quality monitoring as part of the DSI, Ameren ignored that request and submitted a revised DSI Work Plan without any proposed groundwater quality monitoring. DNR caved, approving the revised Work Plan. While DNR may be planning to use hypothetical future revised NPDES permits to require groundwater monitoring at the Meramec and Rush Island plants, it will be too late to ensure that the agency knows the extent of existing ash pond contamination before being required to make decisions regarding the proposed landfills directly above some of those existing ponds. DNR s regulations include deadlines for the agency to make decisions whether to approve the DSI, whether to approve construction permit applications. Those regulations give Ameren the ability to force DNR to make key decisions well before Ameren has even commenced groundwater monitoring, let alone provided a sufficient quantity of results to support meaningful assessments of the data. And Ameren has every interest in getting its proposed landfills approved and constructed before it has to disclose existing groundwater contamination at these sites. At that point, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to determine whether contamination appearing in monitoring wells was due to the existing ash ponds, the new landfill, or both. If DNR allows Ameren to proceed with the construction of these proposed landfills before obtaining groundwater monitoring data, it will have enabled Ameren to build a landfill without any meaningful assurance that the groundwater impacts of that landfill could be monitored. Labadie Plant: DNR has directed Ameren to conduct baseline groundwater monitoring at its proposed Labadie landfill site, which is across the street from the plant s existing ash ponds. In a previous letter on behalf of the Labadie Environmental Organization, we questioned whether Ameren s groundwater monitoring design is adequate to detect contamination that may already 32 Letter from Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Solid Waste Management Program, to Ameren, May 2, 2012, re Feasibility Study Landfill on a Pond, Ameren Missouri s Meramec and Rush Island Energy Centers. 33 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Program Comments on Ameren s DSI Workplan, Aug. 30, 2012 (emphasis supplied).

9 Ms. Sara Parker Pauley May 23, 2013 Page 9 of 9 have occurred at the proposed landfill site as a result of leakage from the ash ponds. In addition, without groundwater monitoring at the source the existing ash ponds no one will know whether contamination is migrating from the ash ponds toward, but not yet arrived at, the proposed landfill site. DNR is currently reviewing Ameren s construction permit application for the proposed Labadie landfill, with a DNR decision deadline by next February. For the above reasons, DNR should not be forced into making any permitting decision about the proposed landfills without a thorough evaluation of the extent of the pre-existing contamination at these plants. We ask that DNR unambiguously require Ameren to undertake immediately a DNR-approved groundwater monitoring plan for existing ash ponds at the Labadie, Meramec, and Rush Island sites. DNR should also notify Ameren that it will not approve a construction permit application for any of the proposed coal ash landfills until it receives sufficient information about the existence and extent of groundwater contamination from the existing ash ponds to determine whether the nearby communities are at risk and whether the groundwater impacts of the proposed landfills can be effectively monitored. Sincerely yours, Maxine I. Lipeles, Co-Director Peter W. Goode, P.E., Clinic Environmental Engineer Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic Washington University School of Law One Brookings Drive CB 1120 St. Louis, MO (phone); (fax) milipele@wulaw.wustl.edu Attorneys for Sierra Club and Labadie Environmental Organization Enclosures cc: Harry Bozoian, DNR General Counsel, harry.bozoian@dnr.mo.gov

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30 l; 0::: z Cl ::: >,.0 "'0 Q) '-=.;:::. c:: Q) ~ (/) "0 c:: ro...j w ::::> c:: Q)... Q) ~ 5i ~ It I (f) It= "U c ro _J "U Q) en 0 c.. e 0... en w ::J c ~ Q) E <1:: '- ro Q) z en CCR

31 Wells Within 1 Mile of the Ameren-Meramec Plant miles km 1 2 Well Locations are from DNR well logs

32 Wells Within 1 Mile of the Ameren-Rush Island Plant miles km 1 2 Well locations are from DNR well logs