Complaint Baykeeper

Case 1:22-cv-00382-KD-B Document 1 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MOBILE BAYKEEPER, INC., )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) CASE NO.:
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. (“Baykeeper”), by and through its counsel, hereby files
this Complaint and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This citizen enforcement action challenges the unlawful closure plan of Defendant
Alabama Power Company (“Alabama Power”), to permanently store millions of tons of
coal ash and toxic pollutants in an unlined, leaking impoundment at its James M. Barry
Electric Generating Plant (“Plant Barry”) in Mobile County, Bucks, Alabama. This plan
will continue to impound groundwater and other liquids within the impoundment and will
leave coal ash sitting below the water table, where the coal ash will continue to leach
pollutants into public waters of the United States and of Alabama indefinitely, all in
violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“the Act”) and the Coal
Combustion Residuals Rule (“the CCR Rule” or “the Rule”), 40 C.F.R. § 257.50 et seq.,
adopted pursuant to the Act.

2. The CCR Rule requires Alabama Power to post its closure plan for the unlined coal ash
impoundment at Plant Barry on a publicly available website. 1 Based on the publicly
posted plan, Alabama Power plans to leave over 21 million tons of coal ash capped in
place within the footprint of its existing unlined impoundment, which is built on top of a
tributary of the Mobile River, Sisters Creek, and is in wetlands adjacent to the Mobile
River. This plan leaves large quantities of coal ash in contact with water, including
groundwater, and in an impoundment, in violation of the CCR Rule and RCRA. In fact,
the plan even leaves coal ash stored below sea level. The capped impoundment will be
almost surrounded by the Mobile River and within the river’s floodplain. Because the
surrounding waters affect the elevation of the groundwater within the ash, the water level
in the impoundment will rise and further saturate the ash when there are floods, storms,
and with the rise in water level in the Mobile River and the floodplain.
3. This plan violates the CCR Rule and therefore is open dumping in violation of the
requirements of the Rule and the Act. 40 C.F.R. § 257.1(a)(2) (“Practices failing to
satisfy any of the criteria in . . . §§ 257.50 through 257.107 constitute open dumping,
which is prohibited under section 4005 of the Act.”). Alabama Power cannot be allowed
to violate the CCR Rule and leave an illegal open dump at its Plant Barry coal ash
disposal site in perpetuity.
1
Alabama Power Company, Amended Closure Plan for Ash Pond – Plant Barry (Apr. 1, 2020),
https://www.alabamapower.com/content/dam/alabama-power/pdfs-docs/company/how-we-
operate/ccr/plant-barry/ash-pond/closure-and-post-
closure/Barry%20Ash%20Pond%20Amended%20Closure%20Plan%20Rev%201%20April%20
2020.pdf.
2
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND NOTICE
4. Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. (“Baykeeper”) brings this enforcement action under the citizens’
suit provision of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A). This Court has jurisdiction over
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and has jurisdiction
over the parties.
5. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a). The Plant Barry coal ash
impoundment that is the subject of Alabama Power’s unlawful closure plan is located in
Mobile County, in the Southern District of Alabama.
6. In compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b) and 40 C.F.R. § 254.2, on July 20, 2022,
Baykeeper sent a letter giving Alabama Power, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”), and the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (“ADEM”) notice of the violations specified in this complaint and of
Mobile Baykeeper’s intent to file suit after sixty days should those violations continue. A
copy of the notice letter with documentation of its receipt is attached as Exhibit 1.
7. More than sixty days have passed since the notice was served pursuant to law and
regulation, and the violations identified in the notice letter are continuing at this time and
reasonably likely to continue in the future.
8. EPA has not commenced and is not diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action to
redress the violations of the Act and the Rule asserted in this citizen enforcement action.
9. Alabama Power has obtained a state permit from ADEM to cap the Plant Barry coal ash
in place. Accordingly, its closure plan is not preliminary, speculative, or contingent on
some additional approval. The plan has been finalized and approved by the state, and this
action to enforce the separate, additional federal requirements of the CCR Rule is ripe.
3
10. ADEM’s approval does not shield Alabama Power from compliance with the
requirements of the federal CCR Rule. ADEM’s solid waste permitting program, which
authorized Alabama Power’s plan for Plant Barry, has not been approved as a federal
CCR Rule state permitting program by the EPA. Alabama Power must comply with
federal rules as promulgated under 40 C.F.R. §§ 257.102(b) and (d) and RCRA.
PARTIES AND STANDING
The Association and Its Members
11. Baykeeper is a § 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest organization with members in
Alabama and the Mobile area and operating in the watersheds of the Mobile River and
the Mobile-Tensaw Delta.
12. Baykeeper and its members have been harmed by Alabama Power’s violations of RCRA
and the CCR Rule. They recreate, fish, and own property in these watersheds, including
in the vicinity of and downstream from Plant Barry. They fear contamination of drinking
water, wildlife, and river water, by ground and surface water contamination and by
discharges and pollution from coal ash in groundwater, wetlands, and a creek in Alabama
Power’s Plant Barry coal ash impoundment. They also fear and are concerned by
Alabama Power’s plans to store millions of tons of coal ash on the banks of the Mobile
River and the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, where the storage will be subject to the risks of
flooding, storms, water level rise, and hurricanes, thus exposing Baykeeper and its
members and these water resources to the risk of catastrophic failure and a spill of coal
ash into the Mobile River and the Delta. Alabama Power’s storage of coal ash in
groundwater, wetlands, and a creek; its storage on the banks of the Mobile River and the
Mobile-Tensaw Delta; its contamination, discharges, and pollution from coal ash in
4
groundwater, wetlands, and a creek; and the risks and dangers created by the location of
this storage site, and Alabama Power’s plan to continue doing so in perpetuity, are
reducing the use and enjoyment by Baykeeper and its members of the Mobile River, the
Mobile-Tensaw Delta, and their watersheds. Declarations showing standing are attached
as Exhibit 2.
13. Alabama Power has received a permit from ADEM to cap in place its coal ash at Plant
Barry, leaving the coal ash impounded and saturated in groundwater and on the banks of
the Mobile River and the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, where it will continue to leach out
pollutants into the surrounding waters, as well as remaining subject to increased
saturation and catastrophic failure and spills from regular flooding, storms, water level
rise, and hurricanes. Because Alabama Power has received state approval for its cap-in-
place plan, there is no question that this dangerous and defective plan will be
implemented—causing continued pollution and perpetuating the risks to Baykeeper and
its members, as well as the water resources of the Mobile-Tensaw Delta that they depend
on—unless the closure requirements of the federal CCR Rule are enforced at Plant Barry.
Upon information and belief, Alabama Power is moving forward at Plant Barry with
preliminary work to implement this plan.
14. Alabama Power is proceeding with its plan to cap its Plant Barry coal ash within the
existing impoundment, continuing the ongoing pollution of the water resources of the
Mobile-Tensaw Delta and creating a continuing danger and threat of catastrophic failure
for Baykeeper and its members who own property and/or use and enjoy the waterways
downstream. The CCR Rule, however, forbids this result, by the plain terms of its
closure standards. Accordingly, the injuries to Baykeeper and its members are directly
5
related to Alabama Power’s failure to comply with the plain terms of the CCR Rule’s
closure standards.
15. The injuries of Baykeeper and its members will not be redressed except by an order from
this Court declaring that Alabama Power’s Plant Barry closure plan violates the Act and
the CCR Rule, and requiring Alabama Power to file and comply with a closure plan for
Plant Barry that satisfies the requirements of the Act and the Rule by eliminating free
liquids from the Plant Barry coal ash impoundment; precluding the future impoundment
of water, sediment, or slurry; eliminating infiltration of groundwater and other liquids
into the coal ash at Plant Barry; and to comply with other relief sought in this action.
Defendant
16. Alabama Power Company is a corporation with its principal place of business in
Alabama. It is a subsidiary of the Southern Company. Alabama Power is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity. Alabama Power owns and
operates Plant Barry and its coal ash impoundment, which is the subject of the closure
plan violations that give rise to this action.
17. Alabama Power is a “person” within the meaning of § 1004(15) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §
6903(15).
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
18. Effective October 19, 2015, the EPA published a final rule to regulate the disposal and
storage of CCR as a solid waste under subtitle D of the Act. U.S. EPA, Hazardous and
Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric
Utilities; Final Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302, 21,312 (Apr. 17, 2015); as amended by
Technical Amendments to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System,
6
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities—Correction of the
Effective Date, 80 Fed. Reg. 37,988 (July 2, 2015); 40 C.F.R. § 257.50 et seq.
19. Under the Act, any violation of the requirements of the Rule constitutes illegal open
dumping: “Practices failing to satisfy any of the criteria in . . . §§ 257.50 through 257.107
constitute open dumping, which is prohibited under section 4005 of the Act.” 40 C.F.R.
§ 257.1(a)(2) (emphasis added); see 40 C.F.R. § 257.2 (“Open dump means a facility for
the disposal of solid waste which does not comply with this part.”).
20. Under the Rule, by no later than October 17, 2016, Alabama Power was required to
“prepare an initial written closure plan consistent with the requirements specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of [40 C.F.R. § 257.102]” for coal ash impoundments like the one at
Plant Barry. 40 C.F.R. § 257.102(b)(2). The Rule authorizes closure by removal of the
ash, also described as clean closure. The Rule allows coal ash to be left in place, a
method sometimes called “cap in place,” but only under certain prescribed conditions.
Alabama Power has proposed to cap the Plant Barry coal ash impoundment in place, and
it has obtained a state solid waste permit from ADEM (issued July 1, 2021) for such a
plan.
21. Under the CCR Rule, coal ash impoundments can be capped in place only if they satisfy
several clearly defined criteria designed to keep the coal ash out of contact with
groundwater and other water flows. The Rule requires that a closure plan in which ash
will be left in an unlined impoundment must describe “how the final cover system will
achieve the performance standards specified in paragraph (d) of this section.” Id. §
257.102(b)(1)(iii).
7
22. In particular, the closure plan must demonstrate that if the ash is left in place, it will
achieve each and all of the following performance standard requirements:
a. “Free liquids must be eliminated by removing liquid wastes or solidifying the
remaining wastes and waste residues.” Id. § 257.102(d)(2)(i).
b. The plan must “[p]reclude the probability of future impoundment of water,
sediment, or slurry.” Id. § 257.102(d)(1)(i); and
c. The plan must “[c]ontrol, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent
feasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of
CCR, leachate, or contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters.” Id.
§257.102(d)(1)(i).
23. Under each of these three requirements, a coal ash impoundment cannot be capped in
place with coal ash in contact with groundwater, much less with large quantities of coal
ash sitting feet deep in groundwater, as at Plant Barry. EPA has underscored that under
the CCR Rule, “surface impoundments or landfills cannot be closed with coal ash in
contact with groundwater. Limiting the contact between coal ash and groundwater after
closure is critical to minimizing releases of contaminants into the environment and will
help ensure communities near these facilities have access to safe water for drinking and
recreation.” U.S. EPA, EPA Takes Key Steps to Protect Groundwater from Coal Ash
Contamination (Jan. 11, 2022).2
24. Yet, Alabama Power is proceeding to cap the unlined Plant Barry coal ash impoundment
in place, even though coal ash is in contact with groundwater and will remain in contact
2
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-key-steps-protect-groundwater-coal-ash-
contamination.
8
with groundwater after Alabama Power’s closure plan is fully implemented—in direct
violation of all three key provisions of the CCR Rule.
25. Each of these standards is a separate and independent requirement that must be satisfied
before a coal ash impoundment can be capped in place. A failure to satisfy any one of
them requires that coal ash be excavated from the impoundment and not capped in place.
Free Liquids
26. The Rule provides:
The owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment or any lateral

expansion of a CCR surface impoundment must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section prior to installing the final
cover system required under paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(i) Free liquids must be eliminated by removing liquid wastes or

solidifying the remaining wastes and waste residues.
40 C.F.R. § 257.102(d)(2).
27. The CCR Rule defines “free liquids” to be “liquids that readily separate from the solid
portion of a waste under ambient temperature and pressure.” 40 C.F.R. § 257.53.
28. “Free liquids” are not limited to the so-called “free water” that exists above the surface of
the coal ash in the impoundment but include all the water throughout the saturated ash.
Simply “decanting or dewatering” that so-called “free water” does not eliminate the “free
liquids” – water, including groundwater – that saturates the ash below the top surface of
the coal ash.
29. Water – which readily separates from coal ash under ambient temperature and pressure –
is a free liquid that saturates the ash below the top surface of the coal ash in the
impoundment.
9
30. This provision on its face prevents a coal ash impoundment from being capped and
closed in place if coal ash is in groundwater or mixed with water of any kind. 3 Liquid
wastes have not been removed from the impoundment if groundwater or any other
category of water is in the impoundment, or if the coal ash disposed of in the
impoundment is in contact with water. Groundwater and any other category of water are
“free liquids” because water readily separates from coal ash under ambient temperature
and pressure.
31. The Rule also makes clear that a coal ash impoundment cannot be capped in place based
on the hope, the prediction, or the modelling that at some point in the future the
groundwater table may recede. This requirement must be met “prior to installing the
final cover system.”
32. In short, under this provision alone, a coal ash impoundment cannot be capped in place
when ash is in contact with groundwater, or any other category of water.
Future Impoundment of Water, Sediment, or Slurry
33. A second provision by itself also forbids capping a coal ash impoundment in place when
the coal ash is in contact with water. The Rule provides:
The owner or operator of a CCR unit must ensure that, at a minimum,

the CCR unit is closed in a manner that will:
(ii) Preclude the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment, or

slurry.
40 C.F.R. § 257.102(d)(1).
3
The Rule does allow for capping in place if the remaining wastes and waste residues are
solidified. Alabama Power has not suggested that solution at Plant Barry.
10
34. The CCR Rule defines an impoundment to be “a natural topographic depression, man-
made excavation, or diked area, which is designed to hold an accumulation of CCR and
liquids, and the unit treats, stores, or disposes of CCR.” 40 C.F.R. § 257.53. As
explained above and below, Alabama Power’s closure plan would violate this provision
by causing future impoundment of water, sediment and slurry.
Post-Closure Infiltration and Releases
35. The Rule contains a third provision that also independently bars the capping in place of
an unlined coal ash impoundment when ash is in contact with groundwater or any other
water:
The owner or operator of a CCR unit must ensure that, at a minimum,

the CCR unit is closed in a manner that will:
(i) Control, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent feasible, post-

closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of CCR, leachate,
or contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters or to the
atmosphere.
40 C.F.R. § 257.102(d)(1).
36. If groundwater or any other water is in a coal ash impoundment and/or if coal ash is in
contact with water, capping the impoundment in place will not control, minimize, or
eliminate, to the maximum extent feasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the
waste or releases of CCR pollution to ground or surface waters. And likewise, even if all
or some water is temporarily pumped down within the ash, closure in place will violate
this standard where the natural hydrology will cause groundwater to continue flowing
into the ash basin and infiltrating into the waste following closure.
37. Other utilities in the Southeast are in fact excavating coal ash from waterfront unlined
impoundments. All such utility-owned coal ash impoundments in South and North
11
Carolina have been or are being excavated; Dominion Energy is excavating all its unlined
waterfront coal ash impoundments in Virginia; and Georgia Power is excavating over 60
million tons of coal ash from unlined waterfront impoundments in Georgia.
38. It is feasible for Alabama Power to remove the coal ash from the Plant Barry unlined
impoundment on the banks of the Mobile River.
39. Violations of the Act and the Rule are enforceable by citizen suit. 42 U.S.C. § 6972.
FACTS
Alabama Power’s Polluting Coal Ash in Groundwater and an Unlined Impoundment at

Plant Barry
40. Alabama Power stores over 21 million tons of coal ash in the unlined impoundment at
Plant Barry, which sits in groundwater. The unlined Plant Barry Ash Pond was built to
receive wet-sluiced coal ash from Plant Barry in 1965, with the construction of earthen
dikes within a meander loop of the Mobile River. The unlined impoundment is almost
entirely surrounded by the Mobile River and a cooling canal from the facility. The
impoundment sits within the 100-year floodplain of the Mobile River in the Mobile-
Tensaw Delta, and it was built in wetlands and on top of a tributary of the Mobile River,
Sisters Creek.
41. The coal ash at Plant Barry is saturated in water several feet deep and will be so after
closure by capping. After capping, even more of the ash will be in contact with water,
including groundwater, during high water events and floods. Further, after the proposed
capping, the groundwater will continue to be in hydraulic connection with the Mobile
River and a regional surface aquifer. River levels of fifteen to sixteen feet in the Mobile
River at Plant Barry are considered just under “moderate” flood stage, meaning that the
12
water levels in the area of Plant Barry are subject to substantial rises with floods, storms,
and hurricanes.
42. It is undisputed that the unlined Plant Barry coal ash impoundment has been
contaminating water for decades. A 1991 site assessment for a possible Superfund listing
at Plant Barry found that
[a]rsenic was found in groundwater, surface and subsurface soil, and

sediment samples in amounts up to 80 times background. The presence of
these inorganic constituents can be traced to coal, the fuel for the power
plant, which contains many metallic elements like beryllium, mercury, and
arsenic. These metallic elements, which are not readily combustible,
remain in higher concentrations in the fly ash waste.4
43. This contamination continues today, as ADEM set out in a 2018 Administrative Order
citing Alabama Power for contaminating state waters. In the Matter of Alabama Power
Company James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant, Order No. 18-094-GW at 1-3, 8-10
(ADEM Aug. 15, 2018). In 2018, Alabama Power reported exceedances of groundwater
standards for arsenic and cobalt at Plant Barry. More recently, Alabama Power’s 2020
Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Reports, required by federal CCR
regulations, show statistically significant increases for many of the 20 monitoring wells at
the unlined impoundment for the following contaminants: arsenic (at 12 wells), boron
(five wells), calcium (13), chloride (12), cobalt (one), fluoride (one), pH (two), sulfate
(nine), and TDS (12).
Alabama Power’s Plan to Leave Coal Ash in Groundwater at Plant Barry
44. Alabama Power is required to close this old, leaking coal ash impoundment. Alabama
Power wants to leave the ash within the existing unlined impoundment and cap it in
4
NUS Corporation, 1991, Screening Site Inspection, Phase II, Alabama Power Company – Barry
Steam Plant, Bucks, Mobile County, Alabama, EPA ID#: ALD082148800 at ES-1.
13
place. On July 1, 2021, Alabama Power obtained a state permit from ADEM to allow the
impoundment to be capped in place under state solid waste rules. But this plan is
governed by and violates separate federal standards set out in the CCR Rule and RCRA.
45. Under its closure plan now set out in the state permit, Alabama Power plans to leave over
21 million tons of coal ash capped in place in the old impoundment within the floodplain
of the Mobile River, on top of wetlands and Sisters Creek. Alabama Power will attempt
to remove the surface water in the ash pond, consolidate the ash, construct new berms
and a version of a barrier wall around the newly consolidated ash, install an internal toe
drain, grade the ash, and install a cap. The impoundment will still be unlined and in the
footprint of the old impoundment, and Alabama Power seeks a variance from slope
requirements due to the steepness of the coal ash slope within the impoundment.
Alabama Power will monitor the site for 30 years, but it makes no commitment to
continue maintenance of the site after the 30-year requirement.
46. This plan leaves large quantities of coal ash in contact with water, including groundwater,
and in an impoundment in violation of the CCR Rule and RCRA.
47. There is no layer beneath the coal ash impoundment that will prevent the coal ash from
being in contact with water. The lack of such a layer is evidenced by the fact that
Alabama Power’s groundwater testing shows coal ash contamination has flowed from the
coal ash to the aquifer and groundwater below the mixed clay formations under the coal
ash impoundment. Alabama Power’s consultant describes the materials under the coal
ash impoundment as “leaky” and has determined that a barrier wall to prevent the flow of
groundwater will not be effective or feasible to control groundwater contamination, and
in fact would increase contact between coal ash and groundwater.
14
48. The unlined impoundment both before and after capping impounds coal ash, water,
sediment, and slurry within one or more depressions and dikes. As set out above, the
impoundment was constructed through the building of dikes, and dikes will remain
around the capped impoundment. When the impoundment is capped in place, another
berm will be built to contain coal ash, slurry, water, and sediment. The impoundment
contains natural and/or man-made depressions that impound water, coal ash, slurry, and
sediment.
49. As set out above, Alabama Power’s coal ash in the Plant Barry impoundment has
contaminated groundwater, and under Alabama Power’s current Closure Plans and the
state permit issued by ADEM, contamination will continue indefinitely into the future.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
50. The allegations of all preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if repeated
and set forth herein.
Alabama Power’s Violations of the CCR Rule and RCRA
51. Alabama Power is violating 40 C.F.R. §§ 257.102(b) and (d) and RCRA. Alabama
Power has prepared and published a CCR Rule closure plan that fails to meet the
minimum requirements for closure plans and violates the federal CCR Rule by leaving
coal ash at Plant Barry in and in contact with water and by not eliminating free liquids;
by impounding slurry, sediment, and/or water; and by failing to control, minimize or
eliminate, to the maximum extent feasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the
waste and releases of CCR, leachate, or contaminated run-off to the ground or surface
waters. Upon information and belief, Alabama Power is proceeding to implement this
illegal plan.
15
52. Alabama Power’s cap-in-place closure plan for Plant Barry violates the three independent
standards of the federal CCR Rule discussed above, and therefore violates RCRA also, in
three separate and independent ways.
COUNT 1
VIOLATION OF 40 C.F.R. § 257.102(d)(2) and RCRA
53. In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 257.102(d)(2) and RCRA, Alabama Power’s closure plan for
the Plant Barry coal ash impoundment fails to satisfy the CCR Rule’s standard to
eliminate free liquids prior to capping in place. In violation of the CCR Rule and RCRA,
the coal ash in the Plant Barry unlined impoundment is in contact with groundwater and
will be in contact with groundwater, saturated in water, and located in water when the
final cover system is installed. Alabama Power has not eliminated and will not eliminate
free liquids before the final cover system is installed.
COUNT 2
VIOLATION OF 40 C.F.R. § 257.102(d)(1)(ii) and RCRA
54. In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 257.102(d)(1)(ii) and RCRA, Alabama Power’s closure plan
for the Plant Barry coal ash will result in the continued impoundment of water, sediment,
or slurry, and fails to preclude the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment,
or slurry.
COUNT 3
VIOLATION OF 40 C.F.R. §257.102(d)(1)(i) and RCRA
55. In violation of 40 C.F.R. §257.102(d)(1)(i) and RCRA, Alabama Power’s cap-in-place
closure plan does not control, minimize, or eliminate, to the maximum extent feasible,
post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste or releases of CCR pollution to ground
or surface waters.
56. These violations occurred before and on July 1, 2021, and are ongoing.
16
57. Under the CCR Rule and RCRA, Alabama Power cannot close the coal ash impoundment
at Plant Barry by carrying out its plan for capping in place and by implementing the plan
that is the subject of the Alabama state solid waste permit.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Baykeeper respectfully requests that this Court:
A. Issue a declaratory judgment that Alabama Power is violating the Coal
Combustion Residuals Rule and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by failing to
comply with the closure plan requirements of the Rule, and that Alabama Power is violating the
open dumping prohibition of the Act;
B. Enter appropriate preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Alabama
Power from implementing this illegal closure plan;
C. Enter appropriate preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to ensure that
Alabama Power files a closure plan for its Plant Barry coal ash impoundment that satisfies the
requirements of the Act and the Rule by eliminating free liquids from the Plant Barry coal
ash; precluding the possibility of future impoundment of water, sediment, or slurry; and
eliminating infiltration of groundwater and other liquids into Alabama Power’s coal ash, as
required by the CCR Rule;
D. Award Baykeeper the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney and
expert fees, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e); and
E. Grant Baykeeper such further and additional relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
17
Respectfully submitted this 26th day of September, 2022.
Barry Brock (ASB-9137-B61B)

Christina Tidwell (ASB-9696-D10R)
Southern Environmental Law Center
2829 Second Avenue S., Ste. 282
Birmingham, AL 35233
Tel: (205) 745-3060
bbrock@selcal.org
ctidwell@selcal.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Richard Moore (ASB-5730-M55R)

450C Government Street
Mobile, AL 36602
Tel: (865) 300-1206
richardmooreig@hotmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
With copies, via U.S. Mail to:
The Hon. Michael Regan, Administrator, U.S. EPA

The Hon. Daniel Blackman, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 4
Mr. Lance LeFleur, Director, ADEM
Mr. Stephen Cobb, Chief, Land Division, ADEM
The Hon. Sean P. Costello, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Alabama
18
Case 1:22-cv-00382-KD-B Document 1-1 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 19
Attachment 1
JS 44 (Rev. 08/18) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 485 Telephone Consumer
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 490 Cable/Sat TV
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 850 Securities/Commodities/
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS X 893 Environmental Matters
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 895 Freedom of Information
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party 896 Arbitration
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 950 Constitutionality of
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
s
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Exhibit 1
July 20, 2022
Via Registered Mail – Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Mark Crosswhite, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer

Alabama Power Company
600 North 18th Street
Mr. Nik Budney, Plant Manager

James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant
15300 US-43
Bucks, AL 36512
Notice of Intent to Sue

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - 42 U.S.C. § 6972
RE: Alabama Power Company’s Unlawful Coal Ash Disposal and Storage at its James M.
Barry Electric Generating Plant in Mobile County, Bucks, Alabama: Violations of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Coal Combustion Residuals Rule by
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A) and (b), and 40 C.F.R. § 254.2(a), Mobile

Baykeeper Inc. (Baykeeper) through its counsel, the Southern Environmental Law Center and
co-counsel Richard W. Moore, gives Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power or the
Company) notice of its intent to file suit for violations of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA or the Act) and the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rule (the Rule)
adopted pursuant to the Act, 40 C.F.R. § 257.50 et seq., at the James M. Barry Electric
Generating Plant (Plant Barry). After the expiration of sixty (60) days as provided in the Act,
Baykeeper plans to file suit in United States District Court against Alabama Power to enforce the
provisions of the Rule and the Act.
Coal Ash Cleanups in the Southeast
Utilities in the Southeast are cleaning up unlined coal ash impoundments throughout the
region. These utilities are now excavating over one quarter of a billion tons of coal ash from
unlined impoundments and other storage to safe, dry, lined landfills away from the waterways
and separated from groundwater, or they are recycling the ash into cement and concrete. Every
unlined utility coal ash lagoon in South Carolina1 and North Carolina2 has been excavated or is
being excavated. Duke Energy alone is excavating over 145 million tons of coal ash from
unlined impoundments in the two Carolinas. In Virginia, Dominion Energy is excavating all its
unlined coal ash impoundments,3 and Appalachian Power is excavating its sole open
impoundment.4 The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is excavating 12 million tons of coal
ash at its Gallatin facility near Nashville5 and is excavating the ash at its Allen facility in
Memphis.6
In neighboring Georgia, Georgia Power Company is a sister company of Alabama Power

owned by the same parent company, Southern Company. Georgia Power is excavating half of
the coal ash it has stored in unlined lagoons,7 and has recently indicated in its 2022 Integrated
Resource Plan that it intends to excavate another 16 million tons from its unlined impoundment
at Plant Wansley.8 With that addition, Georgia Power has excavated and will excavate over 65
million tons of coal ash from unlined sites to safe, dry, lined storage.
In fact, at a number of sites in the Southeast, the job has largely been completed. All the
coal ash has been excavated from SCE&G’s Wateree coal ash lagoon in South Carolina,9 from
Santee Cooper’s Grainger coal ash lagoons in South Carolina,10 and from Duke Energy’s coal
ash lagoons at its Riverbend, Sutton, Dan River, and Asheville plants in North Carolina.11
1
David Wren, South Carolina utilities lead the region in efforts to clean up coal ash pollution, Charleston Post &
Courier (July 15, 2017), https://www.postandcourier.com/business/south-carolina-utilities-lead-the-region-in-
efforts-to-clean-up-coal-ash-pollution/article_bcfb1eec-670a-11e7-a2ea-e778e26af132.html.
2
Lynn Bonner, Duke Energy to dig up coal ash at 6 North Carolina sites, Raleigh News & Observer (Jan. 3, 2020),
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article238898708.html.
3
Adrian Teran-Tapia, Governor signs coal ash cleanup bill, Va. Mercury (Mar. 22, 2019),
https://www.virginiamercury.com/blog-va/governor-signs-coal-ash-cleanup-bill/.
4
See Va. Code § 10.1-1402.04.
5
Jamie Satterfield, TVA agrees to remove 12 million tons of coal ash from Gallatin plant, clean contamination,
Knoxville News (June 13, 2019), https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2019/06/13/tva-agrees-dig-up-12-
million-tons-coal-ash-gallatin-plant/1443294001/.
6
Dave Flessner, TVA to begin coal ash removal at abandoned Allen Fossil plant in Memphis, Chattanooga Times
Free Press (June 24, 2021), https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/story/2021/jun/24/tva-begin-coal-ash-
removal-abandoned-allen-fossil-plant-memphis/549267/.
7
Molly Samuel, EPA’s coal ash oversight actions could send Ga. Power ‘back to the drawing board’, WABE (Jan.
12, 2022), https://www.wabe.org/epas-coal-ash-oversight-actions-could-send-ga-power-back-to-the-drawing-board/.
8
Jill Nolin, Georgia Power plans to finish shift from coal-fired plants by 2035, Ga. Pub. Broadcasting (Feb. 1,
2022), https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/02/01/georgia-power-plans-finish-shift-coal-fired-plants-by-2035; Ga.
Power Co., 2022 Integrated Resource Plan, Technical Appendix Volume 2, Environmental Compliance Strategy
Update for 2022 at 8, Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm’n Docket No. 44160 (Jan. 2022).
9
Jeffrey Collins, Utility finishes removing toxic coal ash from SC power plant, ABC News (Dec. 25, 2019),
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/utility-finishes-removing-toxic-coal-ash-sc-power-67922817.
10
Last truck load of coal ash hauled out from Grainger plant in Conway, WBTW (May 6, 2019),
https://www.wbtw.com/news/state-regional-news/last-truck-load-of-coal-ash-hauled-out-from-grainger-plant-in-
conway/.
11
Duke Energy, Coal Ash Metrics (last updated Jan. 31, 2021), https://desitecoreprod-
cd.azureedge.net/_/media/pdfs/our-company/ash-management/duke-energy-ash-
metrics.pdf?la=en&rev=c018600cee2a4155b7f8ae1914c25052; Duke Energy - Asheville: 6 - Month Progress
Report (June 1, 2022), State of North Carolina ex rel. N.C. DEQ v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC, No. 13-CVS-4061.
2
When utilities remove coal ash from dangerous, unlined, leaking, waterfront pits, it can
be moved to safe, dry, lined storage and it can also be recycled into cement and concrete. In
Georgia, Georgia Power recently announced a major coal ash recycling project at Plant Bowen,
where it will excavate coal ash to be recycled into concrete.12 Throughout the Carolinas, coal
ash from unlined impoundments has been and is being moved to cement manufacturing
facilities.13 In addition, in states beyond Georgia and the Carolinas, utilities have also joined
with other partners to reprocess coal ash from old unlined lagoons so that it can be used as a
substitute for Portland cement in concrete manufacturing.14 These efforts create local jobs and
promote local economic development, reduce the pollution from the manufacture of concrete,
and help the local cement, concrete, and construction industries. These efforts also reduce the
dependence of local economies on coal ash imported from abroad, from countries like Turkey
and China.
The result is that every unlined coal ash impoundment of the major utilities in the coastal
regions of the Southern states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia is being
excavated, but in contrast Alabama Power intends to leave millions of tons of coal ash in its
unlined impoundment in the floodplain of the Mobile River at Plant Barry. This unlined coal ash
impoundment is being left to face the forces of increasing floods, storms, hurricanes, and water
level rise in the coastal region. In addition, the area is extremely rainy with Mobile receiving
more than 65 inches of rain per year on average, making it the rainiest major city in the US.15
Throughout the Southeast, excavation of coal ash from unlined, leaking waterfront
impoundments is the industry standard for cleaning up and closing old unlined coal ash
impoundments. Yet, Alabama Power plans to permanently store the Plant Barry coal ash in the
unlined, leaking impoundment on the Mobile River and in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta.
Alabama Power’s Open Dump at Plant Barry
Alabama Power’s closure plan for its unlined coal ash impoundment at Plant Barry
violates the CCR Rule and therefore is open dumping in violation of the requirements of
the Rule and the Act. 40 C.F.R. § 257.1(a)(2) (“Practices failing to satisfy any of the criteria in
. . . §§ 257.50 through 257.107 constitute open dumping, which is prohibited under section 4005
of the Act.”). Alabama Power cannot be allowed to violate the CCR Rule and leave an illegal
open dump at its Plant Barry coal ash disposal site in perpetuity.
12
Georgia Power to recycle coal ash to use in concrete for construction in Georgia, WFXL (June 29, 2022),
https://wfxl.com/news/state-news/georgia-power-to-recycle-coal-ash-to-use-in-concrete-for-construction-in-georgia.
13
E.g., Press Release, Santee Cooper, Santee Cooper Records Most Successful Year to Date for Recycling and
Beneficial Use (Feb. 4, 2020), https://www.santeecooper.com/news/2020/020420-Santee-Cooper-Records-Most-
Successful-Year-to-Date-for-Recycling-and-Beneficial-Use.aspx.
14
E.g., STAR® Plants, The SEFA Group, https://www.sefagroup.com/services/star-technology/star-plants/ (last
visited July 13, 2022).
15
Rainiest Cities in the US 2022, World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-
rankings/rainiest-cities-in-the-us (last visited July 13, 2022).
3
Polluting Coal Ash in Groundwater and an Unlined Impoundment at Plant Barry
The Plant Barry coal ash impoundment currently contains coal ash in contact with water,
including groundwater, and will contain coal ash in contact with water, including groundwater, if
Alabama Power’s proposed cap is placed on the coal ash impoundment. Across the site, millions
of tons of coal ash will be left feet deep in water,16 and even more ash will be in contact with
water when there are floods and when water levels in the Mobile River and the Mobile-Tensaw
Delta rise, since groundwater levels rise with the river’s water level.17
Alabama Power stores over 21 million tons of coal ash in the unlined impoundment at
Plant Barry, which sits in groundwater.18 The unlined Plant Barry Ash Pond was built to receive
wet-sluiced CCR from Plant Barry in 1965, with the construction of earthen dikes within a
meander loop of the Mobile River.19 The unlined impoundment is almost completely surrounded
by the Mobile River and a cooling canal from the facility.20 The impoundment sits within the
100-year floodplain of the Mobile River in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta,21 and it was built in
wetlands and on top of a tributary of the Mobile River, Sisters Creek.
Alabama Power is required to close this old, leaking coal ash impoundment. Alabama
Power wants to leave the ash where it is and cap it in place, and on July 1, 2021, Alabama Power
obtained a state permit from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
to allow the impoundment to be capped in place under state solid waste rules.22 But this plan
violates separate and governing federal standards set out in the CCR Rule and RCRA.
Under its closure plan now set out in the state permit, Alabama Power plans to leave over
21 million tons of coal ash capped-in-place in the old impoundment within the floodplain of the
Mobile River, on top of wetlands and Sisters Creek. The Company will attempt to remove the
16
See Ala. Power Co., Revised Closure Permit Application for the Plant Barry Ash Pond, Appendix 9, Amended
Closure Plan for Ash Pond at Draft 100 Percent Design Drawings, Drawing 008 of 097 (PDF p. 1035) (Apr. 30,
2020) [hereinafter Permit Application]); id., Appendix C to Appendix 8, Plant Barry Ash Pond Groundwater
Monitoring Plan at Figures 5a-5c (PDF pp. 314-16), Figure 6 (PDF p. 317); S. Co. Servs., 2021 Annual
Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Report, Alabama Power Company Plant Barry Ash Pond at Table 3
(PDF p. 61), Figures 4A-4C (PDF pp. 81-83), Figures 6A-6B (PDF pp. 86-87), Appendix B (PDF pp. 121-23) (Jan.
31, 2022), https://www.alabamapower.com/content/dam/alabama-power/pdfs-docs/company/how-we-
operate/ccr/plant-barry/ash-pond/groundwater-monitoring-and-corrective-
action/2021%20Annual%20Groundwater%20Monitoring%20and%20Corrective%20Action%20Report%20-
%20Barry%20Ash%20Pond.pdf.
17
E.g., Anchor QEA, Groundwater Remedy Selection Report, Plant Barry at 2 (Oct. 2021) [hereinafter Groundwater
Remedy Selection Report].
18
E.g., id., Appendix C at Figure 9A (Arsenic Concentrations Along Geologic Cross Section A-A’ Plant Barry Ash
Pond).
19
Permit Application, Appendix 4, History of Construction for Existing CCR Surface Impoundment Plant Barry
Ash Pond at vi (PDF p. 55).
20
Id. at Plant Barry Ash Pond Location Map (PDF p. 60).
21
Id., Appendix 3, CCR Surface Impoundment Emergency Action Plan Plant Barry Ash Pond at Plant Barry Ash
Pond Dam Inundation Analysis 1 (PDF p. 38).
22
ADEM, Initial Permit and Variance, Ala. Power Co. James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant, Permit No. 49-35
(July 1, 2021).
4
surface water in the ash pond, consolidate the ash, construct new berms and a version of a barrier
wall around the newly consolidated ash, install an internal toe drain, grade the ash, and install a
cap.23 The impoundment will still be unlined and in the footprint of the old impoundment, and
the Company seeks a variance from slope requirements due to the steepness of the coal ash slope
within the impoundment. The Company will monitor the site for 30 years, but it makes no
commitment to continue maintenance of the site after the 30-year requirement.
This plan leaves large quantities of coal ash in contact with water, including groundwater,
and in an impoundment in violation of the CCR Rule and RCRA.24 In fact, the plan even leaves
coal ash stored below sea level. As set out above, this unlined impoundment is built on top of a
tributary of the Mobile River, Sisters Creek, and it also is in wetlands adjacent to the Mobile
River.25 The capped impoundment will be almost surrounded by the Mobile River, in and on a
floodplain. Because the surrounding waters affect the elevation of the groundwater within the
ash, the water level in the impoundment will rise when there are floods, storms, and with the rise
in water level in the Mobile River and the floodplain.
Documents and studies prepared by Alabama Power demonstrate that the coal ash at
Plant Barry is saturated in water several feet deep and will be so after closure, and, during high
water events and floods, even more of the ash is and will be in contact with water, including
groundwater.26 Further, the groundwater is in hydraulic connection with the Mobile River and a
regional surface aquifer.27 Fifteen to sixteen foot river levels in the Mobile River at Plant Barry
are considered just under “moderate” flood stage,28 meaning that the water levels in the area of
Plant Barry are subject to substantial rises with floods, storms, and hurricanes. Nor is there a
layer beneath the coal ash impoundment that will prevent the coal ash from being in contact with
water. The lack of such a layer is evidenced by the fact that Alabama Power’s groundwater
testing shows coal ash contamination has flowed from the coal ash to the aquifer and
23
Permit Application, Appendix 9, Amended Closure Plan for Ash Pond at 4-6 (PDF pp. 581-83).
24
E.g., Groundwater Remedy Selection Report, Appendix C at Figure 9A (Arsenic Concentrations Along Geologic
Cross Section A-A’ Plant Barry Ash Pond).
25
ADEM, Response to Public Comments, Permit No. 49-35, Plant Barry at 1 (The Plant Barry coal ash
impoundment must cease receiving waste because it is “located in wetlands.”).
26
Permit Application, Appendix C to Appendix 8, Plant Barry Ash Pond Groundwater Monitoring Plan, at Figure 6
(PDF p. 317), Figure 5b (PDF p. 315); S. Co. Servs., 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action
Report, Alabama Power Company Plant Barry Ash Pond at Table 3 (PDF p. 50) (Jan. 31, 2021),
https://www.alabamapower.com/content/dam/alabama-power/pdfs-docs/company/how-we-operate/ccr/plant-
barry/ash-pond/groundwater-monitoring-and-corrective-
action/2020%20Annual%20Groundwater%20Monitoring%20and%20Corrective%20Action%20Report%20-
%20Barry%20Ash%20Pond.pdf; S. Co. Servs., 2021 Annual Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action
Report, Alabama Power Company Plant Barry Ash Pond at Table 3 (PDF p. 61) (Jan. 31, 2022); Permit Application,
Appendix 6, Topographical Maps, Grading Plans and Stacking Plans at Drawing 017 of 100, Final Closure Cross
Sections I (PDF p. 177); id., Appendix 4, History of Construction for Existing CCR Surface Impoundment at PDF p.
66 (Diversion Dike & South Main Dike Raise Geologic Cross Sections & Typ. Dike Raise Sections); id., Appendix
9, Amended Closure Plan for Ash Pond at Draft 100 Percent Design Drawings, Drawing 008 of 097 (PDF p. 1035).
27
See NUS Corporation, 1991, Screening Site Inspection, Phase II, Alabama Power Company – Barry Steam Plant,
Bucks, Mobile County, Alabama, EPA ID#: ALD082148800 at ES-1.
28
Flood Categories, Mobile River at Barry Steam Plant, Nat’l Weather Serv. Advanced Hydrologic Prediction
Serv., https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=mob&gage=bcka1 (last visited July 14, 2022).
5
groundwater below the mixed clay formations under the coal ash impoundment.29 Alabama
Power’s consultant describes the materials under the coal ash impoundment as “leaky” and has
determined that a barrier wall to prevent the flow of groundwater will not be effective or feasible
to control groundwater contamination, and in fact would increase contact between coal ash and
groundwater.30
The unlined impoundment both before and after capping impounds coal ash, water,
sediment, and slurry within one or more depressions and dikes. As set out above, the
impoundment was constructed through the building of dikes, and dikes will remain around the
capped impoundment. When the impoundment is capped in place, another berm will be built to
contain coal ash, slurry, water, and sediment.31 The impoundment contains natural and/or man-
made depressions that impound water, coal ash, slurry, and sediment.32
It is undisputed that the unlined Plant Barry coal ash impoundment has been
contaminating water for decades. A 1991 site assessment for a possible Superfund listing at
Plant Barry found that
[a]rsenic was found in groundwater, surface and subsurface soil, and sediment
samples in amounts up to 80 times background. The presence of these inorganic
constituents can be traced to coal, the fuel for the power plant, which contains
many metallic elements like beryllium, mercury, and arsenic. These metallic
elements, which are not readily combustible, remain in higher concentrations in
the fly ash waste.33
This contamination continues today, as ADEM set out in its 2018 Administrative Order
citing the Company for contaminating state waters.34 In 2018, Alabama Power reported
exceedances of groundwater standards for arsenic and cobalt at Plant Barry.35 More recently,
Alabama Power’s 2020 Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Reports, required by
29
S. Co. Servs., 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Report Alabama Power Plant Barry
Ash Pond at iii, 5 (Jan. 31, 2021); e.g., Groundwater Remedy Selection Report, Appendix C at Figure 9A (Arsenic
Concentrations Along Geologic Cross Section A-A’ Plant Barry Ash Pond).
30
Groundwater Remedy Selection Report at 2, 10-11.
31
ADEM, Response to Public Comments, Permit 49-35, Plant Barry at 2 (“A secondary soil containment berm will
be constructed to provide containment of the final CCR footprint . . .” and “[t]he inside toe of the berm will have an
internal drainage system to collect interstitial water during and after closure.”); Groundwater Remedy Selection
Report at 13 (“A low-permeability soil containment berm is being constructed around the consolidated CCR to
contain the CCR material and prevent the lateral migration of water . . . .”).
32
Permit Application, Appendix 9, Amended Closure Plan for Ash Pond at Draft 100 Percent Design Drawings,
Drawing 008 of 097 (PDF p. 1035).
33
NUS Corporation, 1991, Screening Site Inspection, Phase II, Alabama Power Company – Barry Steam Plant,
Bucks, Mobile County, Alabama, EPA ID#: ALD082148800 at ES-1.
34
In the Matter of Alabama Power Company James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant, Order No. 18-094-GW at
1-3, 8-10 (ADEM Aug. 15, 2018).
35
Ala. Power Co., Notice of Groundwater Protection Standard Exceedance (Nov. 2018),
https://www.alabamapower.com/content/dam/alabama-power/pdfs-docs/company/how-we-operate/ccr/plant-
barry/ash-pond/groundwater-monitoring-and-corrective-action/Notice of Groundwater Protection Standard
Exceedance - Barry Ash Pond.pdf.
6
federal CCR regulations, show statistically significant increases (SSIs) for many of the 20
monitoring wells at the unlined impoundment for the following contaminants: arsenic (at 12
wells), boron (five wells), calcium (13), chloride (12), cobalt (one), fluoride (one), pH (two),
sulfate (nine), and TDS (12).36
Under Alabama Power’s current Closure Plans and the state permit issued by ADEM,
contamination will continue indefinitely into the future.
The Coal Combustion Residuals Rule
Effective October 19, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a final rule to regulate the disposal and storage of CCR as a solid waste under subtitle
D of the Act. U.S. EPA, Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Final Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302, 21,312 (Apr. 17,
2015); as amended by Technical Amendments to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
System, Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities—Correction of the
Effective Date, 80 Fed. Reg. 37,988 (July 2, 2015); 40 C.F.R. § 257.50 et seq.
Under the Act, any violation of the requirements of the Rule constitutes illegal open
dumping: “Practices failing to satisfy any of the criteria in . . . §§ 257.50 through 257.107
constitute open dumping, which is prohibited under section 4005 of the Act.” 40 C.F.R. §
257.1(a)(2) (emphasis added). 40 C.F.R. § 257.2 (“Open dump means a facility for the disposal
of solid waste which does not comply with this part.”).
Under the Rule, by no later than October 17, 2016, Alabama Power was required to
“prepare an initial written closure plan consistent with the requirements specified in paragraph
(b)(1) of [40 C.F.R. § 257.102]” for coal ash impoundments like the one at Plant Barry. 40
C.F.R. § 257.102(b)(2). The Rule contemplates two options for closure, either removal of the
ash, also described as clean closure, or, under certain prescribed conditions, leaving the ash in
place, sometimes called “cap in place.” Alabama Power has proposed to cap the Plant Barry coal
ash impoundment in place, and it has obtained a state solid waste CCR permit from ADEM
(issued July 1, 2021) for such a plan.
Coal ash impoundments can be capped in place only if they satisfy several clearly defined
criteria designed to keep the coal ash out of contact with groundwater and other water flows.
The Rule requires that a closure plan in which ash will be left in an unlined impoundment must
describe “how the final cover system will achieve the performance standards specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.” Id. § 257.102(b)(1)(iii).
36
S. Co. Servs., 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Report, Alabama Power Company
Plant Barry Ash Pond at iii, 5 (Jan. 31, 2021).
7
In particular, the closure plan must demonstrate that if the ash is left in place, it will
achieve each and all of the following performance standard requirements:
 “Free liquids must be eliminated by removing liquid wastes or solidifying the

remaining wastes and waste residues.” Id. § 257.102(d)(2)(i).
 The plan must “[p]reclude the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment,
or slurry.” Id. § 257.102(d)(1)(ii); and
 The plan must “[c]ontrol, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent feasible,
post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of CCR, leachate, or
contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters.” Id. § 257.102(d)(1)(i).
Under each of these three requirements, a coal ash impoundment cannot be capped in
place with coal ash in contact with groundwater, much less with large quantities of coal ash
sitting feet deep in groundwater. In enforcing the CCR Rule, EPA has underscored that under
the CCR Rule, “surface impoundments or landfills cannot be closed with coal ash in contact with
groundwater. Limiting the contact between coal ash and groundwater after closure is critical to
minimizing releases of contaminants into the environment and will help ensure communities near
these facilities have access to safe water for drinking and recreation.”37 Yet, Alabama Power’s
plan is to cap the unlined Plant Barry coal ash impoundment in place, even though coal ash is in
contact with groundwater and will remain in contact with groundwater – in direct violation of all
three key provisions of the CCR Rule.
Again, each of these standards is a separate and independent requirement that must be
satisfied before a coal ash impoundment can be capped in place. A failure to satisfy any one of
them requires that coal ash be excavated from the impoundment and not capped in place.
Alabama Power’s plan for capping the Plant Barry impoundment in place violates all three of
these essential prerequisites to capping in place.
First, the Rule provides:
“The owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment or any lateral

expansion of a CCR surface impoundment must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section prior to installing the final cover
system required under paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(i) Free liquids must be eliminated by removing liquid wastes or solidifying

the remaining wastes and waste residues.”
40 C.F.R. § 257.102(d)(2).
37
Press Release, U.S. EPA, EPA Takes Key Steps to Protect Groundwater from Coal Ash Contamination (Jan. 11,
2022), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-key-steps-protect-groundwater-coal-ash-contamination.
8
The CCR Rule defines “free liquids” to be “liquids that readily separate from the solid
portion of a waste under ambient temperature and pressure.” 40 C.F.R. § 257.53.
“Free liquids” are not limited to the so-called “free water” that exists above the surface of
the coal ash in the impoundment but include all the water throughout the saturated ash. Simply
“decanting or dewatering” that so-called “free water” does not eliminate the “free liquids” – water,
including groundwater – that saturates the ash below the top surface of the coal ash. Water – which
readily separates from coal ash under ambient temperature and pressure – is a free liquid that
saturates the ash below the top surface of the coal ash in the impoundment.
This provision on its face prevents a coal ash impoundment from being capped and closed
in place if coal ash is in groundwater or mixed with water of any kind.38 Liquid wastes have not
been removed from the impoundment if groundwater or any other category of water is in the
impoundment, or if the coal ash disposed of in the impoundment is in contact with water.
Groundwater and any other category of water are “free liquids” because water readily separates
from coal ash under ambient temperature and pressure.
The Rule also makes clear that a coal ash impoundment cannot be capped in place based
on the hope, the prediction, or the modelling that at some point in the future the groundwater table
may recede. This requirement must be met “prior to installing the final cover system.”
In short, under this provision alone, a coal ash impoundment cannot be capped in place
when ash is in contact with groundwater, or any other category of water. That is what the CCR
Rule clearly provides.
Alabama Power’s closure plan for the Plant Barry coal ash impoundment fails this
standard. Groundwater will continue to flow into, saturate, and flow out of the coal ash within
the proposed cap-in-place storage area. Alabama Power concedes that it will not remove the free
liquids from the coal ash when it closes the Plant Barry impoundment and that its closure plan
will not stop the flow of water out of the coal ash impoundment.39 Alabama Power may be
contending that free liquids will be eliminated with the dewatering of the Ash Pond over the next
11 years.40 That prediction is irrelevant, because free liquids must be eliminated “prior to
installing the final cover system.” It is also not accurate, because free liquids will continue to
migrate through the coal ash waste in the Plant Barry unlined capped impoundment, sitting
within the floodplain of the Mobile River. Moreover, in places the coal ash is located below sea
38
The Rule does allow for capping in place if the remaining wastes and waste residues are solidified. To date, no
utility in our region has chosen that option to address the large quantities of coal ash sitting in groundwater in
impoundments in our region, and Alabama Power has not suggested that solution at Plant Barry.
39
In the closure plan, Alabama Power states that it will remove “some interstitial water” from the coal ash, and
closure will only “reduce the amount of water available to flow from the Ash Pond during and after closure.” Permit
Application, Appendix 9, Amended Closure Plan for Ash Pond at 19 (PDF p. 596). Alabama Power further states
that the closure plan will be implemented by only “reducing the amount of interstitial water” in coal ash. Id. at 6
(PDF p. 583).
40
Id. at 23 (PDF p. 600).
9
level.41 And this prediction is not consistent with the Rule because even under this optimistic
prediction, coal ash would continue to pollute the waters of the Mobile-Tensaw Delta for more
than a decade, and coal ash will remain in a vulnerable location near the Mobile River.
As set out above, the coal ash in the Plant Barry unlined impoundment is in contact with
groundwater and will be in contact with groundwater when the final cover system is installed, and
therefore Alabama Power has not eliminated and will not eliminate free liquids before the final
cover system is installed.
A second provision by itself also forbids capping a coal ash impoundment in place when
the coal ash is in contact with water. The Rule provides:
“The owner or operator of a CCR unit must ensure that, at a minimum, the CCR
unit is closed in a manner that will:
(ii) Preclude the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment, or

slurry.”
40 C.F.R. § 257.102(d)(1).
The CCR Rule defines an impoundment to be “a natural topographic depression, man-

made excavation, or diked area, which is designed to hold an accumulation of CCR and liquids,
and the unit treats, stores, or disposes of CCR.”
The Plant Barry coal ash impoundment both before and after the proposed capping in
place does and will impound water, sediment, or slurry. Under Alabama Power’s closure plan
and its permit, the unlined impoundment will continue to impound water contaminated with CCR
because the existing impoundment will be left in place and new berms will be built within the
current footprint of the unlined impoundment. These internal berms will attempt to hold back a
massive mountain of 21 million tons of coal ash, and ash will be mixed with water, including
groundwater, within the impoundment. There are also existing dikes around the impoundment,
and this new dike will be built.
Also, there are natural and/or man-made depressions within the impoundment that
contain water, slurry, and/or sediment.
The Plant Barry impoundment now contains water and wet ash. Following closure in
place under Alabama Power’s plan, the reconfigured impoundment would continue to impound
water and/or slurry and/or sediment. Consequently, for this independent reason, under the CCR
Rule the Plant Barry site cannot be capped in place pursuant to Alabama Power’s closure plan.
41
E.g., Groundwater Remedy Selection Report, Appendix C at Figure 9A (Arsenic Concentrations Along Geologic
Cross Section A-A’ Plant Barry Ash Pond).
10
The Rule contains a third provision that also independently bars the capping in place of an
unlined coal ash impoundment when ash is in contact with groundwater or any other water:
“The owner or operator of a CCR unit must ensure that, at a minimum, the CCR
unit is closed in a manner that will:
(i) Control, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent feasible, post-

closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of CCR, leachate,
or contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters or to the
atmosphere.”
40 C.F.R. §257.102(d)(1).
If groundwater or any other water is in a coal ash impoundment and/or if coal ash is in
contact with water, capping the impoundment in place will not control, minimize, or eliminate, to
the maximum extent feasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste or releases of
CCR pollution to ground or surface waters. And likewise, even if all or some water is
temporarily pumped down within the ash, closure in place will violate this standard where the
natural hydrology will cause groundwater to continue flowing into the ash basin and infiltrating
into the waste following closure.42 In addition, the coal ash will be rewetted when the Mobile
River rises due to the groundwater’s hydrologic connection to the Mobile River underneath the
ash impoundment. Excavation of the ash at Plant Barry will control infiltration of liquids into
the wastes and discharges of contaminants to the maximum extent feasible. Excavation of coal
ash impoundments is certainly “feasible,” because it is being done throughout South Carolina,
North Carolina, Virginia, and at numerous sites in Georgia and Tennessee. In fact, it has been
completed at some sites in the Southeast, even ahead of schedule.
The simple and clear language of this provision forbids cap in place when a coal ash
impoundment contains ash in contact with groundwater. Thus, if an owner proposes to close a
coal ash impoundment by leaving the ash in place with a cover on top, the closure plan must
demonstrate that groundwater will not continue to be in contact with or flow through the coal
ash, in order to satisfy the requirement to “[c]ontrol, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum
extent feasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of CCR, leachate,
or contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters.”
Furthermore, to the extent that Alabama Power relies upon the mixed clay layer
underneath parts of the area, that layer does not prevent the infiltration of water into the ash or
release of CCR, leachate, or contaminated runoff from the ash into the ground or surface waters.
As set out above, for decades, coal ash contaminants have moved from the coal ash with water
through the underlying layer into the water below, the materials below the coal ash leak, and a
42
See Permit Application, Appendix C to Appendix 8, Plant Barry Ash Pond Groundwater Monitoring Plan at
Figure 6 (PDF p. 317).
11
barrier wall is neither feasible nor would it be effective to prevent continued groundwater
contamination from coal ash at the site.
As set out above, Alabama Power’s closure plan for Plant Barry violates this provision
also, because the coal ash will remain in contact with water, including groundwater, and
excavation would eliminate this post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and the release
of CCR, leachate, or contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters.
Alabama Power’s Violation of the CCR Rule and RCRA
Alabama Power is violating 40 C.F.R. §§ 257.102(b) and (d) and RCRA. Alabama
Power has prepared and published a CCR Rule closure plan that fails to meet the minimum
requirements for closure plans and violates the federal CCR Rule by leaving coal ash at Plant
Barry in and in contact with water and by not eliminating free liquids; by impounding slurry,
sediment, and/or water; and by failing to control, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent
feasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of CCR, leachate, or
contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters. As shown above, Alabama Power’s cap in
place closure plan for Plant Barry violates three independent standards of the federal CCR Rule
and therefore violates RCRA also.
Although Alabama Power has obtained a state permit from the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management to implement its closure plan, that state program has not been
approved as a CCR Rule permitting program by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
utility must comply with federal rules as promulgated under 40 C.F.R. §§ 257.102(b) and (d) and
RCRA. Under 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama has jurisdiction over a citizen suit to enforce the standards of the
CCR Rule at Plant Barry.
Alabama Power’s violation occurred before and on July 1, 2021, and is ongoing.
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATIONS
Plant Barry is owned and operated by Alabama Power. Alabama Power is a corporation
with its principal place of business in Alabama. Alabama Power is responsible for all violations
at Plant Barry.
12
PERSONS GIVING NOTICE
Baykeeper is a § 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest organization with members in

Alabama and the Mobile area and operating in the watersheds of the Mobile River and the
Mobile-Tensaw Delta.
Baykeeper and its members have been harmed by Alabama Power’s violations of RCRA
and the CCR Rule. They recreate, fish, and own property in these watersheds, including in the
vicinity of and downstream from Plant Barry. They fear contamination of drinking water,
wildlife, and river water, by ground and surface water contamination and by discharges and
pollution from coal ash in groundwater, wetlands, and a creek in Alabama Power’s Plant Barry
coal ash impoundment. Alabama Power’s storage of coal ash in groundwater, wetlands, and a
creek, and its contamination, discharges, and pollution from coal ash in groundwater, wetlands,
and a creek are reducing the use and enjoyment by Baykeeper and its members of the Mobile
River, the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, and their watersheds.
The names, addresses, and phone numbers of the persons giving notice are:
William Strickland, Executive Director

Cade Kistler, Baykeeper
Mobile Baykeeper Inc.
450-C Government Street
Mobile, Alabama 36602
Phone 251-433-4229
Fax 251-432-8197
wstrickland@mobilebaykeeper.org
ckistler@mobilebaykeeper.org
Baykeeper believes that a negotiated settlement of these violations, codified through a

court-approved consent decree, would be preferable to protracted litigation. However, if we are
unable to reach an enforceable settlement agreement, Baykeeper is prepared to file suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, or other appropriate court,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A), after sixty days from receipt of this letter. This lawsuit
will seek declaratory and/or injunctive relief, fees and costs of litigation, and such other relief as
the Court deems appropriate.
If you have any questions concerning this letter or the described violations, or if you
believe this notice is incorrect in any respect, please contact the undersigned counsel, the
Southern Environmental Law Center, at (205) 745-3060 (phone), 205-745-3064 (fax). During
the notice period, we are available to discuss this matter with you, but suggest if you desire to
institute negotiations in lieu of a civil action that you do so immediately as we do not intend to
delay prosecution of this suit once the notice period has expired. Please be advised that the
13
failure to remedy any of the violations set forth in this letter can result in a court order enjoining
further violations, and upon the successful prosecution of this suit, Baykeeper intends to seek
compensation for attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation under the citizen suit provisions of 42
U.S.C. § 6972(e).
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Barry Brock Richard W. Moore

Keith Johnston Counsel for Mobile Baykeeper
Christina Andreen Tidwell
Southern Environmental Law Center
2829 Second Avenue S., Ste. 282
tel: (205) 745-3060
fax: (205) 745-3064
bbrock@selcal.org
kjohnston@selcal.org
ctidwell@selcal.org
cc:
Via certified mail – return receipt requested:
The Hon. Michael Regan, Administrator, U.S. EPA

The Hon. Daniel Blackman, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 4
Mr. Lance LeFleur, Director, ADEM
Mr. Stephen Cobb, Chief, Land Division, ADEM
Ms. Teresa G. Black, registered agent for Alabama Power
The Hon. Sean P. Costello, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Alabama
14
Exhibit 2
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS WILLIAMS
County of Mobile, )
)
State of Alabama )
1. My name is Nicholas Williams. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein.
2. I currently reside at 55972 Turkey Bluff Drive, in Stockton, Alabama. I am over the age of
18, and I am competent to give this declaration. This declaration is based on my belief and
personal knowledge of the facts below.
3. I am currently a member of Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. (“Baykeeper”).
4. I am aware that Baykeeper’s mission is to preserve and protect the Mobile Bay watershed,
Alabama’s waterways, and coastal communities. Baykeeper is dedicated to the preservation,
protection, and defense of the environment, and Baykeeper actively supports effective
implementation of environmental laws and regulations, particularly as those laws and
regulations relate to activities in the Mobile area and the watersheds flowing into Mobile Bay
and the Gulf of Mexico.
5. Baykeeper and its members, including myself, have a direct and beneficial interest in the
continued protection, preservation, and enhancement of the environment throughout the
Mobile Bay area and its watersheds.
6. I live in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta (the “Delta”) on Tensaw Lake, in between Coonneck Bend
and Dead Lake Island. Tensaw Lake flows into the Tensaw River. My wife and I own half
an acre on the water and have lived here for four years.
7. I have been recreating in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta for most of my life. Honestly, I have been
to more places in the Delta than I have not. I have spent time throughout much of the Delta,
including hunting and fishing in areas across the Mobile River from and downstream of Plant
Barry.
8. Downstream of Barry Steam Plant, I have hunted for deer, hogs, migratory birds, and small
game, and I have fished for both fresh and saltwater species. I have swum, paddled and spent
the night in the Delta and downstream of Plant Barry many times.
9. I hunted around Bayou Sara in the Jacinto Port tract of the Lower Delta Wildlife
Management Area for about six years. I shot many wild hogs, deer, and squirrels there while
attending the University of South Alabama. This area is directly south of Plant Barry in
Saraland.
10. I have also hunted ducks, deer, hogs, snipe, and squirrels all over the Upper Delta Wildlife
Management Area, which is directly across the Mobile River from Plant Barry.
1
11. I have run catfish lines and fished for catfish with a rod and reel all up and down the Mobile
River, Middle River, Tensaw River, and Bottle Creek. I have pulled many catfish from these
waters and fed them to my family and friends over the last ten years. Many of the areas
where I have fished are downstream of Plant Barry.
12. I regularly camp on the floating platforms at Dead Lake and Jug Lake, as well as at the land-
based campsite on Mound Island. I routinely visit the Champion Cypress south of Bayou
Jessamine and the Indian Mounds on Mound Island. I have been camping in and visiting
these areas for the better part of a decade.
13. I understand that the coal ash at the Barry Steam Plant is now stored in an unlined lagoon
near the Mobile River, held back by a dike. I also understand that Alabama Power is
proposing to consolidate the coal ash at the site and build another dike system, leaving the
coal ash near the river and storing it unlined under an artificial cap.
14. I have learned about the risks that unlined coal ash storage near rivers presents to the
environment, including persistent leakage of pollutants such as arsenic and other
contaminants into surface waters and groundwater. I am concerned about the effect of this
pollution on water quality in the Delta. I have concerns about the pollution that leaks from
the Plant Barry coal ash disposal site, the impact of this pollution on the natural resources
and fish in the Delta, and the health risks that this pollution imposes on the Delta and those
that use it.
15. The Delta is basically one large river system. At high water levels, sheets of water flow
through the Delta and cover high ground. Anything upstream flows downstream through the
Delta and eventually out to the Gulf. This includes pollution that is generated upstream.
16. Pollution coming down the Mobile River flows throughout the lower Delta. In addition, the
Delta is tidally influenced, and saltwater and freshwater ebb and flow, depending on the
tides, affecting water flow in the Mobile River and throughout the Delta. Pollutants from
upstream eventually settle into the Delta and Mobile Bay.
17. Flooding in the Delta can be severe. From my experience, over the years, flooding in the
Delta has become more frequent and more severe. When there is flooding, the flood waters
flow throughout the Delta. It rains a lot in the Delta and the Mobile area, and the Delta is
near the Gulf. This is an area vulnerable to hurricanes and tropical storms.
18. Flooding in the area of the Barry Steam Plant coal ash storage site is frequent. I have
concerns about what these floods can and will do to the dikes now and those to be built
around the coal ash storage site, and the contaminants in the coal ash storage site.
19. The coal ash at Plant Barry is stored and it is proposed to be stored unlined near the Mobile
River. If the coal ash stored at Plant Barry spilled into the Delta, it would severely harm the
area, including the areas downstream from the Plant Barry coal ash site where I recreate. The
coal ash would be carried by the waters of the Delta or floodwaters of the Delta downstream
and throughout the Delta, in areas where I recreate. It would not be possible to remove all the
coal ash that would be carried throughout the Delta.
2
20. I am concerned about the consequences of a failure of the Plant Barry coal ash storage site. A
breach of the dikes around the Plant Barry coal ash pond would significantly impact my
recreational enjoyment of the area. I believe it would make the fish harvested from Delta
unfit for consumption. It would also reduce my property value, which depends in a large way
upon access to said recreational opportunities.
21. The Barry Steam Plant’s pollution and unlined coal ash storage near the river have
diminished my ability to enjoy the area of the Mobile River around the steam plant.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under the penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and
correct.
25 2022
Executed on September ____,
____________________
Nicholas Williams

Complaint Baykeeper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Baykeeper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-00382-KD-B Document 1 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MOBILE BAYKEEPER, INC., )

this Complaint and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

Alabama Power Company (“Alabama Power”), to permanently store millions of tons of

adopted pursuant to the Act.

impoundment at Plant Barry on a publicly available website. 1 Based on the publicly

disposal site in perpetuity.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND NOTICE

over the parties.

Mobile County, in the Southern District of Alabama.

Protection Agency (“EPA”), and the Alabama Department of Environmental

Management (“ADEM”) notice of the violations specified in this complaint and of

reasonably likely to continue in the future.

in place. Accordingly, its closure plan is not preliminary, speculative, or contingent on

PARTIES AND STANDING

The Association and Its Members

11. Baykeeper is a § 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest organization with members in

the Mobile-Tensaw Delta.

pollutants into the surrounding waters, as well as remaining subject to increased

implemented—causing continued pollution and perpetuating the risks to Baykeeper and

preliminary work to implement this plan.

of water, sediment, or slurry; eliminating infiltration of groundwater and other liquids

Alabama. It is a subsidiary of the Southern Company. Alabama Power is engaged in the

plan violations that give rise to this action.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Technical Amendments to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System,

Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities—Correction of the

achieve each and all of the following performance standard requirements:

a. “Free liquids must be eliminated by removing liquid wastes or solidifying the

remaining wastes and waste residues.” Id. § 257.102(d)(2)(i).

b. The plan must “[p]reclude the probability of future impoundment of water,

sediment, or slurry.” Id. § 257.102(d)(1)(i); and

c. The plan must “[c]ontrol, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent

feasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of

CCR, leachate, or contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters.” Id.

Contamination (Jan. 11, 2022).2

violation of all three key provisions of the CCR Rule.

26. The Rule provides:

The owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment or any lateral

(i) Free liquids must be eliminated by removing liquid wastes or

portion of a waste under ambient temperature and pressure.” 40 C.F.R. § 257.53.

the coal ash.

category of water is in the impoundment, or if the coal ash disposed of in the

final cover system.”

when ash is in contact with groundwater, or any other category of water.

Future Impoundment of Water, Sediment, or Slurry

the coal ash is in contact with water. The Rule provides:

The owner or operator of a CCR unit must ensure that, at a minimum,

(ii) Preclude the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment, or

by causing future impoundment of water, sediment and slurry.

Post-Closure Infiltration and Releases

The owner or operator of a CCR unit must ensure that, at a minimum,

(i) Control, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent feasible, post-

million tons of coal ash from unlined waterfront impoundments in Georgia.

impoundment on the banks of the Mobile River.

Alabama Power’s Polluting Coal Ash in Groundwater and an Unlined Impoundment at

at Plant Barry found that

[a]rsenic was found in groundwater, surface and subsurface soil, and

Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Reports, required by federal CCR

(nine), and TDS (12).

Alabama Power’s Plan to Leave Coal Ash in Groundwater at Plant Barry

continue maintenance of the site after the 30-year requirement.