TVA ST - Knoxville News Sentinel

deems just and proper, as well as Attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 (The Civil
Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976).
State Claims
PENDANT STATE CLAIMS
Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-7 of Count 1 “Federal Claims,” regarding
jurisdiction, venue and Defendants wrongful actions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and hereby
incorporates them herein as fully as if copied verbatim.
A. That on or about December 22, 2008, in Roane County, Tennessee, a
retention pond, filled with ash, heavy metals, including but not limited to “a high level of
arsenic” surrounded by or retained by an earthen dyke, collapsed, and poured profusely
into the nearby residential community destroying thousands of acres. The retention
pond was owned, operated, and supervised by the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The full impact of the breach resulted in a spill of approximately 5.4 Millions
cubic yards of ash, heavy metals, contaminates, surged over the collapsed dam onto
adjacent properties. As a result of the breach, real property, possible health issues, as
exemplified by recent dead fish, exist.
As such, by and through Counsels, Plaintiffs file this Complaint and in support of
this Complaint would allege:
A1. That TVA, its directors, supervisors, agents and supporting staff owed a
duty to the citizens near or adjacent to the area to supervise, inspect, and control the
stability, safety and efficiency of the earthen dam containing millions of cubic yards of
coal-ash in a sludge.
A2. That agency officials, including but not limited to the Board of Directors for
TVA, the CEO of TVA, other officers and executives, on site supervisors and other
agents, failed to properly design, inspect, monitor and maintain the retention pond
dikes, their initial design and current stability and knew or should have known, of the
dangers of failure, breach or collapse of the structures. No preventative or remedial or
corrective measures were taken by Defendants, despite their knowledge of the risks
posed to health and public safety by the unsafe earth berm supportive structure.
A3. The Defendants were negligent in designing, constructing, maintaining and
inspecting the retention pond and its supporting structures.
A4. The Defendants were negligent in failing to warn surrounding residents and
property owners of the inherent dangers of the retention pond and its supporting
structures.
A5. The breach and failure of the dike [support structures in general]
surrounding the retention pond constitutes negligence per se. It should not have
happened. Climate conditions in the area were reasonably foreseeable and
predictable, and It was reasonably foreseeable to the Defendants that the structures
might and could collapse, causing major damage, and proper actions were not taken to