Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ Project No.: 0172.07.005.504 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1 _ of __1

_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 3/17/2010 Time: 10:25 am EST

Company Name: USEC PDGDP Contact Name: Chris Travis

Phone No.: 270-441-6000

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group

GENERAL SUBJECT : PCB concentrations reported to DMR in 2008

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I called USEC PDGDP on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 to discuss DMR data with Brian Bell. I left a message with office personnel identifying myself and explaining the type of information I was looking for. She told me that she would leave my message with Chris Travis, but t hat he was out of the office until the week of March

22.

On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, Mr. Travis returned my phone call . I briefly described the 304(m) annual review

and how we obtain DMR data; I then asked Mr. Travis about the PCB concentrations reported for Outfalls 002, 011, and 012 reported to DMR in 2008.

Mr. Travis stated that USEC operates all processes withi n the facility; however, the Department of Energy own s the land. He stated that 99 percent of PCB concentrations are non-detect, and that any reports are legacy contamination. Mr. Travis explained that the facility i s located on about 500 acres of land with large switch yards. The outfalls discussed are located on these switc h yards and any PCB concentrations picked up from these outfalls are not a result of the processes occurr ing in the facility. Mr. Travis stated that any discharges specifically from USEC, where PCBs are detected, are t reated by carbon filtration prior to discharge.

Mr. Travis stated that USEC does not have a permit limi t for PCBs. He stated that they monitor these outfalls for PCBs once a month, by grab samples. I asked him if h e could confirm the PCB concentrations that we have

listed in the 2008 data. All data matched. He stated that th e detection limit for PCBs is 0.17 μg/L, and that any months where a value is not reported was the result of a below detection limit result.

I called Mr. Travis back on Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 8 am t o follow-up with some of the information he provided during our previous conversation. I asked Mr. Travis to pr ovide the description of Outfalls 002, 011, and 012. Mr. Travis stated that the facility is located on 500 acres of land and that these outfalls are storm wate r outfalls. He explained that once any process water (usual ly once-through cooling water) passes through the underground pipe system, it is discharged into these large d itch areas (about 40-50 acres), these ditches/creeks are Outfalls 002, 011, and 012. He stated that the sample point is usually somewhere in the ditch area. Mr. Travis also explained that these outfalls only discharge during a rain event. He stated that they are fitted with lift stations in order to help pump the storm water through the d itches. During a non-rain event, the water is recirculated and treated for chlorine, before being disch arged again to Outfall 012 during a rain even. He stated that the flows for these outfalls highly depend on the a mount of rainfall. Mr. Travis also explained that anyNeed to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ PCBs picked up from these outfalls are from soil mobiliz ation. Mr. Travis again emphasized that any PCBs picked up by the facility are treated by carbon filtratio n before discharging to avoid any issues or future permitting requirements.