Richard Kinch August 25, 2009 10:00 a.m. meeting EPA and representatives of th e electric utility industry.

In attendance were:

Name Organization Email Address

Richard Kinch EPA kinch.richard@epa.gov Quin Shea EEI qshea@eei.org

John McManus AEP jmmcmanus@aep.com Donald McCloskey PSEG Donald.mccloskey@pseg.com

Jim Kohler EPA kohler.james@epa.gov Jim Meiers Duke Energy jim.meiers@duke-energy.com Ray Harry Southern Company lrharry@southernco.com

Jim Roewer USWAG jim.roewer@uswag.org

Matt Hale EPA/ORCR hale.matt@epa.gov

The nature of the discussions was as follows:

Matt Hale gave a brief summary of EPA’s effort s to assess dam safety, and made the following points:

• We are in the process of ge tting the 104(e) survey res ponses posted on the internet.

• EPA has received initial contract or reports on the 22 site visits . (Richard Kinch indicated that we were awaiting comments from 4 st ates and 7 companies; we understood from industry representatives that ac tions have been taken to addr ess deficiencies identified; and that they are concerned with pos ting the inspection reports without EPA acknowledging corrective steps ha ve already been taken.)

• Administrator Jackson was interviewed by 60 minutes. (Jim Roewer indicated that he was also interviewed.)

• EPA intends to issue a proposed rule by the e nd of the calendar year. The rule will have a lead proposal and take comme nt on alternative paths. Th e package should get to OMB in early October.

• There is a Federalism issue due to state and local government owners hip of utilities, and EPA will be contacting such organizations in the September timeframe, including attending a September ECOS meeting in Montana.

Industry asked a question about what other fe deral agencies will be interested in the rulemaking. Matt Hale indicated that process wi ll largely take place when the rule goes to OMB, and he mentioned the USDA is doing research on the beneficial use of coal ash and is interested in this rulemaking.Industry asked about whether the proposal w ould address non-utilities and minefilling. Matt

Hale indicated that these are issues we are looki ng at in the regulatory process, but there was nothing further he could say since there isn’t a definitive decision.

Industry described their meeting with the Admi nistrator as involving 7 CEOs and EEI. The meeting focused on climate change issues and included mention of coal ash and a suggestion by the Administrator that there should be a fo llow-up meeting on that to pic. The industry and EPA discussed having quarterly meetings on climate change and other pertinent issues.

Jim Roewer indicated the industry was not opposed to regulations, but that use of Subtitle D will be protective without harming beneficial us e, and would take advantage of existing state regulations. He also mentioned that states have expressed sim ilar views and that Subtitle C

would increase cost without benefit. EPA was then given a listing of letters sent to EPA:

• 21 letters from states

• 2 letters from DOT/ Highway Groups

• 2 letters from State Public Utility Commissions, and

• 10 letters from Industry to EPA

Industry mentioned a recent meeting with th e OSWER AA where various parties indicated even contingent management under Subtitle C would be detrimental. They also said that even a proposal regulating CCR under Subti tle C would have a dampening effect on beneficial use. They then asked whether th ese letters and meetings convinced EPA of the damage Subtitle C would do to beneficial use. Matt indicated that th e effect on beneficial use is hard to predict, there are a wide range of views, and that some uses don’t necessarily

look like beneficial use such as the Gambrill’s site.

Jim Roewer indicated a handful of states prohibit use if it is a hazardous waste, that stigma is real, and utilities are concer ned about long-term liability.

Industry asked what has changed in the last 9 years that would s upport a change in direction.

Matt Hale responded that the 2000 determination identified pote ntial issues. We have found additional damage cases, the revised risk as sessment shows higher risks particularly for surface impoundments, there are rece nt concerns with sites like Gambrills and Battlefield, we didn’t previously look at catastrophic failure like TVA, and while practices are getting better, there are still gaps in state programs like a ddressing on-site waste management and surface impoundments. Matt Hale also stressed that we don’t want to adversely impact acceptable beneficial uses. Subtitle C does provide for federal enforcement and a permit program which provides for oversight to make decisions on acceptable groundwater monitoring well placement and implementation of other regulatory pr ovisions. With regard for calls to have a municipal solid waste like rule, the statute give s us specific authority to deal with municipal

solid waste that would not be ava ilable for other Subtitle D wastes.Jim Roewer raised the question of didn’t we ha ve the same kind of concerns with regard to CKD. Matt Hale indicated the CKD proposal wa sn’t very popular. Roewer emphasized the point that he agreed wi th marketers regarding the impact of Subtitle C on beneficial use.

Industry asked if there were additional material s they could provide that would be helpful, for example their thoughts on al ternative federal enforcement mechanisms to Subtitle C.

Matt Hale indicted that EPA would consider re gulatory suggestions th ey might provide and that such information would be plac ed in the docket for the rulemaking.

Richard Kinch suggested that updated inform ation on groundwater monitoring trends at existing facilities would be us eful, as well as any informa tion that have on why waste management practices may not reflect gaps that appear to be in certain state programs. Industry indicated that they have provided so me groundwater data in response to an ICR

from OECA.

Industry mentioned that Subtitle C also caused them to have concerns with regard to the reliability of electric power generation. It was no ted that EPRI is studying this issue further.

Matt Hale briefly talked about minefilling and the NAS report – indicating that NAS said coal ash placement was useful and acknowledging that others say it is beneficial use.

Industry asked whether a Subtitle C designati on would result in increased liability under

CERCLA. Matt Hale did not beli eve that would be the case.

Jim Roewer mentioned the need to label some of the rail cars coming out of TVA, and expressed concern about long term use of ash a nd regulatory disposal is sues after the end of

beneficial use.