Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) meeting with

the Large Public Power Council (LPPC)

10/19/2010

Attendees

Name Affiliation

Jay Hudson Santee Cooper/LPPC

Mitch Bernstein Van Ness Feldman/LPPC

Janet Anderson Van Ness Feldman/LPPC

Brian Moeck Platte River Power Authority

Ron Asche Nebraska Public Power District

Margaret Guerriero US EPA/OSWER/ORCR

Suzanne Rudzinski US EPA/OSWER/ORCR

Steve Souders US EPA/OSWER/ORCR

LPPC is an organization of 24 of the nation’s l argest locally owned not

- for

- profit electric power

systems.

LPPC member companies generate electricity from solar, wind, landfill methane, hydroelectric

plants, and fossil fuels.

LPPC member companies are committed to complying with environmental protect ion

requirements.

LPPC members store coal ash dry in landfills and wet in impoundments. Some only store ash

dry in landfills.

In the past, up to 95% of Santee Cooper’s ash was sold for beneficial uses (cement, concrete,

wallboard). Less ash is currently being sold due to economic conditions.

LPPC members prefer the Subtitle D option over Subtitle C and the subprime D option over the

Subtitle D option.

LPPC members are concerned about stigma under a Subtitle C option. Subtitle C will suppress

the beneficial use market for ash and depress ash prices.

Santee Cooper already seeing the effects of stigma with competing product used in lightweight

masonry blocks.

ORCR: It would be useful to EPA if industry would provide data regarding stigma rather than

anecdotal information.Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) does not sell their ash since they use low

- sulfur coal

which does not provide ash with the properties desired for many beneficial uses. NPPD stores

ash in landfills. All new landfi lls are lined and have leachate collection systems.

Platte River Power Authority sends ash to a surface impoundment (SI). The ash is later removed

from the SI and stored in a landfill.

Combined effects of all EPA rules (air, water, solid waste) for elec tric utilities will have a

significant impact on utilities. All these EPA rules will make decision making difficult with

respect to whether to comply or stop generating electricity. Air requirements will require NPPD

to expend $1.2 billion for new scrubb er equipment.

RCRA section 3005J will result in all SIs being closed regardless of whether there are

environmental concerns. SIs that pose no risk will also be closed.

EPA’s record of damages from releases from SIs (3% of the 584 SIs) does not warrant

r etrofitting or closing all SIs.

It is unfair to judge state programs that were developed without a Subtitle D framework from

EPA. States should be given an opportunity to develop regulations with the proposed Subtitle D

framework and show that they can a dequately implement and enforce their regulations.

If EPA chooses the Subtitle C option, there should be a variance provision to allow operators an

opportunity to demonstrate that existing SIs are environmentally protective and retrofitting or

closing is not necessary. Many SIs constructed between 1985 and 1995 have had no

environmental impact.

Subtitle C provides seven years for the closure of SIs

– five years to operate and two years to

close. Subtitle D provides five years for the closure of SIs. Assuming two years for closure,

Subtitle D provides three years to operate. Three years is not a dequate time to permit a new

disposal unit. There needs to be flexibility.

ORCR: Would financial assurance be a viable option to address potential problems from SIs that

aren’t retrofitted?

LPPC: Financial assurance would be difficult to obtain under the current economic climate.