)

OCT13

2009

R09-21

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

(Rulemakin

iPArpI

Board

)

)

)

7

8

Proceedings

held

on September

29, 2009,

at

8:36

a.m.,

at

the

Crawford

County

Courthouse

Annex,

100

Douglas

Street,

9

Robinson,

Illinois,

before

Timothy

J. Fox,

Hearing

Officer.

10

11

12

13

Reported

By:

Karen

Waugh,

CSR,

RPR

CSR

License

No:

084-003688

KEEFE

REPORTING

COMPPNY

11 North

44th

Street

Belleville,

IL

62226

(618)

277—0190

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

2

3

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

4

PNEREN

ASH POND

CLOSURE

RULES

(HUTSONVILLE

POWER

5

STATION):

PROPOSED

35

ILL.

ADM.

CODE

840.101

6

THROUGH

840.144

14

15

16

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

APPEARPNCES

2

3

Board

Members

present:

4

Board

Member

Andrea

S. Moore

Board

Member

Thomas E.

Johnson

5

6

Board Staff

Members

present:

7

Anand

Rao

8

9

10

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

BY:

Mr. H.

Mark

Wight

11

Assistant

Counsel

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

12

1021 North

Grand

Avenue

East

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

13

On

behalf

of

the Illinois

EPA

14

15

SCHIFF

HARDIN

LLP

BY:

Mr.

Joshua

R. More

16

Attorney

at Law

6600 Sears

Tower

17

Chicago,

Illinois

60606

On behalf

of Ameren

Energy

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2

Keefe Reporting

Company

---

1

EXHIBITS

2

NUMBER

PAGE

INTRODUCED

PAGE

ENTERED

3

Hearing

Exhibit

No. 1

17

18

Hearing

Exhibit

No. 2

19

20

4

Hearing

Exhibit No.

3

19

20

Hearing Exhibit

No.

4

19

20

5

Hearing

Exhibit

No.

5

19

20

Hearing Exhibit

No.

6

19

20

6

Hearing

Exhibit

No. 7

20

20

Hearing Exhibit

No.

8

20

20

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

3

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

PROCEEDINGS

2

(September

29, 2009;

8:36

a.m.)

3

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Good morning,

4

everyone,

and welcome

to

this

Illinois

Pollution

Control

5

Board

hearing.

I appreciate

your timeliness

in arriving

6

and

being

prepared

so

that

we may

begin

at

the

time

of

7

8:30.

My

name

is

Tim

Fox,

and I’m

the

hearing

officer

8

for

this

rulemaking

proceeding,

which

is entitled

“Aaueren

9

Ash Pond

Closure

Rules,

paren,

Hutsonville Power

Station,

10

closed

paren,

Proposed

35

Illinois

Administrative

Code

11

Sections

840.101

through

840.144.”

12

I

certainly

want

to

introduce

--

present

today

13

also from

the Board

at my

immediate

right

is

Board

Member

14

Andrea

S.

Moore,

who is

the lead

board

member

in this

15

rulemaking. At

my

far left

is

Board

Member

Thomas

E.

16

Johnson,

and also

present

at

my

immediate

left is

Anand

17

Rao

of the

Board’s

technical

staff.

18

The

board

docket

number

for

this rulemaking

is

19

R09-21.

To

review

very briefly

the

procedural

history,

20

Ameren

Energy

Generating

Company

filed

the

original

21

rulemaking

proposal

on

May 9

of 2009,

and

in

an order

22

dated

June

18,

2009,

the

Board

accepted

the

proposal

for

23

hearing,

granted

Ameren’s

request

for

a waiver

of

24

specified

filing

requirements

but

denied

Ameren’s

motion

4

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

for expedited

review.

In

a

hearing

officer

order

dated

2

June

30

of 2009,

this

hearing

was

scheduled,

and

it is

3

the

one now

scheduled

to take

place

in this

docket.

4

For

the

hearing

today,

the Board

on

August

18,

5

2009,

received

prefiled

testimony

on

behalf

of

meren

by

6

Mr.

Michael

Bollinger,

who

is present

here today.

Also

7

on August

18,

the same

date,

the

Board

received

from

the

8

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

prefiled

9

amendments

to Ameren’s

original

language

and prefiled

10

testimony

in

support

of

those amendments

from

the

11

following

persons:

Mr. William

Buscher,

Mr.

Lynn

12

Dunaway,

Mr. Richard

Cobb,

Mr.

Christian

Liebman

and

13

Mr.

Stephen

Nightingale,

all of

whom

are present

here

14

with

Mr.

Wight

as

the Agency’s

counsel.

15

On September

1, then,

of

2009,

the

Board

received

16

prefiled

questions

directed

in

part

to Ameren

and

in

part

17

to the

Agency

by

Ms.

Traci

Barkley

on

behalf

of

Prairie

18

Rivers

Network,

and

Ms. Barkley

is

present

here

as well

19

this morning.

On June

—— excuse

me.

On

September

22

of

20

2009, then,

the

Board

received

a

joint

statement

by

both

21

Ameren

and

the Agency

in

support

of

proposed

revisions

22

they

had agreed

upon

which

were

based

on the

Agency’s

23

language

filed

on August

18. On

the same

date,

both

24

Ameren

and the

Agency

filed

written

responses

to

the

5

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

C

1

questions

that had

been prefiled

by

Ms. Barkley

on

behalf

2

of Prairie

Rivers

Network.

Other

than

as I have just

3

mentioned,

no other

participant

has prefiled

testimony,

4

questions

based

upon it or answers

to them,

and

those

5

will form

the heart

of our procedure

here this

morning.

6

The proceeding

is

governed

by

the

Board’s

7

procedural

rules,

and under

Section

102.426

of

those

8

rules,

all

information

that

is

relevant

and that is

not

9

repetitious

or

privileged will

be

admitted

into the

10

record. Please

note

that any questions

that

are posed

11

today either

by the

board

members

or

by the Board’s

staff

12

are

intended

only

to assist

the Board in

developing

a

13

clear

and

complete

record and

are

—— for

the Board’s

14

decision and

do

not

reflect

any

sort

of prejudgment

or

15

predetermination

of

the

proposal.

16

In

speaking

off

the

record before

our hearing

17

began

with

the participants

on

procedural issues

relating

18

to

the order

of hearing,

we will begin

with the

prefiled

19

joint

proposal

that I referred

to

from both

Ameren

and

20

the Agency.

If

either Ameren

or

the

Agency has

a brief

21

summary or

introduction

that they

would like

to offer

in

22

support of that

joint

proposal,

we

may

certainly

do

that

23

at

the top of

the hearing.

I should

note

also

that

under

24

the

Board’s

procedural

rules,

that

proposal

and

all of

6

Keefe Reporting

Company

---

1

the

other

prefiled

testimony,

questions

and answers

will

2

be admitted

as

if

read.

3

Once

we’ve

received

any summary

that

either

4

meren

or

the

Agency

wishes

to

offer,

we

can proceed

to

5

Ms.

Barkley,

who

has

indicated

that

she

may

have

some

6

follow—up

questions

based

on

the

prefiled

answers

that

7

she

has

received

from

either

aueren

or

the

Agency.

Then

8

we

will

turn

to

questions

that

--

regarding

the

joint

9

proposal

from

any

participant

who

did

not

prefile

them.

10

I

should

note

at

this

point

that

right

inside

the

door

11

there

is

a

sheet

and

a

pen

so

that

anyone

who

does

wish

12

to

offer

testimony

this

morning

and

who

has

not

prefiled

13

it

may

indicate

that

they

would

like

to

do so.

Once

we

14

have

finished

with

any

follow-up

questions

based

on

the

15

joint

proposal,

we

can

turn

to

any

witness

who

did

not

16

prefile

but

would

like

to

testify

today,

and

then

the

17

Board

does

have

some

questions

on

the

proposal,

the

joint

18

proposal,

after

which,

as

time

allows,

we

can receive

any

19

public

comments

that

anyone

would

wish

to

offer.

20

Although

many

of you

have

participated

in

a

21

number

of these

proceedings,

I know

it

will

help

our

22

court

reporter

if

you

speak

as

loudly

and

as

clearly

as

23

possible.

I

don’t

think

our acoustics

are

bad

here

today

24

or

that

we’ll

have

much

difficulty

hearing

one

another,

7

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

but

if

you

would

avoid

speaking

at

the

same

time

as

any

2

other

person,

I’m

sure

that

her

task

will

be

much

easier.

3

Any

questions

procedurally

before

we

get

4

underway?

Very

good.

As

I

indicated,

Mr. Wight

on

5

behalf

of

the

Agency

and

Mr.

More

on

behalf

of

Ameren,

if

6

you

wish

to

offer

a

brief

summary

or

statement,

it

7

certainly

is

in

order

to do

so,

and

we

could

defer

to

the

8

two

of

you

on any

order

you

might

like

to

follow.

9

MR.

MORE:

Thank

you,

Hearing

Officer

Fox,

10

Board

Member

Moore,

Board

Member

Johnson

and

Mr.

Rao.

My

11

name

is

Josh

More.

I’m

here

on

behalf

of

meren

Energy

12

Generating

Company.

Also

on

behalf

of

Ameren

is

Michael

13

Bollinger,

principal

environmental

scientist

in

the

14

environmental

services

department

of

Ameren

Services

15

company.

We

appreciate

the opportunity

to

be

here

and

16

appreciate

the

time

the Board

has

taken

to

hold

this

17

hearing

in

Crawford

County.

We

also

thank

the

Agency

for

18

being

here

and

for

working

with

meren

so

closely

on

this

19

proposal

to

resolve

outstanding

issues

and

arrive

at

20

language

agreeable

to

both

parties.

21

Aineren’s

initial

proposal

grew

out

of

the

need

to

22

have

some

regulatory

certainty

regarding

the

in-place

23

closure

of

ash

pond

D

at

the

Hutsonville

Power

Station.

24

While

in

operation,

ash

pond

D

was

permitted

by

the

8

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

Bureau

of

Water

as

a

pollution

control

facility.

The

2

operating

permit

and

the current

landfill

regulations,

3

however,

do not

address

closure

of

the

ash

pond.

4

Therefore,

meren

at

the

direction

of the

Board

filed

a

5

site—specific

rule

to

govern

the closure

of

ash pond

D.

6

The current

rule

before

the

Board

is

a joint

7

proposal

drafted

by meren

and

the Agency.

On

May

19,

8

2009,

Ameren

filed

a proposal

for

site-specific

rule.

On

9

August

18,

2009,

the

Agency

filed

proposed

revisions

to

10

Ameren’s

proposal,

along

with

prefiled

testimony

of

11

several

agency

staff from

the Bureaus

of Water

and

Land

12

in support

of

the Agency’s

proposed

revisions. The

13

Agency’s

revisions

endorsed

the closure

approach

proposed

14

by Ameren

but

revised

the

rule

to conform

to

the Agency’s

15

procedural

and

reporting

requirements

and

preferred

16

mechanism

for

defining

applicable

groundwater

quality

17

standards

both

on and

off-site.

18

Following

the filing

of

the Agency’s

proposed

19

amendments,

Ameren

reached

out to

the Agency

and

20

initiated

contact

and

a

series

of

discussions

were

held

21

to

determine

if

the

outstanding

differences

could

be

22

reduced.

As

a

result,

the

parties

have

reached

a

23

resolution

on a

conceptual

framework

for

closing

ash

pond

24

D and

have

filed proposed

regulatory

language

reflecting

9

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

(

1

that joint

agreement.

While

the

proposal

has

changed

2

since

the

initial

filing,

the

concepts

and the

general

3

approach

have

not.

Therefore,

the

TSD

filed

by Ameren

4

supports

the joint

proposal.

5

The

proposal

creates

a

new

Subpart

j

specific

to

6

surface

impoundments

not

only

at

the suggestion

of

the

7

Board,

but

also

because

the

landfill

regulations

in

8

Subpart

i

specifically

exclude

surface

impoundments.

9

Unlike

coal

conibustion

waste

landfills,

ash ponds

were

10

designed,

constructed

and

operated

as water

pollution

11

control

facilities,

not

as

landfills.

12

The

record

demonstrates

that the

proposed

rule

13

language

as amended

by the

parties

is protective

of

human

14

health

and

the

environment.

The

proposed

rule

sets

fixed

15

deadlines

by

which

Aineren

must

proceed

through

closure

16

activities

and

strict

design

and

construction

standards

17

for implementation

of the

final

closure

and groundwater

18

management

systems.

The

rule

sets

comprehensive

19

requirements

for groundwater

monitoring

and

data

analysis

20

throughout

the

post—closure

care

period.

Moreover,

all

21

plans

and

reports

are

subject

to

IEPA review

and

22

approval.

Overall,

the

selected

closure

system

is

the

23

most

protective

combination

of closure

alternatives

24

investigated

that

is

economically

reasonable

and

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

(

1

technically

feasible

for

Ameren

to

implement

in closing

2

ashpondD.

3

With

that,

Mr.

Bollinger

is

here today

to

answer

4

any

questions

the

Board

may

have

or

the public

may

have,

5

and

at

the appropriate

time,

we

ask that

you

swear

him

6

in.

7

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very

good.

Thank

you,

8

Mr.

More.

Mr.

Wight,

did you

have

any

summary

or

9

introduction

to offer?

10

MR. WIGHT:

Yes, just

briefly.

11

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Please

go

ahead.

12

MR.

WIGHT:

Okay.

Good

morning.

My

name

is

13

Mark

Wight.

The

last name

is

spelled

W-I-G-H-T.

I’m

an

14

assistant

counsel

with

the

Illinois

EPA.

I’ve

been

with

15

the EPA

for a little

over

17

years,

mostly

with

the

16

Bureau

of

Land.

Also here

today

on

behalf

of the

Agency

17

are

five

witnesses.

All

the witnesses

have

prefiled

18

written

testimony

and

will

be involved

in some

way in

the

19

implementation

of

Subpart

A

of Part

840.

The Agency

20

witnesses

are, on

my immediate

left,

Rick Cobb,

who is

21

deputy

manager

of

the division

of

public

water

supplies

22

in the

Bureau

of

Water;

on

my far

right,

Steve

23

Nightingale.

Steve

is the

manager

of

the

permit

section

24

in the

Bureau

of Land.

Next

to

Steve is

Chris

Liebman.

11

Keefe Reporting

Company

---

(

1

Chris

is

the

manager

of the

permit

section/solid

waste

2

unit

in

the Bureau

of Land.

On my

immediate

right

is

3

Bill

Buscher.

Bill

is

the

manager

of the

hydrogeology

4

and compliance

unit

in the

groundwater

section

of

the

5

division

of public

water

supplies

in

the Bureau

of

Water.

6

And to

Bill’

s right

is

Lynn

Dunaway.

Lynn is

an

7

environmental

protection

specialist

in

the

hydrogeology

8

and

compliance

unit

of the

groundwater

section

of

the

9

division

of public

water supplies.

10

Just

a housekeeping

measure

here.

I’d like

to

11

point

out

to any participants

that

we

have brought

hard

12

copies

of documents

filed

by

the Agency.

Those

are

13

placed

on

a table

in

the back.

They

include

the

Agency’s

14

proposed

amendments

to

Arneren’s

original

proposal,

the

15

prefiled

testimony

of

each

of the

Agency’s

witnesses,

the

16

Agency’s

responses

to

the

prefiled

questions

of

Prairie

17

Rivers Network,

the joint

statement

in

support

of

18

proposed

revisions

filed

by

Arneren

and

the

Agency

on

19

September

22

and

the

proposed

revisions

to

the

Agency’s

20

proposed

amendments

filed

jointly

by Arneren

and

the

21

Agency.

Copies

of

all

those

are

available

at the

back.

22

It looks

like

we’ll

have

plenty,

but

if

we

should

run

out

23

for

any

reason,

feel free

to contact

me

and

I

can

provide

24

copies,

or

you can

download

them

at

the Board’s

web

site.

12

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

The

proposed

revisions

filed

jointly

by

meren

2

and

the Agency

were

described

in

the

joint

statement

3

accompanying

the

filing

and

to some

extent

in

?meren’s

4

opening

remarks.

The Agency

briefly

notes

that

while

5

there

are

some

substantive

changes

from

the

Agency’s

6

proposed

amendments

to

Ameren’s

original

proposal,

the

7

majority

of

the

changes

were

for

clarification

and/or

8

consolidation

of

the Agency’s

proposed

amendments

filed

9

on August

18.

Substantive

changes

from

the

Agency’

s

10

proposed

amendments

include

the

following:

11

Section

840.116

(a) (3),

where

the

on-site

institutional

12

control

provision

was revised

to

provide

flexibility

for

13

the use

of

instruments

that

may

be

developed

in

the

14

future,

and

there

is

also

an acknowledgment

that

Aineren

15

may

continue

to

use

on—site

wells

for

potable

water

as

16

long

as

the

wells

remain

fit

for

human

consumption

in

17

accordance

with

accepted

water

supply

principles.

This

18

language

parallels

the

definition

of

potable

in

the

19

Environmental

Protection

Act

at

Section

3.340.

20

There’s

also

a

substantive

change

in

21

Section

840.118

(a) (2)

(A)

(ii),

which

now

provides

that

22

compliance with

the

off-site

groundwater

quality

standard

23

for

the

lower

zone

of

the

underlying

aquifer

requires

in

24

part

a

demonstration

of

no

increasing

trend

rather

than

a

13

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

C

1

demonstration

of decreasing

trend.

A

small

change

in

2

Section

840.120,

which

now

provides

that

meren

will

3

conduct

an additional

four

quarters

of

confirmatory

4

sampling

and

analysis

once it

achieves

compliance

with

5

the off-site

groundwater

quality

standards

and

6

discontinues

operation

of the

groundwater

collection

7

trench.

8

Section

840.124(d)

(3) has

a change

in

which

the

9

maximum

final

slope

constructed

with coal

ash is

revised

10

from

3

percent

to

5

percent;

and

finally,

11

Section

840.152,

the RCRA

provision,

which

is revised

12

from

a

provision

that

works

by operation

of

the

law

to

a

13

conflict

of laws

provision

in

providing

guidance

to

the

14

Board

or

courts

in certain

contested

cases.

In addition,

15

this

RCRA

provision

also

provides

a basis

for

the Agency

16

to argue

in an

application

to the

federal

government

for

17

delegation

or

approval

that

nothing

in Subpart

A

directly

18

conflicts

with

applicable

federal

rules.

19

Notwithstanding

these changes,

the

bulk

of

the

20

Agency’s

prefiled

testimony

remains

accurate,

although

in

21

some instances

specific

citations

may have

changed

22

because

of

reorganization

of the

proposal.

Where

the

23

substance

of

the

proposal

has

changed

from the

Agency’s

24

proposed

amendments

of August

18,

the

joint

statement

and

14

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

the

agreed

revisions

are

intended

to

be

the guides

to

2

these

changes.

With

these

provisions,

any

3

inconsistencies

with

the

Agency’s

prefiled

testimony

are

4

superseded

by

the agreed

proposal

itself

and the

5

descriptions

of

the

changes

contained

in the

joint

6

statement.

7

Last

but

not

least,

.meren

and

the Agency

were

8

able

to

reach

agreement

on

the

proposal

following

a

9

series

of

discussions

initiated

by

meren

after

the

10

Agency

filed

its

proposed

amendments

on

August

18.

As

a

11

starting

place

for

discussions,

Ameren

accepted

key

12

elements

of

the

Agency’s

proposed

amendments,

including

13

direct

administrative

oversight

and

on-site

or

14

off-site

--

on-site

and

off-site

groundwater

quality

15

standards

based

or

referencing

the

Board’s

groundwater

16

quality

standard

rules

at

35

Illinois

Administrative

Code

17

620.

From

there,

several

related

details

were

negotiated

18

to

the

resolution

found

in

the

agreed

proposal

for

——

19

filed

jointly.

The

Agency

acknowledges

and appreciates

20

the

spirit

of

cooperation

in

which

meren

approached

the

21

task,

and

in

particular

we’d

like

to thank

Susan

Knowles

22

and

Mike

Bollinger

of

Ameren

and outside

counsel

Josh

23

More.

With

that,

we’re

ready

to proceed

as

well.

24

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Thank

you

very

much,

15

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

C

1

Mr. Wight.

Why

don’t

we

-- You

used

the

term

2

housekeeping,

which

seems

apt.

Why don’t

we

have

our

3

court

reporter

swear

in as

a panel

Mr.

Bollinger

on

4

behalf

of

iueren

and

Mr. Cobb,

Mr.

Buscher,

Mr.

Dunaway,

5

Mr.

Liebman

and

Mr.

Nightingale

so that

when we

are

6

absolutely

ready

to

do so,

we

can

proceed

to

the

7

follow—up

questions

or

any

other

questions.

Is the

court

8

reporter

ready

to

do that?

Very

good.

Please

go ahead.

9

(Witnesses

sworn.)

10

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Thank

you

very

much.

11

Mr.

Wight,

you

had

referred

to

a number

of

documents

that

12

you had

brought

copies

of.

In

the interest

of

a

complete

13

hearing

record,

are

those documents

copies

of which

you

14

would

wish

to move

into

the record

as hearing

exhibits?

15

MR. WIGHT:

Yes, we

certainly

could.

I

16

noticed

that

the joint

statement

and proposal

were

17

entered

into the

record

as

public

comments,

and

it

18

probably

would be

a

good

idea

to go

ahead

and admit

them

19

as

exhibits,

and we’re

also

prepared

to introduce

our

20

testimony

as exhibits

with

foundation

if that’s

required

21

by the

rules.

22

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Why don’t

we

do

this.

23

We

could

entertain

a motion

to

admit

those

as hearing

24

exhibits,

and certainly

the foundation

is included,

the

16

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

(

1

CVs,

resumes and

other

data

that

ought to provide

that,

2

and

certainly those

have been

filed

with

the Board and

3

posted

to its web

site and is

capable of public

review

4

for

some time now.

If

you

have copies

that

you can

5

submit

and have me

mark, we can

certainly

entertain

a

6

motion, and,

Mr.

More,

I don’t mean

to

look

over

your

7

shoulder,

so to speak,

but it appears

you have some

8

companion

documents that

you might

wish

to make the

9

subject

of

a

motion as well

for a complete

record.

10

MR. MORE:

Yes, and

I

would

just

note in

11

your opening

you

commented

that

all

the

testimony

was

12

going to be admitted

as

if

read.

13

HEARING

OFFICER FOX:

As if read,

and

that’s

14

by

operation

of the

Board’s

procedural

rules,

and

this

is

15

intended, as

I said, simpiy

to

provide

a

complete

record

16

for

the hearing

in the form of

exhibits.

17

MR. MORE:

That’s fine.

18

HEARING

OFFICER FOX:

If

you have documents,

19

I’d

certainly

entertain

a motion, Mr. More,

and mark

20

those

with appropriate

numbers.

21

MR. MORE:

I move

to have admitted

as

22

Exhibit

1

prefiled

testimony of Michael

Bollinger.

23

HEARING

OFFICER FOX:

And

did you have

any

24

additional

documents that

you wish

to make

subject

to the

17

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

motion?

2

MR.

MORE:

I

don’t.

3

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very

good.

Thank

you

4

for

providing

a copy.

The

motion

before

the

Board

by

5

Mr. More

on behalf

of

Ameren

is to

admit

as

Hearing

6

Exhibit

No. 1

the prefiled

testimony

of Michael

7

Bollinger,

which

was filed

with

the Board

on

August

18.

8

Is

there

any

objection

to

the motion

to admit

it as

9

Exhibit

No.

1? Neither

seeing

nor

hearing

any,

the

10

motion

is

granted,

Mr.

More,

and this

will

be

admitted

as

11

Hearing

Exhibit

No.

1.

And,

Mr.

Wight,

without

meaning

12

to

rush

you,

we would

be

ready

for

any

motion

you

might

13

wish

to

bring

before

the Board.

14

MR.

WIGHT:

I am

ready.

15

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very

good.

16

MR. WIGHT:

Must

we

do these

individually

or

17

may

we

do

them

jointly,

the

testimony?

18

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Individually

would

be

19

the

clearest,

although

slower,

so

we would

have

unique

20

nuitibers,

of

course,

for each

of the

separate

documents.

21

MR.

WIGHT:

Okay.

First

of

all,

I’d

move

22

that the

testimony

of

Richard

P.

Cobb be

admitted

to

the

23

record

as

if read

and marked

as

an exhibit.

24

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

And

that

would

be

18

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

(

1

Exhibit

No.

2?

2

MR.

WIGHT:

Yes.

3

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very

good.

4

MR. WIGHT:

I’d

also

move

that the

testimony

5

of

Stephen

F.

Nightingale

be

marked

as

Exhibit

3 and

6

admitted

to the

record

as

if

read.

7

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very

good.

Mr.

Wight,

8

thank you

very

much.

9

MR.

WIGHT:

I

move

that

the

testimony

of

10

Christian

J.

Liebman

be

marked

as

Exhibit

4

and

admitted

11

to

the

record as

if read.

12

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Thank

you,

Mr.

Wight.

13

MR.

WIGHT:

I move

that

the

testimony

of

14

William

E.

Buscher

be marked

as Exhibit

5

and admitted

to

15

the

record

as if

read.

16

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very

good.

17

MR. WIGHT:

And

I’d

also

move

that

the

18

testimony

of Lynn

E.

Dunaway

be marked

as

Exhibit

6 and

19

entered

into

the

record

as

if

read.

20

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very

good.

21

MR.

WIGHT:

I

also

have

copies

of

the

joint

22

statement.

I’ll

give

Mr.

More

an

opportunity

to

observe

23

it. Okay.

I’d

like

to move

that the

joint

statement

in

24

support

of proposed

revisions

filed

by Ameren

and

the

19

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

(

1

Agency

be

marked

as Exhibit

7 --

2

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very

good.

Thank

you.

3

MR.

WIGHT:

-- and

moved

into

the

record.

4

And

finally,

I’d also

move

that the

joint

proposal

of

5

Ameren

and the

Agency

also

filed

on September

22

be

6

marked

as

Exhibit

8

and moved

into

the record.

7

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Mr.

Wight,

thank

you

8

very much.

9

MR. WIGHT:

Sure.

10

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

The

motion of

course

11

as

made

by

Mr.

Wight is

to

introduce

as

Exhibit

No. 2

12

Mr.

Cobb’s

prefiled

testimony;

as Exhibit

No. 3

13

Mr.

Nightingale’s

prefiled

testimony;

as

Exhibit

No.

4

14

Mr. Liebinan’s

prefiled

testimony;

as Exhibit

5

15

Mr.

Buscher’s

prefiled

testimony;

as

Exhibit

6

16

Mr.

Dunaway’s

prefiled

testimony;

as

No. 7

the

joint

17

statement

by

Arneren

and the

Agency

in support

of

their

18

joint

proposal;

and

as No. 8

the joint

proposal

itself.

19

Is

there

any

objection

to the

motion

to

admit

those

seven

20

documents

as

described

and

numbered?

Neither

seeing

nor

21

hearing

any,

the motion

is

granted.

Mr.

Wight,

again,

I

22

thank

you

for your

help

in

preparing

and

submitting

23

those

--

24

MR.

WIGHT:

Sure.

20

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

(

1

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

--

and they

will

be

2

marked

and admitted

according

to the

numbers

that

I have

3

just

recited.

We

now have

our witnesses

sworn

in and

our

4

housekeeping

settled,

with

which

I appreciate

your

5

patience.

Mr.

Wight

and

Mr. More,

would

we

be

ready

to

6

proceed

with any

follow-up

questions

that

Ms.

Barkley

may

7

have?

8

MR.

WIGHT:

We’re

ready.

9

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very

good.

10

MR. MOPE:

We

are

as

well.

11

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Ms. Barkley,

I

might

12

suggest

this

in

the interest

of

the

most effective

13

questions.

If

there

-- If

you would

not object

to

having

14

a chair

perhaps

to my

right

here,

I think

you would

be

15

able

to face

people

and

be

most

audible

to

the folks

that

16

you

may

wish

to pose

questions

to and

most audible

to the

17

court

reporter

as well,

so

I’m sorry

to

disrupt

you,

but

18

that

might

work

out

well in

the long

run.

19

MR. MOPE:

Right

here?

20

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Or

even

further

back.

21

I appreciate

your help,

Mr.

More.

Ms.

Barkley,

you

had

22

filed --

and I

need

to flip

through

the

end to

see

23

precisely

the number

-- 15 questions,

each

of which

was

24

directed

either

generally

to

Ameren

or the

Agency

or

21

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

specifically

to I

believe

Mr.

Bollinger on

behalf

of

2

Ameren

or Mr.

Nightingale

on

behalf

of

the Agency. Does

3

it

make the

most sense

simply

to begin with

question

4

number 1

and see if

you have any

follow-ups

for the

5

person ——

6

MS.

BARKLEY:

Sure.

7

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

-- to whom you

posed

8

those

questions?

Very

good. Question

number 1 was

9

directed

to Ameren

on the

basis of its

statement of

10

reasons, and

if

you

have any

follow—up or

clarification,

11

Ms.

Barkley,

please

go

ahead.

12

MS.

BARKLEY:

Actually, I

don’t. This

is --

13

I

think their

responses

given

is complete

and

acceptable,

14

so——

15

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX: Very

good.

Let’s

16

proceed

to number

2, which

was likewise

posed to Ameren

17

on

the basis

of its

statement

of reasons.

18

MS. BARKLEY:

And

the

information

I asked

19

for

in this

question

is provided

as

part

of the

technical

20

support

document.

21

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

And

it

sounds as

if

22

that’s a satisfactory

--

23

MS.

BARKLEY:

That’s

acceptable,

yes.

24

HEARING

OFFICER FOX: Very

good.

If that’s

22

Keefe Reporting

Company

---

(

1

satisfactory,

let’s proceed

to

number 3, which

pertains

2

to the City

of

Hutsonville’s

public

water supply

wells,

3

Ms.

Barkley.

4

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

So

question 3,

I

guess

5

I

had one clarifying

question about

the temporary

wells

6

that

were installed

in Indiana.

I wondered

how

deep

7

those

wells were.

8

MR.

BOLLINGER:

I

do

not have that

off

the

9

top of my

head,

but

I can certainly

get that information.

10

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

11

MR.

BOLLINGER:

I believe

the boring logs

12

for those

wells are

in the

technical

support

document.

13

think we can

find

them

or we

can

just

follow

up.

14

MR.

MORE:

We’ll follow up

with

a

written

15

comment.

16

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Very good.

If,

17

Mr.

More,

you could supply

either

a

citation

to

the

-- by

18

page

number in

the technical

support

document

or submit

19

them, that

would

be very helpful.

20

MR. MORE:

We will

do

so.

21

MS. BARKLEY:

And I also

-- the response

22

that

was given

to question

3

really doesn’t

answer

the

23

question.

I understand

that

class

I

groundwater

quality

24

standards

are being

met,

but the question

was whether

23

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

there

is

any impact,

because

I’m looking

for

trend

2

data

--

we talked

about

that

on the

phone

-- and

I’m

3

not ——

I

guess

I’d be

looking

for,

you

know,

over

time

4

how the

quality

of the

groundwater

has

changed

during

the

5

time

period

that

ash

pond D

has

been

in

operation,

not

6

just

from

the temporary

wells,

because

that

to me shows

a

7

snapshot

of

where we’re

at

right

now,

but

it

doesn’t

show

8

what the

impact

of

ash pond

D has

been

in adjacent

9

groundwater.

10

MR.

MORE:

Can

I

-- Let

me ask

a question.

11

Are

you

looking

for

trending

analysis

on

Hutsonville

12

drinking

water

supply

well

data?

13

MS.

BARKLEY:

I

think

most --

the wells

have

14

been

installed

to

determine,

you

know,

anything

15

downgradient

towards

the river

or

across

the

river,

16

downgradient

towards

the City

of Hutsonville’s

drinking

17

water

supply.

I

understand

the

snapshot

right

now

of

18

kind

of

where

they’re

at,

but

that

doesn’t

really

paint

19

the picture

of

the impact

that

ash

pond

D has had

on

20

groundwater

over

time.

21

MR.

BOLLINGER:

We

can

certainly

calculate

22

that.

We

have done

and looked

at trends

in

specific

23

wells

for specific

purposes,

and

of course

the

proposed

24

rule

would

have

us

do the

annual

trend

analysis

on

all

24

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

the

monitoring

wells

included

in

the

monitoring

package

2

that

will

be

su.bmitted

as

part

of

the

closure

plan.

We

3

could

do

something

in

advance

if

that’s

helpful,

but

that

4

trend

analysis

is

embodied

in

the

monitoring

plan

and

the

5

compliance

plan

that

will

be

incorporated

in

the

closure

6

plan.

I

can

certainly

add

that

we

have

no

indications

7

whatsoever

that

the

deep

wells

have

been

impacted

and

are

8

trending

upward.

We

are

——

We

have

reviewed

that

9

earlier,

that

there’s

not

an

upward

trend

in

these

wells.

10

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

Over

what

time

period?

11

NR.

BOLLINGER:

I

would

have

to

go

back

to

12

the

analysis

we’ve

conducted

and

look

at

the

precise

13

monitoring

dates.

I

can’t

say

off

the

top

of

my

head.

14

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

Yeah,

I

--

and

this

is

15

something

that

I

think

we’ll

ask

for

in

our

final

16

comments,

but

I

think

that’s

something

that

in

terms

of

17

looking

at

degradation

that

may

have

occurred

because

of

18

the

operation

of

ash

pond

D,

I

think

it’s

important

to

19

show

what

data

is

availaiDle

closer

to

the

beginning

of

20

the

operation

of

ash

pond

D

at

some

sort

of

regular

21

interval

to

now,

because

many

of

the

constituents

are

22

naturally

based

and

some

of

them

could

be

arising

from

23

the

local

geology,

but

I

think

it’s

important

to

24

characterize

fully

what’s

happened

over

the

time

of

the

25

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

C

1

operation

of

ash pond

D.

2

NR.

BOLLINGER:

I would

just

note for

the

3

record,

though,

that

the groundwater

monitoring

did

not

4

begin

until

some

number

of

years

well

after

operation

of

5

pond

D, so

we do

not have

groundwater

information

that

6

predates

or

even during

the

first

many

years

of

7

operation.

Pond D

went

into

service

in

the

I

believe

mid

8

1960s,

‘68 or

—— to

my

recollection,

and

monitoring

——

9

groundwater

monitoring

was

not

initiated

on

the

site

10

until

1984,

so there’s

a

number

of

years

where

we

would

11

not

have data

with

which

to

trend

from

pre-operational

12

conditions

or

early

operation.

13

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

Let’s

move

on to

14

question

4.

15

HEARING

OFFICER

FOX:

Please

go

ahead,

16

Ms.

Barkley,

if

you’re

ready.

17

MS. BARKLEY:

Let’s

see.

My concern

with

18

the response

to

question

4

was

eight lines

down,

the

19

discussion

about

coal

combustion

material

being

used for

20

helping

to build

up the

final

slope

and grade

of

the

21

impoundments,

and

the ——

one of

the

statements

in

the

22

response

was

if such

material

is

used,

it

would

be

placed

23

well

above the

water

table,

covered

with

a synthetic

24

capping

material

and

isolated

from

precipitation

or

26

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

groundwater,

and

I can

understand

with

the

cap how

you’d

2

be

isolating

from

precipitation,

but

with

groundwater,

3

can

you

explain

exactly

what will

be

in place

to make

4

sure

the groundwater

won’t

come

in contact

with

these

5

materials?

6

MR. BOLLINGER:

I think

the

-- what

we

are

7

addressing

there

is

the fact

that

the

existing

materials

8

are

at

depth,

and

since

the

additional

materials

would

be

9

used to

establish

that

final

contour

of

the

top

of the

10

pond,

that that

would

be

well

above

the

materials

that

11

may be

subject

to groundwater

impact

or

groundwater

12

infiltration.

Groundwater

depth

below

ash

pond

0 is

13

dependent

upon

river

stage,

but

the materials

that

we’d

14

be

placing

as

part

of this

final

contour

will be

the

15

uppermost

layers.

It

would be

well

above

that.

16

MS.

BARKLEY:

And

I

guess

a

follow-up

within

17

this

discussion

of

this question,

are

you

still

adding

18

coal combustion

material

to

ash pond

0?

19

MR.

BOLLINGER:

Not currently.

Since

the

20

pond

was closed,

then

essentially

wastewater

was

diverted

21

around

pond

D when

two

new ponds

were

constructed

in

the

22

early

2000s,

and since

that

time

we have

not

sent

any

23

wastewater

there

for

treatment,

but

twice

since

that

24

occurred

we

sought

approval

from

the water

program

in

27

Keefe Reporting

Company

---

1

accordance

with

our

permit

conditions

to

allow

us

to

2

transfer

ash

from pond

A to pond

D in

anticipation

of

3

closure

similar

to

what we

are asking

for or

asked

for

as

4

part

of

this rulemaking.

Both of

those

were

approved,

so

5

materials

have

been

moved

over

there

in

two

different

6

transfers

since

2000.

7

MS.

BARKLEY:

And

who

approved

moving

that

8

material

to

ash

pond D?

9

MR.

BOLLINGER:

The

wastewater

permitting

10

program.

11

MS.

BARKLEY:

Through

NPDES

permitting?

12

MR.

BOLLINGER:

Yes.

Well, there

are

two

13

permits

-- two

different

permitting

regimes

that are

14

subject

to -- that

Hutsonville

is

subject

to

for

15

wastewater,

one

which

I

will refer

to as

a

Subpart

B

16

permit

for

ponds that

do

not have

a

direct discharge

to

17

the river

-- that

would

include

pond

A,

B and

C

--

and

18

then the

actual

wastewater

discharge

permit

under

the

19

NPDES

program

is

also

from

pond

B, and

so

we’ve

actually

20

worked

with

the

same division

of

the water

program

that

21

manages

both

those

permits.

22

MS.

BAPKLEY:

So Subpart

B covers

ponds

A, B

23

and

C,

and

through

the

NPDES

program,

that

covers

--

24

MR.

BOLLINGER:

The

discharge

from

pond

B

as

28

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

well

as

other

outfalls

from

the

power

plant

itself.

2

MS.

BA:RKLEY:

Do

you have

any permit

that

3

covers

pond

D?

4

MR.

BOLLINGER:

Pond

D

is currently

not

5

subject

to permitting.

That’s

why we

are trying

to

close

6 it.

7

MS.

BAKLEY:

Okay.

I’m not

sure if

this

is

8

a question

for

the Agency

or

if this

is

a

question

for

9

meren,

but

I understand

that

a third

of

the

material

10

lies

below the

water

table

and

I understand

that

11

groundwater

moves

extremely

slowly,

but

I wonder

if with

12

the pond

or the

pile being

kept

and

a third

of

it

being

13

under

the

water

table if

—— as

groundwater

flows

through

14

the

material

that’s

under

the

water

table,

if

that will

15

cause

settling

of the

material

above

the

water table

so

16

that

over

time you’re

essentially

--

that

water

would

be

17

processing

and carrying

pollutant

from

the

entire

million

18

cubic

yards?

19

MR.

BOLLINGER:

Who would

like

-- I mean,

20

I —— we

will

conduct

as

part

of the

final closure

plans

a

21

stability

analysis

of the

berms,

and it

would

be my

22

expectation

that

the

settling

that

has

occurred

during

30

23

plus

years of

operation

would

not

be

exacerbated

by

24

additional

cap

and cover

materials.

There

will

be some

29

Keefe Reporting

Company

---

C

1

additional

loads on

top of

the basin because

of the

2

actual

cap itself

and the three

foot

of soil

cover.

We

3

will evaluate

that

as

part

of the

final

closure

plan,

but

4

I

would

not anticipate

that that

would change

the

5

consolidation

of

ash

at depth in

the

pond because

of the

6

duration that

it’s

been

there.

I

don’t

know if

anybody

7

would

like

to --

8

MR.

LIEBMAN:

Yeah,

we

would

have

the

same

9

expectation.

There

would —— We

would not expect

much,

if

10

any,

settlement

due

to the groundwater

flowing

through

11

the lower ash.

12

MS.

BARKLEY:

So when you

characterized

what

13

will

be

coming

off

of the site

over

time, did

you just

14

look at that

material

that’s -- that

would

be

under

15

the

-- below the

water

table?

16

MR. LIEBMAN:

Could you

repeat --

17

MS. BARKLEY:

I

guess

I

should

ask, has

18

modeling

been

done to look

at the

quality

of the

water

19

that

will be coming

from the

waste material

that’s

in

ash

20

pond D?

I guess that’s

the first

question.

Has

modeling

21

been completed?

22

MR. BOLLINGER:

He

can

speak

to

that

23

additionally,

but the modeling

work

that

our contractors

24

did

on our

behalf

looked

at

essentially

two components

of

30

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

leaching

that

could

occur.

One

is

a

vertical

migration

2

of

water

both

contained

within

the

pond

when

it

was

3

operational

and

as

might

collect

there

from

precipitation

4

before

it’s

closed.

That

would

be

the

vertical

component

5

where

water

would

be

migrating

downward

through

the

ash,

6

and

then

we

also

looked

at

the

horizontal

component

of

7

groundwater

moving

through

a

portion

of

ash

that

is

below

8

the

water

table.

The

closure

plan

and

closure

9

alternatives

that

we

evaluated

——

excuse

me.

Not

the

10

closure

plan,

but

the

alternatives

that

we

evaluated

as

11

part

of

our

consideration

of

options

looked

at

12

substantial

reductions

in

the

vertical

migration

and

did

13

not

assume

any

significant

change

in

the

horizontal

14

migration.

15

MR.

COBB:

Rick

Cobb.

I

iust

had

an

add-on.

16

The

vertical-component

model

that

they

use

is

called

a

17

HELP

model,

which

is

used

in

every

kind

of

landfill

type

18

setting,

and

the

contaminant

transport

model

was

MT3D,

19

and

on

page

20

of

my

prefiled

testimony,

attachment

IV

is

20

the

result

of

the

modeling

that’s

conducted

after

the

21

interceptor

trench

runs

for

a

period

of

years.

That’s

22

another

component

of

the

——

obviously

the

groundwater

23

flow

here

and

capturing

any

contaminated

groundwater

24

before

it

moves

off-site

and

pulling

back

groundwater

31

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

C

1

that’s

moved

off-site.

So,

Traci,

that’s

on

-- did

I

2

state my

name,

Richard

Cobb?

It’s on

page

20

of

my

3

prefiled

testimony

and

it’s

in

page

534 of

the --

4

.meren’s

technical

support

document.

5

MS.

BARKLEY:

And

can

you just

remind

me how

6

deep

the

groundwater

trench

will

be?

7

MR. COBB:

Pardon

me?

8

MS. BARKLEY:

How

deep

the

groundwater

9

trench

will

be?

10

MR.

BOLLINGER:

I

think

it

ranges

--

it --

11

to

the

east

-- excuse

me

-- to the

west

is

about

eight

12

feet

deep,

is my

recollection,

and

it

goes

to a

depth

of

13

about

twenty.

I

would

have

to

confirm

those

numbers,

but

14

approximately

twenty

feet.

As it

proceeds

eastward,

it

15

gets

deeper.

16

MS.

BARKLEY:

I

guess

to

follow

up on

an

17

earlier

question,

if

you

—— does

meren

have

any plans

to

18

add

any

additional

material

except

for

the waste

that

19

will

be

used

for final

grading

of

the slope?

Do

you

plan

20

on storing

--

21

MR.

BOLLINGER:

Additional

material?

22

MS. BARKLEY:

Do

you plan

on

storing

any

23

additional

waste

before

the

final

cap

is put

in

place?

24

MR.

BOLLINGER:

No.

At this

point,

any

32

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

additional

ash

that

would

be

transferred

would

be

2

transferred

as

part

of

a

final

closure

activity.

There

3

will

be

additional

materials

insofar

as

soils

placed

4

above

the

synthetic

line.

5

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

Question

5

was about

6

landfill

regs

and

how

they

don’t

apply

--

asking

why

they

7

don’t

apply

to

the

situation,

and

I

guess

I

just

--

I’m

8

not ——

I don’t

fully

understand

the

answer,

because

it

9

seems

to me

that

even

though

this

wasn’t

designed

as

a

10

landfill

and

it

wasn’t

permitted

as

a

landfill,

that

now

11

that

the waste

material

has

been

deposited

there

and

it’s

12

been

dewatered,

it

seems

like

effectively

in

practice

now

13

it

is

very

similar

to a

landfill.

14

NR.

MORE:

Let

me

just

--

I

think

the

15

question

really

is

kind

of

like

a

legal

conclusion,

so

16

let

me

——

if

you

don’t

mind,

I

would

reference

the

17

approach

that

it

might

fall

under

the

landfill

18

regulations

was

the

approach

that

meren

initially

took,

19

and then

as

you

noted,

it’s

similar

but

it’s

not

exact,

20

and

therefore

we

asked

for

an

adjusted

standard

—— yes

——

21

of

the

existing

landfill

regulations

--

in essence,

a

22

modification of

those

regulations

to

make

it

fit

this

23

scenario

-—

and

the

Agency

submitted

comments

to

that,

24

then

the Board

came

back

and

said,

you

know,

we

see

where

33

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

(

1

you’re

going,

but this

seems

so

dissimilar

given

all

of

2

these deviations

from

the

landfill

regulations

that

will

3

be

necessary,

come

forward

with

a unique

site—specific

4

rule, and

so that’s

the

approach

we’ve taken.

5

MS.

B.ARKLEY:

And

what’s

-- from

the

joint

6

proposal

and

the way

it’s

laid

out,

it looks

like

the

7

Agency’s

preparing

for

possibly

additional

site

closures

8

of

ash

ponds,

which

I know

there

are several

that

are

9

being looked

at

for

closure,

and

Subpart

A

would

be

10

Hutsonville.

I

mean,

I don’t

know

if we want

to

get into

11

this

now or

if we

should

save

this for

later,

but I

guess

12

I’d

be

interested

in

what

the Agency

sees

--

or maybe

13

even

within

Ameren

and

the ash

ponds

that

you have,

are

14

you

preparing

or are

you

considering

using similar

15

language

for

additional

ash

impoundment

for closure

in

16

the

near

term?

17

NR.

BOLLINGER:

Certainly

within

meren’s

18

system

we

have

a

number

of ponds,

but

the design

and

19

construction

of those

vary

depending

on

the

circumstances

20

of the

-- those

sites

and

also

to

a range

that

-- the

21

timing

with

which

those

ponds

were

constructed.

We have

22

two

other facilities

that

have

wastewater

treatment

ponds

23

that

are

unlined

that we

are ——

we would

like

to

close,

24

we

hope to

close

in

the near

future.

Both of

those

34

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

C

1

facilities --

There

are

actually

two ponds at

two

2

different

facilities that

we hope

to

close in

probably

3

the

next 12

to 18 months

or at least

initiate

the

4

process,

as we

are

doing

here.

Both

of

those

locations,

5

those

basins have

been

—— other facilities

have

been

6

built,

constructed,

in order

to manage

the wastewater

7

that

would

otherwise

have

been

sent to these

facilities,

8

and both of

those operate

under

permits that

will

expire

9

next

year. At

one site

permits will

expire

at the end

of

10

January,

at another

location

they

will

expire

at the

end

11

of June,

and

so

we are working

to develop

closure ——

12

along these

lines,

we are working

to

develop

a proposal

13

for

a

closure

and

a site—specific

rule

at

both

of those

14

sites.

15

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

Thank

you.

16

MR.

RAO:

I have

just a

follow-up

question.

17

Mr.

Bollinger,

you just

mentioned that

you are

in the

18

process

of preparing

site—specific

rules

for

these

other

19

ponds.

Do

you see this

site-specific

rule

to be

20

significantly

different

from

what

you have proposed

here

21

in

the

joint

proposal?

22

MR.

BOLLINGER:

Let me just

clarify

that

we

23

are

working

towards

development

of site—specific

rules.

24

I

don’t

believe

-- We’ve just

begun to

draft for

one of

35

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

those

sites

the

actual

text

of

a

rule.

We

have

not

got

2

that

far

on

the

other

site.

I

think

both

of

the

other

3

locations

have

certain

similarities

with

Hutsonville,

but

4

they

have

some

unique

geologic

circumstances,

and

so

5

there

will

be

differences,

although

the

framework

I think

6

will

be

similar

insofar

as

we would

attempt

to

set

up

a

7

rulemaking

that

would

allow

us to

develop

closure

plans

8

for

submittal

to

the

Agency

for

review

and

approval

prior

9

to

implementation

of

those

strategies.

10

MR.

MORE:

And

we would

reach

out,

as

we

did

11

in

this

instance,

to the

Agency,

and we’re

not

at

that

12

stage

yet.

13

MR.

RAO:

The

reason

I

asked

that

question

14

is

the

joint

proposal

is

drafted

in

such

a way

that

a

lot

15

of evaluation

and the

Agency

input

happens

after

the

16

closure

plan

is

submitted,

so

the

rule

is

fairly

broad

in

17

general,

so

I

was

just

wondering

——

you know,

it

almost

18

seems

like

the

framework

is

set

up

in

this

proposal

and

19

any

site-specific

issue

would

be

handled

as

part

of

the

20

closure

plan.

It

almost

seems

like

this

proposal

is

a

21

general

rule

that

may

apply

to

closing

other

22

impoundments.

23

MR.

COBB:

Rick

Cobb

responding

to

that.

We

24

really

--

You

know,

we

are looking

at

the hydrogeology

of

36

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

each

of

these

difference

sites,

and

we

specifically

kind

2

of

went

a

different

direction

on

that.

We

wanted

this

to

3

be

ash

pond

D,

and

then,

you

know,

we

may

certainly

learn

4

certain

things

from

this

and

--

obviously

capping

and

5

groundwater

monitoring

and

corrective

action,

but

there

6

may

be

different

circumstances

that

would,

you

know,

7

require

some

deviation,

so

we

specifically

want

——

you

8

know,

I

assume

Ameren

did

too,

but

that

was

our

9

philosophy,

so

--

10

MR.

BOLLINGER:

I

would

certainly

just

add,

11

an

example,

for

instance,

would

be

this

rulemaking

for

12

Hutsonville

clearly

envisions

the

use

of

this

interceptor

13

drain

trench,

and

that

technology

may

not

be

appropriate

14

for

either

of

these

other

locations,

so

it’s

those

15

evaluations

that

we

are

still

in

the

process

of

16

developing.

17

MR.

RAO:

Okay.

And

maybe

--

I

had

this

18

question,

so

I’ll

ask

it

since

it’s

related.

It

looks

19

like

some

general

requirements

may

apply

to

--

apply

20

generally

to

closure

of

ash

ponds,

but

there

are

other

21

requirements

proposed

not

really

specific

to

ash

pond

D,

22

and

the

way

you

proposed

it

as

ash

pond

D

comes

under

23

Subpart

A

of

this

Part

840.

I

was

wondering

if

it

would

24

be

possible

to

put

in

some

general

requirements,

like

37

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

definitions,

incorporations

by

reference

under

Subpart

A

2

and

have

ash

pond

D

under

Subpart

B

like

we

have

for

the

3

Board’s

——

I

think

the

groundwater

rules

for

certain

4

site—specific,

we

have

general

requirements

and

then

we

5

have,

you

know,

specifics

in

the

other

subpart.

Is

that

6

going

to

be

too

much

work

for

you?

You

know,

I

know

7

you’re

——

8

MR.

MORE:

I

would

note

some

of

those

9

definitions

might

be

general,

but

some

might

be

10

site—specific.

It’s

something

we

can

discuss.

11

MR.

RAO:

Yeah,

just

think

about

it,

if

you

12

think

that’s

doable.

13

MR.

WIGHT:

Excuse

me.

14

MR.

RAO:

Yeah.

15

MR.

WIGHT:

I

might

add

that

if

anyone

has

16

had

a

chance

to

read

through

all

of

the

filings

that

have

17

led

up

to

this,

including

the

motion

for

expedited

review

18

and

the

response

to

that

motion,

there’s

another

subtext

19

here,

which

is

what’s

happening

at

the

federal

level,

and

20

at

some

point,

although

we

don’t

expect

that

to

move

21

rapidly,

but

I

think

we

do

expect

a

proposal

to

be

22

published

in

the

Federal

Register

at

some

point

this

23

f

all,

so

perhaps

by

the

end

of

the

year

we’ll

at

least

24

see

what

direction

they’re

going,

but

the

shadow

of

that

38

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

sort

of

falls

over

everything

we’re

doing

here

to

some

2

extent,

and

then

the

resource

questions,

which

the

Agency

3

has

highlighted

more

than

once,

we’re

still

at

the

policy

4

level,

the

last

I

knew,

still

struggling

with

how

to

5

approach

this

entire

situation

we

know,

and

there

may

be

6

some

differences

to

the count

of

ash

ponds

that

may

need

7

closure

at

some

point

in

the

future,

but

from

our

8

perspective,

it’s

not

about

the

actual

number.

It’s

9

about

the

resources

required

to

do

it

on

a site—specific

10

basis.

So

we

have

the

federal

rule;

we

have

the

question

11

of

whether

we

should

proceed

with

a

more

general

rule

12

rather

than

a

site-specific

approach.

You’re

very

right

13

about

some

of

the things

that

are

in

proposed

Subpart

A

14

probably

could

apply

across

the

board,

would

be

15

applicable

to

most.

We haven’t

come

to grips

with

the

16

site—specific

aspect,

but these

discussions

are

17

continuing

within

the

Agency

about

what

is

the

best

18

approach

and

where

to

allocate

the

resources.

19

Specifically

to

your

question

about

separating

20

out

definitions,

I

guess

that

could

be

done,

especially

21

in

the

context

if

it

looked

like

we

were

going

to use

22

this

process

going

forward,

but

since

even

that

is

23

uncertain,

I

sort

of

like

the

idea

of

it

remaining

24

self—contained

for

now,

and

possibly

then

if

a

second

one

39

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

were

to come

along,

that

we

might

maybe

propose

more

2

general

amendments

to

the

part

that

would

break

some

of

3

that

stuff

out and

create

an

initial

subpart

that

was

4

more

general

in

nature

and

apply

it

to

subparts,

but

5

right

now

I

like

--

I

just

like

the

self-contained

nature

6

of

it,

and

as

was

pointed

out,

some

of

the

definitions

do

7

apply

specifically

to

ash

pond

D,

so in

that

sense

we’d

8

still

need

a

small

definitional

section.

9

MR.

RAO:

I

appreciate

that,

yeah,

and

you

10

also

kind

of

answered

-— you

know,

my other

question

was

11

about

the

federal

rulemaking

and

if

you

had

any

updates

12

about

whether

you

think

there

will

be

a proposal

by

the

13

end

of

the year

or not.

14

MR.

WIGHT:

I

believe

that’s

what

we’re

15

anticipating,

but

that’s

simply

from

published

sources.

16

We

have

no

inside

information,

and

unless

anybody

has

17

heard

anything

new

—-

believe

me, we’ve

been

trying

to

18

get

some

hints,

but

it’s

very

close-lipped

at

the

federal

19

level.

We

haven’t

been

able

to

find

out much

at

all.

20

MR.

MORE:

And

while

we

appreciate the

21

resource

issues

that

the Agency’s

facing

and

the

concern

22

over

a

federal

proposal,

we

don’t

necessarily

share

the

23

optimism

that

such

a

proposal

will

be

enacted

and

become

24

effective

in

the

near

future.

While

we are

hearing

40

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

(

1