Shareholder Proposal:

Report on Coal Combustion Waste

Southern Company Symbol: SO Cusip: 842587107 Lead filer: Green Century Capital Management

SOUTHERN COMPANY FAILS TO DISCLOSE COAL ASH RISK MITIGATION TO INVESTORS

In recent years, environmental and health impacts of coal combustion waste (CCW or coal ash) have
cost Southern Companys (Southerns) peers up to billions of dollars. Anticipated regulatory changes on
coal ash will likely affect shareholder value. Southern has failed to provide investors with sufficient
evidence that it is addressing or mitigating coal ash-related risks in its SEC filings, on its website, or in
other public documents.

68% of Southerns electricity generation is derived from coal combustion. The company operates 22 coal
plants with active coal ash ponds.

Shareholders are being asked to vote FOR a report on the companys efforts, above and beyond
current compliance, to reduce environmental and health hazards associated with coal combustion
waste, and how those efforts may reduce legal, reputational and other risks to the companys finances
and operations.

Rationale for a FOR vote:

1. Southerns ash storage practices expose the company to significant financial and regulatory
risks. The companys reliance on current standards for storage of coal combustion waste is
insufficient and poses significant financial and regulatory risks to the company due to
environmental and health hazards caused by coal ash.

2. Southerns public disclosure on this issue is insufficient. The company does not disclose efforts it
is taking to reduce environmental and health hazards related to CCW. The company does not
disclose information on risks related to coal ash or how it is mitigating those risks.

Burning Coal Results in Toxic Coal Ash

Coal combustion waste contains potentially high concentrations of arsenic, mercury, heavy
metals, and other toxins filtered out of smokestacks by pollution control equipment. The toxins
in CCW have been linked to cancer, neurological damage, reproductive failure, organ failure,
and other serious health problems as well as widespread damage to ecosystems.1

Coal ash is the second largest waste stream in the United States.2 Over 130 million tons of coal
ash are created in the US each year as a product of burning coal to make electricity.3

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study of 85 CCW disposal sites found that
approximately 80% either had proven or potential damage.4 There are over 2,000 CCW storage,
management and/or disposal sites in the United States, suggesting that there are approximately
1600 sites across the country that may be causing damage and need be monitored and
mitigated.5

1|Page
1. SOUTHERNS ASH STORAGE PRACTICES EXPOSE THE COMPANY TO SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL AND
REGULATORY RISKS:

FINANCIAL RISKS:

Recent catastrophic events at CCW storage facilities show that the methods of storage implemented by
Southern are insufficient. Cleanup and mitigation costs for breaches of CCW dams, leachate from dry
storage and environmental and health hazards associated with groundwater contamination have cost its
peer companies up to billions of dollars.

Southerns opposition statement states that the company has created a new report regarding coal
combustion byproducts (CCBs). According to this new report, available on the companys website:
Regulation of CCBs has for many years been under the purview of individual states, which each have
their own distinct requirements. The state environmental agencies in the four states in which Southern
Company operates its retail electric utilities have provided effective oversight of operations to ensure
the safe management of CCBs Each of Southern Companys four operating companies work closely
with their respective state regulatory agencies to ensure that the companies meet their states
requirements for environmental protection.6

Filers note that state regulations for storing coal ash are less consistent than those for containing
household waste, and that such regulations do not provide assurance against groundwater and other
contamination.

Furthermore, Southern operates some of the oldest ponds in the United States. According to
information provided by Southern to the EPA, at least ten of the companys 22 ash ponds are over forty
years old.7 Given the age of Southerns sites and any associated grandfather clauses, along with the clear
failure of state regulations to prevent significant financial risk for some utilities, shareholders need more
disclosure on the risks associated with these sites.

Wet Storage: Southern Company operates 22 plants that utilize wet storage facilities for their CCW.
This method involves pumping ash-contaminated wastewater into massive ponds contained by earthen
dams, and is the traditional way that coal-fired utilities have managed their coal ash. These ponds are
large and can reach over 1,000 acres in size.8

Risks related to dam failure at a wet storage facility include:

FINANCIAL: In December 2008, a dam broke at a large CCW wet storage pond at the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) coal plant in Kingston, TN and covered more than 300 acres in eastern
Tennessee with coal ash sludge.9 TVA estimated total cleanup costs at up to $1.2 billion.10 The
company has committed to spending $43 million on economic development projects in Roane
County, where the spill took place, and has also spent $40.2 million buying out individual
homeowners in the area surrounding the plant.

LITIGATION: TVA is also facing significant litigation costs as a result of the spill. Since December
2008, at least 57 lawsuits representing more than 560 individual plaintiffs have been filed
against the utility claiming property damage, health problems, and other damages as a result of
the spill.11

OPERATIONAL: The TVA spill could have significantly impacted the company's operations.
Though the Kingston plant was able to regain partial functionality by storing its coal ash in its

2|Page
 other two ponds, many facilities are faced with having only one storage pond and would
therefore be forced to shut down in the event of a spill.

REPUTATIONAL: According to Power Magazine, the spill means a black eye for TVAs reputation
that will take years to heal.12 In addition to the significant water pollution caused by the spill,
respiratory threats can pose significant health risks to surrounding communities. A local
Tennessee newspaper reported that the ash dries easily and blows around, creating an
exposure pathway wherever *the ash+ is carried by the wind.13 Environmental tests have come
up positive for heavy metals and locals have experienced increased respiratory problems,
forcing many away from their homes to avoid the remnants of the spill.14

SOUTHERN-SPECIFIC: Southern has at least one pond, Georgia Power Co.s Harllee Branch Power
Station Pond E, that has been rated as high hazard by the National Inventory of Dams. This
rating means failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life.15 TVAs Kingston
pond was also a high hazard impoundment.

SOUTHERN-SPECIFIC: Southern has experienced dam failures in the past, such as when a pond at
Georgia Powers Plant Bowen developed a four-acre, 30-foot-deep sinkhole in 2002 that
released 2.25 million gallons of ash-contaminated water into Euharlee Creek16

Prior to the dam breach, TVA was monitoring its CCW storage at higher rates than Southern currently
monitors.17 TVA shows us that Southerns efforts, while compliant with current regulations as of the
drafting of this memo, are not sufficient to prevent significant financial risks.

Dry Storage: Ash that is not stored wet in ponds is often stored dry in landfills or in mines. Clay
liners, which are often used to line the bottom of ash landfills, have been shown insufficient to prevent
leaching of CCW contaminants into groundwater.18 Experts recommend that landfills must have
composite liners and leachate collection and treatment systems to prevent environmental and health
hazards. In a letter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is currently reviewing the
EPAs draft proposed regulations on coal ash, five prominent scientists concluded that based on what
science tells us from the tiny fraction that have been studied, the cost of as-yet unrecognized or ignored
harm to human health and wildlife [from coal ash] can be reasonably anticipated to exceed all the
previously mentioned costs combined.19

Southern Company does not disclose in any of its public documents, including the new CCB report,
whether or not it utilizes linings, clay-based or synthetic, to prevent leaching and groundwater
contamination from its wet ponds or its landfills.

Risks from leachate of dry storage include:

FINANCIAL: In 2000, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conducted tests on
landfills in Pines, Indiana where Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) had been
depositing coal ash. The Agency discovered elevated levels of boron, manganese, arsenic,
benzene, and other toxic substances in the towns groundwater sources, including drinking
wells. As a result, the town of Pines was determined a Superfund site and the Northern Indiana
Public Service Company (NIPSCO), along with the landfill operator, was required to spend
millions of dollars to fund immediate delivery and continual supply of bottled water to residents
along with a long-term study to assess long-term human health and ecological impact risks
associated with the Pines site.20

3|Page
 FINANCIAL: Recent cases demonstrate that contaminated site cleanup and mitigation costs may
exceed millions of dollars per site, especially considering that at least 75% of existing landfills do
not have adequate liners.21

Southern does not disclose if its dry storage is limited to landfills or if the company also uses minefill.
Minefills present a particular hazard because the base of the fill is not solid rock, but rather is made up
of loose substance called spoil. The mining also causes fractures in the rock that create underground
channels. Many mines excavate aquifers, so the water rises through the spoil and flows easily through
fractures offsite. Coal ash dumped in mines leach toxins into the water that, due to spoil and fractures,
has an easy path out of the mine, contaminating the environment and local drinking water sources with
ash.22

FINANCIAL: Constellation Energy Group stored fly ash in sand and gravel mines in Anne Arundel
County, Maryland for over a decade.23 Investigations conducted in 2006 identified
concentrations of sulfate, manganese, nickel, cadmium and other metal in excess of state
regulations, and further studies confirmed that the high concentrations of these toxins were a
direct result of groundwater contamination from fly ash stored in the mines. Constellation and
the mine operators were fined $1 million for the contamination and were required to restore
water quality in the aquifer.

LITIGATION: Constellation was forced to pay a $45 million settlement after local homeowners
filed a class action lawsuit against the company. Constellation had to pay the costs for
converting 84 homes from well water to public water, stop delivering CCW to the quarry, and
establish trust funds to adequately compensate property owners and the neighborhood.

Recycling of Coal Ash: According to the environmental section of Southern Companys website, 30-
35% of the coal combustion by-products from Southern Company coal plants are re-used in safe and
beneficial ways such as in concrete and road building.24 On a different part of its website meant for
suppliers, the company states that its material is used in structural fill and in land development,
buildings, metals recovery, and highways, and to manufacture agricultural fertilizers, carpeting and
plastics filler.25

In a recent 60 Minutes report, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson commented that she has no data to say
that [coal ash re-use+ is safe at this point.26 There are documented cases of significant environmental
and health impacts from the reuse of ash for some purposes.

Southern Company states in its opposition statement and new CCB report that: EPA has twice in 1993
and 2000 determined that beneficial uses of CCBs pose no significant risk and that no additional
national regulations for beneficially used CCBs were needed. This statement ignores new information
and possible associated risks.

Risks associated with recycling coal ash include:

FINANCIAL AND LITIGATION: Dominion Virginia Power supplied 1.5 million tons of coal ash to
use as structural fill for a golf course in Chesapeake, Virginia.27 Once the course was built, toxins
from the ash leached into groundwater and contaminated surrounding neighborhoods. Two
lawsuits have been filed against Dominion; one brought by 400 local residents seeking more
than $1 billion in damages, and another brought by 62 local homeowners asking for $1.25 billion
to remove the coal ash, clean and restore the site, and pay for public water and sewer for the

4|Page
 local neighborhoods. The second suit also seeks millions more to pay for properties, homes,
medical bills and nuisances caused by the golf course development.

REGULATORY: In November 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced in a
report on a potential cover-up of risk assessment information on coal ash that it identified a
potential issue related to the EPA's promotion of beneficial use through its Coal Combustion
Product Partnership and have referred the question how EPA established a reasonable
determination for these endorsements to the appropriate OIG office for evaluation.28

Southerns opposition statement states: The characteristics of CCBs enable beneficial uses and
management to be undertaken safely. However, multiple instances demonstrate that the toxins in
coal ash have contaminated groundwater through uses assumed to be safe and that there are
significant financial risks associated with environmental consequences of ash recycling. Especially
since Southern states in its CCB Report that it re-uses ash for structural fill and agricultural purposes,
the company may face increased risk from ash recycling.

REGULATORY RISK:

Currently, coal ash ponds and dry storage facilities for CCW are subject to less regulation than landfills
accepting household trash.29

The EPA is considering regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste in light of findings that link coal ash to
several public health threats and instances of severe environmental degradation.30 A hazardous waste
designation would require the industry to spend billions of dollars to overhaul current ash storage
practices. The EPA has announced that it plans to publish proposed new rules on coal ash in April 2010.31

The Governor of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, recently made statements indicating the likelihood
of such regulation. Governor Manchin expects the EPA to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste
and is concerned that the passage of the legislation would cause substantial economic
damage.32

There is significant public support for strong new regulations labeling coal ash as a hazardous
waste. The New York Times, among other outlets, editorialized in favor of regulation of coal ash
as a hazardous waste.33

Current standards for managing coal ash are so low that if the EPA designates coal ash as hazardous
waste 250 to 350 coal units could be shut down, which would clearly have a significant impact on
shareholder value. 34

The Wall Street Journal reported in January 2010 that the OMB, the White House entity that is
currently reviewing the EPAs draft proposed rules, has held an overwhelming amount of
meetings nearly 20with industry to discuss the rules.35

Environmental groups have launched campaigns including national days of action and other
high-profile grassroots efforts pressuring OMB and the EPA to regulate CCW as a hazardous
waste.

The House Natural Resources Chairman, Nick Rahall (D-WV), introduced legislation to further
regulation coal ash in 2009 called the Coal Ash Reclamation, Environment and Safety Act of

5|Page
 2009. Rahall has said that the bill is on hold, but will not be withdrawn, until the EPA decision is
published.36 Thus, absent an EPA designation of coal ash as hazardous waste, the industry could
still face regulatory risk related to the material.

Special concern for Southern investors: If, as expected, the EPA regulates CCW as hazardous material
and requires significant changes to storage, management, disposal and reuse practices, then
shareholders need to be aware that:

Southern utilizes wet storage for a significant portion of its CCW management and disposal as
well as dry storage and reuse practices that have proven environmental and human health risks.
With regulation, Southern may face substantially increased costs associated with the material
and could even be forced to close down coal-fired power plants.

Southern provides no information on its ability to transition from wet storage to secure dry storage or its
ability to withstand the significant cost increases that could be imposed by new regulations.

2. SOUTHERNS PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ON THIS ISSUE IS INSUFFICIENT:

The company has not provided investors with sufficient information to enable them to determine
whether the company recognizes and is properly managing the risks associated with its CCW storage,
management, and disposal practices.

Southerns Corporate Social Responsibility report on its website contains three brief sections devoted to
coal ash:

Coal Ash and Gypsum37

After combustion of coal and other fuels, some solid byproducts remain. In coal-fueled
plants, for example, up to 10 percent of the coal volume remains as ash after
combustion.
Some of these solids have beneficial uses in products. To reduce the volume of solid
waste at our plants, we're making safe use of coal ash in concrete, cement, and highway
construction. The remaining solids are managed on plant sites or are collected and
removed to designated off-site landfills.

Ash from Coal-Fueled Power Plants38

Coal is a natural metamorphic rock originating as plant matter. Coal is mostly carbon but
even the highest grades of coal have small amounts of other compounds.
Carbon, when burned, creates heat to make steam that drives electricity generators. This
process leaves behind ash. Depending on the type of coal, ash accumulates at up to
about 10 percent the volume of the coal used as fuel. Included in the ash are compounds
collected by scrubbers and SCRs, emission control devices that maintain air quality. By
keeping particles out of the air and in the ash, they are contained.
Although there are many classifications of ash, it is mostly made up of sand-like particles
and lime. Trace amounts of metals which occur naturally in the coal, such as arsenic,
mercury, and lead, accumulate but their concentrations are not comparable to levels in
other substances required to be regulated as hazardous.
Ash accumulations are contained on site at the plant, usually in a pond formed by an
earthen dam. More and more opportunities for ash reuse are also emerging. Currently,
30-35% of the coal combustion by-products from Southern Company coal plants are re-

6|Page
 used in safe and beneficial ways such as in concrete and road building.
Southern Company's Inspection Program
Southern Company owns and operates 22 plants with active ash ponds. Ash ponds have
successfully contained the byproducts of coal burned to produce electricity for decades.
Every two weeks plant personnel inspect the pond and impoundments. Every two years
dam safety engineers inspect the dike and its structural integrity. Southern Company will
continue to comply with, or exceed, all state and federal regulatory requirements and
seek better ways to ensure the safety of ash ponds.

In addition, Southern Company recently released a new report on coal combustion byproducts (CCBs).39
Shareholders believe the disclosure provided in this new report is not sufficient and does not address
the majority of the risks highlighted in this memo. Southerns new report contains no new information
on the companys coal ash management activities except for percentage breakdowns of coal ash
managed dry versus wet and percentage breakdowns of re-use products of coal ash, specific dam
inspection measures, and basic information about re-uses of ash.

The companys new report on coal ash/CCBs does not include any language regarding:
Whether or not its ponds and landfills have liners and/or caps
Whether or not liners and/or caps are synthetic or clay-based
Groundwater monitoring efforts around coal ash storage facilities
Whether or not the company stores any of its ash in mines
How the company prevents reuse-related risk

Furthermore, the company states in its opposition statement that: The Company has also provided
extensive, detailed information about its affiliates management of CCBs to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This information is being released to the public on the EPA website
(http://www.epa.gov /waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/index.htm). Filers note that
Southern Company was the only utility to withhold this information from the public as Confidential
Business Information but was forced to disclose this information only recently after environmental
groups filed a Freedom of Information Act request at the EPA.

The current level of disclosure provided by Southern is insufficient for investors to draw conclusions on
the companys activities to mitigate the risks associated with the storage and reuse of coal ash.

Southern lags behind its peers in reporting on coal ash.

Leaders in the industry disclose risks related to coal ash in:

Financial Statements (FirstEnergy November 2009 10-Q, Duke Energy November 2009 10-Q,
Progress Energy FY08 10-K)
Public documents and websites (Duke Energy, Progress Energy)
Leaders in the industry have agreed to increase disclosure on:
Coal ash management and disposal practices (Xcel, FirstEnergy)
Risk mitigation efforts (Xcel)
Leaders in the industry have committed to:
Install synthetic caps and liners at existing and new coal ash landfills (Duke Energy)
Convert from wet to dry storage (FirstEnergy, Duke Energy)

7|Page
Southerns public documents provide no information on the environmental and health impacts,
financial, regulatory, and reputational risks as described in this memo and how the company is prepared
or preparing to address them. This lack of information in Southerns SEC filings, website or other public
documents leads shareholders to request a report on the efforts the company is taking to mitigate
risks associated with CCW.

Beyond the financial and regulatory risks described above, environmental and health risks associated
with coal ash include:
Groundwater contamination:
According to the EPA, coal ash has contaminated water in 24 states.40 This occurs when the
ash comes into contact with water. When wet, hazardous chemicals in coal ash leach out of
the waste and contaminate groundwater and surface water.41

According to the EPA, unlined ash ponds contaminate groundwater with arsenic. Arsenic
has been found to cause multiple forms of cancer, including cancer of the liver, kidney, lung,
and bladder, and an increased incidence of skin cancer in populations consuming drinking
water high in inorganic arsenic.42

When children drink water tainted with arsenic, their risk for cancer is estimated to be 9 in
1,000 900 times higher than the EPA goal of one case in 100,000.43

Environmental contamination:
The hazard is exacerbated on coal plants that have filters and processes to cut emissions
and those that burn ash. For example, ash from fluidized-bed combustors has four-times
higher mercury content than coal.44

In wetlands contaminated by CCW in South Carolina, scientists have documented

developmental, physiological, metabolic, and behavioral abnormalities and infertility in
nearly 25 species of amphibians and reptiles.45

The EPA acknowledges that its aquatic life criterion for selenium is not protective. Selenium
one of the most toxic CCW pollutants levels can be below the EPA limit and fish will test
positive for toxic concentrations in their tissues, such as the case in the Emory River.46

Boron is leaked from ash ponds into surface water at concentrations up to 2000 times
higher than levels estimated to be safe for aquatic life.47

CONCLUSION:
An increasing number of studies and reports underscore that current practices for storing, managing,
reusing, and disposing of CCW are insufficient to protect human and environmental health, and to
protect utilities from financial and regulatory risk. The movement towards regulating CCW as a
hazardous waste in the United States, public sentiment across the country, and recent high-profile
incidences of environmental and health hazards associated with CCW suggest that the sector as a whole
is placing itself at greater risk by not addressing these issues in an aggressive and transparent way.

Southern in particular, due to its storage of CCW in wet ponds and dry landfills without sufficient linings,
impermeable caps, and leachate collection systems, and the lack of clarity around its reuse of CCW, may

8|Page
face serious risks associated with potential spills, groundwater contamination, or other environmental
and health hazards resulting from its CCW.

The cloak of secrecy surrounding Southerns coal ash management, resulting from the companys initial
refusal to disclose key information on sizes and inspections of ash ponds from the EPA survey, is
distressing.

Investors are not being given adequate disclosure as to how the significant risks associated with
Southerns CCW storage practices are and will be managed. Southern needs to report to investors on
the companys efforts, above and beyond current compliance, to reduce environmental and health
hazards associated with coal combustion waste, and how those efforts may reduce legal, reputational
and other risks to the companys finances and operations.

NOTES
1
U.S. EPA, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report, October 2009.
Page 6-2, 6-3.
2
39 groups protesting coal ash rule change, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/23/2008. http://www.post-
gazette.com/pg/08358/937012-113.stm
3
Coal Ash: 130 Million Tons of Waste, CBS News 60 Minutes, 10/1/09.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/60minutes/main5356202.shtml
4
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/assets/pdf/CoalAsh-Doc1.pdf
5
Scientists Letter to the Office of Management and Budget. 8 January 2010.
http://tvakingston.blogspot.com/2010/01/regarding-epa-proposed-regulation-of.html
6
http://www.southerncompany.com/planetpower/pdfs/ccbrp.pdf
7
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/survey2.pdf
8
U.S. EPA, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report, October 2009,
pg 5-1.
9
EPA: Rivers high in arsenic, heavy metals after sludge spill, CNN.com, 12/29/2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/29/tennessee.sludge/index.html
10
T.V.A. to Pay $43 Million on Projects in Spill Area, Sheila Dewan, New York Times. 9/15/2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/us/15ash.html?_r=1
11
TVA Says it May Need a Year to Prepare for Lawsuits in Coal Ash Spill Case, Associated Press, 1/13/2010.
http://sg.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/100113/us_tva_ash_spill_tennessee.html?.v=2
12
Best Management Practices for Coal Ash Ponds, POWER Magazine, 3/1/2009.
http://powermag.com/issues/departments/focus_on_o_and_m/Best-Management-Practices-for-Coal-Ash-
Ponds_1762.html
13
Ash on the fly, Chattanooga Times Free Press, 5/26/2009,
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2009/may/26/ashfly/?local.
14
For water tests, see APPALACHIAN VOICES ET AL., PRELIMINARY STUDY REPORT FROM WATER,
SEDIMENT AND FISH SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE TVA ASH SPILL (2009), available at
http://www.appvoices.org/resources/ ; AppVoices_TVA_Ash_Spill_Report_May15.pdf. For air tests, see TVA,
Metals Concentration Chart,
http://www.tva.gov/kingston/air/TVA%20Onsite%20Air%20Metals%20vs%20Background%20Levelsr1.pdf (last
visited June 9, 2009).
15
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/faqs.htm#20
16
Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/assets/pdf/CoalAsh-Doc1.pdf
17
According to TVA, inspections of this pond were routine and thorough up until the dam failure in December
2008. A TVA factsheet on the spill states: The Kingston ash ponds are visually inspected each day. Quarterly solid

9|Page
waste inspections are completed by State personnel in accordance with permitting requirements. Kingston plant
personnel conduct seep inspections of the dikes quarterly. Detailed inspections of the ash handling and storage
dikes are done annually by TVA engineering staff with written reports that include findings and recommendations.
The most recent annual inspection at Kingston was conducted in October 2008. There were no significant
problems found that indicated that the dikes were unstable to the point of failure. (Ash release at TVAs Kingston
fossil plant, factsheet, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1/15/09. http://www.tva.gov/kingston/pdf/ash_release.pdf. )
Clearly, basic monitoring and inspections of the pond under existing regulation were not enough to prevent this
devastating spill. In comparison, Southerns only disclosure on its inspection processes states that the company is
doing less than TVA to monitor its ash ponds:
Southern Company's Inspection Program
Southern Company owns and operates 22 plants with active ash ponds. Ash ponds have successfully contained
the byproducts of coal burned to produce electricity for decades. Every two weeks plant personnel inspect the
pond and impoundments. Every two years dam safety engineers inspect the dike and its structural integrity.
Southern Company will continue to comply with, or exceed, all state and federal regulatory requirements and seek
better ways to ensure the safety of ash ponds. TVA shows us that Southerns efforts are not sufficient to prevent
significant financial risks. Wet storage of coal ash poses risks that are best mitigated by transitioning to lined and
capped dry storage of the material.
(http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/environment/ash.aspx)
18
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Waste (draft), U.S. EPA, August 2007,
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/reports/epa-coal-combustion-waste-risk-assessment.pdf.
19
Scientists Letter to the Office of Management and Budget. 8 January 2010.
http://tvakingston.blogspot.com/2010/01/regarding-epa-proposed-regulation-of.html
20
EPA and Responsible Companies Sign Agreement, US EPA website, November 2004.
http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/pines/pinesfs200404b.htm
21
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Waste (draft), U.S. EPA, August 2007,
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/reports/epa-coal-combustion-waste-risk-assessment.pdf. EPA has documented 24
cases of proven damage to groundwater or surface water from CCW storage facilities, and 43 potential damage cases.
These additional examples of groundwater contamination and other environmental harm caused by landfills can be found
here: Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July 9, 2007.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/assets/pdf/CoalAsh-Doc1.pdf. In addition, a recent report identifies 31 new damage cases,
including 11 cases from dry ash landfills.
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pdf/newsreports/Out%20of%20Control%20FINAL%20234am.pdf
22
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/reports/earthjustice_waste_deep.pdf P. 6.
23
Final U.S. EPA, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report, October
2009, pg 6-12
24
http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/environment/ash.aspx
25
http://www.southerncompany.com/suppliers/byproducts.aspx
26
Inspector General to Probe EPA Marketing of Coal Ash, press release from Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER), 11/4/09. http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/11/04
27
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/lawsuit-claims-dominion-saw-golf-course-coal-ash-dump
28
Response to EPA Administrators Request for Investigation into Allegations of a Cover-up of the Risk
Assessment for the Coal Ash Rulemaking, U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General, 11/2/09, pg 7.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/20091102-10-N-0019.pdf
Coal ash is currently promoted by an EPA-American Coal Ash Association partnership called CP. CP also
involves the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), Department of Energy (DOE), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the United States Department of
Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS). The mission of the partnership is to promote the beneficial
use of coal combustion products and the environmental benefits that result from their use. Some of the benefits
of reusing coal ash, according to the CP website, include lower greenhouse gas emissions for cement and a
reduction of the need to mine new materials.

10 | P a g e
29
Hundreds of coal ash dumps lack regulation, The New York Times, 1/6/10.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html?_r=1
30
EPA Announces New Action to Prevent Coal Ash Releases, US EPA website, 3/9/2009.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/b2856087389fb824852575740
07409c1!OpenDocument
31
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/(LookupRIN)/2050-AE81
32
Dont call coal ash hazardous waste, Manchin asks EPA, The Charleston Gazette, 2/15/10.
http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/201002150522
33
The Coal Ash Case, The New York Times, 1/19/10,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/opinion/20wed4.html
34
White House, EPA at odds over Coal-Waste Rules, Wall Street Journal, 1/9/10.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126300256672322625.html
35
White House, EPA at odds over Coal-Waste Rules, Wall Street Journal, 1/9/10.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126300256672322625.html. A February 25 2010 article from The Tennessean puts
the number of industry meetings with OMB at 28.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100225/NEWS02/2250347/1009/NEWS01
36
EPA to Propose Coal-Ash Rules By End of the Year, The Charleston Gazette, 3/9/09.
http://wvgazette.com/News/200903090419.
37
http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/environment/solids.aspx
38
http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/environment/ash.aspx
39
http://www.southerncompany.com/planetpower/pdfs/ccbrp.pdf
40
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Damage Case Assessment under RCRA for Fossil Fuel Combustion
Wastes, dated August 2006.
41
US EPA, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes, August 6 2007 (draft).
42
EPA, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Arsenic (CASRN 7440-38-2).
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm?fuseaction=iris.showQuickView&substance_nmbr=0278.
43
U.S. EPA (2007) Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes, August, 6, 2007 (draft).
44
Electric Power Research Institute. An Assessment of Mercury Emissions from U.S. Coal-fired Power Plants. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2000. 1000608
45
Hopkins, W.A., C.L. Rowe, J.H. Roe, D.E.Scott, M.T. Mendonta and J.D. Congdon, (1999). Ecotoxicological impact
of coal combustion byproducts on amphibians and reptiles. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, presented at the
Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 20th Annual meeting, Philadelphia, PA, November 14-18.
Abstract # PMP009.
46
Preliminary Summary Report from Water, Sediment and Fish samples collected at the TVA Ash Spill by
Appalachian State University, Appalachian Voices, Tennessee Aquarium and Wake Forest University,
http://www.appvoices.org/resources/AppVoices_TVA_Ash_Spill_Report_May15.pdf
47
U.S. EPA (2007) Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes, August, 6, 2007 (draft).

11 | P a g e