EXHIBITS LIST and EXCERPTS - TABLE of CONTENTS

*An asterisk indicates that excerpts from the exhibit are in this document *A1 - March 23, 1990, Audit Report: EPA Office of the Inspector General, No. E1h1C9-04-0093-0100210 [Scope and Objectives; Summary of Findings; Action Required; and selections about Georgia (Atlanta).] A2 - September 24, 1998, Atlanta Combined Sewer Overflow Consent Decree: Paragraph C,
Page 100 of 115 < http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/civil/cwa/atlanta1998-cd.pdf >

A3 - December 20, 1999, Atlanta First Amended Consent Decree: Paragraph C,

Page 122 of 151 < http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/civil/cwa/atlanta1999-cd.pdf >

B1 - November 23, 1998, Petition: Writ of Mandamus, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., No. 98-06929, 11th Circuit. *B2 - January 11, 1999, Interim Order: Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., Petition for Writ of Mandamus, No. 98-06929, 11th Cir. Jan. 11, 1999. B3 - April 28, 1999, Writ of Mandamus: Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., No. 98-06929, 11th Cir. Apr. 28, 1999. *C1 - November 21, 2000, Letter: Samuel Shepherd, EPD to Chuck Budinger, P.G. *C2 - October 25, 2004, Memorandum: William Smith, Georgia Geologic Survey to Glen Behrend, EPD *C3 - October 26, 2004, Memorandum: Jack Raymer, JJ&G to George Barnes, City of Atlanta *C4 - Nov. 16, 2004, Letter: Robert Scott, P.E., EPD to Chuck Budinger, P.G. *D1 - February 7, 2001, Letter: Pamela Y. Perry, JD, Sierra Club to Natalie Ellington, EPA-R4 *D2 - March 23, 2001, Technical Memo: Jordan, Jones, and Goulding, Inc., Prepared for CH2M-Hill *D3 - June 4, 2001, Summary Notes: John Harkins, EPA-R4 *D4 - June 27, 2001, Letter: Garey Simpson, PG to Phyllis Harris, Attorney, EPA-R4 *D5 - July 3, 2001, Memo: Solomon Pollard, Jr., PhD., Senior Toxicologist, EPA-Region 4 *D6 - July 20, 2001, Letter: Phyllis Harris, EPA R-4 to Sherrill Marcus, SOCESJ D7 - August 10, 2001, Letter: A. Stanley Meiburg, EPA-R4 to Chuck Budinger, P.G. D8 - March 3, 2003, Letter: Chuck Budinger, P.G. to Nancy Bethune & Natalie Ellington, EPA-R4 *D9 - March 7, 2003, Letter: Chuck Budinger, P.G. to Jimmy Palmer & James Giattina, EPA-R4 D10 - March 19, 2003, E-mail: Chuck Budinger to Nan. Bethune, Nat. Ellington, Bren. Johnson, EPA-R4 *D11 - Aug. 14, 2002, Letter: (name redacted) to Assistant Attorney General *D12 - Jan. 30, 2003, Motion to Amend: Amendment to Atlantas First Amended Consent Decree *E1 - September 28, 2007, Memo: Cynthia C. Dougherty, EPA-HQ to Jim Giattina, EPA-Region 4 *E2 - October 18, 2007, Letter: Jim Giattina, EPA-Region 4 to Robert Schreiber F1 - November 24, 2008, Legal Opinion: Hal F. Wright to Robert Schreiber F2 - December 10, 2008, Letter: Robert Schreiber to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, #1
(Exhibits F-1 and F-2 can be accessed at < http://www.enviro-lawyer.com/Thrash.pdf >.)

F3 - January 9, 2009, Response #1: William A. Weinischke, US-DOJ to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, #1 F4 - January 27, 2009, Letter: Robert Schreiber to Judge Thomas W. Thrash re: Response #1 F5 - July 14, 2009, Letter: Twenty-two citizens to Judge Thomas W. Thrash F6 - July 14, 2009, Companion Document: Exhibits List and Excerpts for letter to Judge Thrash F7 - July 29, 2009, Response #2: William A. Weinischke, US-DOJ to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, #2 F8 - August 3, 2009, Letter: Robert Schreiber to Judge Thrash re: Response #2 G1 - June 13, 2008, Memo: Ms. Linda Boornazian, Mr. Steve Heare, EPA-HQ to Regional Water Division Directors < http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/memo_gi_classvwells.pdf >

Georgia/EPA-R4: Failure to enforce SDWA/UIC, Exhibits & Excerpts, March 4, 2010

EXCERPTS
Exhibit Date A Mar. 23, 1990 Document Audit Report: Mary Boyer, EPA Divisional Inspector General for Audit to Greer Tidwell, Regional Administrator, EPA R-4 Description Review of Region 4's Regulation and Management of Combined Sewer Overflows

Excerpt, page 15: The City listed CSOs in its collection system when it submitted an NPDES permit application for the R.M. Clayton sewage treatment plant. However, the State did not issue permits for any of the CSOs or require the City to monitor or sample CSO discharges. The State further weakened regulatory controls by waiving its water quality standards when the City's combined sewers overflowed. Because the State granted an unauthorized waiver of its water quality standards, the City had no incentive to monitor or control discharges from CSOs. The waiver remained in effect until 1989, when Region-4 refused to approve the State's water quality standards until the unauthorized waiver was removed. (Emphasis added) Exhibit Date Document B2 Apr. 28, 1999 Interim Order: Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. Description Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 98-06929

Excerpt, page 2: In preparing their proposed orders, the parties should take as a given that this Court is not satisfied with EPA's alleged efforts to comply with the Court's mandate and is determined to ensure that that full and complete compliance is obtained without further delay. Thirteen months is too long, and limited resources is no excuse. Further delay will not be tolerated. Exhibit Date C1 Nov. 21, 2000 Document Letter: Samuel Shepherd, Ga EPD to Chuck Budinger, P.G., Watershed Protection Services Description Responses to concerns re: Chattahoochee Tunnel, Cobb County, EPD #20036

Item 6: Your statement that the "WQCA" [(Georgia) Water Quality Control Act] requires EID for WWTF and sewerage system upgrades is incorrect. The Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control (3913-6-.02(3)(g) state: "All projects for the construction, upgrading or expansion of publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities within the state shall be required to prepare an Environmental Information Document (EID)". As indicated above, the County has prepared and held a public meeting on an EID for the relocated R.L. Sutton plant. If the permitted capacity of that plant is to be increased in the future, another EID and meeting will be required at that time. There is no permit required for construction or operation of the tunnel. (Emphasis added) Exhibit Date Document C2 Oct. 25, 2004 Memorandum: William G. Smith, Georgia Geologic Survey to Glen Behrend, Engineering and Technical Support Program, EPD Description Internal memorandum between two Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources Divisions re: UIC

The receiving shaft and the underground sewage conveyance tunnel, as described in your Memorandum of October, 14, 2004, do not require an underground injection control (UIC) permit. We understand that sections of the construction that are subject to leakage will be lined, and that neither the purpose nor the function of the shaft tunnel is to inject fluids into the subsurface soil or rock. Further, subject to the final shaft and tunnel dimensions, depths and other factors, the facilities, may not meet the definition of an underground injection well. UIC permits are issued for wells that inject fluids into the subsurface, usually under pressure, and may contaminant (sic) the underground aquifer. The facilities described more
Georgia/EPA-R4: Failure to enforce SDWA/UIC, Exhibits & Excerpts, March 4, 2010

closely resemble underground sewer lines, which are not regulated by the UIC program. (Emphasis added, see excerpt C-4, below.) Exhibit Date Document C3 Oct. 26, 2004 Memo: Jack Raymer, (Jordan, Jones and Goulding) to George Barnes, City of Atlanta Description Third party contractor comments to letter dated Oct. 5, 2004 from Chuck Budinger, P.G. to Carol Couch, Ph.D., Director, EPD

Item 6. ...The tunnels are designed to not exfiltrate or inject wastewater into groundwater, and therefore do not meet the definition of an injection well. Second, the tunnels and the shaft leading to them are not wells any more than the MARTA (subway) tunnels and shafts leading to them. Both are underground conveyance structures designed to minimize interaction with groundwater. Item 7. Neither the tunnels, nor the shafts, nor the support system constitute an injection well. The class [Class-V] is irrelevant. (Emphasis added.) Exhibit Date C4 Nov. 16, 2004 Document Letter: Robert A. Scott, P,E., Program Manager , Engineering and Technical Support Program, EPD to Chuck Budinger, P.G. Description Response letter from Chuck Budinger, P.G. to Carol Couch, Ph.D., Director, EPD, October 5, 2004

Page 4, Underground Injection Well Classification: In response to your concerns about the classification of sewage tunnels as underground injection well, we formally inquired of the EPD Geologic Survey Branch, the administrators of the Underground Injection Well regulations, for a determination. They determined that tunnels are not injection wells. (Emphasis added.) [Note: See excerpt C-2, above.] Exhibit Date D1 Feb. 7, 2001 Document Letter: Pamela Y. Perry, JD, Sierra Club Centennial Group to Natalie Ellington, EPA-R4, Groundwater and UIC Description Letter of Appreciation for Meeting of Jan. 26, 2001 Re: Cobb SewerIntercept Tunnel (CIT) and Alternative Sewer Solutions

First Page, third bullet point: Is the proposed tunnel qualifiable as a Class V Underground Injection Well? If so, what level of investigation, monitoring, and financial assurance to mitigate potential environmental releases does Cobb County have documented? Note: This letter questions the applicability of Class-V UIC regulations for the Chattahoochee Interceptor Tunnel in anticipation of a determination from EPA-HQ. A second meeting was held at EPA-R4 in February and follow-up letters were sent but a determination was never prepared. (see D-4 through D-7) Exhibit Date D2 Mar. 23, 2001 Document Technical Memorandum: Jordan, Jones, and Goulding, Inc., Prepared for CH2M-Hill By: Wojeciech Klecan and Refik Elibay Subject: Atlanta CSO Tunnel Alternative Location Remedial Measures Report, Volume II, Appendix D sent to EPA/EPD

Summary: This memorandum addresses engineering issues for construction of the East & West Area Tunnels and it includes a list of Permits to be considered by the tunnel designer. The consultants omit the requirement for UIC permits. The list is incorporated into four subsequent submittals by Montgomery-Watson/Khafra- JV which became Atlantas lead consultants after CH2M-Hill/TOC. (see Special Note below)
Georgia/EPA-R4: Failure to enforce SDWA/UIC, Exhibits & Excerpts, March 4, 2010

(Exhibit D-2, continued) Excerpt: (Titles only, descriptions excluded, pages 8-11, emphasis added) 3.10 Permits Following is a checklist of items the design engineer should address: - Environmental Screening - Environmental Information Document (EID) - Water Well Survey - Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (Discharges from Construction Sites) - Permits - Section 404 Permitting - Metropolitan River Protection Act (MRPA) Coordination - Discharge Permitting (Georgia Environmental Protection Division) - State Waters Buffer Variance (Georgia Environmental Protection Division) - Fulton County Land Disturbance Permit - Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) Utility Encroachment Permit - Other Utility Encroachment Permits Special Note: The above Permit list was submitted by Montgomery-Watson/Khafra JV in four documents. 1) First Milestone to EPA/EPD, May 7, 2002 Final City of Atlanta CSO Remedial Measures Plan CSO Pre-Design Report for the Consolidated Storage Tunnel Component Section 9 Schedules and Permits, Sub-Section 9.5 Permits, page 5 2) Final Milestone to EPA/EPD, March 31, 2004 City of Atlanta CSO Remedial Measures Plan Final Consolidated Storage Tunnel Design Development Report, March 2004 Section 9 Schedules and Permits, Sub-Section 9.5 Permits, page 5 3) Application to Ga. Environmental Facilities Authority for State Revolving Fund loans, April 30, 2004 Environmental Review and Planning Document for Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Design Development Report, March 2004, revised for GEFA Section 9 Schedules and Permits, Sub-Section 9.5 Permits, page 4 4) Application to EPA-Region 4 for Federal Grants, August 4, 2004 [Document #3 above is incorporated into the application for federal grants.] Application to Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority for State Revolving Fund loans Environmental Review and Planning Document for Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority April 30, 2004 Design Development Report, March 2004, revised for GEFA Application-Section 7, Consolidated Storage-East and West Area - Design Development Report, Report-Section 9.0 - Schedules and Permits, page 4 Date Exhibit D3 June 4, 2001 Document Summary Notes: John Harkins, EPA-R4 Description Atlanta CSO Remedial Measures Plan Issues from Citizens (SOCESJ) based upon May 16, 2001 meeting and materials provided for or during that meeting.

Page 1, Technical, UIC: The City will undertake a detailed geotechnical investigation of the proposed tunnel routes. This investigation is part of the preliminary engineering which has been initiated (to keep on schedule). The consultant's report on the tunnel technology recognizes that the subsurface geology Georgia/EPA-R4: Failure to enforce SDWA/UIC, Exhibits & Excerpts, March 4, 2010 4

of the area includes discontinuities caused by weathering, etc. The report also recognizes the importance of reducing infiltration and exfiltration from the tunnel to the greatest extent possible. The initial investigation will include borings every 1000 ft. along the proposed routes, with follow up borings as necessary. A survey of existing wells in the area will also be included. Groundwater infiltration/exfiltration will be controlled by the choice of the final route (to avoid areas with fracture rock), the depth of the tunnel (to get below areas of highly weathered rock), and the installation of lining where necessary. The preliminary cost and schedule assume 50% of the tunnel will be lined. (Emphasis added.) Exhibit Date D4 June 27, 2001 Document Letter: Garey Simpson, PG to Phyllis Harris, Attorney, EPA-R4 Subject: Concerns on Wastewater Storage Tunnels in Metro. Atlanta Description Written follow-up re: June 13th meeting to EPA-4 Regional Counsel

Excerpt: [...based] on my professional experience and significant involvement in the environmental industry, the wastewater storage tunnel concept is in direct conflict with the intent of standing Federal and state environmental regulations, especially the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts. Also, I believe that tunnel construction and operation in an extensively documented fracture bedrock aquifer, especially the Piedmont Metamorphic Fractured Bedrock and Brevard Shear Zone areas of Metropolitan Atlanta, is the most flagrant disruption and wasting of a very important groundwater resource. (Emphasis added) Another aspect of the need for tunnels is that if they simply have to be built that they be required to have Class V Injection Well Permits. Lawyers that we have discussed the tunnel designs with have said that the tunnel construction through a well documented and utilized groundwater resource should require Injection Well Permits, as referenced in the statutes. (Emphasis added) Exhibit Date D5 July 3, 2001 Document EPA-R4 Memorandum: from Solomon Pollard, PhD., Sr. Toxicologist, Office of Policy Management to Beverly Banister, Director, Water Mgt. Div. Description Response to Comments of Richard S. Bright, Asst. Dir., Prevention Research Ctr., Morehouse School of Medicine (and Dr. Vivian L. Steadman)

Excerpts: (Page 1, paragraph 3) For the most part, the comments in both documents are generally in agreement with the literature regarding issues of continued concern in combined sewer overflow management. Responses are summarized below according to the issues raised. (Emphasis added) Issue 4: Potential Holding Tunnel Leakage: (Page 4) Based on conversations with Robert K. Bastian and James F. Wheeler, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. as well as numerous EPA personnel and independent contractors, it is concluded that all pipes (and tunnels) have the potential to leak. (Emphasis added) Summary of Findings: Underground Tunnel: (Page 6) It is concluded that releases from the storage tunnel cannot be quantified but are highly likely. Potential contamination of the water table should be considered such that a system of monitoring wells should be placed immediately down gradient of the tunnel and sampled (full scan) a minimum of twice per year (during the first year of operation). Depending on the results, a subsequent yearly sampling scheme should be adopted. A private well survey should be developed where both distance factors are adopted (i.e., the distance from the tunnel should not be closer than X miles from the nearest down-gradient private well) and contingency plans should be developed to contain potential leaks from the tunnel as well as to provide for water needs of potentially affected private well owners. (Emphasis added)
Georgia/EPA-R4: Failure to enforce SDWA/UIC, Exhibits & Excerpts, March 4, 2010

Exhibit Date D6 July 20, 2001

Document Letter: Phyllis Harris, Regional Counsel and Dir., Environmental Accountability Div. to Sherrill Marcus, Southern Organizing Com. for Economic and Social Justice.

Description EPA-R4 formal response to coalition of citizens regarding comments and presentations about proposed CSO tunnels.

Excerpt: Introductory paragraph, page 1 The Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) primary objective is to ensure that the City meets the requirements of its CSO Consent Decree (Consent Decree) and applicable law, including the Clean Water Act, (CWA), and the Georgia Water Quality Control Act (GWQCA). (Emphasis added) Excerpt: From Review of Technical Concerns, Background, last paragraph (page 3) EPA/EPD have evaluated the technical concerns that you have raised regarding the Citys preferred alternative to determine if they are valid and, if they are valid, to determine if they will impact the implementation of the preferred alternative. Although we have found a number of your concerns to be valid, it is the opinion of EPA/EPD that these concerns can be mitigated through good engineering practice. None of the concerns would preclude EPA/EPD from authorizing the City to implement the preferred alternative. (Emphasis added). Exhibit Date D9 Mar. 7, 2003 Document Letter: Chuck Budinger, P.G. to J.I. Palmer, Regional Admin. and James Giattina, Dir. Water Management Div., EPA-R4 Description EPA R-4 failure to issue a determination re: applicability of UIC regulations.

Note: This letter was sent first to UIC/Groundwater Protection, EPA-R4 on March 3, 2003 (Exhibit D-8). At their recommendation, it was forwarded to Mr. Palmer and Mr. Giattina. Re: Reconsideration of In-Line Storage Tunnels for Wastewater Treatment as Class I Injection Wells; A Petition to Re-Classify. (Reply to letter from Stanley Meiburg, Acting Region 4 Administrator, dated August 10, 2001.) Excerpt, page 1, first paragraph: Current events in Atlanta regarding the disappearance of streams along the alignment of the Chattahoochee Interceptor Tunnel (CIT) and the potential migration of pathogens from the waste tunnel has prompted me to evaluate the rules and regulations for Underground Injection Control. This topic was brought to your attention over two years ago, the end of January of 2000 to be specific, by myself and others representing a group of concerned citizens and homeowners. At that time, the three of you expressed your doubts about being able to affect the construction of the tunnel through the Underground Injection Program Rules. In a subsequent letter to me from Stanley Meiburg, Acting Region 4 Administrator, I was assured this would be reviewed by the EPA Office of Water. Failure to respond to these issues has prompted this letter. (Emphasis added.) Exhibit Date D11 Aug. 14, 2002 Document Description Letter: From: (name redacted), To: Asst. Comment addressing proposed Attorney General, Re: US and the State of amendment for the Nancy Ga. vs. City of Atlanta, DOJ #90-5-1-4430 Creek tunnel and applicability response to 67 Fed Reg. 48671 (2002) of UIC regulation. Note: Authorship of this letter was redacted by US-DOJ in its response to a FOIA request.

Excerpt: (page 3, paragraph 4) One of two other aspects of the [Georgia] Water Quality Control Act that should be looked into is Section 391-3-6-.13, Underground Injection Control. This tunnel may fall under the conditions and definitions of that section. (Emphasis added.)
Georgia/EPA-R4: Failure to enforce SDWA/UIC, Exhibits & Excerpts, March 4, 2010

Exhibit Date D12 Jan. 30, 2003

Document Motion to enter amendments to Atlantas First Amended Consent Decree for Nancy Creek Tunnel 1 :98-CV-1956-TWT

Description Response to comment re: tunnel falls under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, Section 391-3-6-.13, Underground Injection Control. (See D-9)

Excerpt, page 21: The Nancy Creek Tunnel is for conveyance and storage, not treatment. Therefore, no EID is required. In addition, this is not an underground injection well and therefore the comment does not fall within this purview. (Emphasis added.) [Respondents failed to disclose the UIC permit requirements in Section 391-3-6-.13 of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act (see Exhibit D-11).] Exhibit Date Document E1 Sept. 28, 2007 Memo: Cynthia C. Dougherty, EPA-HQ, Dir. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water to Jim Giattina, Division Director Water Mgt. Division, EPA-Region 4 Description Subject: Information to Assist EPA-R4 in Their Response to Inquiries Re: Conveyance Tunnel/UIC Issues

Paragraph 2: (Tunnels that convey sewage to a POTW do not fall within the scope of these definitions, because they are not intended to emplace fluids below the surface of the ground through a well; rather they are distribution systems intended to convey wastewater to POTWs from intake sites that collect both sewer flow and flow from the treatment plant during high usage times. Therefore, wastewater conveyance tunnels are not required to be permitted under the UIC program.) (See E-2) Exhibit Date Document E2 Oct. 18, 2007 Letter: Jim Giattina, Div. Director Water Management Division, EPA R-4 to Robert Schreiber Description Region 4 Response to Inquiry Re: Conveyance Tunnel/UIC Issues

Paragraph 2: The UIC program regulates the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection. Regulations promulgated under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) prevent underground injection from endangering underground sources of drinking water. (Tunnels that convey sewage to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for treatment do not fall within the scope of the definitions set forth in the regulations promulgated under Part C of the SDWA. This is because such tunnels are not intended to emplace fluids below the surface of the ground through a well; rather they are distribution systems intended to convey wastewater to POTWs from intake sites that collect both sewer flow and flow from a treatment plant during high usage times. Therefore wastewater conveyance tunnels are not required to be permitted under the UIC program.) (See E-1)

Georgia/EPA-R4: Failure to enforce SDWA/UIC, Exhibits & Excerpts, March 4, 2010