# MEMORANDUM

TO: Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM: Elizabeth Gentile, ERG

Deb Bartram, ERG

DATE: September 30, 2015

SUBJECT: Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database – Development, Content,

and Use

ERG is providing technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of

Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (E AD) for development of effluent limitations

guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric Power Genera ting Industry. In 2010,

EPA distributed a survey to steam electric power plants to collect technical, economic, and

financial information related to wastewater generation and treatment under the authority of

Section 308 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Agency is used data from the surveys to

support the development of th e proposed and final rule.

This memorandum provides more information about the development, content, and use of the

Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database, including:

 Information Collection Request (ICR) development;

 Survey delivery and receipt;

 Survey helpline support;

 Technical survey review;

 Data extraction; and

 Final Steam Electric Techni cal Questionnaire Database.

1.0 I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST 

# (ICR) D EVELOPMENT



# In support of the rulemaking, EPA developed an d distributed a survey to the steam electric

power generating industry under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33

U.S.C. 1318. EPA designed the survey to obtain technical information related to wastewater

generation and treatment, and economic informa tion such as costs of wastewater treatment

technologies and financial characteristics of affected companies.

EPA developed an ICR entitled Questionnaire for the Steam Elect ric Power Generating Effluent

Guidelines (Steam Electric Survey). The survey wa s approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) in May 2010 (OMB Control No. 2040-0281).

The survey comprised the following nine parts:

Part A: Steam Electric Power Plant Operations

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 2

Part B: FGD Systems

Part C: Ash Handling

Part D: Pond/Impoundment Systems and Ot her Wastewater Treatment Operations

Part E: Wastes from Cleaning Metal Process Equipment

Part F: Management Practices for Ponds/Impoundments and Landfills

Part G: Leachate Sampling Data for Ponds/Impoundments and Landfills

Part H: Nuclear Power Generation

Part I: Economic and Financial Data

In order to identify the populati on of plants that would be candi dates to receive the survey, EPA

created a sample frame consisting of all operating fossil- and nucle ar-fueled steam electric power

plants in the United States that report ed operating under NAICS code 22, and their

corresponding generating units, as determined us ing information obtained from databases that

are maintained by the Energy Information Admini stration, a statistical agency of the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE). The Energy Info rmation Administration collects information on

existing electric generating plants and associated equipment to ev aluate the current status and

potential trends in the industry. The source of the information came primarily from the 2007

Electric Generator Report (Form EIA-860) and was supplemented by information collected by

Form EIA-923 and a survey conducted by EPA’ s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response (OSWER) [DCN SE02032]. In addition, EPA identified two plants that started

operations after 2007 and obtained information about them from Internet searches. Collectively,

the data sources provided key sample frame information for each steam electric power plant with

a NAICS code of 22. EPA used th is sample frame to select a total of 733 steam electric power

plants to receive the survey.

To minimize the burden on the respondents, EPA grouped plants into strata based on fuel

classification 1 

# so that an efficient stratified samp ling scheme could be used. For more

information on EPA’s methodology for assigning plant-level fuel cla ssification, see Part B of the

Supporting Statement for the Draft Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating

Effluent Guidelines Information Collection Request [SE00205A01]. EPA then developed four

different versions of the survey (e.g., combina tions of survey parts) to gather specific

information from the different strata. Table 1-1 pres ents the four different versions of the survey,

the targeted plant fuel type fo r those versions, the survey part s associated with the survey

version, and the number of survey recipients for each version.

1 

# EPA classified plants into the fuel categories to develo p the sample frame of all fossil- and nuclear-fueled steam

electric power plants in the United States. EPA further developed plant-level fuel classifications based on a

hierarchy of the type of units operating at the plant; therefore, some plants may operate units that burn other types of

fuel in addition to the fuel under whic h they are classified. Plants that oper ated coal- or petroleum coke-fired units

were classified as coal or petroleum coke regardless of ot her fuels at the plant. For ex ample, a plant classified as

coal will have coal-fired unit(s) at the plant, but may also have oil- fired, gas-fired, or nuclear unit(s).

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 3

Table 1-1. Steam Electric Survey Versions

Version Targeted Plant Fuel Type Survey Parts Received Number of Steam

Electric Plants

Receiving Survey

1 Coal- and Petroleum Coke-Fired All Parts 97

2 Coal- and Petroleum Coke-Fired A, B, C, D, H, I 407

3 Oil-Fired and Combination a 

# Fuel Types A, B, C, D, E, H, I 42

4 Gas- and Nuclear-Fueled A, E, H, I 187

Total 733

a – Combination plants operate at least two generating units that use different types of fu el, but do not operate units

fueled by coal or petroleum coke.



# EPA evaluated several different survey format s as candidates for collecting the technical,

financial, and economic information from the steam electric industry. These formats included

MS Word, MS Excel, and PDF. EPA ultimately de termined that the MS Excel format was the

most appropriate format for distributing and co llecting the requested data from industry and

subsequently transferring the data to a da tabase for analysis. See DCN SE00402, or EPA’s

website ( http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/gui de/steam-electric/questionnaire.cfm ), for the

final version of the Steam Electric Survey.

Based on the information requested in the survey , EPA developed database table structures to

electronically store the data r eceived from each plant. EPA developed the table structures (and

corresponding field names) to match the da ta requested in the electronic survey by

question/section number and by specific topic. During development of the electronic survey

format, EPA mapped the specific re sponse fields in the MS Excel survey parts to the database

table and field name where the data would ultim ately be stored. EPA then developed a program

that automatically opened MS Excel plant response files and extr acted the mapped responses into

the database tables in the Steam Electric Techni cal Questionnaire Database (technical database).

For more information on the extraction program for the technical databa se, see Section 5.0 of

this memorandum.

In order to navigate the final version of th e technical database, EPA developed a database

dictionary that cross re ferences the Steam Electric Survey (Survey Parts A through H) with the

technical database 2 

# . The data dictionary includes three diffe rent sorts to sort information linking

the survey questions to the database tables ( by part, section, question number, or question table

number) or the database tables to the survey que stions (by database tabl e name or field name).

See DCN SE05924.A1 for the complete data dictionary.

EPA used the plant names and addresses report ed in the 2007 EIA database to develop the

mailing list for the Steam Electric Survey. Fu rther, the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)

reviewed the mailing list to prov ide feedback on the names and addresses being used. For a final

copy of the mailing list, including the survey version assigned to each plant, see DCN SE00510

or EPA’s website: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/g uide/steam-electric/questionnaire.cfm

. EPA prepared a disk for each plant containing all MS Excel electronic files corresponding to

each plant’s specific version of the survey. Addi tionally, the disks included PDF versions of the

2 

# See DCN SE03302 for the survey database containing economic and financial information (Survey Part I).

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 4

survey to be used as a worki ng file. All files were also av ailable for download from EPA’s

website.

For more information on the development of th e survey, survey form, and mailing list, see

Section 3.2 of the Technical Development Document for th e Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Steam Electric Powe r Generating Point Source Category (TDD) [DCN

SE05904].

2.0 S URVEY 

# D ELIVERY AND 

# R ECEIPT



# EPA’s contractor, Eastern Resear ch Group (ERG), developed a surv ey tracking database to track

the mail out, delivery, and confirmation of receipt for all 733 surveys. In order to track and

identify plants, ERG generated 5-digit plant IDs for all 733 plants using a random number

generator. ERG included the following informati on in the survey tracking database for all 733

survey recipients:

 Version of the survey delivered to the plant;

 FedEx tracking number;

 Date, time, and recipient of the su rvey (available via FedEx shipping

information);

 Original due date for the specific plant and extension request information; and

 Date EPA received the survey response from the plant.

EPA received 733 completed surveys, including those fr om 53 plants that certified that they were

not and did not have the capability to be enga ged in steam electric pow er generation, would be

retired by December 31, 2011, 3 

# or did not generate electric ity in 2009 by burning any fossil or

nuclear fuels. EPA refers to these 53 plants as “kick outs” as they did no t complete the remainder

of the survey based on the instruct ions in Part A of the survey. See Appendix A, Table A-1, for a

complete listing of the 733 plants and the date(s) EPA received the returned survey 4 

# . Because

responses were received for all 733 sampled plants (including those 53 plants that were not

required to complete the remainder of the survey ), there were no plants that were considered

non-respondents, thus the res ponse rate is 100 percent.

After receiving a survey response, ERG updated th e survey tracking table, uploaded the survey

response to a secure confidential business information (CBI) server, and performed a

completeness check on the returned survey. All su rvey responses were managed as CBI in the

expectation that some CBI would be claimed by respondents. ERG created working folders,

named by Plant ID, of all 733 survey responses on the secured CBI network. The survey

response files saved in these working folders in cluded the specific MS Excel survey parts,

diagrams, reports, and any other electronic files the plant submitted with the survey.

3 

# At the time EPA developed the survey, EPA used 2011 as the cutoff year for retirements because the plants would

be retired before the proposed rule was published.

4 

# Part G of the Steam Electric Survey included a request for sampling data. B ecause of the nature of the requested

data, plants responding to Part G had more time to comple te the part. Therefore, a date for Parts A-F and H and a

date for Part G response are in cluded in the tracking table.

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 5

ERG stored all hard copy submittals and original survey response disks in a locked archive to

maintain the original survey responses from a ll plants. In addition to the electronic working

folders for each plant, ERG also created a hard copy log to track all ha rd copy files submitted by

plants with the survey (e.g., certification statemen t, maps, diagrams, reports). The hard copy log

tracks the plant identific ation information, the name of th e ERG personnel that received the

survey, and the physical location of the hard copy files associated with each plant.

ERG performed completeness checks on all 733 surveys as they were received and uploaded to

the designated network location. Along with the su rvey files and hard copy logs, EPA saved the

completeness checklists for each survey in the working folder. The completeness checklists

tracked the following pieces of information:

 ERG personnel checking completeness;

 Plant ID;

 Survey version number;

 Date the package was delivered to ERG;

 Check for the completed certification statement;

 Check that all applicable MS Excel survey parts were present and readable;

 Check that all plant working folder was created and all electronic files were

copied to the secure network;

 Flag for plants that “kicked out” of the survey; and

 Flag to determine that the survey was ready for technical review.

Table A-1, in Appendix A of this memorandum, li sts all 733 survey recipients and shows that

ERG performed a completeness check for all survey responses.

3.0 S URVEY 

# H ELPLINE 

# S UPPORT



# During survey response, ERG dedicated a telephone and email helpline to provide assistance to

survey recipients with questions regarding the instructions, standard terminology, procedures for

completing the survey, and technical content. EPA and ERG developed guidelines for operating

the helpline and logged all voice messages and em ails received throughout survey response.

ERG also tracked and summarized all responses provided via the helpline in the helpline log

[DCN SE02972; SE02973]. This log tracked the following types of information:

 Helpline personnel responding to the request;

 Date and time of request;

 Plant contact name and phone number, pl ant name(s) and ID(s), and company

name;

 Survey version(s);

 Description of the question(s);

 Date and time of response to the plant contact; and

 Summary of helpline staff responses.

As ERG provided technical support via the helpline , the helpline log was used to generate a list

of frequently asked questions (FAQs) that was uploaded on EPA’s website during survey

response. The FAQs were divided into the fo llowing sections: technical content (provided by

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 6

survey part and question number), general qu estions on the survey, and applicability. EPA

continued to update the list of FAQs, publicly available on EPA’s website, as more questions

were received via the helpline. See DCN SE00918 fo r EPA’s final version of the survey FAQs.

Additionally through the he lpline, EPA identified and revised MS Excel survey files (“modified

files”) for 12 individual plant respondents to customize their su rvey files to accommodate the

need for more space for some technical information (i.e., number of surface impoundments or

cooling water systems).

4.0 T ECHNICAL 

# S URVEY 

# R EVIEW



# Following receipt of the technical surveys, EPA di rected ERG to perform a technical review of

the responses. ERG created a survey review check list to track the specific checks completed for

each survey. This checklist included electronic checks, reasonableness checks, and checks for

technical content.

4.1 Electronic Checks

ERG performed electronic checks for all 733 survey response files to ensure that all data could

be successfully extracted into the technical database. These electronic checks included the

following:

 Confirming that original and copied tab names were named correctly;

 Clearing radio button responses as instru cted by plants in the survey part

comments 5 

# ;

 Identifying true zero responses (“0”) a nd replacing those respons es with the code

“-555”;

 Identifying missing data 6 

# and replacing those fields with the code “-111”; and

 Performing a check on modified files (refere nced in Section 3.0) to confirm that

all fields and electronic mapping were correct after the modifications.

4.2 Reasonableness and Technical Checks for Version 3 and 4 Survey Responses

ERG completed reasonableness and technical conten t checks for different sections of the survey

based on the plant fuel type to prioritize the review of informa tion received. Some examples of

these reasonable and technical checks included:

 Confirming that any plants that “kicked out ” of the survey, as described in Section

2.0, truly are kick outs and di d not need to provide responses to the remaining

survey parts;

 Confirming that responses to questions in different su rvey parts corresponded to

the responses provided in other survey part s (for example, the number of

5 

# The Steam Electric Survey contained several questions that had radio button response fields. Once a radio button

was selected, the plants were unable to remove their response. In cases where the radio button was mistakenly

selected, respondents used the comment fields to notify EPA that the radio button should be left blank.

6 

# In order to track missing data in the database, ERG used the code “-111” to identify those responses that were left

blank, but should have been completed based on other responses in the survey.

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 7

ponds/impoundments reported in Part A matched the number of

ponds/impoundments reported in Part D);

 Based on survey responses in Part A (gen eral technical information and system

operations), checking that the plant reported all requested da ta in other parts of the

survey; and

 Confirming that responses for amounts, su ch as BTU generated by fuel type, were

correct given the specified units in the survey.

For all Version 3 and 4 plants (non coal- or pe troleum coke-fired plants), ERG performed the

completeness and electronic checks described ab ove. After these checks, all of the survey

responses were extracted into th e technical database. For more information on the extraction of

the data, see Section 5.0 of this memorandum. Af ter extraction, ERG developed specific checks

to analyze reasonableness and completeness for th e Version 3 and 4 surveys using queries on the

extracted data set. The specific reasonablene ss and technical checks fo r the Version 3 and 4

surveys included:

 Confirming that all kick out responses were accurate;

 Confirming that all Version 3 and 4 plants only reported steam electric generating

units burning fuel other than co al and/or petroleum coke; and

 Correctly identifying gas powered co mbined cycle units and making the

appropriate corrections to the data to accurately represent the industry.

4.3 Reasonableness and Technical Checks for Version 1 and 2 Survey Responses

ERG performed the same completeness and elect ronic checks on the Version 1 and 2 survey

responses as were completed for the Version 3 and 4 survey responses. However, because EPA’s

proposed rulemaking focuses to a large degree on waste streams generated at coal- and

petroleum coke-fired plants, particularly FGD wastewater, ash transport water, and combustion

residual landfill leachate, EPA directed ERG to perform additional technical review checks and

follow-up contacts for the Version 1 and 2 survey responses (i.e., coal- a nd petroleum coke-fired

plants). ERG worked with EPA to develop a standard review of these survey responses,

completed for all Version 1 and 2 surveys, and a detailed review completed in addition to the

standard review for a subset of the Version 1 and 2 surveys.

Version 1/2 Standard Review

The “Version 1/2 Standard Review” focused on the technical responses provided for wet FGD

scrubber data and treatment (Part B, Sections 1, 4, 5, and 7), wet fly ash handling (Part C,

Sections 2.1 through 2.5), wet bottom ash handl ing (Part C, Sections 3.1 through 3.5), and

wastewater treatment/impoundment systems (Part D, Sections 3.1 and 3.2). As part of the

standard review, ERG identified missing data, developed a list of follow-up questions, and

delivered these questions to the designated plan t technical contact via telephone or e-mail. As

plant responses were received, ER G updated the plant-level survey responses located in the plant

working folders. ERG reviewed 191 Version 1 a nd 2 surveys using this approach. ERG senior

personnel performed second-level reviews on over 85 percent of the 191 su rvey responses to

confirm that all surveys were be ing reviewed appropriately. Thes e second-level reviews included

a review of the data repo rted in the survey and also all of the proposed changes identified by the

first reviewer.

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 8

Version 1/2 Detailed Review

In addition to the standard review described above, ERG performed mo re detailed reviews on

313 Version 1 and 2 surveys (including 27 “kick out” responses). This review, referred to as

“Version 1/2 Detailed Review”, reviewed the en tire Steam Electric Survey for completeness,

reasonableness, and technical content, compared to specific items listed as part of the standard

review. As part of the detailed review, ERG pe rformed follow-up calls and e-mails to obtain

missing data or confirm specific data elements. As plant responses were received, ERG updated

the plant-level survey responses located in the plant working folders. The Version 1 and 2

responses that received this more detailed review were selected based on the type of treatment

systems operating at the plant (identified from previous site visits) or they were randomly

selected. Similar to the other Version 1 and 2 reviews, ERG senior pe rsonnel performed secondlevel reviews on 50 percent of th ese survey responses to conf irm that surveys were being

reviewed appropriately.

4.4 Summary of Technical Survey Review

Table A-1, in Appendix A, presents the complete lis ting of all 733 plants and the specific level of

review completed for each survey. In addition to the checks described previ ously in Sections 4.1

to 4.3, ERG also used the technical review checklists to track a ll changes made to the survey,

including changes to the electronic formatting and technical content. This change form tracked

the specific data field that changed, the date the change was made, the ERG personnel making

the change, and the source/reason for the change . Because some survey responses went through

two levels of review, ERG also used this form fo r first reviewers to identify all potential changes

and get them approved prior to making the actual changes in the survey. The survey review

checklists for each respondent also included tabs for follow-up questions for the plant and a

place to track discussions with the plant via phone. ERG saved all e-mail correspondence with

the plants in the plant-specific working folders. See Appendix E of ERG’s “Quality Assurance

Project Plan for the Steam Electri c Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking” for more information on the

technical review ch ecklist [DCN SE02951].

All changes made to the survey responses as a result of these el ectronic and techni cal reviews are

reflected in the final technical database that EP A used to conduct industr y analyses. See Section

6.0 for more information.

5.0 D ATA 

# E XTRACTION



# Following technical review of the survey respon ses, ERG extracted the plant-specific working

folder survey data into the technical database . ERG electronically transferred the data using a

Visual Basic (VBA) program that automatically op ened each survey response file and transferred

the responses to the t echnical database using the mapped re sponses described previously in

Section 1.0. For more information on the VBA extraction program, see EPA’s memorandum

“Steam Electric Questionnaire Extraction Me thodology and Program Code” [DCN SE03832].

The program identified surveys for extraction from a table titled “Survey Review” in the survey

tracking database (see Section 2.0). The survey review table consisted of a record for each plant

and a corresponding flag “Ready for Extraction.” After surveys were reviewed and determined to

be ready for transfer in the da tabase, ERG reviewers flagged th e survey “Ready for Extraction.”

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 9

In order to successfully extract the different da ta types reported in th e survey responses, ERG

had to assign database fields certain field types (e .g., text, number, date) and corresponding field

lengths to match the data in th e survey. The different database field types in the technical

database include:

 Number (Double – decimals);

 Number (Long Integer – no decimals);

 Yes/No (Check boxes);

 Text (Length up to 255 characters);

 Memo (Length longer than 255 characters); and

 Date/Time.

As ERG developed the approach to map reported data to specific database tables, ERG also

identified key fields for each database table base d on the level of data cap tured in the table (i.e.,

plant-level, unit-level, pond-leve l). The extraction program used the key fields to distinguish

between unique records of data. Because the broadest level of data in the technical database is at

the plant level, one global key field for all tables in the database is the Plant ID. As the level of

data reported is more specific, the key fields asso ciated with a database table include those that

are unique identifiers. For example, the plant contact information is provided at the plant level;

therefore, the key field for that database table is the Plant ID. The types of fuel burned at the

plant is requested at the steam electric generating unit level; therefore, the key fields for that

database table are the Plant ID and the steam el ectric generating unit ID. These key fields allow

for querying the database, and pulling data from di fferent database tables at the same level (e.g.,

steam electric generating unit level).

Because of the different data types included in th e technical database and the default values for

blank responses extracted into the database, ERG de veloped a system of codes that were used to

designate different types of re sponses. Some of these codes we re programmed in to the VBA

extraction program, while others were added duri ng technical survey review as explained in

Section 4.0. Table 5-1 provides a list of codes used in the t echnical database, along with a

description of what they represent.

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 10

Table 5-1. Description of Technical Database Codes

Database Code Description

Codes Used in the VBA Extraction Program

-999 Data designated as blank

-777 a 

# Data that was text entered into a numeric fiel d and unable to be transferred to the database

Codes from Technical Survey Review

-555 Represents a true zero response

-111 Represents missing data

Codes Associated with Database Field Types

-1 Corresponds to a “Yes” or “True” answer

Codes Associated with Sani tized CBI Database Fields b, c



# -9999 Represents redacted CBI data in a numeric field

Redacted Represents redacted CBI data in text or memo fields

a – ERG corrected these errors during survey extraction into the technical database as described below in the

description of the technical database error log.

b – See Section 6.0 for more information on EPA’s process for sanitizing the Steam Electric Technical

Questionnaire Database [DCN SE05903].

c – Redacted CBI data in date/ti me fields are shown as blank.



# In order to check the mapping, and that the program extracted the data to the correct technical

database location, ERG performed quality checks on all survey parts (A through I) by filling out

blank survey parts and running test extractions . ERG performed this check for multiple data

response fields on all tabs within a part. Any erro rs identified were corrected and another test

extraction was performed for that specific tab. Extr actions were performed unt il a zero error rate

was obtained.

Following distribution of the Steam Electric Survey to survey respondents, ERG identified seven

mapping references that required updating to accurate ly transfer survey responses into the steam

electric technical database. ER G altered the extraction code to account for the updated mapping

references to correctly extract these data. Table 5-2 provides the survey pa rt, question and table,

and a description of the update made to the extraction program.

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 11

Table 5-2. Summary of MS Excel Mapping Updates in the Extraction Program

Survey Part Question (Table) Description

Part B Section 5 B5-1 (Table B-7) Updated a drop down menu reference to link to the

correct cell in the MS Excel file mapping.

Part C Section 2.5 C2-46 Updated the yes/no radio button to respond “No

Answer” instead of “Yes.” ERG analyzed responses to

the remainder of Section 2.5 to update the plant

response to “Yes”/”No” after extraction.

Part C Section 3.1 C3-31 (Table C-22) Updated the reference cells in the table to link to the

correct cell in the MS Excel file mapping.

Part D Section 3.2 D3-2 (Table D-3); D3-3 (Table

D-4) Updated reference conditiona l statements to account

for true zero values (represented as “-555”) and blank

zero values.

Part D Section 4.1 D4-11 Updated the refe rence cells in the table to link to the

correct cell in the MS Excel file mapping.

Part D Section 5.1 D5-2 (Table D-11) Updated th e reference cells in the table to link to the

correct cell in the MS Excel file mapping.

Part I Section 1 I1-1 (Table I-1) Updated th e reference cells in the table to link to the

correct cell in the MS Excel file mapping.



# As described in Section 4.0, ERG performed electronic checks on all 733 surveys prior to

extraction into the technical data base. ERG performed these checks to eliminate errors associated

with extracting the data into the technical data base. In addition to thes e electronic checks, ERG

also built in a tool to the extr action program that alerted the user of successful extractions or

extractions that were incomplete due to an ex traction error. If the su rvey was successfully

extracted, the program automatica lly updated the survey review table with a date stamp and

removed the flag for “Ready for Extraction.”

If the program encountered an error during the extr action of a particular survey, the program kept

the “Ready for Extraction” flag and also created a flag in a column titled “Extract Error” for

applicable records. The program documented the e rror in a table titled “E rror Log.” The error log

documented the following types of information:

 Plant ID;

 Database table name;

 Database field name;

 Problem; and

 The value of the field causing the issue (if applicable).

Using the information in the error log, ERG was ab le to locate the issues causing errors in the

extraction program and develop an approach to fix those errors. The types of errors identified in

the error log included:

 Specific survey file cannot be f ound in the designated file path;

 Field needs to be memo to accommodate cell entry;

 Cell entry is longer than field length;

 The cell contents are text, but the field in numeric;

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 12

 The excel field name/type and access field name/type do not match; and

 Error in the mapping references.

ERG corrected errors associated with the data prov ided in the survey response files and the field

types in the database as required during the extr action of all 733 surveys. The majority of the

errors (excluding database field name/type specifi cations) were corrected in the MS Excel files

and re-extracted. However, ERG also encounter ed errors resulting from text responses in

numeric fields. These entries include d text strings such as “/”, “to” , or “-” to designate averages

or “See comments” to direct EPA to the pl ant comments. ERG corrected these fields by

averaging numeric ranges provided and movi ng the range to the pl ant comments section.

Additionally, ERG inserted the “-111” (represents missing data ) code to replace the “See

comments” entries. The extraction program would still extract the data to the survey; however,

the program replaced the text with the “-777” (rep resents text entered into a numeric data field)

code. ERG fixed these errors either directly in the technical database, a nd considered to survey

successfully extracted, or in the MS Excel su rvey files and re-extracted the survey.

After the extraction of all 733 surveys, ERG identi fied “blank” records in database tables that

resulted from plants filling out a radio bu tton or drop down menu by mistake. ERG identified

these records, checked the res ponses against the survey work ing copies, and deleted those

records determined to be “blank.”

6.0 F INAL 

# S TEAM 

# E LECTRIC 

# T ECHNICAL 

# Q UESTIONNAIRE 

# D ATABASE



# The final technical database is a compilation of th e extractable data requested in the 733 surveys

distributed to the steam electric industry. There are a to tal of 265 tables in th e technical database,

185 directly corresponding to the data requested in the Steam Electric Survey and 80 created by

ERG from a number of analyses performed usi ng the survey data. The final database includes

information claimed by respondents as CBI. ERG has included the CBI database in the CBI

rulemaking record [DCN SE05903]. Respondents also provided various attachments, including

process diagrams, maps, reports, a nd studies, in response to the su rvey; because these data were

not able to be extracted into the database, they are included separately in the rulemaking record

as “supplemental files” submitted by the plant.

As part of a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request 7 

# from Environmental

Integrity Project, Earthjustice, and Sierra Club, EPA initiated an effort to substantiate Steam

Electric Survey responses claimed CBI that were used in the development of compliance cost

and pollutant loadings estimates. Following the receipt and review of the plant responses, EPA

issued a final confidentiality determination for the requested information from the plants (see

DCN SE06326). ERG updated the CBI flags in th e technical database based on these final

determinations.

Additionally, as part of the final confidentiality determination, EPA determined that some or all

of the information requested in si x questions is not entitled to c onfidential treatment. These six

questions include A11-2, B4-2, B6-1, D4-3, D5-1, and D6-1. As a result, EPA removed the CBI

7 

# For more information on the FOIA request from Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, and Sierra Club, see

the materials at https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/ action/public/home, FOIA Request Tracking Number EPAHQ-2013-008604.

# Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 13

claims for questions A11-2, B4-2, B6-1, D5-1, a nd D6-1 in the technical database. For question

D4-3, EPA determined that the portion of th e responses that included surface area, current

volume, and height of the pool was not entitled to confidential business information. Because of

the format of the technical database, specifically the crosswalk between the designated CBI field

and corresponding data fields for Question D4 -3, ERG did not update the corresponding CBI

flag. However, any of the determined non-CBI information used in the compliance cost and

pollutant loadings analyses was treated as non-CBI.

EPA created a sanitized, that is a non-CBI, version of the tech nical database (see DCN SE05924)

and the supplemental files for the public rule making record which removes both CBI and CBIdeducible data. CBI-deducible data is that wh ich could be combined with non-CBI information

or data, such as aggregated va lues presented in the Technical Development Document (TDD), to

determine (or back calculate) CBI information. Typically, CBI data can be masked (that is, nondeducible) if it is combined with at least two othe r CBI data points into an aggregated value. For

the statistical analysis of the survey responses, EPA has aggregat ed responses and presented total

data or statistical resu lts of the data (e.g., average data). Where an aggregated output includes

totals summed from both CBI and non-CBI da ta, the CBI responses may be deducible.

In creating the sanitized version of the technical database, EPA determined what data elements

would be considered CBI deducible. For those el ements, the responses were stripped in their

entirety from the sanitized version of the databa se. EPA also stripped all comment responses in

the technical database to avoid the release of CBI-deducible data . In addition, any supplemental

files that could contain such CBI-deducible da ta were removed from the public record. These

supplemental files included the water balance di agrams, maps that identified pond and treatment

systems, wastewater treatment diagrams, pond de sign data, leachate volumes and treatment, and

groundwater monitoring well diagra ms. EPA also removed the tables created from the survey

responses from the sanitized technical database.

EPA created a database dictiona ry for both the CBI and sanitized versions of the technical

database. The database dictionary for the CBI technical database, DCN SE05903.A1, contains a

listing of all 265 tables in the CBI technical database and all field names, types, and descriptions

for each of those tables, including the crosswal k between the database tables and the Steam

Electric Survey. The database dictionary for the sanitized technical database, DCN SE05924.A1

(previously described in Section 1.0 ), contains a listing of all 185 ta bles in the sanitized technical

database and the crosswalk between the data base tables and the Steam Electric Survey.Appendix A: Plant-level Survey,Tracking, and Review DataTable A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review116/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review426/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review826/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review1416/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review1626/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review3426/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review6616/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review7016/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review10316/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review12426/18/201010/5/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review12946/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review16636/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review17426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review18926/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review20846/18/20109/27/2010XVersion 3/4 Review21026/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review21626/18/20109/10/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review21726/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review22716/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review24916/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review26326/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 15Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review26526/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review27026/18/201010/25/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review27326/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review28036/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review31946/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review33326/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review34026/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review34926/18/201010/8/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review36926/18/201010/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review37626/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review39426/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review42426/18/201012/9/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review44426/18/201010/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review45026/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review45146/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review48026/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review48946/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review49326/21/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review49426/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review50826/18/201010/4/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review54816/21/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review55616/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 16Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review56226/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review58316/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review63526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review65426/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review66426/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review68646/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review69326/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review71046/18/20109/3/2010XVersion 3/4 Review73246/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review73726/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review74246/18/20109/1/2010XVersion 3/4 Review77126/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review81746/18/201010/21/2010XVersion 3/4 Review82326/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review86046/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review86426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review87626/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review90426/18/20109/27/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review90926/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review91646/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review92826/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review94226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 17Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review94516/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review94846/18/20109/10/2010XVersion 3/4 Review96336/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review97346/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review99716/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review101726/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review102016/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review105346/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review106126/18/20109/8/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review108726/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review109246/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review109726/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review118046/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review118526/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review119426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review119926/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review120626/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review121926/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review123046/30/20107/23/2010XVersion 3/4 Review123626/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review124516/21/20109/23/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review125826/18/20109/27/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 18Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review127646/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review129826/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review132426/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review136516/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review136626/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review138116/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review140216/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review141226/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review142926/18/201010/4/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review143526/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review147626/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review149326/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review151626/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review153326/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review153426/18/201010/21/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review154246/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review156046/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review156536/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review157226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review157726/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review157846/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review159516/21/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 19Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review162546/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review163046/18/20109/7/2010XVersion 3/4 Review163426/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review164726/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review165726/18/20109/21/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review167026/18/20109/3/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review167126/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review167426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review169516/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review173126/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review175416/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review176116/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review179526/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review183726/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review190036/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review190926/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review191626/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review192346/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review192946/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review195446/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review195726/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review196246/18/20108/19/2010XVersion 3/4 ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 20Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review196316/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review203146/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review203316/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review206026/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review206846/18/20109/30/2010XVersion 3/4 Review207916/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review208026/18/201011/1/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review213446/18/201011/1/2010XVersion 3/4 Review214926/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review215226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review218826/18/201010/12/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review219746/18/20109/21/2010XVersion 3/4 Review219846/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review223916/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review224026/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review224426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review225916/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review226526/18/20107/6/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review226826/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review226916/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review229726/18/201011/1/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review231426/18/20109/23/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 21Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review231716/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review232626/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review233416/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review236426/18/20109/30/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review238326/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review240226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review242026/18/201010/19/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review242246/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review244516/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review246526/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review246646/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review248226/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review248546/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review250626/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review251126/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review251246/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review253616/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review254246/18/20109/23/2010XVersion 3/4 Review254826/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review255026/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review256746/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review256926/18/20109/24/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 22Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review260116/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review260626/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review260846/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review261036/18/20109/10/2010XVersion 3/4 Review261226/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review262326/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review262526/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review265426/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review267326/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review268026/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review269136/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review270016/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review270226/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review271126/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review271946/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review274026/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review275846/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 3/4 Review276626/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review277646/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review278426/18/201010/5/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review280346/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review282526/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 23Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review282746/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review284036/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review285126/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review289226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review292026/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review294426/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review296626/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review297246/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review297736/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review299926/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review300846/18/20109/10/2010XVersion 3/4 Review301526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review301826/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review302426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review303046/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review305626/18/20107/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review307746/18/201011/5/2010XVersion 3/4 Review308246/18/20107/26/2010XVersion 3/4 Review308726/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review309526/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review309726/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review312316/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 24Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review314146/21/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review314226/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review314626/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review315716/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review318146/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review318746/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review319126/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review319616/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review320016/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review321746/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review323516/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review323626/18/201010/21/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review326526/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review327446/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review328036/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review330926/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review331826/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review336946/18/20109/23/2010XVersion 3/4 Review337326/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review337736/18/201011/1/2010XVersion 3/4 Review338446/24/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review341526/18/20109/30/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 25Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review343316/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review346426/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review348446/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review349746/18/201010/22/2010XVersion 3/4 Review350326/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review355246/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review356126/21/20109/30/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review356716/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review357846/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review357946/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review358536/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review358746/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review359716/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review360426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review360546/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review362326/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review362426/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review362526/18/201010/5/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review362826/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review364226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review364826/18/201010/26/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review364926/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 26Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review367226/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review370146/18/20107/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review370926/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review371346/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review371916/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review372826/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review373846/18/20109/28/2010XVersion 3/4 Review374636/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review374946/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review375126/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review378646/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review379046/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review379316/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review380726/18/20109/10/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review383126/18/201010/12/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review384326/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review388726/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review391726/18/20109/3/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review392246/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review395116/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review397726/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review397826/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 27Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review398926/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review399626/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review399716/18/20109/10/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review400636/18/20109/22/2010XVersion 3/4 Review401126/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review401726/21/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review402126/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review402426/18/20109/21/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review408326/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review412226/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review412646/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review415046/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review416126/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review417026/18/201010/8/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review421136/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review423046/18/20109/21/2010XVersion 3/4 Review423726/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review424226/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review424946/18/20109/23/2010XVersion 3/4 Review425216/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review425726/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review426826/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 28Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review428046/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review428346/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review428546/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review43152N/A – Plant Closureb9/17/2010bXVersion 1/2 Detailed Review434836/18/20109/23/2010XVersion 3/4 Review438046/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review438416/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review438646/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review438826/18/201010/22/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review439126/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review439926/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review445446/18/20109/24/2010XVersion 3/4 Review448626/18/20107/12/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review448846/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review448946/18/20108/12/2010XVersion 3/4 Review449526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review452416/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review452916/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review453326/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review454316/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review454726/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review455226/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 29Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review455746/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review457546/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review458526/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review459146/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review459826/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review459926/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review461736/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review462046/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review462429/16/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review463726/18/201010/22/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review467126/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review467616/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review467926/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review468326/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review469026/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review469216/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review470216/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review470346/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review470616/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review471126/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review473426/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review473636/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 30Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review474126/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review474746/18/20108/9/2010XVersion 3/4 Review476126/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review476246/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review477146/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review477626/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review478126/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review480326/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review485646/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review485716/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review486116/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review486546/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review487626/18/201010/5/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review490826/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review492046/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review494546/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review494846/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review496746/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review497826/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review498836/18/20107/19/2010XVersion 3/4 Review499316/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review499736/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 31Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review501526/18/201011/1/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review503826/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review504326/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review504946/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review505226/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review506526/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review509046/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review510426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review511126/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review512626/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review513546/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review515246/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review516926/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review518326/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review519646/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review521046/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review521946/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review523726/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review525546/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review526526/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review527926/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review528046/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 32Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review528316/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review530026/18/201010/12/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review531716/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review531826/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review533416/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review535526/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review543236/18/20109/24/2010XVersion 3/4 Review547026/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review547526/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review547726/18/20109/23/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review552926/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review554636/18/20109/28/2010XVersion 3/4 Review555526/21/20109/10/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review557026/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review561026/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review562026/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review564746/18/20108/24/2010XVersion 3/4 Review571126/18/20109/27/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review571346/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 3/4 Review571926/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review573246/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review574026/18/201010/5/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 33Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review574326/18/201010/19/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review575826/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review575926/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review576216/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review580226/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review581846/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review582336/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review583916/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review584846/18/20108/27/2010XVersion 3/4 Review587226/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review587426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review588726/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review594236/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review594926/18/201010/5/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review595426/18/20108/27/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review596326/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review596526/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review597146/22/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review597536/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review597936/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review598126/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review598326/18/20108/31/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 34Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review599226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review600526/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review600846/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review604626/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review606926/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review609616/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review611816/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review614946/18/20109/22/2010XVersion 3/4 Review617616/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review617846/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review619526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review624536/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review625546/18/20109/28/2010XVersion 3/4 Review625716/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review627926/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review628326/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review628546/18/201010/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review629626/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review63052N/A – Plant Closureb9/10/2010bXVersion 1/2 Detailed Review630746/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review632226/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review632926/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 35Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review633426/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review634946/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review636326/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review636826/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review637026/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review637726/18/201010/25/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review640346/21/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review641916/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review642026/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review643646/18/201010/26/2010XVersion 3/4 Review644246/22/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review644626/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review645346/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review648146/18/20108/27/2010XVersion 3/4 Review651546/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review651726/18/201012/6/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review654246/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review654626/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review654926/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review657446/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review659226/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review659626/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 36Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review659846/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review659926/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review660216/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review660626/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review661626/18/201011/1/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review662226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review662746/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review663426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review663516/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review666426/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review667136/25/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review667226/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review668816/18/201010/19/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review668926/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review670226/18/20108/26/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review671246/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review672636/18/20109/10/2010XVersion 3/4 Review672736/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review673926/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review675026/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review676726/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review677346/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 37Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review680846/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review681626/18/201010/7/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review683846/18/20109/21/2010XVersion 3/4 Review684826/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review685626/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review689426/18/201010/19/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review690636/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review691036/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review691426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review692916/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review693126/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review693326/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review693926/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review694226/18/201011/3/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review694327/14/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review698026/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review698146/18/20108/9/2010XVersion 3/4 Review698426/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review699846/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review701526/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review701736/18/201011/1/2010XVersion 3/4 Review701926/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 38Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review702226/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review702946/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review706326/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review707016/21/20109/21/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review708626/18/20108/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review712426/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review712926/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review713516/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review713626/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review714026/18/201011/3/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review716226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review716626/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review716846/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review717526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review717846/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review718626/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review721346/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review725626/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review726446/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review726726/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review727616/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review727846/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 39Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review730026/18/20109/30/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review730126/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review731126/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review733226/25/201011/3/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review733446/29/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review735426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review737046/21/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review738226/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review740026/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review741126/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review741626/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review742126/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review743416/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review743726/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review748326/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review751826/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review752746/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review753546/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review754546/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review755546/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review756846/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review757226/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 40Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review758226/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review758446/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review758726/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review759626/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review761046/18/20109/2/2010XVersion 3/4 Review762426/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review762626/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review762926/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review765126/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review772726/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review772826/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review776046/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review776116/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review777626/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review778526/19/20109/22/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review780026/18/20109/23/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review781526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review782116/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review782526/18/20107/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review783846/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review785616/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review788416/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 41Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review789246/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review790026/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review792426/18/201010/8/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review792526/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review794126/18/20109/7/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review795126/18/201012/6/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review798026/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review800346/18/20109/3/2010XVersion 3/4 Review800646/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review801329/23/20109/23/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review804646/18/20109/28/2010XVersion 3/4 Review804746/18/20109/21/2010XVersion 3/4 Review806526/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review806946/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review807516/21/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review810146/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review817746/18/20107/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review817916/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review818746/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review819216/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review819646/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review820246/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 42Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review821326/21/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review823326/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review824526/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review825026/18/20109/22/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review828126/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review829426/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review830826/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review835326/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review835926/18/201012/9/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review837946/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review838746/18/201012/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review839526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review840516/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review841826/21/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review843716/21/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review845146/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review846016/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review846226/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review847116/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review849026/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review849346/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review849926/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 43Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review850226/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review854426/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review859246/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review861546/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review865426/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review865916/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review866116/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review867646/18/20109/7/2010XVersion 3/4 Review870426/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review873026/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review873146/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review874426/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review875026/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review875216/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review875326/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review875646/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review880136/18/20109/30/2010XVersion 3/4 Review881636/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review881726/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review887046/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review890216/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review890526/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 44Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review896526/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review896926/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review897846/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review904726/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review905626/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review905926/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review906846/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review907426/18/20109/7/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review907846/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review909336/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review909736/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 3/4 Review912016/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review915526/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review916126/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review916626/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review916826/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review917526/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review921026/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review921326/18/20109/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review922526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review922826/18/20109/7/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review922926/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 45Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review924146/18/20109/22/2010XVersion 3/4 Review926026/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review928916/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review929446/18/20109/21/2010XVersion 3/4 Review932526/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review934516/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review937036/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review937326/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review937426/18/201010/11/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review937646/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review937946/18/20109/15/2010XVersion 3/4 Review939046/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review939126/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review939746/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 3/4 Review941226/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review942026/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review944216/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review944626/18/201010/4/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review945426/18/201010/12/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review947526/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review948026/18/20109/21/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review948126/18/201010/14/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 46Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review949846/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review950426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review952246/18/20109/3/2010XVersion 3/4 Review952626/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review953426/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review956536/18/20109/13/2010XVersion 3/4 Review959146/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review961426/18/20109/27/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review961526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review962126/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review963936/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review967126/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review967526/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review968626/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review969216/18/201010/19/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review971516/18/20109/10/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review972446/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review976046/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review976136/18/20109/20/2010XVersion 3/4 Review976826/18/20109/10/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review977726/18/201010/19/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review980526/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard ReviewMemorandumSeptember 30, 2015Page 47Table A-1. Summary of Steam Electric Survey Recipient, Corresponding Tracking and Review DataaPlant IDSurveyVersionDate Plant ReceivedSurveyDate ERG ReceivedPlant ResponseCompleteness CheckType of Review981526/18/201010/18/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review983126/18/201010/12/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review986126/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review987516/18/201010/15/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review988626/18/20109/21/2010XVersion 1/2 Standard Review994826/18/201010/13/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Review996336/18/20109/16/2010XVersion 3/4 Review997126/18/20109/17/2010XVersion 1/2 Detailed Reviewa – This is a complete listing of the Steam Electric Surveyrecipients and corresponding tracking and review data.b – Not applicable, plant closed. The “Date ERG Received Plant Response” represents the date EPA confirmed the plant closure.