RRI Energy, Inc. June 24, 2010

Steam Electric ELG Questionnaire Request for Extension Keystone Generating Station Shelocta, PA 15774

Jezebele Alicea U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 4303T Washington, DC 20460 alicea.jezebele@epa.gov

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Dear Ms. Alicea:

On June 21, 2010 , RRI Energy, Inc. (RRI Energy) was notified that we would receive the Steam Electric Questionnaire for the Keystone Generating St ation, located in Shelocta, Pennsylvania. In total, RRI Energy has received the Steam Electr ic Questionnaire for 17 steam electric power plants, including all 11 of our coal-fired plants, located in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and 6 of our gas-fired plants, located in Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi and Florida.

The purpose of this letter is to request an extensi on of the due date for submittal of the questionnaire for the Keystone Generating Station. The response to all portions of the questionnaire, except Part G, is due September 22, 2010 , 90 days after receipt. We hereby requ est an extension of the due date to December 21, 2010 for all applicable portions of the questionnaire. RRI Energy and the Keystone Generating Station are fully committed to complian ce with the applicable information collection requirements and the associated deadlines, but it is critically necessary that EPA approve this extension so that we can fully meet our legal obligations to supply the requested information.

As a merchant generator evolving in developing deregulated electricity markets, which has recently acquired these plants, and a participant in a major merger, RRI Energy has specific issues with regard to the availability of information and the availa bility of knowledgeable individuals to compile information and to prepare, review and QA/QC th e questionnaires in the tim eframe specified. The operation of these generating plants in the open mark et is our only business. The primary coal-fired plants cited above constitute approximately 55% of our generating capacity, and an even higher percentage of our baseload operations. RRI Energy is staff constrained to supply the required data. Furthermore, the timing of the request conflic ts with other annual and semi-annual reporting requirements, the burden of the questionnaire is far greater that EPA has estimated, and much of the requested information is not readily available, if at all. These reasons for an extension of time to complete the ICR are described in detail below.Ms. Jezebele Alicea June 24, 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 2 of 4

 Merger and Reorganization

On April 11, 2010 RRI Energy and Mirant Corporation announced a merger which is expected to close before the end of 2010. While the merger is pending, both Mirant and RRI Energy operate as separate non-affiliated merchant power providers. The ongoing activities associated with the pursuit of the merger and the preparation for the integration require a significant effort on internal resources. These preparations directly impact employee availability to provide information required for the questionnaire for RRI Energy.

 Independent Power Producer – Staff Resources

Unlike, for example, a vertically integrated public utility with a substantial corporate environmental, engineering and accounting staff, our workforce is entirely dedicated to the safe and reliable operation of RRI power producing facilities. We do not have a large pool of qualified staff to temporarily reassign to either support th e ICR effort or to fill-in while others are responding to the ICR. Thus the ICR represents an other significant level of effort for staff with other job responsibilities.

 Independent Power Producer – Information Resources

As a merchant generator, RRI Energy has ow ned most of the current coal-fired generating facilities for less than 10 years. We acquired the Keystone Generating Station on [May, 2000]. Moreover, all of the current RRI generating asset s changed ownership at least once prior to acquisition by RRI Energy. The availability of necessary records to respond to the ICR is significantly hampered by these numerous ownership cha nges. Such records, if they exist at all at RRI Energy, would likely be archived off-site. This means that facilities will have to perform intensive manual searches of paper records in file cabinets or boxes to try to reconstruct ICR required information. It will also be extremely time-consuming to capture all of the aspects in the ICR. For example, the facilities acquired from Or ion have changed hands at least 3 times since 2000, from either First Energy or Duquesne Light to Orion Power and then to Reliant Energy. In addition, both Conemaugh and Keys tone are subject to unique ownership arrangements that further complicate the availability of information, especially financial data.

 Information May Not Be Available

Much of the requested information is not readil y available if at all: The ICR contains many questions that require intensive record searches or otherwise impose significant burdens due to the age of the records. For example, several questions in Part C and Part D require respondents to estimate capital costs for ash handling systems and pond, impoundment and wastewater treatment systems that were installed since 2000. As pr eviously noted, the flux on asset ownership and the ongoing merger activities compound the difficulty in responding to prior costs.

 Reporting Effort

The burden of the ICR is far greater than EPA has estimated: The EPA Burden Statement grossly underestimates the time (196 man-hours) and cost ($12,573) for each steam electric station when compared to RRI’s real world estimated time of 710 man-hours and cost of $59,000 per station.

In particular, the ICR states that a previous wate r balance as provided in form 2C of an NPDES permit application may be used for the water ba lance, and merely updated by hand mark up toMs. Jezebele Alicea June 24, 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 3 of 4

match the ICR terminology. This statement implies that only minor effort is needed to provide an adequate water balance, and reflects a very limited understanding of the complexity of the task at hand. For example, one of the first items require d is to indicate each steam electric generating unit with a block. Other unit processes that are refere nced, such as ash handling systems, FGD systems and SCR systems are required to be included on th e water balance and labele d to match the forms. These units are frequently grouped, or not represented on NPDES water balance diagrams. In particular, the generating unit itself is frequently not part of the water balance diagram, frequently all units are shown in the aggregate. Flows are si milarly combined, and may not be tracked in the detail required for the ICR.

Many of these contributing flows will require est imation. Similarly, ash handling processes may be combined, as well as FGD wastewater. Thus, mo st water balances contain neither the detail, nor the space required to include such detail w ith a hand markup and will require significant updating. Updating water balance information an d plant diagrams to meet the ICR labeling requirement alone represents a 40 to 80 hour task pe r plant, due to the extensive detail requested by the ICR. We estimate another day per di agram required per plant to conform or create acceptable diagrams.

We estimate that a total of 7,800 man-hours will need to be allocated just for eleven coal-fueled generating stations within the 90-day response dead line. 90 days is simply not sufficient for RRI Energy to effectively respond to the questionnaire.

 Reporting Deadline Conflicts

The timing of the questionnaire conflicts with our TRI annual reporting requirements, which are due July 1 st . The data collection that is required to co mplete the questionnaire requires experienced personnel who are in limited supply to gather such information. In the midst of semi-annual reporting and corporate reorganization, our staff are in short supply. Given the pressing operating and compliance burdens on the facilities, there is limited or no reservoir of personnel to apply to preparing questionnaire responses. Key members of our staff will not be available to begin work on the Steam Electric Questionnaire until after the July 1 st TRI reports are submitted.

Timing problems, such as increased paperwork burdens, are compounded for RRI due to the number of facilities that will be required to comp lete the ICR. The reporting burden for these plants is shared at the corporate level in sev eral departments, which means that one or two

individuals must bear the burden for all of the facilities. In particular, the parent financial information will vary among the reporting facilities a nd must be prepared by a limited corporate

financial staff.

All 11 coal plants and several of the oil/gas plants will have quarterly emission reports due on July 30. This routine required data collection effort will task environmental a nd plant personnel at the

same time as the ICR. For most of the coal plants, the same personnel required to file quarterly reports will be immediately tasked with the semi- annual reports due in July through September. These mandatory deadlines directly compete with the ICR for limited technical resources.

 Site Specific Issues

PADEP is proposing to establish new technology an d water quality-based discharge limits on new and expanded outfalls for TDS and chlorides, resp ectively. The proposed regulation for TDS isMs. Jezebele Alicea June 24, 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 4 of 4

expected to go final in June or July 2010. The proposed chloride water quality criterion is expected to be finalized in two to four months . Because effluent limits for existing dischargers will be based on the receiving stream’s background concentrations and its capacity to assimilate TDS and chlorides, RRI Energy environmenta l personnel are required to conduct studies to evaluate mass loadings of discharges and stream modeling to assess our ability to comply with these new standards. RRI Energy stations w ith cooling tower blowdown and/or FGD scrubbers including Keystone Generating Station may be impacted by these rules.

At Keystone Generating Station, environmental personnel will be completing permit application, procurement and construction ove rsight for a new Limestone Pile Stormwater Runoff Pond and for a major upgrade to the demineralizer water treatment system and associated regeneration wastewater treatment system. Currently, a new Gypsum Area Runoff Pond is under construction through August 2010. In addition, performance testing of the Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will be ong oing during this same time. This requires extensive support from plant personnel to ensure that the performance of the FGD WWTP complies with vendor specifications a nd environmental permit conditions.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that RRI En ergy and the Keystone Generating Station are fully committed to compliance with the applicable inform ation collection requirements and the associated deadlines, but it is critically necessary that EPA approve an extension so that we can fully meet our legal obligations pursuant to your information request. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

James Lafontaine General Manager Keystone Generating Station Copies:

R. Smith

S. Frank

K. Whelan

others