Seward Power Plant

595 Plant Road
New Florence, PA 15l44 (814) 446-4650

June 24, 2 010

Steam Electric ELG Questionnaire Request for Extension Reliant Energy Mid Atlantic

Seward Generation Station New Florence, PA

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 received the Steam Electric Questionnaire for the Seward Generating Sta tion, located in New Florence, Pennsylvania. In total, RRI Energy has received the Steam Electric 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 ex tension of the due date for submittal of the questionnaire for the Seward Generating Stati on. The response to all portions of the questionnaire, is due September 19, 2010 , 90 days after receipt. We hereby request an extension

of the due date to December 18, 2010

, (180 days) for all portions of the questionnaire. RRI Energy and the Seward Generating Station are fu lly committed to compliance with the applicable information collection requirements and the associat ed deadlines, but it is critically necessary that EPA approve this extension so that we can fu lly meet our legal obligations to supply the requested information.

As a merchant generator evolving in developing deregulated electri city markets, that has recently acquired these plants, and a participant in a ma jor merger, RRI Energy has specific issues with regard to the availability of information and the availability of knowledgeable individuals to compile information and to prepare, review and QA/QC the questionnaires in the timeframe specified. The operation of these generating plants in the open market is our only business. The primary coal-fired plants cited above constitute approximately 55% of ourgenerating capacity, and an even higher percentage of our baseload operations. RRI Energy is staff constrained to supply the required da ta. Furthermore, the timing of the request conflicts with other annual and semi-annual reporting requir ements, the burden of the questionnaire is far greater than 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.

 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. The Seward plan t that was originally acquired in November 1999 has been substantially replaced with a new pl ant that began operation on October 31, 2004. 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.

 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 that EPA h as 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.Ms. Jezebele Alicea June 24, 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 3 of 4

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 to 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 referenced, 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 may FGD wastewater. Thus, most water balances contain neither the detail, nor the space required to include su ch detail with a hand markup and will require significant updating. Updating water balance information and plant di agrams to meet the ICR labeling requirement alone represents a 40 to 80 hour task per plant to modify and update existing water diagrams, due to the extensive detail requested by the ICR. We estimate another day per diagram 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 deadline. 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 complete 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.Ms. Jezebele Alicea June 24, 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 4 of 4

 120 days for leachate collection is too short.

Analytical Method 1631 for mercury requires sample collection using the Method for Sampling Ambient Water for Determination of Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels (Method 1669) also referred to as “clean hands/dirty hands”. RRI Energy must subcontract this sample collection and analysis. The per-plant cost of th is contracted sampling and analysis program may equal or exceed the EPA estimated total cost to r espond to this ICR. We have initiated the process of obtaining qualified vendors for leachate samplin g and analysis; however, there are a limited number of laboratories available to perform th is work, and RRI Energy must compete with approximately 175 other plants to schedule this work. Not only are there contracting and sample collection backlog issues, but also the few laborat ories that perform this work will not likely be able to meet 30-day turnaround. Based on the 30-day turnaround, 14 days of rainfall data and 28 days of sampling, a total of 72 days are required to obtain the data after a laboratory is located and the appropriate sampling locations are located. Allowing 1 week to determine the number of samples that will be needed, 1 week to prepar e an RFP and locate qualified bidders, 2 weeks for bidding, 1 week to finalize a PO, and 1 week to mobilize (total of 42 days) requires 114 days. This leaves only 6 days to complete the data review, finalize the form and submit it. If there is any loss or damage to samples, or if the laborat ories are overloaded and cannot meet standard turnaround, the schedule will not be met. Furthe r, samples will be collected during the dry season and there may be no leachate to collect. For these reasons the completion of Part G requirements mandates a minimum of at least 180 days, rather than 120 days.

 Site Specific Issues

In May 2010, Environmental Integrity Project , counsel for PennEnvironment, Defenders of Wildlife, PennFuture and the Sierra Club announced their intent to file a Citizens suit for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act, Clean Streams Law and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at the Seward Generating Station. This litigation requires substantial time from the same resources needed to respond to the ICR. Mo re importantly, attorney review of the ICR may be required to avoid conflicts or release of information that is di rectly associated with the litigation response. Difficulties may be encountered with Attorney Client Work Products directly related to

the lawsuit.

On 1/29/2010 EPA finalized Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Conemaugh River, an impaired waterbody due to AMD. The rule re quires improvements in the treatment and/or management of storm water and cooling to wer blowdown at the Conemaugh and Seward Generating Stations. TMDLs will likely be in cluded in Seward’s NPDES permits upon reissuance in July 2010. Conemaugh’s NPDES permit may also be issued during the next 3 to 4 months. Station and Corporate staff will be required to conduct engineering studies and implement changes to comply with the new regulation.

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 is 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 stre am modeling to assess our ability to comply with