### MEMORANDUM

TO: Ron Jordan, EPA

Jezebele Alicea, EPA

FROM: Elizabeth Sabol, ERG Sarah Holman, ERG

DATE: 25 February 2010

SUBJECT: Outreach Calls for the Proposed Steam Electric ICR

EPA’s Office of Water/Engineering and Analysis Divisio n (OW/EAD) held two rounds
of outreach teleconferences with stakeholders to introduce and discuss EPA’s proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Steam Ele ctric Power Generating Effluent
Guidelines.

The first round of calls took place approximately two wee ks following publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the proposed ICR. During these calls, EPA provided an overview of the rulemaking activities to develop revised ef fluent guidelines for the steam electric power generating point source category, including the ICR pro cess. EPA reviewed ICR objectives and the process for developing the ICR. The overview included a brief description of the draft questionnaire and EPA’s plans for distributing the questionnaire to a subset of the steam electric power generating industry. EPA encouraged call part icipants to provide feedback on the scope, recipients, and content of the questionnaire. Duri ng the calls, EPA announced that a second round of outreach calls would be held in early Dec ember, timed to allow stakeholders approximately 2-3 weeks for additional review the proposed ICR prior to the call, but still several weeks prior to the deadline for submitting comments on the proposed ICR. A copy of the presentation materials used during these calls is attached to this memorandum (see Attachment 1). The first round of calls included the following:

• State representatives on November 12, 2009

• Environmental groups on November 16, 2009; and

• Industry representatives on November 16, 2009.

Fourteen states and an interstate agency participated in the November 12 outreach call (Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Ok lahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sa nitation Commission). Three environmental groups participated in the call (Environmental In tegrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Earthjustice). A relativ ely large number of industry representatives (individual companies and trade associatio ns) and vendors participated in the outreach call; see Attachment 2.Memorandum

February 25, 2010 Page 2 Industry representatives were the only stakeholders that accepted EPA’s invitation for a second round of outreach calls. This second industry outre ach call was held on December 8, 2009, and provided the participants with the opportunity to ask a range of questions about the proposed ICR, including both general questions about the IC R process and detailed questions about specific aspects of the draft questionnaire. In additio n, EPA encouraged call participants to submit formal comments on questionnaire content and forma t by December 28, 2009, the end of public comment period for the proposed ICR. Due to the forma t of the outreach call, EPA was able to compile only a partial list of participants (see Attachment 3).

The topics raised by participants to the outreach call s are summarized below.

Outreach Call with State Agencies (November 12, 2009)

• EPA should consider expanding the scope of the ICR to incl ude refuse-derived fuel (RDF)/alternative-fuel plants because permit writers h ave had difficulty applying technology-based standards for RDF plant permits without ELGs.

• Time frame for selecting and publishing the names of questi onnaire recipients. Participant expressed interest in knowing which plants will provide information about wet-to-dry ash handling conversions.

• The timeline for the Steam Electric rulemaking.

• Questionnaire should collect information on publicly owned t reatment works (POTW) effluent as a source of make-up water. Establishment of pe rmit limits on airborne pathogens from cooling towers.

• Consider including questions that request temperature informat ion.

• Implementation of plant emergency planning/response proce dures for ash storage impoundments through effluent guidelines requirements.

Outreach Call with Environmental Groups (November 16, 2009)

• Schedule for making responses to the questionnaire publicly av ailable.

• Time frame for publishing the statistical methodology that will be used to select respondents.

Outreach Call with Industry Stakeholders (November 16, 2009)

• Time frame for publishing the statistical methodology that will be used to select respondents. Also, the timeframe for selecting questionna ire respondents and notifying respondents about the selection. Expressed desire for adva nce notice to adequately prepare for questionnaire response.

• Schedule for revising and implementing revised effluent guideli nes.

• Approach for handling “N/A” or “unknown” question responses , and whether estimated responses are acceptable.

• Whether petroleum coke-fired plants would be required to complete Part B (FGD) of the questionnaire, and whether all coal-fired plants would be re quired to respond to Part A of the questionnaire.

• Whether retired plants must complete to the questionnai re, based on concern that there may not be plant staff available to respond in those ca ses.

• The approach for designating information provided in questionna ire responses as confidential business information (CBI). The extent of e xplanation/justifications required for CBI claims and whether EPA would consider a categori cal approach in which certain types of data could be claimed as CBI without justification

.Memorandum

February 25, 2010 Page 3

• Whether there is flexibility in the 60-day response time frame. Also, whether EPA considered limiting the number of plants that will rece ive the questionnaire within parent companies. Whether the questionnaire distribution would be li mited to a subset of states.

• Consider changing the base year for the data provided in the questionnaire from 2009 to 2008, based on concern that plants will not have collecte d 2009 data for EIA reporting at the time they would need to complete the questionnaire.

• Whether the list of questionnaire recipients will be ma de publicly available, and when responses to the questionnaire will be made publicly availabl e.

• A list of terms and definitions should be included in the questionnaire.

• Request for the electronic version of the questionnaire to be made available ahead of the questionnaire mailout, preferably on EPA’s website, to all ow plants to prepare for data entry and pass questionnaire parts around the plant/company.

Outreach Call with Industry Stakeholders (December 8, 2009)

• Schedule for revising the questionnaire and whether EPA would release the revised questionnaire to the public prior to Office of Management and B udget (OMB) review.

• Whether EPA would publish a list of the plants selected to receive the questionnaire, in
advance of the actual distribution.

• Suggestion for EPA to work with UWAG to develop the mai ling list.

• Whether the questionnaires will be mailed to corporate le vel (e.g., holding companies) or directly to the plants.

• EPA described the electronic format options being consi dered for the questionnaire.

• 60-day time frame for completing the questionnaire and wheth er extensions would be
available.

• Concern about the burden imposed on plants/companies that will be selected for both the ICR and wastewater sampling.

• Redundancy between the ICR and other forms that plants ar e required to submit, specifically, Energy Information Administration (EIA) forms.

• Request for, regardless of format, the questionnaire to be s ent to plants as separate documents to facilitate distributing different parts to th e appropriate plant personnel.

• Whether EPA will be providing the statistical methodolog y that will be used to select plants, in advance of the next Federal Register noti ce.

• Several questions were asked about Part A of the draft que stionnaire, regarding aspects including reporting 2009 data that may be atypical, time frame for “planned” systems/units, and reporting plant location information.

• Several questions were asked about Part B of the draft que stionnaire, regarding aspects including terminology, dry limestone injection directly i nto the boiler, and costs associated with FGD solids (i.e., removal/disposal cost s, revenue from sale of FGD solids).

• Several questions were asked about Part C of the draft que stionnaire, regarding aspects including the burden of providing cost information for old syste ms (e.g., circa 1940) and the need for data on revenue from sales of dry ash.

• Several questions were asked about Part D of the draft que stionnaire, regarding aspects including oil/water separators, and the reporting format f or cost data.

• Several questions were asked about Part G of the draft que stionnaire, regarding aspects including terminology, whether ponds without liners collect leachate, the use of single vs multiple collection points/systems for individual ponds /landfills, whether leachate characteristics typically vary from point to point, a nd whether a representative sample from any individual pond/landfill could be obtained from jus t one collection point (theMemorandum

February 25, 2010 Page 4 participant stated that a representative sample could b e obtained from just one collection point)

• For Part H, several questions were asked about whether Q uestion H1-3 refers to any water streams generated, or just those that are dischar ged.