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 Division (OW/EAD) held two rounds 

of outreach teleconferences with stakeholders to introduce and discuss EPA’s proposed 

Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent 

Guidelines. 

 The first round of calls took place approximately two weeks 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 effluent guidelines for the steam electric 

power generating point source category, including the ICR process. 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 participants to provide feedback on the 

scope, recipients, and content of the questionnaire. During the calls, EPA announced that a 

second round of outreach calls would be held in early December, 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, Oklahoma, 

Tennessee, Virginia, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission). Three 

environmental groups participated in the call (Environmental Integrity Project, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Earthjustice). A relatively large number of industry 

representatives (individual companies and trade associations) 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 outreach 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 ICR process and detailed questions 

about specific aspects of the draft questionnaire. In addition, EPA encouraged call participants to 

submit formal comments on questionnaire content and format by December 28, 2009, the end of 

public comment period for the proposed ICR. Due to the format 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 calls are summarized below. 

Outreach Call with State Agencies (November 12, 2009)

• EPA should consider expanding the scope of the ICR to include refuse-derived fuel 

(RDF)/alternative-fuel plants because permit writers have had difficulty applying 

technology-based standards for RDF plant permits without ELGs. 

• Time frame for selecting and publishing the names of questionnaire 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 treatment works (POTW) 

effluent as a source of make-up water. Establishment of permit limits on airborne 

pathogens from cooling towers. 

• Consider including questions that request temperature information. 

• Implementation of plant emergency planning/response procedures for ash storage 

impoundments through effluent guidelines requirements. 

Outreach Call with Environmental Groups (November 16, 2009)

• Schedule for making responses to the questionnaire publicly available. 

• 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 questionnaire respondents and notifying 

respondents about the selection. Expressed desire for advance notice to adequately 

prepare for questionnaire response. 

• Schedule for revising and implementing revised effluent guidelines. 

• 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 required to respond to Part A of 

the questionnaire. 

• Whether retired plants must complete to the questionnaire, based on concern that there 

may not be plant staff available to respond in those cases. 

• The approach for designating information provided in questionnaire responses as 

confidential business information (CBI). The extent of explanation/justifications required 

for CBI claims and whether EPA would consider a categorical 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 receive the questionnaire within parent 

companies. Whether the questionnaire distribution would be limited 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 collected 2009 data for EIA reporting at 

the time they would need to complete the questionnaire. 

• Whether the list of questionnaire recipients will be made publicly available, and when 

responses to the questionnaire will be made publicly available. 

• 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 allow 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 Budget (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 mailing list. 

• Whether the questionnaires will be mailed to corporate level (e.g., holding companies) or 

directly to the plants. 

• EPA described the electronic format options being considered for the questionnaire. 

• 60-day time frame for completing the questionnaire and whether 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 are required to submit, 

specifically, Energy Information Administration (EIA) forms. 

• Request for, regardless of format, the questionnaire to be sent to plants as separate 

documents to facilitate distributing different parts to the appropriate plant personnel. 

• Whether EPA will be providing the statistical methodology that will be used to select 

plants, in advance of the next Federal Register notice. 

• Several questions were asked about Part A of the draft questionnaire, 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 questionnaire, regarding aspects 

including terminology, dry limestone injection directly into the boiler, and costs 

associated with FGD solids (i.e., removal/disposal costs, revenue from sale of FGD 

solids). 

• Several questions were asked about Part C of the draft questionnaire, regarding aspects 

including the burden of providing cost information for old systems (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 questionnaire, regarding aspects 

including oil/water separators, and the reporting format for cost data. 

• Several questions were asked about Part G of the draft questionnaire, 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, and whether a representative sample 

from any individual pond/landfill could be obtained from just one collection point (the 
Memorandum 

February 25, 2010 

Page 4 

participant stated that a representative sample could be obtained from just one collection 

point) 

• For Part H, several questions were asked about whether Question H1-3 refers to any 

water streams generated, or just those that are discharged.