March
30,
2004
(
Via
E­
Mail
easter.
patrick@
epa.
gov)
Alexander
Cristofaro
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair
C/
O
Patrick
Easter
USEPA
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
MC
1806A
Washington,
DC
20460
Re:
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
Small
Entity
Representative
Comments
on
EPA's
Proposed
Rulemaking
for
Phase
III
of
the
316(
b)
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Rule
Dear
Mr.
Cristofaro,

Port
Townsend
Paper
is
pleased
to
submit
these
comments
as
part
of
SBREFA
Panel
for
the
Phase
III
of
the
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
(
CWIS)
rulemaking
under
Section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
I
have
consulted
with
Meg
McCarthy
of
the
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
in
the
preparation
of
these
comments,
as
she
attended
the
outreach
meeting
EPA
held
earlier
this
month.
While
I
am
writing
these
comments
from
the
perspective
of
a
small
business,
the
alternatives
proposed
within
these
comments
could
be
applied
more
generally
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
since,
on
the
whole,
these
facilities'
cooling
water
intake
structures
have
not
been
identified
as
causing
adverse
environmental
impacts.

Port
Townsend
Paper
has
previously
submitted
comments
to
EPA
as
a
part
of
the
SBREFA
panel
for
the
Phase
III
rule
(
attached).
The
opinions
expressed
in
our
previous
comments
still
apply,
but
Port
Townsend
Paper
would
like
to
emphasize
some
of
the
points
we
made
in
the
past,
and
to
highlight
some
concerns
that
have
recently
been
brought
to
our
attention.

As
we
stated
previously,
Port
Townsend
Paper
is
a
small
business
faced
with
an
extremely
challenging
economic
climate,
resulting
in
limited
sales,
job
losses
and
closed
plants.
We
are
very
concerned
about
the
potential
costs
(
whether
capital
or
administrative)
that
may
be
imposed
by
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
and
the
impact
they
will
have
on
our
company.

Port
Townsend
Paper
holds
the
opinion
that
EPA
should
not
apply
comprehensive
national
regulations
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
because
of
the
low
risk
that
they
pose.
Alternatively,
Port
Townsend
Paper
endorses
the
idea
of
establishing
a
de
minimus
applicability
threshold
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
mgd)
of
cooling
water.
Using
this
approach,
facilities
withdrawing
less
than
50
mgd
of
cooling
water
would
be
outside
the
scope
of
the
rulemaking
absent
some
unusual
site­
specific
factor.
Not
applying
comprehensive
national
requirements
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
is
consistent
with
the
fact
that,
according
to
data
collected
in
EPA's
screener
survey,
Phase
III
manufacturing
facilities
such
as
Port
Townsend
Paper
only
comprise
about
2%
of
the
total
national
cooling
water
flow.
Further,
we
are
unaware
of
data
showing,
as
a
general
matter,
that
these
facilities'
CWISs
have
had
an
adverse
impact
on
the
environment.
Since
manufacturing
facilities
constitute
such
a
small
percentage
of
the
total
cooling
water
usage
and
their
CWISs
have
not
been
demonstrated
to
result
in
adverse
environmental
impact,
Port
Townsend
Paper
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
to
exclude
from
national
regulation
a
substantial
majority
of
those
facilities.
A
50
mgd
cooling
water
de
minimus
applicability
threshold,
which
has
been
used
by
EPA
in
the
past
to
distinguish
between
Phases
II
and
III,
would
accomplish
that
goal.

For
those
facilities
that
would
be
considered
within
the
scope
of
the
rule,
Port
Townsend
Paper
supports
the
following
regulatory
alternatives
that
would
reduce
the
financial
burden
on
small
businesses.
Facilities
should
be
able
to
choose
how
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
rule
in
the
manner
that
best
suits
their
individual
circumstances.
For
example,
if
a
facility
were
to
maintain
a
maximum
through­
screen
intake
velocity
of
0.5
ft./
sec.
or
implement
a
technology
chosen
from
a
suite
of
technologies
pre­
approved
by
EPA,
then
EPA
should
consider
the
facility
to
be
in
compliance.
If
the
facility
has
chosen
one
of
these
options,
it
should
not
be
required
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
is
meeting
performance
standards
requirements
as
in
Phase
II.
Furthermore,
under
these
options,
permitting
studies
and
monitoring
requirements
should
be
waived,
as
they
pose
a
significant
financial
burden
on
small
businesses
such
as
Port
Townsend
Paper.

Additionally,
Port
Townsend
Paper
is
concerned
with
the
performance
standard
requirements
from
the
Phase
II
rule,
which
group
tidal
rivers,
estuaries
and
oceans
together,
requiring
reductions
of
both
impingement
and
entrainment
for
facilities
on
those
waterbody
types.
While
Port
Townsend
Paper
does
withdraw
salt
water
from
the
ocean,
the
water
withdrawn
is
not
like
the
biologically
rich
waters
at
the
mouth
of
a
river
or
estuary.
Port
Townsend
Paper's
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
under
the
docks
at
the
shoreline
of
Port
Townsend
Bay.
The
area
is
subject
to
tidal
movement
but
in
this
case,
the
shoreline
is
an
artificial
breakwater.
The
intake
structure
should
not
be
held
to
the
stricter
standard
of
reducing
both
impingement
and
entrainment
just
because
it
is
withdrawing
ocean
water.

Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
SBREFA
process
and
to
comment
on
the
development
of
regulations
to
establish
requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Section
316(
b)
Phase
III
Facilities.
Please
feel
free
to
contact
me
at
(
360)
379­
2112
if
you
have
any
questions
about
these
comments.

Sincerely,

//
via
e­
mail
3/
30/
04//

Eveleen
Muehlethaler
Vice
President,
Asst.
Mill
Manager
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
100
Paper
Mill
Hill
Road
~
Port
Townsend,
WA
98368
~
(
360)
385­
3170
