Convening
Document
of
the
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
on
EPA's
Planned
Proposed
Rule
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Section
316(
b)
Phase
III
Facilities
February
23,
2004
Table
of
Contents
1.
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2.
Background
and
Regulatory
History
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.1
Regulatory
History
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.2
Description
of
Rule
and
its
Scope
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
2.3
Related
Federal
Rules
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.
Overview
of
Proposal
Under
Consideration
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3.1
Potential
Requirements
and
Guidelines
of
the
Proposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3.2
Options
Likely
to
be
Proposed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4.
Applicable
Small
Entity
Definitions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
5.
Small
Entities
That
May
Be
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Regulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
6.
Summary
of
Small
Entity
Outreach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
7.
List
of
Small
Entity
Representatives
(
SERS)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
8.
Summary
of
Comments
from
Small
Entity
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
8.1
Number
and
Types
of
Entities
Affected
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
8.2
Potential
Reporting,
Record
Keeping,
and
Compliance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
8.3
Related
Federal
Rules
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
8.4
Regulatory
Flexibility
Alternatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
Appendices
Appendix
A:
List
of
Materials
EPA
Shared
With
Potential
SERs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
Appendix
B:
Summary
from
EPA's
Outreach
Meeting
with
Potential
SERs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
Appendix
C:
Written
Comments
Received
from
Potential
SERs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
1
Convening
Document
for
the
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
on
EPA's
Planned
Proposal
of
Regulations
to
Establish
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Section
316(
b)
Phase
III
Facilities
1.
INTRODUCTION
This
report
is
presented
to
the
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
(
SBAR
Panel
or
Panel)
convened
for
the
proposed
rulemaking
on
the
Proposed
Regulations
to
Establish
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Section
316(
b)
Phase
III
Facilities,
currently
being
developed
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
Under
section
609(
b)
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
a
Panel
is
required
to
be
convened
prior
to
publication
of
the
initial
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
(
IRFA)
that
an
agency
may
be
required
to
prepare
under
the
RFA.
In
addition
to
EPA's
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chairperson
(
Mr.
Alexander
Cristofaro),
the
Panel
will
consist
of
the
Director
of
EPA's
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
within
the
Office
of
Water
(
Ms.
Mary
T.
Smith),
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
within
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
Mr.
John
D.
Graham),
and
the
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy
of
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
Mr.
Thomas
M.
Sullivan).

This
report
includes
the
following:

background
information
on
the
proposed
rule
being
developed;

information
on
the
types
of
small
entities
that
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule;

a
description
of
efforts
made
to
obtain
the
advice
and
recommendations
of
representatives
of
those
small
entities;
and
a
summary
of
the
comments
that
have
been
received
to
date
from
those
representatives.

Section
609(
b)
of
the
RFA
directs
the
Panel
to
report
on
the
comments
of
small
entity
representatives
and
make
findings
on
issues
related
to
identified
elements
of
IRFA
under
section
603
of
the
RFA.
Those
elements
of
an
IRFA
are:

°
a
description
of
and,
where
feasible,
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
small
entities
to
which
the
proposed
rule
will
apply;

°
projected
reporting,
record
keeping,
and
other
compliance
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule,
including
an
estimate
of
the
classes
of
small
entities
which
will
be
subject
to
the
requirements
and
the
type
of
professional
skills
necessary
for
preparation
of
the
report
or
record;
1
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.

2
°
an
identification,
to
the
extent
practicable,
of
all
other
relevant
Federal
rules
which
may
duplicate,
overlap,
or
conflict
with
the
proposed
rule;

°
any
significant
alternatives
to
the
proposed
rule
which
accomplish
the
stated
objectives
of
applicable
statutes
and
which
minimize
any
significant
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities;
and,

°
any
impacts
on
small
entities,
such
as
your
business
or
community,
of
the
proposed
rule
or
significant
alternatives
to
the
proposed
rule.

Once
completed,
the
Panel
report
is
provided
to
the
agency
issuing
the
proposed
rule
and
included
in
the
rulemaking
record.
In
light
of
the
Panel
report,
and
where
appropriate,
the
agency
is
to
make
changes
to
the
draft
proposed
rule,
the
IRFA
for
the
proposed
rule,
or
the
decision
on
whether
an
IRFA
is
required.

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
Panel's
findings
and
discussion
will
be
based
on
the
information
available
at
the
time
the
final
Panel
report
is
drafted.
EPA
will
continue
to
conduct
analyses
relevant
to
the
proposed
rule,
and
additional
information
may
be
developed
or
obtained
during
the
remainder
of
the
rule
development
process.
The
Panel
makes
its
report
at
a
preliminary
stage
of
rule
development
and
its
report
should
be
considered
in
that
light.
At
the
same
time,
the
report
provides
the
Panel
and
the
Agency
with
an
opportunity
to
identify
and
explore
potential
ways
of
shaping
the
proposed
rule
to
minimize
the
burden
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
while
achieving
the
rule's
purposes.

Any
options
identified
by
the
Panel
for
reducing
the
rule's
regulatory
impact
on
small
entities
may
require
further
analysis
and/
or
data
collection
to
ensure
that
the
options
are
practicable,
enforceable,
environmentally
sound,
and
consistent
with
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
1
2
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.

3
33
U.
S.
C.
1251(
a).

3
2.
BACKGROUND
AND
REGULATORY
HISTORY
EPA
is
developing
regulations
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Section
316(
b)
requires
that
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
reflect
the
best
technology
available
(
BTA)
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Nationwide,
more
than
1,500
industrial
facilities
use
large
volumes
of
cooling
water
from
lakes,
rivers,
estuaries
or
oceans
to
cool
their
plants,
including
steam
electric
power
plants,
pulp
and
paper
makers,
chemical
manufacturers,
petroleum
refiners,
and
manufacturers
of
primary
metals
like
iron
and
steel
and
aluminum.

Cooling
water
intake
structures
can
cause
adverse
environmental
impact
by
pulling
large
numbers
of
fish
and
shellfish
or
their
eggs
into
a
power
plant's
or
factory's
cooling
system
(
entrainment).
There,
the
organisms
may
be
killed
or
injured
by
heat,
physical
stress,
or
by
chemicals
used
to
clean
the
cooling
system.
Larger
organisms
may
be
killed
or
injured
when
they
are
trapped
(
impinged)
against
screens
at
the
front
of
an
intake
structure.

2.1
Regulatory
History
The
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act,
also
known
as
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
2
seeks
to
"
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
nation's
waters."
3
The
CWA
establishes
a
comprehensive
regulatory
program,
key
elements
of
which
are
(
1)
a
prohibition
on
the
discharge
of
pollutants
from
point
sources
to
waters
of
the
U.
S.,
except
as
authorized
by
the
statute;
(
2)
authority
for
EPA
or
authorized
States
or
Tribes
to
issue
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits
that
regulate
the
discharge
of
pollutants;
and
(
3)
requirements
for
EPA
to
develop
effluent
limitation
guidelines
and
standards
and
for
States
to
develop
water
quality
standards
that
are
the
basis
for
the
limitations
required
in
NPDES
permits.

Under
the
CWA,
section
316(
b)
addresses
the
adverse
environmental
impact
caused
by
the
intake
of
cooling
water,
not
discharges
into
water.
Despite
this
specific
focus,
the
requirements
of
section
316(
b)
are
closely
linked
to
several
of
the
core
elements
of
the
NPDES
permit
program
established
under
section
402
of
the
CWA
to
control
discharges
of
pollutants
into
navigable
waters.
For
example,
section
316(
b)
applies
to
facilities
that
withdraw
water
from
the
waters
of
the
United
States
for
cooling
through
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
are
point
sources
subject
to
an
NPDES
permit.
Conditions
for
implementing
section
316(
b)
are
included
in
NPDES
permits.
4
41
FR
17387
(
April
26,
1976),
proposed
at
38
FR
34410
(
December
13,
1973).

5
Appalachian
Power
Co.
v.
Train,
566
F.
2d
451
(
4th
Cir.
1977).

6
44
FR
32956
(
June
7,
1979).

7
See
Draft
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Adverse
Impact
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
on
the
Aquatic
Environment:
Section
316(
b)
P.
L.
92
 
500
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1977).

8
Section
316(
b)
Draft
Guidance,
U.
S.
EPA,
1977,
p.
4.

9
No.
93
Civ
0314
(
AGS).

4
In
1976,
EPA
published
regulations
to
implement
section
316(
b)
requirements.
4
The
rule
added
a
new
§
401.14
to
40
CFR
Chapter
I
that
reiterated
the
requirements
of
CWA
section
316(
b).
It
also
added
a
new
part
402,
which
included
three
sections:
(
1)
§
402.10
(
Applicability),
(
2)
§
402.11
(
Specialized
definitions),
and
(
3)
§
402.12
(
Best
technology
available
for
cooling
water
intake
structures).
These
regulations
were
challenged
by
numerous
electric
utility
companies
and,
ultimately,
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fourth
Circuit
remanded
the
regulation
based
on
its
failure
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
(
APA),
but
without
reaching
the
merits
of
the
regulations
themselves.
5
EPA
later
withdrew
part
402.
6
40
CFR
401.14
remains
in
effect.

Since
the
Fourth
Circuit
remanded
EPA's
section
316(
b)
regulations
in
1977,
NPDES
permit
authorities
have
made
decisions
implementing
section
316(
b)
on
a
case­
by­
case,
site­
specific
basis.
EPA
published
draft
guidance
addressing
section
316(
b)
implementation
in
1977.7
This
draft
guidance
describes
the
studies
recommended
for
evaluating
the
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
on
the
aquatic
environment
and
recommends
a
basis
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
1977
section
316(
b)
draft
guidance
states,
"[
T]
he
environmental­
intake
interactions
in
question
are
highly
site­
specific
and
the
decision
as
to
best
technology
available
for
intake
design,
location,
construction,
and
capacity
must
be
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis."
8
In
the
absence
of
national
regulations,
the
case­
by­
case,
site­
specific
approach
to
implementing
316(
b)
has
continued
to
the
present.
However,
in
the
mid­
1990'
s
a
coalition
of
individuals
and
environmental
groups
brought
suit
against
EPA
for
failing
to
promulgate
national
regulations
needed
to
implement
section
316(
b)
requirements.
In
Riverkeeper
Inc.,
et
al.
v.
Whitman,
9
a
consent
decree
was
initially
entered
on
October
10,
1995,
which
provided
that
EPA
propose
regulations
implementing
section
316(
b)
by
July
2,
1999,
and
take
final
action
with
respect
to
those
regulations
by
August
13,
2001.
Under
subsequent
orders
and
an
amended
consent
decree,
the
rulemaking
has
been
divided
into
three
phases
and
EPA
is
working
under
new
deadlines,
as
described
below:
5
Phase
I
Governing
new
facilities
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
(
Final
Rule
published
on
December
18,
2001
at
66
Fed.
Reg.
65256;
upheld
in
all
but
one
respect
in
Riverkeeper,
et
al.
v.
U.
S.
EPA,
No.
02­
4005
(
and
consolidated
cases)
(
2d
Cir.
Feb.
3,
2004));

Phase
II
 
Governing
existing
facilities
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
whose
primary
activity
is
to
generate
and
transmit
electric
power
(
or
to
generate
electric
power
for
sale
to
another
entity
for
transmission),
if
the
facilities
meet
certain
criteria,
e.
g.
whose
total
design
(
Final
Rule
signed
on
February
16,
2004).

Phase
III
(
Under
Development)
 
Governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
used
by,
at
a
minimum,
smaller
flow
power
plants
and
factories
in
four
industrial
sectors
(
pulp
and
paper
manufacturing,
petroleum
and
coal
products
manufacturing,
chemical
and
allied
manufacturing,
and
primary
metals
manufacturing)
(
signature
on
proposed
rule
due
November
1,
2004;
final
action
by
June
1,
2006).

This
convening
document
and
the
SER
Panel
will
address
only
Phase
III
of
the
316(
b)
regulations.

2.2
Description
of
Rule
and
its
Scope
EPA
expects
that
the
proposed
Phase
III
cooling
water
intake
regulation
would
address:

°
existing
power
plants
with
design
intake
flows
of
less
than
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
mgd)
(
the
Phase
II
regulation
applies
to
power
plants
having
intake
flows
of
50
mgd
and
greater);
°
all
other
existing
facilities
that
use
cooling
water
intake
structures
(
e.
g.,
manufacturing
and
industrial
facilities);
and,
°
new
facilities
located
offshore
(
i.
e.,
ships
and
platforms);
specifically,
(
a)
new
facilities
regulated
under
the
Offshore
and
Coastal
Oil
&
Gas
Extraction
Point
Source
Category
as
defined
at
40
CFR
435.10
and
40
CFR
435.40,
and
(
b)
other
"
offshore"
new
facilities
such
as
LNG
(
liquified
natural
gas)
regasification
facilities
and
seafood
processing
vessels.

While
the
specific
scope
of
the
Phase
III
proposed
rule
has
not
been
determined,
it
is
expected
that
the
basic
criteria
for
determining
applicability
of
the
proposed
rule
will
be
similar
to
those
of
the
Phase
II
regulation.
As
such,
it
is
anticipated
that
a
facility
would
need
to
meet
the
following
conditions
in
order
for
the
national
requirements
of
a
Phase
III
rule
to
apply:

°
is
a
point
source;
°
must
have
(
or
utilize)
at
least
one
cooling
water
intake
withdrawing
water
from
a
"
water
of
the
U.
S.";
6
°
must
use
at
least
25
percent
of
its
water
intake
for
cooling
purposes
(
water
that
is
reused
in
manufacturing
processes
before
or
after
cooling
is
not
regarded
as
cooling
water);
and,

°
must
have
a
design
intake
flow
(
DIF)
greater
than
"
X"
mgd,
"
X"
being
some
threshold
yet
to
be
determined
(
intakes
below
the
threshold
would
be
subject
to
case­
bycase
determinations
using
best
professional
judgement).

2.3
Related
Federal
Rules
While
316(
b)
pertains
to
the
minimization
of
impacts
at
the
intake,
other
sections
of
the
CWA
regulate
the
discharges
of
pollutants,
including
heat,
from
a
facility.
Specifically,
section
316(
a)
addresses
thermal
discharges
from
facilities
that
are
permitted
under
NPDES.
It
states
that
an
"
effluent
limitation
proposed
for
the
control
of
the
thermal
component
of
any
discharge
from
such
source
will
require
effluent
limitations
more
stringent
than
necessary
to
assure
the
protection
and
propagation
of
a
balanced,
indigenous
population
of
shellfish,
fish,
and
wildlife."
EPA
has
developed
regulations
to
implement
316(
a)
requirements
at
40
CFR
125,
Subpart
H.

The
Phase
III
rulemaking
is
relatively
independent
of
other
federal
rules.
Clearly,
however,
the
final
Phase
I
(
new
facilities)
and
proposed
Phase
II
(
existing
facilities
with
design
intake
flow
over
50
mgd)
316(
b)
rules
are
integral
to
the
implementation
of
Phase
III
and
section
316(
b)
as
a
whole.
Section
316(
a)
is
also
generally
related
to
316(
b).
Each
of
these
is
described
in
more
detail
below.

The
Phase
I
cooling
water
intake
regulation
establishes
the
best
technology
available
(
BTA),
based
on
a
two­
compliance
track
approach,
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Based
on
facility
size,
Track
I
establishes
national
intake
capacity
and
velocity
requirements
as
well
as
location­
and
capacitybased
requirements
to
reduce
intake
flow
below
certain
proportions
of
certain
waterbodies
(
referred
to
as
"
proportional­
flow
requirements").
It
also
requires
the
permit
applicant
to
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
under
certain
conditions
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
Track
II
allows
permit
applicants
to
conduct
site­
specific
studies
to
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
alternatives
to
the
Track
I
requirements
will
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
to
a
level
of
reduction
comparable
to
the
level
the
facility
would
achieve
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
if
it
met
the
Track
I
requirements.
See
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
I.

The
Phase
II
cooling
water
intake
structure
final
rule
implements
section
316(
b)
for
certain
existing
power
producing
facilities
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
that
withdraw
50
mgd
or
more
of
water
from
rivers,
streams,
lakes,
reservoirs,
estuaries,
oceans,
or
any
other
waters
of
the
U.
S.
The
Phase
II
final
rule
provides
five
compliance
alternatives:
7
(
1)
Under
§
125.94(
a)(
1)(
i)
and
(
ii),
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
may
demonstrate
that
it
has
already
reduced
its
flow
commensurate
with
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system,
or
that
it
has
already
reduced
its
design
intake
velocity
to
0.5
ft/
s
or
less.
If
a
facility
can
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
it
has
reduced,
or
will
reduce,
flow
commensurate
with
a
closed
cycle
recirculating
system,
the
facility
is
deemed
to
have
met
the
performance
standards
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
(
see
§
125.94
(
a)(
1)(
i)).
Those
facilities
would
not
be
required
to
submit
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
with
their
NPDES
application.
If
the
facility
can
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
is
has
reduced,
or
will
reduce
maximum
through­
screen
design
intake
velocity
to
0.5
ft/
s
or
less,
the
facility
is
deemed
to
have
met
the
performance
standards
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
only.
If
the
facility
is
required
to
meet
a
performance
standard
only
for
impingement
mortality
but
not
for
entrainment,
it
would
not
be
required
to
submit
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
with
the
NPDES
application.
A
facility
that
is
subject
to
the
performance
standard
for
entrainment
would
need
to
submit
application
studies
related
to
entrainment
reduction,
but
would
avoid
studies
related
to
impingement
mortality
if
it
satisfied
the
velocity
requirement.

(
2
and
3)
Under
§
125.94(
a)(
2)
and
(
3),
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
may
demonstrate
either
that
its
current
cooling
water
intake
structure
configuration
meets
the
applicable
performance
standards,
or
that
it
has
selected
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
that,
in
combination
with
any
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
meet
the
specified
performance
standards
in
§
125.94(
b)
and/
or
the
requirements
in
§
125.94(
c).
Alternatives
(
2)
and
(
3)
would
require
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
whose
detail
and
cost
would
vary
depending
on
characteristics
of
the
facility
and
waterbody.

(
4)
Under
§
125.94(
a)(
4),
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
may
demonstrate
that
it
has
installed
and
is
properly
operating
and
maintaining
a
rule­
specified
and
approved
design
and
construction
technology
in
accordance
with
§
125.99(
a).
Submerged
cylindrical
wedgewire
screen
technology
is
a
rule­
specified
design
and
construction
technology
that
may
be
used
in
instances
in
which
a
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream
and
meets
other
criteria
specified
at
§
125.99(
a).
In
addition,
under
this
compliance
alternative,
a
facility
or
other
interested
person
may
submit
a
request
to
the
Director
for
approval
of
a
different
technology.
If
the
Director
approves
the
technology,
it
may
be
used
by
all
facilities
with
similar
site
conditions
under
his
or
her
jurisdiction
if
allowed
under
the
State's
administrative
procedures.
Alternative
(
4)
would
lead
to
permitting
&
monitoring
requirements
substantially
less
burdensome
than
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.

(
5)
Under
§
125.94(
a)(
5)
(
i)
or
(
ii),
if
the
Director
determines
that
a
facility's
costs
of
compliance
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
considered
by
the
Administrator
for
a
like
facility
to
meet
the
applicable
performance
standards,
or
that
the
costs
of
compliance
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
meeting
the
applicable
performance
standards
at
the
facility,
the
Director
must
make
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
10
In
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule,
the
calculation
baseline
is
assumed
to
be
a
shoreline
intake
with
oncethrough
cooling
system,
with
no
impingement
or
entrainment
reduction
controls.

8
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Under
this
alternative,
a
facility
would
either
compare
its
projected
costs
of
compliance
using
a
particular
technology
or
technologies
to
the
costs
the
Agency
considered
for
a
like
facility
in
establishing
the
applicable
performance
standards,
or
compare
its
projected
costs
of
compliance
with
the
projected
benefits
at
its
site
of
meeting
the
applicable
performance
standards.
If
in
either
case
costs
are
significantly
greater
than
the
projected
costs
or
projected
benefits,
the
technology
selected
by
the
Director
must
achieve
an
efficacy
level
that,
in
the
judgement
of
the
Director,
comes
as
close
as
practicable
to
the
applicable
performance
standards
without
resulting
in
costs
that
are
significantly
greater
than
such
projected
costs
or
benefits.
Alternative
(
5)
would
require
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
whose
detail
and
cost
would
vary
depending
on
characteristics
of
the
facility
and
waterbody.

3.
OVERVIEW
OF
PROPOSAL
UNDER
CONSIDERATION
3.1
Potential
Requirements
and
Guidelines
of
the
Proposal
EPA
is
in
the
early
stages
of
data
analysis,
option
formulation
and
assessment
for
the
Phase
III
regulation.
Therefore,
the
options
described
here
must
be
viewed
as
preliminary,
subject
to
potential
change
pending
the
outcome
of
relevant
analyses.

Nevertheless,
given
that
the
environmental
concerns,
and
the
technologies
available
to
mitigate
these
concerns,
are
similar
to
those
considered
under
the
Phase
II
rule,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
regulatory
options
for
Phase
III
will
be
broadly
consistent
with
the
provisions
codified
under
Phase
II.
Thus,
the
Phase
III
rule
appears
likely
to
be
conditioned
upon
factors
such
as
design
intake
flow
(
DIF),
percent
of
design
intake
flow
used
for
cooling,
capacity
utilization
rate
(
for
power
producers),
cooling
water
intake
structure
location,
and
economic
impact.
As
discussed
below,
EPA
anticipates
adjusting
the
applicability
of
requirements
like
those
proposed
in
Phase
II
to
Phase
III
facilities
based
on
various
threshold
criteria
appropriate
for
Phase
III
facilities.

Performance
requirements
for
Phase
III
facilities
may
include
a
requirement
for
such
facilities
to
either:
1)
reduce
design
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
system,
or
2)
to
reduce
impingement
rates
and/
or
entrainment
rates
to
specified
levels
relative
to
a
baseline.
10
Requirements
to
reduce
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
might
be
established
based
on
location
(
i.
e.,
waterbody
type),
the
relative
proportion
of
water
withdrawn
by
a
specific
facility,
and
utilization
rate
(
power
producers
only).

For
an
example
of
the
specific
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
performance
requirements
under
consideration,
the
Phase
II
regulation
specifies:
9
Impingement
Performance
Standard:
all
facilities
must
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95%
from
a
calculation
baseline
for
fish
and
shellfish;


Entrainment
Performance
Standard:
reduce
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
by
60
to
90%
from
the
calculation
baseline,
if
the
facility
has
a
capacity
utilization
rate
of
15%
or
greater
and
either
(
i)
the
facility
uses
cooling
water
withdrawn
from
a
tidal
river,
estuary,
ocean,
or
Great
Lake,
or
(
ii)
the
facility
uses
cooling
water
withdrawn
from
a
stream
or
river
and
the
facility's
design
intake
flow
exceeds
5%
of
the
mean
annual
flow
of
the
stream
or
river.

As
EPA
moves
forward
with
development
of
the
Phase
III
regulation,
numerous
additional
scoping,
economic
impact,
and
environmental
impact
analyses
will
be
conducted.
To
the
extent
that
continuing
or
new
analyses
provide
a
basis
for
altering
the
approach
or
requirements
described
above,
the
Agency
will
fully
consider
such
information
in
its
decision
making.

3.2
Options
Likely
to
be
Proposed
As
discussed
above,
EPA
is
considering
using
performance
requirements
that
are
consistent
with
the
performance
requirements
in
the
Phase
II
rule,
but
developing
regulatory
options
based
on
criteria
or
thresholds
that
would
be
used
to
determine
which
Phase
III
facilities
are
subject
to
which
specific
performance
requirements.
As
a
result,
EPA
anticipates
that
some
Phase
III
facilities
would
be
subject
to
cooling
water
intake
permit
conditions
based
on
best
professional
judgement
(
BPJ),
some
would
be
subject
to
impingement
controls
only,
and
some
would
be
subject
to
entrainment
controls
as
well.
In
general,
the
more
sensitive
or
biologically
productive
the
waterbody,
or
the
greater
the
potential
for
the
facility
to
cause
or
contribute
to
an
adverse
impact,
the
more
stringent
the
requirements
proposed
as
reflecting
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
For
example,
if
EPA
were
to
use
design
intake
flow
as
its
primary
threshold
for
different
options,
alternatives
might
include
the
following:


Phase
III
facilities
with
a
design
intake
flow
of
less
than
2
mgd
(
note:
all
values
used
in
the
examples
are
for
illustrative
purposes
only)
are
not
subject
to
requirements
under
the
Phase
III
national
rule,
but
are
only
subject
to
NPDES
permits
requirements
established
based
on
a
permit
writer's
BPJ;


Phase
III
facilities
with
a
design
intake
flow
greater
than
2
mgd
but
less
than
50
mgd
are
only
subject
to
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
to
specified
levels
from
a
baseline;
and,


Phase
III
facilities
with
a
design
intake
flow
greater
than
50
mgd
are
subject
to
performance
requirements
similar
to
those
proposed
in
the
Phase
II
regulation.

EPA
may
use
other
criteria,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
percent
of
design
intake
flow
used
for
cooling,
proportion
of
source
waterbody
withdrawn,
utilization
rate,
and
cooling
water
10
intake
location,
to
establish
its
regulatory
options
for
Phase
III.
Moreover,
EPA
may
combine
these
criteria
to
ensure
Phase
III
requirements
provide
for
the
use
of
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impacts.
For
example,
the
Agency
may
combine
intake
flow
with
location
to
adequately
address
the
potential
impacts
from
Phase
III
facilities.
Ultimately,
EPA
will
select
among
the
options
based
on
its
analyses
of
environmental
impacts,
costs
impacts,
and
small
entity
impacts
associated
with
each
distinct
regulatory
option.
11
4.
APPLICABLE
SMALL
ENTITY
DEFINITIONS
Tables
4­
1
and
4­
2
show
the
SBA
small
entity
definitions
for
each
of
the
4­
digit
SIC
codes
represented
among
the
parent
entities
of
the
in­
scope
facilities
surveyed
by
EPA
to
date.

Table
4­
1.
Small
entity
definitions
for
parent
entities
of
Phase
III
manufacturer
facilities
surveyed
and
found
in­
scope.

SIC
Code
SIC
Code
Description
Sector
SBA
Small
Entity
Size
Standard
SBA
Small
Entity
Size
Standard
Units
0133
Sugarcane
and
Sugar
Beets
Other
500,000
Revenue
1011
Iron
Ores
Other
500
Employees
1311
Crude
Petroleum
and
Natural
Gas
Oil
and
Gas
500
Employees
1381
Drilling
Oil
and
Gas
Wells
Oil
and
Gas
500
Employees
2046
Wet
Corn
Milling
Other
750
Employees
2062
Cane
Sugar
Refining
Other
750
Employees
2063
Beet
Sugar
Other
750
Employees
2092
Prepared
Fresh
or
Frozen
Fish
and
Seafoods
Seafood
Processing
500
Employees
2211
Broadwoven
Fabric
Mills,
Cotton
Other
1,000
Employees
2421
Sawmills
and
Planing
Mills,
General
Other
500
Employees
2611
Pulp
Mills
Paper
750
Employees
2621
Paper
Mills
Paper
750
Employees
2631
Paperboard
Mills
Paper
750
Employees
2676
Sanitary
Paper
Products
Paper
500
Employees
2679
Converted
Paper
and
Paperboard
Products,
NEC
Paper
500
Employees
2812
Alkalies
and
Chlorine
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2813
Industrial
Gases
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2816
Inorganic
Pigments
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2819
Industrial
Inorganic
Chemicals,
NEC
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2821
Plastics
Material
and
Synthetic
Resins,
and
Nonvulcanizable
Elastomers
Chemicals
750
Employees
2824
Manmade
Organic
Fibers,
Except
Cellulosic
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2833
Medicinal
Chemicals
and
Botanical
Products
Chemicals
750
Employees
2834
Pharmaceutical
Preparations
Chemicals
750
Employees
2869
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals,
NEC
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2873
Nitrogenous
Fertilizers
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2899
Chemicals
and
Chemical
Preparations,
NEC
Chemicals
500
Employees
2911
Petroleum
Refining
Petroleum
1,500
Employees
12
3312
Steel
Works,
Blast
Furnaces
(
Including
Coke
Ovens),
and
Rolling
Mills
Steel
1,000
Employees
3313
Electrometallurgical
Products,
Except
Steel
Steel
750
Employees
3315
Steel
Wiredrawing
and
Steel
Nails
and
Spikes
Steel
1,000
Employees
3316
Cold­
Rolled
Steel
Sheet,
Strip,
and
Bars
Steel
1,000
Employees
3317
Steel
Pipe
and
Tubes
Steel
1,000
Employees
3334
Primary
Production
of
Aluminum
Aluminum
1,000
Employees
3353
Aluminum
Sheet,
Plate,
and
Foil
Aluminum
750
Employees
3421
Cutlery
Other
500
Employees
3861
Photographic
Equipment
and
Supplies
Other
500
Employees
Table
4­
2.
Small
entity
definitions
for
parent
entities
of
Phase
III
electric
generator
facilities
surveyed
and
found
in­
scope.

SIC
Code
SIC
Code
Description
SBA
Small
Entity
Size
Standard
SBA
Small
Entity
Size
Standard
Units
1311
Crude
Petroleum
and
Natural
Gas.
500
Employees
1542
General
Contractors
 
Nonresidential
Buildings,
Other
than
Industrial
Buildings
and
Warehouses
27,500,000
Revenue
2621
Paper
Mills
750
Employees
4911
Electric
Services
4,000,000
MWh
4924
Natural
Gas
Distribution
500
Employees
4925
Mixed,
Manufactured,
or
Liquefied
Petroleum
Gas
Production
and/
or
Distribution
5,000,000
Revenue
4931
Electric
and
Other
Services
Combined
5,000,000
Revenue
4932
Gas
and
Other
Services
Combined
5,000,000
Revenue
4953
Refuse
Systems
10,000,000
Revenue
6211
Security
Brokers,
Dealers
and
Flotation
Companies
5,000,000
Revenue
9111
Executive
Offices
50,000
Population
13
5.
SMALL
ENTITIES
THAT
MAY
BE
SUBJECT
TO
THE
PROPOSED
REGULATION
The
proposed
Phase
III
rule
potentially
would
apply
to
all
facilities
to
which
Section
316(
b)
applies
and
which
are
not
regulated
under
Phases
I
&
II.
Phase
II
included
existing
utility
and
nonutility
electric
power
producers.
Phase
I
included
new
facilities.
Thus,
a
Phase
III
regulation
could
apply
to
a
wide
range
of
existing
facilities.
It
will
also
include
new
facilities
in
the
oil
and
gas
extraction
industry.

EPA
anticipates
that
a
majority
of
Phase
III
facilities
will
fall
into
the
following
major
categories
of
economic
activity:
electricity
producers
with
design
intake
flows
less
than
50
million
gallons
per
day;
industrial
chemicals;
pulp
&
paper;
primary
metals
(
iron
and
steel,
aluminum);
and,
petroleum
refining.

EPA
conducted
a
questionnaire
survey
of
these
major
industrial
sectors.
Using
standard
methods
of
survey
estimation,
EPA
is
able
to
estimate
the
national
population
of
facilities
in
these
industrial
sectors
that
may
potentially
be
affected
by
a
phase
III
rule,
and
the
number
of
these
which
are
owned
by
small
entities
(
Table
H­
1).

The
Oil
&
Gas
Extraction
category
was
not
represented
in
the
316(
b)
survey
conducted
in
2000.
However,
EPA
must
consider
requirements
for
new
and
existing
facilities
(
platforms,
mobile
drilling
units,
and
drill
ships)
in
this
category
and
similar
"
offshore"
cooling
water
intakes
for
seafood
processing
vessels.

In
October
2003,
EPA
mailed
surveys
to
a
sample
of
Oil
&
Gas
Extraction
facilities
and
to
a
sample
of
seafood
processing
vessels.
The
survey
information
collection
was
cleared
by
OMB.
These
are
probability­
based,
stratified
samples
of
lists
of
facilities
("
sample
frames")
that
EPA
believes
to
be
substantially
complete.
Results
from
the
survey
have
not
all
been
received,
checked,
entered
into
databases,
so
summary
results
cannot
be
presented
at
this
time.

At
the
present
time,
based
on
experience
with
effluent
guidelines
for
the
Oil
&
Gas
Extraction
category
and
based
on
recent
research,
EPA
believes
that
a
great
majority
of
the
owner­
entities
in
this
category
are
large
businesses.

At
the
present
time,
based
on
research
and
available
reports
as
well
as
preliminary
analysis
of
surveys,
EPA
believes
that
the
majority
of
potentially
in­
scope
seafood
processing
vessels
may
be
owned
by
small
entities
that
are
geographically
concentrated
in
Alaska
and
Washington.
However,
a
substantial
number
of
the
largest
vessels
are
owned
by
three
large
businesses.
14
Table
5­
1.
Estimated
Number
of
Phase
III
Facilities
Owned
by
Small
and
Large
Firms
(
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration),
and
estimated
design
intake
flow
Total
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Small
Firm
Large
Firm
Industry
Group
Design
Flow
Range
Electric
Generators
(
n
=
121)
2
­
10
MGD
192
5
33
10
­
20
MGD
449
2
27
20
­
50
MGD
1,807
10
44
50
­
250
MGD
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
>
250
MGD
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
Electric
Generators
All
Design
Flows
2,448
17
104
Manufacturers
(
n
=
630)
2
­
10
MGD
892
24
133
10
­
20
MGD
1,366
21
68
20
­
50
MGD
6,288
20
183
50
­
250
MGD
12,967
4
131
>
250
MGD
66,367
9
37
Manufacturers
All
Design
Flows
87,880
78
552
Chemicals
All
Design
Flows
11,608
13
170
Metals
All
Design
Flows
9,301
16
82
Pulp
and
Paper
All
Design
Flows
57,903
38
214
Petroleum
Refining
All
Design
Flows
3,135
2
34
Other
*
All
Design
Flows
5,807
9
52
All
Industries
(
n=
751)
All
Design
Flows
90,328
95
656
*
This
is
not
an
estimate
of
affected
facilities
in
other
industries,
it
merely
represents
surveyed
facilities
that
were
thought
to
be
in
one
of
the
four
industries
selected
for
survey,
but
which
identified
their
primary
business
as
other
than
one
of
the
four
industries
surveyed.
15
16
6.
SUMMARY
OF
SMALL
ENTITY
OUTREACH
EPA
conducted
numerous
outreach
activities
during
the
development
of
the
original
industry
survey
(
1998­
1999).
Although
this
outreach
was
conducted
primarily
to
obtain
feedback
on
the
survey
and
questionnaires
in
connection
with
an
information
collection
request,
it
also
made
widely
known
the
Agency's
plans
to
develop
regulations
implementing
Section
316(
b)
and
it
resulted
in
numerous
communications
with
potentially
affected
firms
and
industry
associations.

EPA
conducted
outreach
with
a
variety
of
industrial
groups,
including
American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute,
American
Petroleum
Institute,
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association,
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association,
Edison
Electric
Institute,
and
Electric
Power
Research
Institute,
and
environmental
groups
including:
Hudson
Riverkeepers,
New
York/
New
Jersey
Baykeeper,
Widener
University
School
of
Law
(
Delaware
Baykeepers),
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
Most
of
the
organizations
acknowledged
EPA
for
incorporating
many
of
their
early
suggestions
into
the
draft
detailed
questionnaire.

Further
outreach
was
conducted
in
2003,
in
connection
with
the
information
collection
request
for
a
2003
survey
of
oil
&
gas
extraction
facilities
and
seafood
processing
vessels.
In
conjunction
with
this
ICR
effort,
EPA
has
coordinated
extensively
with
the
International
Association
of
Drilling
Contractors
and
the
National
Food
Processors
Association
among
others.

Table
A1.
Industry
Organization
Representatives
Organization
Point
of
Contact
Contact
Info.

Institute
for
Fisheries
Resources
Dr.
Zeke
Grader
fish4ifr@
aol.
com
Pacific
Coast
Federation
of
Fishermen's
Associations
Glen
H.
Spain
(
541)
689­
2000
National
Food
Processors
Association
Rick
Jarman
rjarmin@
nfpafood
org
National
Fisheries
Institute
Bob
Colette
703­
524­
8880
x232
American
Fishermen's
Research
Foundation
and
Western
Fishboat
Owners
Association
Wayne
Heikkila
(
707)
443­
1098
At­
Sea
Processors
Association
(
APA)
Trevor
McCabe
(
907)
276­
8252
International
Association
of
Drilling
Contractors
Alan
Spackman
(
281)
578­
7171
Western
State
Petroleum
Association
(
WSPA)
Suzanne
R.
Noble
805­
966­
7113
Mineral
Management
Service
Dr.
Kay
Marano
Briggs
703­
787­
1646
Offshore
Operators'
Committee
Kent
Satterlee
III
504­
728­
4143
17
As
part
of
the
outreach
efforts,
the
Agency
developed
a
web
site
to
provide
equal
access
to
the
latest
status
and
information
on
Section
316(
b)
rulemaking.
The
web
site
contains
the
quarterly
status
reports,
screener
questionnaire
ICR
package,
screener
and
detailed
questionnaires,
Phase
I
rule,
proposed
Phase
II
rule,
the
Phase
II
NODA,
and
public
meeting
summaries
and
transcripts.
The
Section
316(
b)
web
site
may
be
viewed
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ost/
316b.

The
outreach
activities
described
above
did
not
specifically
target
small
entities,
but
the
associations
involved
have
many
small
entities
as
members.
EPA
began
outreach
targeted
at
small
entities
in
August
2002,
held
a
first
outreach
meeting
for
small
entities
on
October
1,
2002,
and
held
a
second
(
pre­
panel)
outreach
meeting
on
January
22,
2004.

In
August
&
September
2002,
EPA
identified
25
small
entities
among
the
respondents
to
the
2000
survey
of
electric
generators
and
manufacturers,
and
attempted
to
contact
all
of
them.
EPA
also
tried
to
contact
another
21
firms
that
might
be
small
entities
but
whose
status
required
research
and
inquiry,
leading
to
identification
of
two
more
small
entities.
Upon
direct
inquiry
and
review,
some
firms
thought
to
be
small
entities
were
found
to
be
large
entities
and
some
facilities
would
not
be
subject
to
a
Phase
III
rule,
leaving
21
small
entities.
These
small
entities
received
sent
brief
descriptions
of
the
Phase
III
rulemaking,
the
small
business
advocacy
review
process,
and
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
SERs
(
Appendix
A).
Those
expressing
interest
in
either
the
outreach
meeting
or
the
rulemaking
were
sent
background
document
identified
in
Appendix
A,
describing
the
Phase
III
rulemaking.

A
summary
of
the
outreach
meeting
held
October
1,
2002
appears
in
Appendix
B
and
SER
comments
made
after
that
meeting
appear
in
Appendix
C.

EPA
also
contacted
industry
associations
with
a
request
that
they
identify
potential
small
entity
representatives.
These
included
the
American
Public
Power
Association,
National
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Association,
American
Municipal
Power
­
Ohio,
Minnesota
Municipal
Utilities
Association,
Electric
Power
Supply
Association,
American
Chemistry
Council,
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association,
National
Petrochemical
and
Refiners
Association,
American
Petroleum
Institute,
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association,
American
Iron
&
Steel
Institute,
International
Association
of
Drilling
Contractors,
Offshore
Operators
Committee,
At­
Sea
Processors
Association,
and
the
National
Food
Processors
Association.

EPA
held
a
pre­
panel
outreach
meeting
for
potential
SERs
on
January
22,
2004,
and
provided
the
materials
listed
in
Appendix
A.
These
included
a
revised
background
document,
examples
of
regulatory
costs
under
a
hypothetical
set
of
regulatory
requirements,
and
an
analysis
of
costs
and
benefits
developed
by
the
Small
Business
Administration.
A
summary
of
that
meeting
appears
in
Appendix
B
and
SER
comments
resulting
from
the
meeting
appear
in
Appendix
C.
18
7.
LIST
OF
SMALL
ENTITY
REPRESENTATIVES
(
SERS)

Industry
Business,
Municipality,
or
Organization
Contact
Person
Electric
Generators
Electric
Generators
Municipal
City
of
Dover
(
Dover
Light
&
Power)
116
East
Third
St.
Dover,
OH
44622
David
G.
Borland
(
Superintendant)
330­
343­
3442
dborland@
doverohio.
com
Municipal
Richmond
Power
and
Light
P.
O.
Box
908
Richmond,
IN
47375
Bob
Crye
(
Superintendant)
765­
973­
7215
bobc@
RP­
L.
com
Municipal
Henderson
Municipal
Power
&
Light
419
N.
Water
St.
Henderson,
KY
42419
Wayne
Thompson
270­
826­
2726
WThompson@
hmpl.
net
Municipal
Village
Of
Winnetka
510
Green
Bay
Road
Winnetka,
IL
60093
Jeffrey
M.
Pietka
847­
716­
3601
jpietka@
winnetka.
org
Municipal
Crawfordsville
Electric
Light
&
Power
Co
PO
Box
428
Crawfordsville,
IN
47933­
0428
Steve
Gillan
(
Environment,
Safety
and
Training
Coordinator)
765­
362­
1900
steveg@
celp.
com
Municipal
Iola
Electric
Department
1220
West
54
Hwy.
Iola,
KS
66749
Steven
D.
Robb
620­
365­
4950
powerplt@
iolaks.
com
(
continued
on
next
page)
19
Industry
Business,
Municipality,
or
Organization
Contact
Person
Small
Manufacturers
Small
Manufacturers
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products
NYCOA
333
Sundial
Avenue
Manchester,
NH
03103­
7230
http://
www.
nycoa.
net/
John
Pollono
603­
627­
5150
ext
18
JPollono@
nycoa.
net
Paper
and
Allied
Products
Oconto
Falls
Tissue,
Inc.
2079­
A
Lawrence
Drive
De
Pere,
WI
54115
Jim
Kellam
920­
983­
8379
JimK@
GBonline.
com
Steel
North
American
Stainless
­
Ghent
6870
Highway
42
East
Ghent,
KY
41045
Steve
Shaver
502­
347­
6000
SShaver@
northamericanstainless.
co
m,
CC
to
meichelberger@
northamericanstainle
ss.
com
Steel
Bayou
Steel
Corporation
P.
O.
Box
5000
La
Place,
LA
70069­
5000
Wendy
Stehling
985­
652­
0322
WendyS@
bayousteel.
com
Paper
and
Allied
Products
Mohawk
Paper
Mills,
Inc.
PO
Box
497
Cohoes,
NY
12047
George
Milner
518­
233­
6205
MilnerG@
mohawkpaper.
com
Petroleum
and
Coal
Products
Countrymark
Cooperative,
Inc.
225
S
East
St
Indianapolis,
IN
Donald
Horning
812­
838­
8133
Horning@
countrymark.
com
Paper
and
Allied
Products
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corp.
PO
Box
3170
Port
Townsend,
WA
98368
Eveleen
Muehlethaler
360­
379­
2112
EveleenM@
ptpc.
com
20
Associations
Supporting
Small
Entities
(
these
are
not
SERs)

Description
Organization
or
Association
Contact
Person
"
APPA
is
the
service
organization
for
the
nation's
more
than
2,000
local
publicly
owned
electric
utilities."
APPA
represents
a
number
of
publicly
owned
electric
utilities
that
may
be
subject
to
a
Phase
3
rule.
American
Public
Power
Association
2301
M
Street,
NW
Washington,
DC
20037
Teresa
Pugh
202­
467­
2943
tpugh@
appanet.
org
"
The
National
Petrochemical
and
Refiners
Association
(
NPRA)
represents
almost
500
companies,
including
virtually
all
U.
S.
refiners
and
petrochemical
manufacturers."
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
(
NPRA)
1899
L
Street,
N.
W.,
Suite
1000
Washington,
D.
C.
20036­
3896
Tom
Wigglesworth
202­
457­
0480
tom_
wigglesworth@
npra
dc.
org
"
The
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA)
is
the
national
trade
association
of
the
forest,
pulp,
paper,
paperboard
and
wood
products
industry."
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
1111
19th
St
NW
Washington
DC
20036
Meg
McCarthy
202­
463­
2700
meg_
mccarthy@
afandpa.
org
Jerry
Schwartz
jerry_
schwartz@
AFandPA.
org
21
8.
SUMMARY
OF
COMMENTS
FROM
POTENTIAL
SMALL
ENTITY
REPRESENTATIVES
8.1
Number
and
Types
of
Entities
Affected
Comments
from
Dover
Light
&
Power
(
Dover,
Ohio)
point
to
considering
the
impacts
(
of
regulating
small
municipal
power
plants)
on
local
economies.
Dover
Light
Plant
contributes
substantially
to
the
local
and
regional
economy.
Dover
Light
&
Power
noted
that
more
than
90%
of
public
power
systems
serve
communities
of
less
than
50,000
population
and
more
than
95%
have
fewer
than
20
employees.

See
also
comments
summarized
in
the
next
section.

8.2
Potential
Reporting,
Record
Keeping,
and
Compliance
Commentors
in
general
expressed
concern
about
the
level
of
projected
regulatory
costs
and
the
impact
of
those
costs
on
small
entities.
They
specifically
mentioned
"
ICR"
costs
(
associated
with
permit
application,
environmental
studies,
verification
monitoring,
and
reporting
requirements),
and
noted
that
"
ICR"
costs
(
as
proposed
for
Phase
II)
can
equal
or
exceed
technology
costs.

Richmond
Power
&
Light
(
Richmond,
IN)
noted
that
small
municipal
utilities
have
no
environmental
department,
would
need
to
use
contractors,
could
experience
a
significant
economic
burden
because
of
the
cost
of
studies,
might
need
to
increase
rates,
and
might
need
to
increase
staff.
Richmond
Power
&
Light
noted
that
compliance
costs
of
a
small
facility
(
2
mgd)
estimated
by
EPA
are
significant
for
small
communities
and
utilities.

Dover
Light
&
Power
commented
that
the
cost
estimated
by
EPA
would
have
a
substantial
economic
impact
on
a
small
system
with
a
very
limited
customer
base,
and
that
EPA's
projected
costs
for
verification
monitoring
(
for
the
Phase
II
proposed
rule)
would
be
inordinately
burdensome
for
small
municipal
utilities.

Port
Townsend
Paper
(
Port
Townsend,
WA)
commented
that
costs
as
estimated
by
EPA
would
impose
a
substantial
financial
burden
on
small
businesses
such
as
Port
Townsend
Paper,
which
faces
significant
economic
challenges
because
of
the
recent
US
economic
slump,
shifting
markets,
and
a
weak
global
economy.
Despite
recent
upturn
in
global
and
domestic
markets,
Port
Townsend
has
not
seen
significant
improvement
in
their
businesses.
They
noted
that
estimated
permitting,
monitoring
and
reporting
costs
were
considerably
greater
than
the
capital
costs
and
operating
costs
of
the
technologies
used
to
minimize
environmental
impact.

8.3
Related
Federal
Rules
Richmond
Power
&
Light
remarked
that
reliability
(
of
electric
power)
could
be
affected
22
8.4
Regulatory
Flexibility
Alternatives
Thresholds
for
Applicability
Commentors
recommend
that
EPA
use
thresholds,
below
which
requirements
would
be
reduced
or
would
be
determined
case­
by­
case
when
adverse
environmental
impacts
were
probable.

Countrymark
Cooperative
Petroleum
Refinery
remarked
that
"
The
Phase
III
regulations
should
have
a
minimum
flow
threshold
of
no
less
than
5
million
gallons
per
day."

Port
Townsend
Paper
comments
in
summary:
Limit
the
scope
of
Phase
III
applicability.
Focus
on
facilities
having
a
reasonable
likelihood
of
causing
adverse
environmental
impacts.
Establish
applicability
thresholds,
such
as
a
design
capacity
threshold,
and
examine
their
cost
and
benefit.
Consider
excluding
Phase
III
facilities
from
national
requirements
and
instead
allow
for
case­
bycase
determinations
using
best
professional
judgement
as
to
the
best
technology
available.
Provide
for
regulation
only
in
cases
where
the
permitting
authority
determines,
based
on
available
scientific
data,
that
operation
of
a
CWIS
has
resulted
in
an
adverse
environmental
impact.

Approved
Technologies
Commentors
suggested
that
EPA
designate
approved
technologies.
Proper
installation
and
operation
of
these
technologies
would
then
either
constitute
compliance,
or
use
of
an
approved
technology
would
greatly
reduce
the
requirements
for
information
collection
and
reporting
that
were
proposed
for
the
Phase
II
rule.

Countrymark
Cooperative
Petroleum
Refinery
commented
that
(
a)
structures
with
designs
less
likely
to
contribute
to
impingement
or
entrainment
need
not
have
any
other
requirements
and
(
b)
EPA
should
make
available
detailed,
water
intake
designs
that
minimize
impingement
or
entrainment
and
are
easy
to
clean.
There
is
a
strong
incentive
for
the
water
users
to
use
designs
that
minimize
daily
or
periodic
maintenance.

Port
Townsend
Paper
recommended
providing
a
suite
of
technologies
(
approved
technologies)
designated
as
BTA
for
satisfying
the
performance
standards.
Facilities
installing
an
approved
technology
would
be
considered
in
compliance
and
would
not
be
subject
to
extensive
and
burdensome
application,
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
Environmental
Benefits
vs.
Costs;
Need
for
New
Requirements
Dover
OH
Light
&
Power
commented
that
EPA's
projected
costs
would
be
inordinately
burdensome
for
small
municipal
utilities
and,
for
small
intakes,
these
expenses
cannot
be
justified
by
potential
benefits
to
the
environment.
The
value
of
fish
saved
would
be
much
less
than
23
expenses
incurred;
costs
would
exceed
[
monetized]
benefits
[
in
a
report
provided
by
the
Small
Business
Administration]
for
intakes
with
less
than
20
mgd
design
capacity.
These
economic
impacts
and
low
benefit­
cost
ratios
require
careful
consideration,
esp.
as
new
requirements
that
would
affect
a
system
having
only
a
very
minor
impact
on
the
fish
population
in
the
Tuscarawas
River.
Dover
Light
&
Power
studied
fish
impingement
mortality
in
1988­
89,
and
found
that
about
85%
of
impinged
fish
were
gizzard
shad
no
larger
than
1
oz.,
many
of
them
impinged
because
of
a
cold
weather
event
(
and
these
might
have
died
in
any
event).

Port
Townsend
Paper
recommended
that
EPA
should
focus
on
facilities
having
a
reasonable
likelihood
of
causing
adverse
environmental
impact
(
AEI).
This
could
be
done
by
establishing
one
or
more
applicability
thresholds
and
exempting
facilities
that
do
not
fall
within
those
thresholds.
The
authority
to
seek
additional
studies
or
impose
additional
requirements
should
be
appropriately
limited.
EPA
should
consider
regulating
only
impingement,
not
entrainment,
under
appropriate
circumstances
­
based
on
an
EPRI
report,
entrainment
may
pose
a
low
risk
of
AEI
in
many
circumstances.
EPA
should
investigate
costs
and
benefits
of
alternative
thresholds.

Countrymark
Cooperative
Petroleum
Refinery
­
with
their
type
intake
structure
("
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
mounted
within
a
permanent
barge
structure
and
consists
of
submerged
basin
with
passive
water
inlet
holes"),
"
With
this
design,
direct
impingement
does
not
generally
occur."
"
Countrymark
feels
that
our
current
water
intake
structure
design
minimizes
impingement
and
entrainment.
It
is
our
opinion
that
no
further
upgrades
are
warranted."

Subcategorization
Port
Townsend
Paper
recommended
identifying
industrial
subcategories
that
could
be
adversely
impacted
and
reducing
economic
burden
for
these
subcategories.

Design
Capacity
versus
Actual
Water
Use
Commentors
question
the
merits
of
using
design
capacity,
rather
than
actual
water
use,
in
applicability
thresholds.
[
An
alternative
reading
of
these
comments
might
suggest
that
the
regulatory
definition
of
design
capacity
may
need
clarification
or
reconsideration
to
account
better
for
the
practical
limits
to
water­
use
capacity].

Port
Townsend
Paper
suggested
that
actual
water
withdrawal
rather
than
design
capacity
is
more
appropriate
as
an
applicability
threshold.
Many
facilities
have
lower
intake
and
discharge
flows
as
a
permit
condition
or
because
they
do
not
or
cannot
use
the
entire
design
capacity.
An
applicability
threshold
based
on
design
capacity
rather
than
actual
water
use
may
penalize
facilities
for
conserving
water.
24
Dover
OH
Light
&
Power
noted
that
their
intake
structure
is
designed
for
12,000
gpm,
while
the
capacity
of
all
three
pumps
(
6,000
gpm
per
pump)
is
18,000
gpm,
and
only
two
pumps
are
used
at
any
given
time.

Other
Comments
Dover
OH
Light
&
Power
commented
that
EPA
may
not
have
fully
considered
costs
for
O&
M
and
rebuilding
and
the
higher
level
of
staffing
needed
(
with
associated
wages
&
benefits).
25
APPENDICES
Appendix
A:
List
of
Materials
EPA
Shared
With
Potential
SERs
Appendix
B:
Summary
from
EPA's
Outreach
Meeting
with
Potential
SERs
Appendix
C:
Written
Comments
Received
from
Potential
SERs
26
Appendix
A:
List
of
Materials
EPA
Shared
With
Potential
SERs
Outreach
meeting
held
October
1,
2002
13.
Background
Information
for
Potential
Small­
Entity
Representatives
on
EPA's
Rulemaking
Project
(
316b_
PhaseIII_
Background.
pdf)
14.
Information
on
intake
technologies
and
their
costs
(
ten
pdf
files)

After
the
outreach
meeting
held
October
1,
2002
15.
Powerpoint
slides
used
for
outreach
meeting
(
briefing­
background.
ppt)
16.
Summary
of
meeting
(
Mtg
Summary_
100102.
wpd)

Pre­
panel
outreach
meeting
held
January
22,
2004
17.
Background
Information
for
Potential
Small­
Entity
Representatives
on
EPA's
Rulemaking
Project
(
316b_
Phase3_
Background_
2004.
pdf)
18.
Cost
Examples
(
Example_
1.
pdf,
Example_
2.
pdf)
19.
Attachments
for
Cost
Examples
(
Table
2
Capital
Cost.
pdf,
Table
3­
4
cost
factor.
pdf,
Table
5­
6
OM.
pdf,
Table
7
ICR
costs.
pdf)

After
the
outreach
meeting
held
January
22,
2004
20.
Additional
table
for
background
document
showing
numbers
of
facilities
(
and
number
owned
by
small
entities)
by
intervals
of
design
intake
flow
(
Table_
H­
1_
SB_
flow.
pdf)
21.
Small
Business
Administration's
analysis
of
costs
and
benefits
of
some
regulatory
alternatives
(
PhaseIII
SBA
REPORT
Exec
Summary
1.9.04.
doc
and
PhaseIII
SBA
REPORT
1.9.04.
zip)
22.
Meeting
summary
(
Meeting
Notes
22jan04.
pdf)
23.
Suggestions
on
providing
comments
(
SER
Comment
guidance.
pdf)
24.
Information
about
the
compliance
alternatives
proposed
for
Phase
2
facility
cooling
water
intakes
(
Ch_
A1.
pdf)
27
Appendix
B:
Summary
from
EPA's
Outreach
Meeting
with
Potential
SERs
Pre­
Panel
Outreach
Meeting
for
Small
Entities
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Phase
III
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
January
22,
2004
Meeting
Participants:

Small
Entity
Representatives:
David
G.
Borland,
City
of
Dover
(
Dover
Light
&
Power)
Bob
Crye,
Richmond
Power
and
Light
Donald
Horning,
Countrymark
Cooperative,
Inc.
Steve
Shaver,
North
American
Stainless
 
Ghent
Wendy
Stehling,
Bayou
Steel
Corporation
George
Milner,
Mohawk
Paper
Mills,
Inc.
Eveleen
Muehlethaler,
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corp.

Associations
Supporting
Small
Entities:
Meg
McCarthy,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
Jerry
Schwartz,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
Tom
Wigglesworth,
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency:
Alex
Cristofaro,
OPEI,
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair
Joan
Crawford,
OPEI
George
Denning,
EAD
Patrick
Easter,
OPEI
John
Fox,
EAD,
Phase
III
Regulation
Manager
Mindy
Gampel,
OPEI
Ken
Munis,
OPEI
Tom
Nakely,
OPEI
Pooja
Parikh,
Office
of
General
Counsel
Martha
Segall,
EAD,
Acting
Director,
Cooling
Water
Intake
Task
Force
Mary
Smith,
EAD,
Division
Director
Eric
Strassler,
EAD
Jennifer
Vernon,
OPEI
Mark
Wilson,
OPEI
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration:
Keith
Holman,
Office
of
Advocacy
Joe
Johnson,
Office
of
Advocacy
28
U.
S
Laity.
Office
of
Management
and
Budget:
Jim
Laity,
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Other
Participants:
Elicia
Blumberg,
Tetra
Tech
Incorporated
(
EPA
contractor)

Welcome
and
Introductions/
Words
from
the
SBREFA
Panel
Chair:
(
Mary
Smith,
Division
Director,
EPA
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division)
(
Alex
Cristofaro,
EPA
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair)

Mary
Smith
opened
the
meeting
and
invited
everyone
introduce
him/
herself.

Alex
Cristofaro
summarized
the
SBREFA
process.
Mr.
Cristofaro
explained
that
the
SBREFA
process
was
enacted
in
1996,
and
its
purpose
is
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
small
businesses
to
be
part
of
the
regulatory
process.
Input
from
small
businesses
allows
EPA
to
become
aware
of
and
consider
the
circumstances
of
those
entities.
EPA's
main
goal
is
to
develop
alternative
regulatory
approaches
that
meet
the
needs
of
small
businesses
as
much
as
possible.
Mr.
Cristofaro
emphasized
that
it
is
EPA's
hope
to
receive
as
much
input
as
possible
from
the
small
entities
before
writing
the
rule.
Small
business
representatives
should
provide
written
comments
to
EPA
by
February
5,
2004,
so
that
the
panel
meeting
later
in
the
month
will
have
ample
time
to
review
the
comments.
Following
the
official
start
of
the
SBREFA
panel,
small
businesses
will
have
another
opportunity
to
provide
comments.
Also,
he
added
that
John
Fox
would
be
available
at
any
time
to
field
questions.

Keith
Holman
welcomed
everyone
to
the
meeting,
and
stated
that
a
second,
more
complete,
set
of
documents
will
be
sent
to
small
entity
representatives
(
SERs)
in
late
February
to
early
March.
These
documents
will
further
explain
316(
b)
in
detail,
and
present
rule
costs.
Mr.
Holman
stated
that
the
SBREFA
process
is
about
getting
a
better
rule
without
creating
unnecessary
burden
on
small
businesses.

Jim
Laity
added
that
the
SBREFA
process
presents
a
unique
opportunity
where
SERs
can
inform
EPA
of
concerns
early
on
in
the
rulemaking
process.
Mr.
Laity
continued
that
it
would
be
particularly
helpful
to
receive
technical
comments
about
how
your
business
works,
which
EPA
might
not
know.
Mr.
Laity
suggested
that
anyone
who
knows
how
to
do
something
better,
and
in
a
less
costly
way,
should
send
such
suggestions
to
EPA.

Overview
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Rulemaking
(
John
Fox,
EPA
Phase
III
Rulemaking
Manager)

The
following
notes
are
taken
from
talking
points
used
by
John
Fox.
They
summarize
the
main
points
covered
by
Mr.
Fox
during
the
meeting:
29
What
are
impingement
and
entrainment?
Impingement
refers
to
fish
being
trapped
and
held
against
a
screen
or
other
structure
in
the
intake,
or
being
harmed
by
rough
contact
with
the
intake
structure.
Entrainment
refers
to
larvae
of
fish
and
shellfish
being
pulled
into
the
cooling
system.
Entrained
organisms
generally
die
from
thermal
shock
and
mechanical
damage,
though
the
extent
of
mortality
is
still
controversial.

What
facilities
are
subject
to
§
316(
b)?
Under
the
Phase
1
and
proposed
Phase
2
rules,
facilities
are
potentially
subject
to
national
requirements
under
Section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
if
they
require
a
NPDES
permit
to
discharge
wastewater,
have
a
cooling
water
intake
that
withdraws
water
from
"
a
water
of
the
US,"
and
use
at
least
25%
of
the
intake
water
exclusively
for
cooling
purposes.
We
expect
the
same
will
apply
to
Phase
3
facilities.

What
facilities
will
be
considered
in
the
Phase
3
rulemaking?
Phase
1
addressed
new
facilities
Phase
2
addressed
electric
generators
with
design
capacities
of
at
least
50
MGD
Facilities
that
will
be
considered
for
regulation
under
Phase
3
are:
(
a)
all
existing
facilities,
except
electric
generators
covered
by
the
Phase
2
regulation
(
b)
electric
generators
with
design
capacities
under
50
MGD
(
c)
new
facilities
­
coastal
and
offshore
oil
&
gas
(
platforms
and
MODUs)

What
is
EPA's
schedule
for
regulation
development?
For
compelling
legal
reasons
(
i.
e.
a
consent
decree),
EPA
is
required
by
to
formally
consider
regulatory
alternatives
by
May
14,
2004,
to
propose
Phase
3
regulations
by
November
1,
2004
to
take
final
action
by
June
1,
2006
What
has
been
decided
about
the
Phase
3
regulation?
The
scope
and
specific
requirements
of
the
Phase
3
regulatory
proposal
are
only
now
starting
to
be
considered.
Decisions
won't
be
made
until
May
and
June
when
EPA
must
prepare
a
proposal
for
inter­
agency
review
at
OMB.
The
scope
and
nature
of
requirements
is
then
subject
to
further
modification
during
interagency
review.
After
a
regulation
is
proposed,
public
comments
must
be
received
and
considered,
and
a
final
round
of
interagency
review
occurs
before
any
final
action
is
taken.

How
will
the
small
business
advocacy
process
affect
the
regulation?
The
Federal
panel
will
Provide
information
and
questions
to
small
entity
representatives
Take
oral
and
written
comments
from
small
entity
representatives
30
Present
a
report
to
the
EPA
Administrator
with
recommendations
on
how
impacts
upon
small
business
may
be
minimized
by
the
choice
of
regulatory
alternatives
The
panel
report
will
be
presented
before
EPA
considers
regulatory
alternatives
What
regulatory
alternatives
are
under
consideration?

The
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
regulations
lay
the
groundwork
for
defining
what
technologies
and
alternative
approaches
(
such
as
restoration)
may
be
effective
in
satisfying
the
requirements
of
Section
316(
b).
We
do
not
expect
that
these
basic
facts
and
approaches
will
change.

The
most
significant
issues
to
be
decided
about
Phase
3
include
what
kinds
of
facilities
and
intake
capacities
need
national
requirements,
and
what
specific
requirements
are
needed.

Some
specific
suggestions
under
consideration
include:

#
Flow
thresholds
for
national
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
#
Reduced
permitting
and
monitoring
requirements
for
intakes
with
smaller
design
capacities
(
this
may
be
combined
with
a
requirement
to
use
a
pre­
approved
technology,
with
or
without
verification
monitoring,
depending
on
the
situation)

#
A
capacity
utilization
threshold
for
national
requirements
(
for
example,
in
the
Phase
2
proposal,
electric
generators
would
not
be
required
to
reduce
entrainment
if
their
capacity
utilization
is
less
than
15%)

#
No
entrainment
controls
required
under
some
conditions
(
for
example,
at
freshwater
intakes
with
capacities
under
50
mgd)

#
Identification
of
industrial
subcategories
or
specialties
that
have
high
numbers
of
small
businesses
or
would
have
significant
economic
impacts
from
national
requirements
How
are
regulatory
alternatives
evaluated
and
compared?

#
The
cost
of
an
alternative
and
its
economic
impact
on
businesses
is
evaluated.
This
includes
market
analysis
of
price
changes
and
effects
on
consumers.

#
The
economic
impact
on
small
businesses
is
specifically
evaluated
#
Effects
on
energy
supply
and
demand
are
evaluated
31
#
Economic
and
fiscal
impacts
on
governmental
entities
(
municipalities,
States,
Tribes)
are
evaluated
#
Environmental
benefits
of
alternatives
are
evaluated
and
are
also
compared
to
the
costs
of
the
alternatives
What
technologies
are
used
to
impingement
and
entrainment?
There
is
a
wide
variety
of
technologies.
These
were
described
in
the
paper
sent
two
weeks
ago,
and
are
described
in
more
detail
in
the
documents
found
on
EPA's
316(
b)
web
site.

Technologies
commonly
used
to
control
impingement
are:

surface
shoreline
intakes:
­
traveling
screen
with
fish
handling
&
return
system
­
barriers
and
fish
diversion
systems
submerged
intakes:
­
velocity
cap
­
passive
(
wedgewire)
screen
Question
and
Answer
Session/
Comments
from
Small
Entity
Representatives
Dave
Borland
asked
that
John
Fox
repeat
the
dates
mentioned
earlier.

John
Fox
reiterated
the
dates,
and
added
that
between
the
proposal
and
final
action,
there
would
be
both
opportunities
to
comment
and
inter­
agency
review.

Jerry
Schwartz
wished
to
know
if
the
May
date
was
a
required
by
the
consent
decree.

John
Fox
answered
that
yes,
it
was.

Dave
Borland
asked
how
SERs
should
submit
comments.

John
Fox
answered
that
EPA
would
provide
both
email
and
surface
mail
addresses.

Dave
Borland
asked
if
the
meeting
hosts
could
clarify
what
types
of
comments
they
sought.

Jim
Laity
answered
that
Phase
3
will
be
similar
to
Phase
2.
All
power
plants
in
Phase
3
have
lower
intake
flows
than
those
in
Phase
II,
by
definition.
The
manufacturing
facilities
in
Phase
3,
however,
may
have
flows
comparable
to
those
in
Phase
2.
Mr.
Laity
suggested
that
it
would
be
helpful
for
SERs
to
become
familiar
with
the
Phase
2
rule,
which
is
about
to
go
final.
Mr.
Laity
then
reviewed
the
regulatory
alternatives
under
consideration,
which
were
mentioned
by
Mr.
Fox
earlier,
including
flow
thresholds,
reduced
permitting
and
monitoring
requirements
for
low
flow
facilities­
possibly
in
combination
with
pre­
approved
technologies,
capacity
utilization
threshold,
no
entrainment
controls
under
some
conditions,
and
identification
of
industrial
subcategories
that
32
would
have
significant
economic
impacts
from
national
requirement.
He
stated
that
it
was
unlikely
that
the
rule
would
regulate
entities
withdrawing
less
than
2
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD).
He
added
that
in
Phase
II,
EPA
and
OMB
evaluated
several
means
to
streamline
the
data
collection
efforts,
and
it
would
be
helpful
to
get
input
on
that
issue
from
SERs.
In
addition,
any
comments
or
suggestions
SERs
have
on
preapproved
technologies
that
have
promise
for
Phase
3
facilities
would
be
appreciated.
Mr.
Laity
requested
that
if
an
SER
has
candidate
technologies
or
site
conditions
for
preapproved
technologies,
to
please
suggest
them
to
EPA.

John
Fox
added
that
if
a
SER
has
experience
with
impingement
and
entrainment
(
I&
E)
studies
at
his/
her
location,
to
please
tell
EPA
about
that
experience,
the
results,
the
costs
involved,
and
so
on.
An
addition
concern
of
EPA
is
identifying
industrial
categories
that
have
large
numbers
of
small
businesses.
If
SERs
have
information
on
those
sectors,
please
let
EPA
know.

Mary
Smith
stated
that
Phase
III
represents
a
new
set
of
industries
for
EPA
to
become
familiar
with.
As
such
EPA
needs
to
be
informed
of
any
differences
relative
to
the
Phase
II
facilities,
that
the
Agency
should
take
into
account.

Jim
Laity
requested
that
SERs
also
inform
EPA
of
any
experiences
with
installing
I&
E
technologies.
Questions
to
answer
would
include:
Are
you
satisfied
with
the
technologies?
Were
you
required
by
your
State
permitting
authority
to
install
them?

Martha
Segall
added
that
it
would
be
helpful
to
EPA
to
hear
about
technologies
that
SERs
chose
not
to
install,
and
why.

Jerry
Schwartz
stated
that
in
the
discussion
about
alternatives,
some
sound
generic
and
some
address
possible
subgroups
where
different
treatment
may
be
appropriate.
It
seems
that
all
of
the
alternatives
could
apply
to
all
facilities,
small
or
large.
He
asked
what
the
basic
threshold
would
be
for
ideas
that
are
specific
to
small
businesses?

Jim
Laity
answered
that
everybody
involved
in
this
process
represents
small
businesses,
and
EPA
and
OMB
want
to
know
about
the
concerns
SERs
have
about
their
business.
Those
concerns
may
or
may
not
be
applicable
to
larger
businesses.
The
emphasis
here
is
finding
a
way
to
make
a
rule
that
will
not
be
burdensome
to
small
businesses,
but
if
the
information
is
helpful
to
larger
businesses
as
well,
that's
fine.

Eveleen
Muehlethaler
asked
whether
the
comments
SERs
are
submitting
by
February
5,
2004,
should
go
to
John
Fox?

John
Fox
confirmed
this
and
added
that
he
would
resend
his
contact
information.

Jim
Laity
explained
the
SBREFA
schedule
a
bit
further,
adding
that
EPA
has
a
statutory
deadline
of
60
days
by
which
EPA
must
complete
the
outreach
work
to
small
businesses.
The
small
33
business
panel
will
formally
convene
on
February
27,
2004;
this
marks
the
start
of
the
clock
for
the
60­
day
time
limit.
This
meeting
is
a
precursor
to
the
formal
start
of
the
panel,
and
any
information
provided
prior
to
February
27
will
give
the
panel
a
better
sense
and
allow
panel
members
to
"
hit
the
ground
running."

John
Fox
added
that
there
would
be
other
opportunities
to
comment,
including
commenting
on
the
rule
itself.
As
a
reminder,
EPA
would
like
the
comments
by
Thursday
February
5,
but
by
Friday
February
6,
would
be
fine.
EPA
expects
to
send
out
more
materials
to
SERs
on
Friday
February
27,
2004,
or
the
following
Monday.
Also,
EPA
would
set
a
date
to
get
together
again
apart
from
the
formal
panel
process.

Mary
Smith
concluded
that
SERs
should
contact
the
panel,
in
particular
John
Fox,
with
any
additional
questions.
34
Appendix
C:
Written
Comments
Received
from
Potential
SERs
Comments
resulting
from
the
January
22,
2004
outreach
meeting:

C.
1
Countrymark
Cooperative
Refinery
(
Mt.
Vernon,
Indiana)

C.
2
Dover
Light
and
Power
(
Dover,
Ohio)

C.
3
Port
Townsend
Paper
(
Port
Townsend,
Washington)

C.
4
Richmond
Power
and
Light
(
Richmond,
Indiana)

C.
5
City
of
Iola
Power
Plant
(
Iola,
Kansas)
(
Note:
This
comment
resulted
from
the
October
1,
2002
outreach
meeting
conducted
the
first
time
this
proposed
rule
was
preparing
for
a
Panel.)
35
C.
1
COUNTRYMARK
COOPERATIVE,
LLP
1200
Refinery
Road
Mt.
Vernon,
Indiana
47620
February
6,
2004
Re:
Pre­
Rulemaking
Comments
Phase
III
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Dear
Mr.
Fox,

Countrymark
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
be
a
part
of
the
regulatory
process
and
comment
prior
to
proposal.

As
you
know,
Countrymark
Cooperative,
LLP.
is
a
regional,
farmer
owned
cooperative
which
owns
and
operates
a
24,000
barrels
per
day
petroleum
refinery
located
in
Mt.
Vernon,
Indiana.
Countrymark
Co­
op
employs
approximately
300
people.
Countrymark
is
a
small
refinery
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration.

Our
refinery
has
the
ability
to
withdraw
approximately
2
million
gallons
per
day
of
surface
water
from
the
Ohio
River.
This
water
is
treated
and
used
to
supply
both
process
and
cooling
water
for
our
refinery.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
mounted
within
a
permanent
barge
structure
and
consists
of
submerged
basin
with
passive
water
inlet
holes.
The
water
is
then
screened
prior
to
entering
the
pump
well
area.
The
pump
basin
area
is
protected
with
screens
that
are
inspected
and
cleaned
daily.
Typical
debris
includes
vegetation
(
sticks,
leaves,
etc.)
and
river
trash
(
bottles,
plastic,
foam,
etc.).
Only
rarely
would
fish
or
other
water
life
enter
this
area.
In
any
case,
it
does
not
appear
to
become
impinged
upon
the
screens.

With
this
design,
direct
impingement
does
not
generally
occur.
The
next
step
is
sedimentation
and
chemical
treatment
where
silts
and
other
suspended
material
are
removed.
Clean
water
then
moves
from
the
reservoir
into
the
water
supply
system.
After
the
water
is
used,
it
runs
through
an
NPDES
wastewater
treatment
system
and
is
discharged
downstream
at
essentially
ambient
temperatures.

Countrymark
feels
that
our
current
water
intake
structure
design
minimizes
impingement
and
entrainment.
It
is
our
opinion
that
no
further
upgrades
are
warranted.
With
that
said,
we
assume
that
EPA
would
agree.
If
not,
Countrymark
would
question
the
severity
and
necessity
of
further
mandated
controls.

Given
the
previous
statements,
Countrymark
offers
the
following
comments:
36
1.
The
Phase
III
regulations
should
have
a
minimum
flow
threshold
of
no
less
than
5
million
gallons
per
day.

2.
EPA
should
not
consider
just
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Consider
all
sources
of
water
intake
structures
and
don't
target
specific
industries
or
activities.
Drinking
/
recreational
/
agricultural
water
withdrawal
intake
structures
also
cause
impingement
/
entrainment.
It
is
either
a
universal
problem
or
not.
It
does
not
seem
fair
to
regulate
specific
users
and
not
all
entities
with
water
intake
structures.

3.
A
registration
process
with
each
regulated
entity
would
include
some
requirement
for
description
of
the
water
withdrawal
intake
structure.
Structure
with
designs
less
likely
to
contribute
to
impingement
or
entrainment
need
not
have
any
other
requirements.

4.
EPA
should
provide
some
level
of
significance
in
terms
of
harm
caused
by
excessive
impingement
or
entrainment.
This
could
be
in
terms
of
number
of
the
fish
entrained
per
day
or
other
easily
gauged
metric.
Water
users
could
then
estimate
the
potential
harm
caused
by
a
poorly
engineered
design.

5.
EPA
should
make
available
detailed
water
intake
designs
that
minimize
impingement
or
entrainment
and
are
easy
to
clean.
There
is
a
strong
incentive
for
the
water
users
to
use
designs
that
minimize
daily
or
periodic
maintenance.
Being
friendly
to
the
environment
is
an
added
benefit.

Countrymark
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
proposed.
Please
contact
me
(
horning@
countrymark.
com
or
812­
838­
8133)
if
you
have
any
questions
or
comments.

Sincerely,

Donald
M.
Horning,
REHS
Regulatory
Compliance
Manager
37
C.
2
City
of
Dover,
Ohio
44622
Dover
Light
&
Power
303
East
Broadway
Dover,
OH
44622
February
6,
2004
Comments
Regarding
316
(
B)
Phase
III
Regulations
and
Small
Municipal
Utility
Concerns
in
anticipation
of
the
EPA
SBREFA
Panel
The
City
of
Dover
is
a
community
of
13,000
located
in
Tuscarawas
County
in
East
Central
Ohio.
Dover
is
one
of
more
than
2000
municipally
owned
public
power
electric
utilities.
Dover
Light
Plant
currently
has
21
total
employees.
Dover
Light
&
Power
is
one
of
many
public
power
systems
that
provide
free
electric
service
to
all
city
owned
facilities
including
street
and
traffic
lights.
This
service
contributes
approximately
$
750,000.00
annually
to
the
City
of
Dover.
Some
public
power
systems
contribute
directly
to
their
cities'
general
fund
budgets,
payment
in
lieu
of
taxes,
in
amounts
near
the
City
of
Dover's
contributed
electric
service.
The
average
household
income
in
Dover
is
$
36,665.
According
to
the
latest
census
figures
about
9.2%
of
the
individuals
in
Dover
live
below
the
poverty
line.
Dover
serves
6541
customers,
5579
residential,
856
commercial
and
106
industrial.
We
are
located
in
American
Electric
Power's
Ohio
Power
service
area
which
is
our
local
competition.
We
have
maintained
a
competitive
rate
structure
with
the
local
investor
owned
utility.
We
feel
our
rates
along
with
our
local
presence
have
helped
maintain
the
local
economy.
An
economic
impact
study
done
on
our
electric
system
indicates
Dover
Light
Plant
contributes
between
$
4,500,000.00
and
$
5,500,000.00
to
the
local
economy
according
to
a
recent
study
by
Ohio
University.
The
study
also
indicated
the
personal
income
effect
ranges
at
between
$
1,000,000.00
and
$
1,500,000.00
for
the
current
full
time
employees.
The
study
also
indicated
20
to
60
additional
area
and
regional
jobs
created
by
the
operation
of
the
plant.

More
than
90%
of
these
of
these
public
power
systems
serve
communities
of
less
than
50,000
population
and
more
than
95%
have
fewer
than
20
employees.
Dover
passed
an
ordinance
in
1898
to
begin
their
own
Electric
Utility
Dover
and
is
one
of
about
500
public
power
systems
that
own
generation
and
operate
units
of
50
Megawatts
or
less.
The
generating
plant
was
built
in
the
early
1900'
s
and
has
been
in
continuous
operation
since
that
time
at
the
current
location
of
303
East
Broadway,
Dover,
Ohio
adjacent
to
the
Tuscarawas
River.

Dover
currently
operates
a
coal/
steam
generating
unit
with
a
nameplate
of
18.5
MW,
a
natural
gas
combustion
turbine
generator
with
a
nameplate
of
15.5
MW
and
an
internal
combustion
generating
unit
with
a
nameplate
of
2.5
MW.

The
18.5
MW
unit
is
the
once
through
cooled
unit
that
uses
Tuscarawas
River
water
for
the
condenser.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
was
originally
constructed
in
1933
and
was
38
designed
for
a
maximum
intake
of
12,000
GPM.
Currently
located
within
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
are
three
6000
gallons
per
minute
(
GPM)
pumps.
The
intake
structure
restricts
our
intake
to
a
maximum
of
two
pumps
in
operation
at
any
time.
Sometimes
we
operate
with
one
pump
and
supplement
the
cooling
water
with
well
water
from
wells
on
power
plant
property.
The
maximum
flow
rate
of
12,000
GPM
capability
of
the
intake
results
in
17.28
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
maximum
flow.
The
base
flow
for
the
river
is
1392
cubic
feet
per
second
or
900
MGD.
The
rate
is
high
due
to
the
large
drainage
area
and
large
amount
of
water
impounded
by
four
flood
control
dams
in
the
drainage
area.
This
means
that
Dover
Light
Plant
uses
1.92%
of
the
river's
base
flow.
The
cooling
water
intake
is
positioned
along
the
riverbank
with
sheet
piling
driven
in
front
of
the
intake
to
prevent
any
large
debris
from
entering
the
intake
screen
area.
This
piling
extends
out
from
the
shore
upstream
of
the
intakes
and
forms
a
channel
about
80
feet
long.
Water
must
run
down
stream
and
then
back
up
through
the
channel
before
entering
the
intake
area.
This
piling
in
front
of
the
intake
acts
as
a
diversion
structure
that
uses
the
river
current
to
carry
organisms
downstream
to
avoid
entrapment.
Water
is
drawn
through
two
5'
6"
high
x
4'
8"
wide
openings
in
the
intake
structure.
These
two
area
are
covered
with
bar
screens
made
of
3/
8"
x
2
½
"
bars
spaced
2
½
"
on
center.
After
the
bar
screen
openings
the
water
then
passes
through
two
traveling
water
screens
with
3/
8"
mesh.
This
results
in
an
average
water
velocity
of
approximately
1.5
feet
per
second.

In
1989
as
part
of
Dover's
NPDES
Permitting
process,
we
performed
a
fish
kill
study.
The
study
was
done
between
October
1988
and
April
1989
in
two
phases.
Phase
one
was
done
from
October
1,
1988
thru
January
5,
1989
and
the
second
was
January
12,
1989
thru
March
30,
1989.
The
study
was
done
to
collect
all
fish
impinged
on
the
traveling
screen
over
a
24
hour
period
every
4
days
for
the
two
three
month
periods.
The
great
preponderance
of
fish
impinged
during
the
study
(
85%)
were
Gizzard
Shad
of
1
ounce
or
smaller.
Total
impinged
Gizzard
Shad
were
156
fish.
Of
the
156
count,
60
were
trapped
on
the
screens
on
only
two
days
when
the
river
froze
over,
January
1,
1989
and
January
5,
1989.
I
believe
this
is
a
very
small
impact
on
the
fish
population
of
the
Tuscarawas
River.
Studies
have
indicated
that
Gizzard
Shad
do
not
have
the
ability
to
withstand
the
cold
temperatures
of
near
freezing
water.
These
temperatures
cause
the
fish
to
become
lethargic
and
in
many
cases
die
as
a
natural
cause.
Another
problem
that
we
experience
annually
is
vegetation
being
impinged
in
our
CWIS.
This
occurs
primarily
during
late
summer
and
fall.
As
lawn
clipping
and
leaves
migrate
into
the
Tuscarawas
River
we
must
maintain
a
continuous
watch
to
keep
the
intake
clear.

If
we
were
to
install
a
fish
handling
system
on
our
rotating
screens
they
would
be
required
to
run
continuously.
Since
these
screens
were
installed
in
1933
I
believe
the
mechanical
wear
and
tear
would
increase
dramatically.
This
would
also
require
more
frequent
rebuilds
of
the
traveling
screens.
The
run
time
would
be
about
5
times
more
than
current
operation
modes
increasing
plant
maintenance
costs.
In
addition
we
would
have
to
increase
staffing
levels
to
allow
current
personnel
to
perform
the
duties
now
required
by
plant
operations.
It
doesn't
appear
the
estimates
would
include
these
type
additional
costs.
Each
additional
employee
required
to
operate
the
plant
would
add
about
$
60,000.00
per
year
in
wages
and
benefits.
It
doesn't
appear
these
additional
39
costs
were
factored
into
the
calculations.
Even
without
these
additional
cost
numbers
it
would
appear
that
the
percentage
increase
is
several
times
higher
than
the
estimated
0.1%
to
0.2%
in
the
Cost
Impact
Analysis
of
the
316
(
B)
Phase
II.

Using
the
information
and
formulas
provided
in
the
"
Background
Information
for
Potential
Small­
Entity
Representatives",
the
cost
of
compliance
to
Dover
Light
Plant
would
be
$
112,612.17
in
Capital
Cost,
$
15,346.15
Annual
O&
M
and
$
58,198.00
for
Information
Collection
Request.
To
a
small
system
with
a
very
limited
customer
base
this
would
have
a
substantial
economic
impact
on
Dover.
The
$
112,612.17
represents
about
7500
man­
hours.
While
the
Annual
O&
M
costs
listed
in
the
EPA
materials
may
only
be
$
58,198.00
that
represents
an
additional
3800
man­
hours.
These
figures
also
do
not
appear
to
include
additional
personnel
that
may
be
required
to
operate
the
new
system.

In
addition
to
the
capital,
O&
M,
and
ICR
costs,
we
anticipate
that
EPA
will
require
two
years
of
verification
monitoring
for
Phase
III
facilities,
just
as
it
has
proposed
for
Phase
II
facilities.
See
Proposed
40
C.
F.
R.
§
125.95
(
b)(
7).
The
costs
of
verification
monitoring
will
be
inordinately
burdensome
on
small
municipal
utilities.
EPA
estimated
the
annual
costs
(
in
2001
dollars)
of
Phase
II
verification
monitoring
as
follows:
Freshwater
Marine
Impingement
$
16,985
$
21,623
Entrainment
$
37,369
$
46,044
TOTAL
$
54,354
$
67,667
Source:
EPA's
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Rule
(
DCN:
4­
0001),
Table
8.

There
is
no
basis
for
assuming
that
verification
monitoring
for
Phase
III
will
be
any
less
extensive
than
what
is
required
for
Phase
II,
and
therefore
the
costs
for
Phase
III
should
be
comparable
to
what
EPA
has
estimated
for
Phase
II.
In
addition
to
these
costs,
we
will
need
to
commit
resources
to
planning
for
the
monitoring
and
providing
oversight
to
the
contractor
who
will
perform
the
monitoring.
Using
cost
figures
outlined
in
the
paragraph
above,
the
total
freshwater
compliance
monitoring
cost
of
$
54,354.00
would
represents
almost
3600
man­
hours.

For
small
intakes,
these
types
of
expenses
cannot
be
justified
by
the
potential
benefits
to
the
environment.
The
value
of
fish
saved
by
the
improved
intake
technologies
undoubtedly
will
be
much
less
than
the
expenses
incurred
by
the
utility.

The
SBREFA
Panel
Support
for
Cooling
Water
Phase
III
Regulations
under
Section
3126
(
B)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
Final
Report
has
a
Cost
Benefit
Comparison
of
various
regulatory
options.
All
the
options
listed
indicate
a
negative
cost
benefit
ratio
for
all
CWIS
(
cooling
water
intake
structure)
with
a
DIF
(
design
intake
flow)
for
20
MGD
or
less.
These
negative
cost
benefit
ratios
range
from
$
0.37
benefit
for
every
dollar
spent
for
compliance
cost
for
2
to10
MGD
intakes
40
to
about
$
0.72
benefit
for
every
dollar
spent
for
10
to
20
MGD
intake
structures.
I
think
with
the
added
economic
impact
and
negative
cost
benefit
ratios
require
careful
consideration
prior
to
added
regulation
on
a
system
that
currently
has
very
minor
impact
on
the
fish
population
in
the
Tuscarawas
River.

David
G.
Borland,
Superintendent
Dover
Light
&
Power
Generating
Plant
41
C.
3
February
6,
2004
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
Preliminary
Comments
on
EPA
Approach
to
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Phase
III
Rulemaking
Dear
Mr.
Fox:

Port
Townsend
Paper
is
pleased
to
submit
these
comments
on
EPA's
proposed
approach
to
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
last
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.

As
a
small
business,
Port
Townsend
Paper
is
concerned
about
the
potential
costs
and
burdens
that
may
be
imposed
by
the
Phase
III
rulemaking.
Port
Townsend
Paper,
like
many
small
paper
manufacturers,
currently
is
facing
significant
economic
challenges.
The
recent
economic
slump
and
shifting
markets
resulted
in
the
closure
of
our
two
bag
plants
and
the
loss
of
over
200
jobs.
In
addition,
the
weak
global
economy
has
limited
sales
overseas.
While
there
has
been
an
upturn
in
the
global
and
domestic
markets
recently,
we
still
have
not
seen
a
significant
improvement
in
our
businesses.
Capital
expenditure
has
been
restricted
and
further
downsizing
of
our
remaining
personnel
has
occurred.
Our
limited
resources
must
be
spent
wisely
to
insure
our
continued
existence.
Any
additional
costs
will
only
exacerbate
that
economic
challenge.
For
example,
the
initial
capital
cost
of
retrofitting
a
facility
with
an
intake
technology
plus
the
compliance
costs
of
annual
monitoring
and
reporting,
as
estimated
by
the
EPA,
would
pose
a
substantial
financial
burden
on
small
businesses
such
as
Port
Townsend
Paper.

Additionally,
according
to
the
Small
Business
Administration's
analysis
of
the
benefits
and
costs
of
some
of
the
regulatory
alternatives
for
the
Phase
III
rulemaking,
the
permitting,
monitoring
and
reporting
costs
were
considerably
greater
than
the
capital
costs
and
operating
costs
of
the
technologies
used
to
minimize
environmental
impact.
SBA
also
indicates
that
the
cost­
benefit
ratio
for
the
rulemaking
would
improve
if
regulatory
alternatives
were
adopted
that
deregulate
smaller
facilities,
eliminating
cumbersome
regulations
on
small
entities
that
provide
few
environmental
benefits
per
dollar
invested.

Our
comments
are
premised
on
the
notion
that
despite
decades
of
operation,
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
operated
by
Port
Townsend
Paper
and
other
Phase
III
facilities
are
not
thought
to
present
an
adverse
environmental
impact
to
the
aquatic
resources
located
near
those
intakes.
42
Port
Townsend
Paper
would
support
the
following
regulatory
approaches
for
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
that
take
this
into
account.

1.
EPA
should
consider
not
applying
comprehensive
national
regulations
to
all
Phase
III
facilities.
There
are
several
alternatives
that
EPA
could
utilize
to
determine
which
facilities
would
be
regulated.
Options
include:


EPA
should
focus
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
only
on
facilities
with
a
reasonable
likelihood
of
causing
adverse
environmental
impact
(
AEI)
through
cooling
water
withdrawals.
As
an
initial
matter,
EPA
should
establish
one
or
more
applicability
thresholds
and
exempt
from
the
scope
of
the
rulemaking,
facilities
that
do
not
fall
within
those
thresholds.
The
authority
to
seek
additional
studies
or
impose
additional
requirements
should
be
appropriately
limited.
Stakeholders
have
suggested
various
de
minimus
applicability
thresholds
ranging
from
10­
250
mgd.
For
example,
SBA
suggests
that
facilities
withdrawing
less
than
20
million
gallons
per
day
(
mgd)
should
be
outside
the
scope
of
the
rulemaking,
absent
some
unusual
site­
specific
factor
that
would
cause
a
permit
writer
to
seek
additional
study
or
impose
additional
requirements.
Further
investigation
into
the
costs
and
benefits
of
each
of
the
various
threshold
levels
should
be
conducted.


Additionally,
if
EPA
uses
the
amount
of
water
withdrawal
as
an
applicability
criterion,
Port
Townsend
Paper
suggests
that
EPA
base
that
criterion
on
actual
intake
flow,
as
opposed
to
the
design
intake
flow.
Many
manufacturers,
including
small
businesses,
are
already
functioning
with
lower
intake
and
discharge
volumes
as
required
by
their
NPDES
permits
or
have
a
demonstrated
track
record
of
lower
water
withdrawal.
By
basing
the
flow
threshold
on
design
intake
without
considering
that
the
actual
intake
volume
may
be
significantly
lower,
the
EPA
is
in
effect
penalizing
facilities
for
conserving
water.
Port
Townsend
suggests
that
the
EPA
utilize
the
more
reasonable
and
consistent
alternative
of
basing
the
flow
threshold
on
past
actual
intake
volume,
not
on
design
intake
volume.


Alternatively,
EPA
should
exclude
all
Phase
III
facilities
from
regulation
except
in
those
cases
where
the
permit
writer
determines
that
based
on
available
scientific
data
a
CWIS
has
resulted
in
an
adverse
environmental
impact.
For
those
facilities
the
permit
writer
should
use
best
professional
judgment
to
include
in
the
facility's
NPDES
permit
provisions
for
the
application
of
best
technology
available
or
equivalent
(
see
below)
to
minimize
that
impact.

2.
Port
Townsend
Paper
would
support
alternative
regulatory
approaches
for
those
facilities
that
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
in
order
to
lessen
the
effect
of
the
rule
on
small
businesses.


Best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
could
be
defined
by
EPA
as
a
designated
suite
of
technologies
for
facilities
that
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
rulemaking
in
order
to
reduce
the
economic
burden
posed
by
the
considerable
permitting,
monitoring
and
reporting
costs.
Plants
that
agree
to
install
an
approved
technology
would
be
considered
to
be
in
compliance
with
Section
316(
b)
and
not
be
subject
to
extensive
monitoring
costs
and
burdensome
reporting
requirements.


EPA
should
consider
regulating
only
impingement
(
not
entrainment)
at
plants
in
appropriate
circumstances.
EPRI
has
produced
a
report
that
shows
that
in
many
instances
a
43
significant
water
withdrawal
and
healthy
fish
populations
can
co­
exist,
so
the
risks
of
dropping
entrainment
controls
for
plants
in
this
category
are
likely
to
be
small
while
cost
savings
would
be
significant.


EPA
should
consider
identifying
industrial
subcategories
that
could
be
adversely
affected
by
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
and
reducing
the
rulemaking's
economic
burden
for
these
subcategories.

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,

Eveleen
Muehlethaler
Vice
President,
Asst.
Mill
Manager
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
44
C.
4
February
5,
2004
Richmond
Power
&
Light
2000
U.
S.
27
South
Richmond,
Indiana
47374
Comments
on
the
316
(
b)
Phase
III
Rule
Development
Dear
EPA,

Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
rule.

Richmond
Power
&
Light
is
located
in
Wayne
County
Indiana.
Population
is
approximately
39,000.
The
Utility
employees
one
hundred
and
forty
people.
The
Municipal
has
been
generating
electricity
for
over
one
hundred
years.
Richmond
has
a
strong,
consistent
industrial
base
consisting
of
mostly
small
to
medium
sized
industrial
plants.
The
utility
owns
and
operates
2
pulverized
coal
units.
Unit
one,
a
33­
megawatt
unit
and
unit
2,
a
60­
megawatt
unit.
Each
unit
has
its
own
dedicated
cooling
tower.
River
water
is
drawn
from
the
east
fork
of
the
Whitewater
River.
Daily
makeup
flow
is
approximately
one
million
gallons
per
day.
We
have
no
NPDES
permit.

Small
entities
like
Richmond
are
very
concerned
with
any
new
proposed
rule.

Some
concerns
are:

Small
entities
have
no
environmental
department.

All
work
would
be
performed
by
outside
contractors.

Reliability
could
be
affected.

Economic
burden
could
be
significant.

Studies
alone
would
be
expensive.

Ratepayers
could
possibility
see
increases.
45
Additional
staff
may
need
to
be
added.

Cost
summaries
contained
in
the
"
Background
Information
For
Small
Entity
Representatives"
indicate
compliance
cost
of
a
2MGD
in
example
one
are
$
46,943
for
capital
costs,
$
5249
for
O&
M
and
$
58198
for
ICR.
These
alone
are
significant
for
small
communities
and
utilities.

Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
rule
making.
If
you
have
any
questions
or
need
further
information,
please
call.
46
C.
5
Note:
This
comment
resulted
from
the
October
1,
2002
outreach
meeting
conducted
the
first
time
this
proposed
rule
was
preparing
for
a
Panel.

City
of
Iola
Power
Plant
(
Iola,
Kansas)

This
comment
was
sent
via
email.

Steve
Robb
<
powerplt@
iolaks.
com>
10/
23/
02
02:
04
PM
To:
Deborah
Nagle/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
EPA316b
The
City
of
Iola
Power
Plant
was
started
in
1900.
The
power
plant
has
used
river
water
from
the
Neosho
river
for
cooling
systems
since
the
very
start
as
we
do
today.
The
river
water
(
surface
water)
is
used
in
a
once
thru
pass
for
cooling
steam
condensers,
then
returned
to
the
river.
From
1900
to
1962
the
power
plant
operated
24
hours
per
day
7
days
per
week
365
days
per
year.
From
1962
to
present
the
power
plant
only
operates
3
to
4
months
per
year
during
peak
seasons.
In
1995
the
power
plant
installed
a
new
traveling
screen
with
3/
8"
square
woven
mesh
wire
screens.
We
use
a
bar
rack
in
front
of
the
intake
structure
and
a
solid
barrier
at
water
level
to
keep
floating
derbies
out
of
our
traveling
screens.
We
have
had
no
problem
with
fish
or
other
river
life
being
trapped
in
our
intake
screens.
To
reduce
the
size
of
our
screens
would
make
it
impossible
for
us
to
operate
our
system.
Tree
leaves,
sticks
and
mud
during
high
water
plug
our
screens
reasonably
quick.
The
steam
equipment
we
are
using
are
3
megawatt
and
5
megawatt
condensing
steam
turbines.
Total
daily
flow
can
go
from
6
mgd
to
24
mgd
depending
on
day
to
day
operations.

Thanks
Steve
Robb
Power
Plant
Superintendent.
[
Iola
Electric
Department,
Iola,
KS]
