
Deliberative,
Pre­
Decisional,
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote
or
Distribute
Page
1
DRAFT
MEETING
SUMMARY
Phase
III
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Outreach
Meeting
for
Small
Entities
March
16,
2004
Meeting
Participants:

Small
Entity
Representatives:
David
G.
Borland,
City
of
Dover
(
Dover
Light
&
Power)
Bob
Crye,
Richmond
Power
and
Light
Maria
Ikelberger
(?)
Meg
McCarthy,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
Eveleen
Muehlethaler,
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corp.
Teresa
Pugh,
American
Power
Producers
Association
(
APPA)

U.
S.
EPA:
Ghulam
Ali,
EPA
Office
of
Water
(
OW)
Alex
Cristofaro,
EPA
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair,
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation
(
OPEI)
George
Denning,
EPA
EAD
Patrick
Easter,
EPA
OPEI
John
Fox,
Phase
III
Rulemaking
Manager,
EPA
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD)
Mindy
Gampel,
EPA
OPEI
Pooja
Parikh,
EPA
Office
of
General
Counsel
(
OGC)
Paul
Shriner,
EPA
OW
Mary
Smith,
Division
Director,
EPA
EAD
Other
Participants:
Elicia
Blumberg,
Tetra
Tech
Incorporated
(
EPA
contractor)
Joseph
Johnson,
Office
of
Advocacy,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
Jim
Leity,
OMB
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
(
OIRA)
Thomas
Sullivan,
Office
of
Advocacy,
SBA
Welcome
and
Introductions/
Words
from
the
SBREFA
Panel
Chair:
(
Alex
Christofaro,
EPA
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair,
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation)

Mr.
Christofaro
welcomed
everyone
to
the
meeting,
and
invited
everyone
to
introduce
him
or
herself.
He
first
explained
that
the
purpose
of
today's
meeting
was
to
get
information
from
small
entities
before
EPA
drafts
the
Phase
III
rule,
so
that
EPA
would
be
able
to
take
their
concerns
and
information
into
account.
He
emphasized
that
small
entities
would
be
invited
to
comment
during
the
normal
rulemaking
process
following
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
process.
Mr.
Christofaro
stated
that
EPA,
OMB
and
SBA
would
prepare
a
report
based
upon
Deliberative,
Pre­
Decisional,
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote
or
Distribute
Page
2
information
received
from
participants
and
make
a
recommendation
to
the
EPA
Administrator
within
60
days
following
the
meeting.
The
Administrator
would
then
consider
the
input
as
the
rule
was
developed.
In
addition,
EPA
will
issue
a
proposal
(
available
to
the
public),
and
small
entity
representatives
(
SERs)
would
be
welcome
to
comment
again
for
EPA's
consideration.
Participants
must
submit
any
comments
that
they
would
like
to
see
included
in
the
memo
to
the
Administrator
by
March
30,
2004.

Thomas
Sullivan
(
SBA)
thanked
the
participants
for
taking
the
time
to
help
the
government
"
get
it
right."
In
the
past
three
years,
$
31
billion
has
been
saved
through
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Act,
in
part
because
of
engaged
and
involved
small
businesses.
The
Final
Rule
for
316(
b)
Phase
III
will
reflect
the
concerns
of
those
entities.

Overview
of
Outreach
Materials
(
John
Fox,
Phase
III
Rulemaking
Manager,
EPA
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD))

John
Fox
briefly
reviewed
the
materials
that
were
sent
to
participants
since
the
last
Outreach
Meeting:


A
description
of
the
Final
Phase
II
rule;


A
set
of
sample
costs
for
various
kinds
of
control
technologies
as
well
as
permitting
costs,
based
upon
the
Phase
II
requirements
(
these
costs
did
not
take
into
account
regulatory
options
being
considered
for
Phase
III);


A
list
of
possible
regulatory
alternatives
for
Phase
III;
and

A
list
of
detailed
questions
for
SERs'
consideration.

Question
and
Answer
Session/
Comments
from
Small
Entity
Representatives:
(
John
Fox
called
on
participants
in
alphabetical
order
by
first
name).

Bob
Crye,
Richmond
Power
and
Light,
explained
that
they
are
a
small
utility
(
approximately
40
staff),
and
lack
an
environmental
department.
As
such,
Bob
anticipates
having
to
outsource
design
and
engineering
work,
which
would
mean
an
extra
expense.
Another
concern
is
the
reliability
of
intakes:
with
the
current
configuration,
seasonal
rain
can
cause
shutdowns.
Mr.
Crye
also
expressed
concern
related
to
overall
costs
potentially
associated
with
the
Phase
III
rule.
In
response
to
Patrick
Easter's
question
on
whether
the
costs
presented
in
the
outreach
materials
looked
high
or
low,
Mr.
Crye
responded
that
he
believed
they
may
be
high,
but
could
not
be
certain
as
his
utility
had
never
conducted
studies
or
gotten
price
quotes.
In
answer
to
questions
from
John
Fox
and
Jim
Leity,
Bob
described
the
current
intake
configuration:
stationary
screens
located
in
the
center
of
Whitewater
River
[
name
correct?],
at
a
depth
of
4
feet
in
the
middle
of
the
water
column,
and
extending
3
feet
up.
The
intake
is
located
15
feet
from
the
shoreline.
The
design
intake
capacity
of
the
intake
is
less
than
2
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD),
probably
0.8
MGD.
The
facility
does
experience
problems
with
clogging
by
leaves
following
rainy
periods.
Deliberative,
Pre­
Decisional,
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote
or
Distribute
Page
3
David
Borland,
Dover
Light
&
Power,
said
that
he
agreed
with
Mr.
Crye's
statements
and
emphasized
that
his
staff
is
even
smaller
than
that
of
Richmond
Power
and
Light.
The
design
intake
flow
for
Dover's
facility
is
17.75
MGD,
and
is
also
a
river
intake
(
the
Tuscarawas
River
in
Ohio).
Mr.
Borland
described
the
intake
as
having
trash
racks
and
two
traveling
screens
behind
the
racks.
Like
Mr.
Crye,
Mr.
Borland
anticipated
that
Dover
would
have
to
outsource
the
plant
study
for
any
modifications
to
the
intake
structure,
and
that
it
would
be
expensive
to
do
so.
David
described
the
shoreline
intake
as
having
a
channel
alongside
the
riverbank
to
direct
water
into
the
intake
structure.
Dover
experiences
problems
with
clogging
by
leaves
in
the
fall.
The
facility
conducted
a
fish
kill
study
in
January
1989
as
part
of
their
NPDES
permit
application,
and
found
that
the
majority
of
fish
were
found
during
two
days
of
extremely
low
temperatures.
Mr.
Borland
therefore
attributed
the
fish
kills
to
the
weather
as
opposed
to
the
plant.
The
study
looked
at
adult
fish
only,
not
fish
eggs
or
larvae.
Mr.
Borland
added
that
he
believes
the
Dover
plant
will
not
require
entrainment
controls,
as
the
intake
flow
is
less
than
5%
of
the
mean
annual
river
flow.
When
asked
the
facility's
estimated
percentage
of
the
mean
annual
river
flow,
Mr.
Borland
stated
that
he
thought
about
2%.
He
added
that
he
anticipates
any
changes
to
the
intake
structure
will
exacerbate
the
leaf
issue
in
the
fall,
particularly
if
the
changes
reduced
intake
velocity.
He
has
not
yet
spoken
with
any
engineers
on
the
issue.
Both
Bob
Crye
and
David
Borland
agree
that
the
regulations
should
be
tailored
to
fit
the
needs
of
the
individual
facilities.
Jim
Leity
asked
whether
the
intake
configuration
was
designed
for
preventing
the
intrusion
of
leaves
or
fish;
Mr.
Borland
replied
that
the
plant
was
built
in
the
1940s,
and
probably
designed
to
keep
leaves
out
though
a
side
benefit
of
the
design
is
that
fish
must
swim
up
a
100­
foot
channel
to
get
into
the
intake.
This
design
probably
minimizes
the
entry
of
fish
into
the
intake.
John
Fox
asked
about
the
number
of
pumps.
David
answered
that
there
are
three
pumps
but
only
two
are
run
at
any
time,
as
the
third
is
a
backup.
The
flows
reported
for
the
facility
were
for
two
pumps
running,
not
three.
Eveleen
Muehlethaler,
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation,
asked
for
clarification
from
EPA
on
the
term
design
intake
capacity.
For
example,
she
said,
their
facility
has
four
pumps,
but
two
of
those
are
backups.
If
you
run
all
four,
the
intake
would
be
11
MGD,
though
normally
only
one
or
two
pumps
are
run,
which
changes
that
number
significantly.

Jim
Leity
explained
that
in
the
Phase
II
rule,
much
discretion
was
left
to
the
permitting
authorities
to
determine
design
intake
flow
(
DIF).
As
such,
a
facility
may
not
have
to
determine
DIF
as
the
intake
with
all
pumps
running
if
that's
not
the
normal
operation
of
the
facility.
Mary
Smith,
Division
Director,
EPA
EAD,
added
that
she
was
not
certain
if
that
was
the
case.
John
Fox
added
that
this
issue
should
be
clarified.
Jim
Leity
stated
that
he
thought
the
Phase
II
rule
was
set
up
as
he
described.

Eveleen
Muehlethaler,
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation,
described
her
facility.
It
is
a
paper
mill
with
315
staff
(
including
six
environmental
staff)
on­
site.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
was
constructed
in
the
late
1920s
or
early
1930s
as
part
of
the
original
mill
design.
There
are
four
pumps,
but
is
a
one­
two
pump
system.
Because
they
don't
have
a
flow
meter,
Eveleen
had
to
refer
to
pump
curves
in
order
to
answer
the
flow
questions
on
the
survey.
They
considered
all
four
pumps
and
determined
that
the
DIF
was
11
MGD.
Ms.
Muehlethaler
pleaded
for
a
simple
approach
to
the
rule.
The
Deliberative,
Pre­
Decisional,
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote
or
Distribute
Page
4
preferred
approach
would
be
an
acknowledged
technology
that
could
be
considered
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ)
for
their
facility.
She
added
that
any
biological
or
dredging
assessments
would
be
outsourced,
each
costing
an
estimated
$
20,000.
Therefore,
Eveleen
prefers
to
choose
the
right
technology
for
the
plant
and
not
spend
additional
money
on
monitoring
and
reporting.
Ms.
Muehlethaler
is
also
interested
in
the
de
minimis
approach;
for
example,
setting
the
threshold
for
being
in­
scope
at
20
MGD.
She
added
that
the
facility
is
located
on
a
saltwater
body
at
the
northern
edge
of
Washington
State,
and
has
a
near
shore
crude
intake
design.
Eveleen
has
not
seen
major
debris
loading­
they
clean
the
crib
area
of
the
intake
approximately
once
every
8
years.
She
reiterated
that
EPA
should
clarify
whether
DIF
would
be
based
on
actual
use
or
capacity.
Regarding
the
permit
writers
using
BPJ,
Eveleen
generally
supports
the
idea
though
she
is
wary
of
overzealous
permit
writers.
Finally
she
had
a
generally
question
regarding
when
impingement
controls
would
be
required
as
opposed
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
controls.
Port
Townsend,
as
an
ocean
intake,
is
labeled
as
needing
both
types
of
controls
and
Eveleen
does
not
understand
why
this
should
be
the
case.

Jim
Leity
answered
her
last
question.
In
the
Phase
II
rule,
there
was
a
judgment
made
that
facilities
located
on
estuaries
and
oceans
must
have
entrainment
controls
because
there
water
bodies
(
and
especially
estuaries)
are
highly
productive
during
spawning
seasons.
However,
he
added,
there
is
no
reason
to
think
that
this
automatically
applies,
as
the
Phase
II
rule
regulated
very
high
flow
facilities
(
greater
than
50
MGD),
and
Port
Townsend
has
a
much
lower
intake
flow.
Eveleen
emphasized
that
her
facility
actually
uses
between
1.5
and
2
MGD,
and
is
not
an
estuarine
intake.

Jim
Leity
responded
to
Eveleen's
concern
regarding
the
overzealous
permit
writers.
He
explained
that
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
States
may
always
have
more
stringent
standards
than
national
standards,
and
that
only
Congress
could
change
this.
If
EPA
issues
national
standard,
this
will
provide
a
default
for
permit
writers,
who
might
otherwise
just
go
out
independently.
Jim
asked
Eveleen
whether
she
preferred
the
current
status
(
permit
writers
determining
independently)
to
national
standards.
Eveleen
answered
that
she
preferred
a
blend:
guidelines
provided
by
EPA
to
present
acceptable
technologies
would
be
her
first
choice.
Jim
Leity
reiterated
that
Eveleen
supports
having
guidance
from
EPA
but
no
national
standards,
and
Eveleen
replied
that
either
the
guidance
or
the
de
minimis
approach
would
be
preferred.
Mary
Smith
asked
whether
Port
Townsend
had
current
protective
technologies
on
the
intakes;
Eveleen
answered
that
the
structure
is
unchanged
from
the
last
century,
and
consists
of
r­
screens
at
the
intake
crib
spaced
0.5
inches
apart
(
a
coarse
screening
process).
Mary
also
asked
whether
the
1.5­
2
MGD
figure
referred
to
DIF
or
actual
intake.
Eveleen
replied
that
that
was
a
question
of
definition:
with
four
pumps
it
was
11
MGD,
but
with
typical
operation,
only
up
to
2
MGD.
Jim
Leity
asked
if
there
were
any
records
that
showed
daily
use;
Ms.
Muehlethaler
answered
that
there
were
not
because
the
facility
lacked
a
direct
flow
meter.
Jim
asked
if
it
would
be
problematic
for
Eveleen's
facility
if
the
rule
threshold
were
based
upon
average
intake
of
2
MGD;
she
replied
that
they
would
need
to
purchase
monitoring
equipment.
The
flows
as
reported
are
calculated
flows.
Mindy
Gampel,
EPA
OPEI,
asked
if
the
facility
reused
cooling
water
for
processes.
Eveleen
explained
that
Deliberative,
Pre­
Decisional,
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote
or
Distribute
Page
5
some
water
is
used
in
the
condensation
process
(
cooling
of
process
equipment),
so
she
would
need
clarification
on
what
constituted
cooling
water.

Maria
Ikelberger,
North
American
Stainless,
expressed
concerned
about
the
variability
within
states
in
determining
what
was
"
reasonable"
for
a
facility.
Her
facility
is
located
on
the
Ohio
River
and
has
a
maximum
permitted
intake
of
8
MGD.
Ms.
Ikelberger
asked
about
the
role
of
cost
analyses
in
Phase
III.
John
Fox
answered
that
cost
analyses
were
used
as
part
of
one
of
the
options
in
the
Phase
II
final
rule.
Maria
also
expressed
concern
about
consistency
among
permit
writers,
that
some
may
be
stricter
than
others.
Jim
Leity
replied
that
this
was
similar
to
the
concerns
expressed
by
Eveleen,
and
explained
that
inconsistency
among
and
within
States
was
due
in
part
to
the
lack
of
Federal
regulations.
Maria
asked
if
EPA
had
a
minimum
cost
in
mind.
Jim
Leity
answered
that
if
EPA
promulgates
national
requirements
for
Phase
III,
there
may
be
a
variance
for
costs
based
on
cost­
cost
tests
as
seen
in
Phase
II.
This
may
or
may
not
be
the
case
for
Phase
III.
Ms.
Ikelberger
suggested
that
it
might
be
beneficial
to
increase
the
de
minimis
threshold
to
help
small
businesses.
Jim
answered
that
one
number
that
is
currently
circulating
is
20
MGD,
which
would
put
North
American
Stainless
out
of
scope.
This
would
not
mean
that
the
State
could
not
set
requirements
for
you,
as
EPA
cannot
put
a
ceiling
on
what
States
do.
John
Fox
added
that
under
316(
b)
today,
States
are
setting
case­
by­
case
requirements,
so
what
Maria
is
required
to
do
now
without
Federal
regulations
may
be
indicative
of
what
her
State
will
do
in
the
future.
John
added
that
his
personal
feeling
was
that
States
often
don't
have
the
time
or
resources
to
do
more.

Eveleen
agreed
that
if
a
national
standard
were
available,
States
would
often
use
it
as
a
default.
She
wanted
to
know
if
States
were
aware
that
Phase
III
facilities
were
smaller
than
Phase
II
facilities.
Mary
Smith
mentioned
that
some
Phase
III
facilities
are
actually
quite
large,
and
utilize
far
more
than
50
MGD.

Jim
Leity
wished
to
know
if
Eveleen
and
Maria
had
cooling
water
requirements
in
their
NPDES
permits.
Eveleen
did
not,
aside
from
monitoring
flow;
Maria
only
had
to
monitor
the
temperature
of
the
discharge.
Jim
concluded
that
without
national
requirements,
the
States
did
not
do
anything
to
regulate
intake
flow.
Mary
Smith
added
that
some
States,
however,
were
more
aggressive,
and
wanted
to
know
if
the
flows
for
either
facility
exceeded
the
5%
threshold
for
mean
annual
flow
of
the
rivers.
The
answers
were
no
in
both
cases.

Meg
McCarthy,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association,
agreed
with
Eveleen.
She
also
wanted
to
know
whether
the
rule
would
cover
facilities
or
intake
structures.
Jim
Leity
answered
that
under
Phase
II,
the
determination
of
whether
you
would
be
covered
by
the
rule
was
done
on
a
facility­
wide
basis.
The
intakes
of
all
intake
structures
were
added
to
see
if
the
50
MGD
and
25%
thresholds
were
met.
There
was
a
provision
that
if
a
facility
had
different
structures
that
served
separate
units,
this
would
be
a
capacity
or
peaking
facility
issue,
and
such
a
configuration
could
bring
less
stringent
requirements.
In
Phase
III,
this
may
not
apply,
so
the
rule
would
probably
be
facility­
wide.
John
Fox
asked
if
Meg's
facility
had
different
intakes
solely
dedicated
to
different
processes.
Ms.
McCarthy
answered
that
she
was
not
sure,
but
wanted
to
know
if
the
de
minimis
Deliberative,
Pre­
Decisional,
Do
Not
Cite,
Quote
or
Distribute
Page
6
determination
would
apply
to
the
intake
or
to
a
whole
facility.
Mr.
Leity
stated
that
it
was
too
early
to
tell
for
the
Phase
III
rule,
but
in
Phase
II
the
rule
was
based
on
the
whole
facility.
He
asked
Meg
if
she
was
aware
of
the
two
thresholds
in
Phase
II:
the
total
withdrawal
of
50
MGD
and
the
percentage
of
water
used
for
cooling
(
25%).
Jim
clarified
that
if
a
facility
has
water
that
is
used
as
both
cooling
and
process
water,
it
could
count
as
process
water.
This
was
not
yet
decided
for
Phase
III.
Jim
asked
Meg
as
to
whether
the
water
is
reused
at
her
facility,
and
if
the
25%
threshold
would
be
useful.
Meg
answered
that
the
25%
provision
was
useful,
though
she
was
not
sure
of
the
exact
numbers
regarding
reuse
of
cooling
water
use
at
her
facility.
Eveleen
added
that
from
the
pulp
and
paper
standpoint,
the
25%
threshold
was
useful,
though
for
her
facility
it
was
less
relevant
because
of
the
saltwater
issue.

Conclusions
Alex
Christofaro
asked
if
there
were
any
further
questions.
There
were
none.
He
added
that
the
SERs
can
submit
written
comments
by
30
March
2004,
close
of
business.
Comments
should
be
addressed
to
Alex
or
by
email
to
Patrick
Easter.
For
process
questions,
call
Patrick;
for
technical
questions,
call
John
Fox.
EPA
will
consider
the
comments
when
writing
the
rule.
Furthermore,
comments
already
submitted
are
in
the
"
basket"
and
part
of
the
permanent
record.
Anyone
who
plans
to
submit
additional
comments
should
notify
EPA.
As
a
last
question,
Jim
Leity
asked
if
anyone
who
was
on
the
phone
had
conducted
a
fish
kill
study;
none
had.
The
meeting
was
adjourned.
