### 1

Meeting Report: Alaska Department of Environmental Conser vation (ADEC), Anchorage, AK.

8/9/10

9:30 – 11:00 AM

Participants
Lynn Kent Director, Division of Water,

Alaska DEC Don Anderson U.E. EPA Washington, DC

Sharmon Stambaugh Manager, Water Quality

Programs, ADEC Rick Cool U.S. EPA Region 10

Sharon Morgan ADEC, Juneau Betsy Bicknell ERG

Sean Stokes Manager, permits, non

domestic wastewater, ADEC (calling from Sitka) Kathleen Wu ERG, Chantilly, VA

Anne Jones ERG, Lexington, VA

Betsy Bicknell (ERG) provided Sharmon Stambaugh, ADEC with these note s for her review. No comments were received from ADEC and the notes were finalized as delivered on August 25,

2010.

Betsy Bicknell (ERG) met with Lynn Kent and Sharmon Stam baugh in person on Monday morning, August 9, 2010 at the ADEC offices in Anchorage. Ot her participants listed above joined the meeting by phone.

Division Director Lynn Kent explained that her division is r esponsible for APDES permits, compliance, facilities grants and loans (state revolvi ng fund), cruise ships, and water quality standards and monitoring. Sharman Stambaugh’s group is r esponsible for water quality, permits, and enforcement. Sharon Morgan also reports to Shar mon Stambaugh.

Lynn Kent explained that the seafood industry is both vital to the Alaska economy and a vital, thriving industry. Because of the geographical differences bet ween Alaska and the lower 48, Alaska seafood processors have unique issues.

Not all seafood processors are direct discharges. Some in Anchorage discharge to the municipal sewer system. Some processors discharge to septic tanks an d absorption fields.

Don Anderson provided an update on EPA’s work on responding to the seafood processing industry petition. He noted that EPA extended the due date for the questionnaire to October 1. He also noted that changes to any of the limits are not par t of the scope of the project. For example, reviewing the requirement for 0.5” grind (versus whole carcass disposal), is not part of

the review 1

.

1 Sharmon Stambaugh explained that some limited studies indi cate that whole carcasses may degrade better in an underwater environment than waste ground to 0.5” di mensions. Further, there is cost to grinding, so some processors are interested in changing the 0.5” gri nding requirement that applies to seafood processors

in remote locations.

### 2

Betsy Bicknell explained that ERG has been tasked to support EPA’s evaluation of the cost to the industry to comply with the currently suspended limits for T SS and oil and grease. Compliance with these limits could be achieved via screening and offs ite disposal.

After discussion that landfill disposal of seafood wastes was not feasible in Alaska because it attracts bears, gulls, and eagles, Ms. Bicknell clarifi ed that by “offsite” she meant off shore.

Sharmon Stambaugh asked how offshore disposal would be permitt ed. Although it was “outfall 003” in the EPA general permit, offshore disposal requires a n ocean dumping permit (it is not part of NPDES). Lynn explained that EPA does not have a st rong ocean dumping permitting system; it is typically done by letters.

Processors want to maximize seasons Using raw material, e.g. chum after roe has been har vested Northwest communities have some very small seafood processi ng plants Fish hatcheries process their fish (for example, Macaulay salmon hatchery in Juneau)

Sean Stokes asked if EPA would clarify the definition of “ non-remote” processing centers in the regulation. It currently provides the list of centers, a nd says that “non-remote” is “not limited to”

the centers listed. ADEC noted that other communities are processing a lot of fish:

• Dutch Harbor

• Kenai Peninsula

• Petersburg and Wrangell are of similar size (in terms of seafood processing)

• Excursion Inlet (near Juneau, across from Admiralty Island)

• Seward

• Sitka

Sharmon Stambaugh expressed a preference to waste manageme nt solutions that provided beneficial use of the seafood processing wastes. She noted that barging would require costly fuel and generate excess emissions. She mentioned one local bypro ducts plant, Arctic Paws, who produce Yummy Chummy dog treats. She also noted that fish -based fertilizer is available locally.

We discussed access to capital for businesses to establish byproducts recovery plants.

Lynn Kent mentioned that the clean water revolving loan fund c ould probably be used for such projects; however, municipalities need all the funds for their wastewater treatment plants and there isn’t any money available for other uses.

Alaska Import Export Development Authority (AIEDA) provides financing to help start businesses. However, Sharmon related that they are gun shy of seafood products, they started a business that went bust, they got burned, and are not eager t o work with the seafood industry.

Native Alaska corporations may be interested in investing in seafood byproducts plants. There are xx corporations, including Sealaska (Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian, in southeast Alaska) NANA (Inupiat, in northwest Alaska) and others.

Alaska Division of Community Advocacy (ADCA) provides grants to small communities. This is another possible source of financing.

### 3

Lynn Kent asked how much EPA would be able to present to t he public and other stakeholders the basis of its conclusions about economic achievability of t he currently suspending regulations.

ERG explained that the questionnaire requested company and f acility financial information, much of which will be company confidential information. Don Ande rson further explained that although EPA will have this information, they may not be abl e to present it, even in aggregated form. Even if aggregated, the CBI may be deducible by a knowledgeable reader, so even aggregated data would not be presented. However, the me thodology and underlying assumptions EPA uses in its analysis will be thoroughly explained and ava ilable to the public in the docket supporting the EPA action.

Sharmon noted cost factors that vary quite a bit:

• Shipping costs, due to the variability in the price of fu el;

• Production (catch) varies year-to-year;

• Product and byproduct prices.

Don Anderson explained that because of these varying factors, EPA would conduct a range-type of analysis.

ADEC noted that there are risks when the processors hire vessels to haul waste, including spills and other unpermitted discharges.

ADEC asked if EPA was including near-shore facilities ( vessels that anchor close to shore and don’t move). Don Anderson explained that the questionnaire dire cted companies to report about their near-shore facilities, but EPA did not presently think they would be included in the petition

response.

Sean described a small town (Caltague?) that estimated the cost of a byproduct facility to handle waste from several hundred thousand pounds of processed fish was $1 million. He did not have cost details. Sean could provide contact information for th e ADCA grant administrator.

Lynn asked for an update of EPA’s timeline for the action. Don Anderson replied that companies would submit completed questionnaire by October 1. After January 1, 11, EPA would issue a Notice of Availability (and request for comment). This would be the main opportunity for public comment for EPA’s possible action on the petition.

After reviewing the comments on the NODA, EPA would publish it s final action for locations identified in the petition. If EPA determined it should add additional processing centers to the list of “non-remote” processing centers, Don believes this wo uld require a separate action with a proposal and final rule.

Lynn Kent expressed her concern about the notice and comment proc ess. She was concerned that the industry might not recognize the NODA as their only opport unity to comment on EPA’s action on the petition (because the industry is used to a pro posed rule and final rule process).

We discussed the need to inform the industry of EPA’s proces s, so they will understand that commenting on the NODA is their opportunity to comment on EPA’s action.

Betsy Bicknell mentioned that one of the seafood processors she and Lindsay Guzzo plan to visit in Juneau is Alaska Glacier. Sharmon explained that Alas ka Glacier screens and barges its waste

### 4

to inland waters. They may transport some of the waste to landfills. They are not eligible for an ocean dumping permit.

Betsy Bicknell

After the meeting, Sharmon explained the electric power sour ces in Alaska

Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka: have hydroelectric plants, with diesel back-up. Most coastal communities rely on diesel powered generator s. Anchorage uses natural gas, recovered from Cook Inlet. Other energy sources are being discussed, including wind and tidal. Geothermal areas are remote from population centers and so are not feasible.