1

316(b) CONFERENCE CALL

June 19, 2012 / 3:00 – 4:00 PM EDT

Draft Summary

PARTICIPANTS:

States: 

Alabama

Arizona

Delaware

Florida

Illinois

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Michigan

Mississippi

Nebraska

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Wisconsin

EPA Headquarters:

Rob Wood (EPA OST)

Paul Shriner (EPA OST)

Wendy Hoffman (EPA OST)

Tom Born (EPA OST)

Julie Hewitt (EPA OST)

Richard Witt (EPA OGC)

EPA Regions:

1 Sharon Demeo

Other Stakeholders:

Susan Kirsch (ACWA)

Tetra Tech:

Kelly Meadows

INTRODUCTION

Susan Kirsch (ACWA) brought the meeting to order and conducted the roll call. Ms. Kirsch 

stated that the purpose of the call was to provide EPA with an opportunity to summarize the 

content of two recently published Notices of Data Availability (NODAs) and to encourage 

discussion between the states and EPA. ACWA also facilitated a follow-up discussion with the 

states in order to prepare a letter of comment on the notices. 

DISCUSSION 

EPA Presentation on the NODAs

Rob Wood (EPA OST) provided a brief summary of the two NODAs and the public comment 

periods for each. He then turned to Paul Shriner and Julie Hewitt (both EPA OST) to present a 

more detailed summary of the two NODAs.

Mr. Shriner stated that a lot of commenters had submitted impingement data during the comment 

period for the proposed rule. The first NODA summarizes that data and also lays out a number 
2

of potential revisions to the proposed rule that would enable more flexibility for complying with 

the final rule, while still maintaining uniform national standards. Each of these potential 

alternatives is intended to achieve the same level of performance as the best technology available 

(BTA) option presented in the proposed rule. The first NODA does not introduce any new 

information on addressing entrainment.

Specifically, the elements in the first NODA are:

 Facilities with closed-cycle recirculating cooling systems (CCRSs) would be deemed to 

meet impingement mortality (IM) standards. EPA did not intend for facilities to be 

required to install CCRSs solely to meet IM standards. Additionally, the NODA attempts 

to develop a mechanism to give appropriate “credit” for all forms of flow reduction.

 Intake velocity standards may be refined, as EPA examines how to measure compliance 

and considers eliminating the requirements related to maximum screen blockage. 

Additionally, EPA noted the distinction between a velocity cap (a specific technology) 

and low intake velocity (a compliance alternative); these are not the same and EPA 

continues to examine data on the performance of velocity caps in reducing IM.

 EPA continues to analyze the IM data used in developing national IM limits. As noted, 

EPA received a large number of new studies (many of which did not provide IM data) 

and is also considering revising its acceptance criteria for the data. Other aspects under 

consideration include the treatment of fragile species and species of concern, credit for 

existing technologies, facilities with extremely low impingement rates, and eliminating 

the requirement for barrier nets.

Ms. Hewitt then discussed the second NODA, which focuses on the results of EPA’s stated 

preference survey. She noted that there are several important documents that provide additional 

details on the survey and analysis of the data collected, each of which are in the docket for the 

NODAs and on EPA’s website.

Most of the benefits discussed in the proposed rule were derived through revealed preference 

methods that monetized losses of commercial and recreational fish. Commercial and 

recreational fish represent a very small portion of the fish impinged and entrained at most 

facilities. As a result, EPA designed and fielded a stated preference survey (also known as a 

willingness to pay survey) to determine a value for the other portion of fish losses (e.g., forage 

fish). A survey was developed for 4 regions (covering the entire continental U.S.), as well as one 

national-level survey, where respondents were presented with a series of questions and choices to 

elicit their values for fish protection. EPA has presented preliminary results of the survey data in 

the second NODA; EPA is still considering how it will present the results in the final rule. EPA 

continues to conduct further analyses to verify the statistical significance of the data and will also 

be conducting an external peer review of the entire survey and analysis. EPA does not expect to 

publish another NODA once these ongoing analyses are complete, but the Agency is accepting 

comments on the approach for analyzing the survey data during the current comment period.

Mr. Wood stated that the first NODA provides a large volume of new data and additional 

flexibility. He noted that EPA is also considering an option where IM is addressed on a site-
3

specific basis, similar to the proposed approach for entrainment. He noted, however, that this 

approach would place a substantial burden on the states. Mr. Wood also stated that, although the 

results presented in the second NODA are preliminary, EPA is confident that they will be found 

to be accurate. As a broad conclusion, EPA can infer that households are willing to pay a 

measurable amount to prevent fish from being killed at intake structures.

Questions and Answers

A participant asked if the stated preference survey was available online. Ms. Hewitt stated that it 

is, but added that it is part of the docket for the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the 

survey and may be difficult to locate. She noted that EPA will post or link the survey in a more 

prominent location.

Sue Rosenwinkle (New Jersey) stated that they were pleased to learn that the barrier net 

requirement would be removed. Mr. Shriner stated that, previously, EPA did not have any data 

documenting the survival of shellfish on modified Ristroph screens. As a result, EPA included 

the barrier net requirement. However, additional data has been collected and added to the pool 

of data used to calculate the IM limits, allowing the barrier net requirement to be eliminated.

Ms. Kirsch asked if the IM limits had been recalculated in the NODA. Mr. Shriner stated that 

they had not, but EPA welcomes any comments on the Agency’s assumptions and methodology, 

which will ultimately play a large role in calculating the limit for the final rule. He noted that he 

can’t speculate as to whether the limit will go up or down. Ms. Kirsch asked if the data received 

was more geographically diverse than the data used to calculate the IM limit for the proposed 

rule. Mr. Shriner stated that it was, and that EPA’s consideration of revisions to the acceptance 

criteria may also reintroduce data that had been excluded from the limit derivation in the 

proposed rule.

John DeFriece (Delaware) asked if entrainment would still be addressed on a best professional 

judgment (BPJ) basis. Mr. Shriner stated that the NODA does not change that approach, but the 

issue is undecided for the final rule. Ms. Hewitt added that Directors can consider costs and 

benefits in determining appropriate requirements for entrainment, and the results from the stated 

preference survey may facilitate a localized analysis of benefits.

Sharon Demeo (EPA Region 1) asked what time scale the willingness to pay values were based 

on. Ms. Hewitt responded that the data presented in the NODA was on both a monthly and 

annual basis. The range of values was $0.75 to $2.52 per percentage point increase in age-1 

equivalents saved, per year, per household.

Ms. Rosenwinkle asked if a closed-cycle cooling option was being considered. She also asked if 

CCRSs were a preapproved option for IM. Mr. Shriner responded that closed-cycle systems are 

not preapproved for IM in the proposed rule or in the considerations presented in the NODA, but 

EPA recognizes that the flow reduction achieved by closed-cycle systems will generally meet the 

IM requirements.1

 

1 The NODA described that a facility that reduces its intake flow reduces impingement by the same amount and 
4

A participant from Virginia asked about EPA’s schedule for the rulemaking. Richard Witt (EPA 

OGC) responded that EPA intends to fulfill its consent decree. Mr. Wood added that EPA 

recognizes that the schedule is very tight, as the comment periods for the NODAs end in midJuly. Mr. Witt stated that EPA has contacted the other parties in the consent decree and EPA 

will proceed accordingly.

There were no further questions for EPA. ACWA and the states proceeded to have a discussion 

amongst themselves regarding comments on the NODAs.

 

consequently it also reduces its impingement mortality. EPA was therefore considering adding in the final rule an 

opportunity for a facility to get credit for an equivalent reduction in impingement mortality when it reduces intake 

flow (in comparison to a once-through cooling system).