1 **316(b) CONFERENCE CALL June 19**  **, 201 2**  **/ 3**  **:00**

**– 4**  **: 0**  **0 PM ED**  **T**

**Draft Summary** 
**PARTICIPANTS:**
States : Alabama Arizona Delaware Florida Illinois Indiana Kansas Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Nebraska New Jersey New York North Carolina Oklahoma Rhode I sland 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 ( A CWA )
Tetra Tech : Kelly Meadows

**INTRODUCTION** Susan Kirsch (ACWA) brought the me eting to order and conducted the roll call. Ms. Kirsch stat ed that the purpose of the call was to provide EPA with an opportunity to summarize the content of two recentl y 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 summarize s that data and also lays out a number2

of potential revisions to the proposed rule that would enable more flexibility for compl yi ng with the final rule, while still maintaining uniform national standards. Each o f 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 d oes not introduce any new information on addressing entrainment. Specificall y, the elements in the first NODA are:

 Facilities with closed

- cycle recirculating cooling sy stems (CCRS s ) would be deemed to meet impingement mortality (I M) standards. EPA did not intend for facilities to be required to install CCRS s solely to meet IM standards. Additionally , the NODA attempts to develop a mechanism to give appropriate “credit” for all forms of flow reduction.

 Intake velocit y standards may be refined, as EPA examines how to measure compliance and considers eliminating the requ irements related to maximum screen blockage. Additionally , EPA noted the distinction between a velocity cap (a specific technology) and low intake velocit y (a compliance alternative); these are not the same and EPA continues to examine data on the perform ance of velocity caps in reducing IM.

 EPA continues to anal yz e 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 focuse s 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 anal ys is of the data collected, each of whic h 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 repre sent 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 p resented 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 continu es to conduct further anal ys es to verify the statistical significance of the data and will also be c onducting an external peer review of the entire survey and anal ys is . EPA does not expect to publish another NODA once these ongoing anal ys es are complete, but the Agency is accepting comments on the approach for anal yz ing 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 b road 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 stat ed that it is , but added that it is part of the docket for the Information Collection Request ( IC R) for the survey and may be difficult to locate . She noted that EPA w ill 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 bar rier 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 an y 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 crit eria 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 d oe s 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 facil itate a localized anal ys is 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 ye ar, per household.
Ms. Rosenwinkle asked if a closed

- cycle cooling option was being considered. She also asked if CCRS s were a preapproved option for IM. Mr. Shriner resp onded 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 sy stems 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 and4

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. W ood added that EPA recognizes that the schedule is very tight, as the comment period s for the NODAs en d in mid

July . Mr. Witt stated that EPA has contacted the other parties in the consent decree and EPA will proceed accordingl y. 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 oppo rtunity 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).