Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-3626
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2014-08-15T04:00Z

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 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-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.

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 mid-July.  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.