Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0002-1906
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-07-03T04:00Z

Final
Report
of
the
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
on
EPA's
Planned
Proposed
Rule
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Section
316(
b)
Phase
III
Facilities
April
27,
2004
Table
of
Contents
1.
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2.
Background
and
Regulatory
History
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.1
Regulatory
History
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.2
Description
of
Rule
and
its
Scope
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
2.3
Related
Federal
Rules
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.
Overview
of
Proposal
Under
Consideration
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3.1
Potential
Requirements
Under
the
Proposed
Phase
III
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3.2
Options
Likely
to
be
Proposed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4.
Applicable
Small
Entity
Definitions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
5.
Small
Entities
That
May
Be
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Regulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
6.
Summary
of
Small
Entity
Outreach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
6.1
Pre­
Panel
Outreach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
6.2
Panel
Outreach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
7.
List
of
Small
Entity
Representatives
(
SERs)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
8.
Summary
of
Comments
from
Small
Entity
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
8.1
Number
and
Types
of
Entities
Affected
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
8.2
Potential
Reporting,
Record
Keeping,
and
Compliance
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
8.3
Related
Federal
Rules
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
8.4
Regulatory
Flexibility
Alternatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
9.
Panel
Findings
and
Discussion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
9.1
Number
and
Types
of
Entities
Affected
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
9.2
Potential
Reporting,
Record
Keeping,
and
Compliance
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
9.3
Related
Federal
Rules
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
9.4
Regulatory
Flexibility
Alternatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
9.5
Methodological
Issues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
9.6
Preliminary
Data
Analysis:
Tables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
Appendix
A:
List
of
Materials
EPA
Shared
With
Small
Entity
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
Appendix
B:
Summary
of
EPA's
Outreach
Meetings
with
Small
Entity
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
40
Appendix
C:
Written
Comments
Received
from
Small
Entity
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
Page
1
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
1.
INTRODUCTION
This
report
is
presented
by
the
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
(
SBAR
Panel
or
Panel)
convened
for
the
proposed
rulemaking
on
requirements
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
§
316(
b)
Phase
III
facilities,
currently
being
developed
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
Under
section
609(
b)
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
an
agency
is
required
to
convene
such
a
panel
prior
to
publishing
the
initial
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
(
IRFA).
In
addition
to
EPA's
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chairperson
(
Mr.
Alexander
Cristofaro),
the
Panel
consisted
of
the
Director
of
EPA's
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
within
the
Office
of
Water
(
Ms.
Mary
T.
Smith),
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
within
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
Dr.
John
D.
Graham),
and
the
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy
of
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
Mr.
Thomas
M.
Sullivan).

This
report
includes
the
following:

C
background
information
on
the
proposed
rule
being
developed;

C
information
on
the
types
of
small
entities
that
may
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule;

C
a
summary
of
the
Panel's
outreach
activities;

C
the
comments
and
recommendations
of
the
small
entity
representatives
(
SERs);
and
C
panel
findings
and
discussion.

Section
609(
b)
of
the
RFA
directs
the
Panel
to
report
on
the
comments
of
small
entity
representatives
and
make
findings
on
issues
related
to
identified
elements
of
an
IRFA
under
section
603
of
the
RFA.
Those
elements
of
an
IRFA
are:

°
a
description
of
and,
where
feasible,
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
small
entities
to
which
the
proposed
rule
will
apply;

°
projected
reporting,
record
keeping,
and
other
compliance
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule,
including
an
estimate
of
the
classes
of
small
entities
which
will
be
subject
to
the
requirements
and
the
type
of
professional
skills
necessary
for
preparation
of
the
report
or
record;

°
an
identification,
to
the
extent
practicable,
of
all
other
relevant
Federal
rules
which
may
duplicate,
overlap,
or
conflict
with
the
proposed
rule;

°
any
significant
alternatives
to
the
proposed
rule
which
accomplish
the
stated
objectives
of
applicable
statutes
and
which
minimize
any
significant
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities;
and,
Page
2
1
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.

Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
°
any
impacts
on
small
entities
of
the
proposed
rule
or
significant
alternatives
to
the
proposed
rule.

Once
completed,
the
Panel
report
is
provided
to
the
Administrator
of
EPA
and
is
included
in
the
rulemaking
record.
In
light
of
the
Panel
report,
and
where
appropriate,
the
agency
is
to
make
changes
to
the
draft
proposed
rule,
the
IRFA
for
the
proposed
rule,
or
the
decision
on
whether
an
IRFA
is
required.

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
Panel's
findings
and
discussion
will
be
based
on
the
information
available
at
the
time
the
final
Panel
report
is
drafted.
EPA
will
continue
to
conduct
analyses
relevant
to
the
proposed
rule,
and
additional
information
may
be
developed
or
obtained
during
the
remainder
of
the
rule
development
process.
The
Panel
makes
its
report
at
a
preliminary
stage
of
rule
development
and
its
report
should
be
considered
in
that
light.
At
the
same
time,
the
report
provides
the
Panel
and
the
Agency
with
an
opportunity,
at
an
early
stage
in
the
rule
development
process,
to
identify
and
explore
potential
ways
of
shaping
the
proposed
rule
to
minimize
the
burden
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
while
achieving
the
rule's
purposes.

Any
options
identified
by
the
Panel
for
reducing
the
rule's
regulatory
impact
on
small
entities
may
require
further
analysis
and/
or
data
collection
to
ensure
that
the
options
are
practicable,
enforceable,
environmentally
sound,
and
consistent
with
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
1
Page
3
2
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.

3
33
U.
S.
C.
1251(
a).

Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
2.
BACKGROUND
AND
REGULATORY
HISTORY
EPA
is
developing
regulations
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Section
316(
b)
requires
that
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
reflect
the
best
technology
available
(
BTA)
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Nationwide,
more
than
1,500
facilities
use
large
volumes
of
cooling
water
from
lakes,
rivers,
estuaries
or
oceans
to
cool
their
plants,
including
steam
electric
power
plants,
pulp
and
paper
makers,
chemical
manufacturers,
petroleum
refiners,
and
manufacturers
of
primary
metals
like
iron
and
steel
and
aluminum.

Cooling
water
intake
structures
can
cause
adverse
environmental
impact
by
pulling
large
numbers
of
fish
and
shellfish
or
their
eggs
into
a
power
plant's
or
factory's
cooling
system
(
entrainment).
There,
the
organisms
may
be
killed
or
injured
by
heat,
physical
stress,
or
by
chemicals
used
to
clean
the
cooling
system.
Larger
organisms
may
be
killed
or
injured
when
they
are
trapped
(
impinged)
against
screens
at
the
front
of
an
intake
structure.

2.1
Regulatory
History
The
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act,
also
known
as
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
2
seeks
to
"
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
nation's
waters."
3
The
CWA
establishes
a
comprehensive
regulatory
program,
key
elements
of
which
are
(
1)
a
prohibition
on
the
discharge
of
pollutants
from
point
sources
to
waters
of
the
United
States,
except
as
authorized
by
the
statute;
(
2)
authority
for
EPA
or
authorized
States
or
Tribes
to
issue
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits
that
regulate
the
discharge
of
pollutants;
and
(
3)
requirements
for
limitations
in
NPDES
permits
based
on
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
and
water
quality
standards.

CWA
section
316(
b)
addresses
the
adverse
environmental
impact
caused
by
the
intake
of
cooling
water,
not
discharges
into
water.
Despite
this
special
focus,
the
requirements
of
section
316(
b)
are
closely
linked
to
several
of
the
core
elements
of
the
NPDES
permit
program
established
under
section
402
of
the
CWA
to
control
discharges
of
pollutants
into
navigable
waters.
For
example,
section
316(
b)
applies
to
facilities
that
withdraw
water
from
the
waters
of
the
United
States
for
cooling
through
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
are
point
sources
subject
to
an
NPDES
permit.
Conditions
for
implementing
section
316(
b)
are
included
in
NPDES
permits.
Page
4
4
41
FR
17387
(
April
26,
1976),
proposed
at
38
FR
34410
(
December
13,
1973).

5
Appalachian
Power
Co.
v.
Train,
566
F.
2d
451
(
4th
Cir.
1977).

6
44
FR
32956
(
June
7,
1979).

7
See
Draft
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Adverse
Impact
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
on
the
Aquatic
Environment:
Section
316(
b)
P.
L.
92 
500
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1977).

8
Section
316(
b)
Draft
Guidance,
U.
S.
EPA,
1977,
p.
4.

9
No.
93
Civ
0314
(
AGS).

Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
In
1976,
EPA
published
a
final
rule
under
section
316(
b)
that
addressed
cooling
water
intake
structures.
4
The
rule
added
a
new
§
401.14
to
40
CFR
Chapter
I
that
reiterated
the
requirements
of
CWA
section
316(
b).
It
also
added
a
new
part
402,
which
included
three
sections:
(
1)
§
402.10
(
Applicability),
(
2)
§
402.11
(
Specialized
definitions),
and
(
3)
§
402.12
(
Best
technology
available
for
cooling
water
intake
structures).

In
1977,
fifty­
eight
electric
utility
companies
challenged
those
regulations,
arguing
that
EPA
had
failed
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
(
APA)
in
promulgating
the
rule.
Specifically,
the
utilities
argued
that
EPA
had
neither
published
the
Development
Document
in
the
Federal
Register
nor
properly
incorporated
the
document
into
the
rule
by
reference.
The
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fourth
Circuit
agreed,
and
without
reaching
the
merits
of
the
regulations
themselves,
remanded
the
rule.
5
EPA
later
withdrew
part
402.
6
The
regulation
at
40
CFR
401.14,
which
reiterates
the
statutory
requirement,
remains
in
effect.

Since
the
Fourth
Circuit
remanded
EPA's
section
316(
b)
regulations
in
1977,
NPDES
permit
authorities
have
made
decisions
implementing
section
316(
b)
on
a
case­
by­
case,
sitespecific
basis.
EPA
published
draft
guidance
addressing
section
316(
b)
implementation
in
1977.7
This
draft
guidance
describes
the
studies
recommended
for
evaluating
the
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
on
the
aquatic
environment
and
recommends
a
basis
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
1977
section
316(
b)
draft
guidance
states,
"[
T]
he
environmental­
intake
interactions
in
question
are
highly
site­
specific
and
the
decision
as
to
best
technology
available
for
intake
design,
location,
construction,
and
capacity
must
be
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis."
8
In
the
absence
of
national
regulations,
the
case­
by­
case,
site­
specific
approach
to
implementing
316(
b)
has
continued
to
the
present.
However,
in
the
mid­
1990'
s
a
coalition
of
individuals
and
environmental
groups
brought
suit
against
EPA
for
failing
to
promulgate
national
regulations
needed
to
implement
section
316(
b)
requirements.
In
Riverkeeper
Inc.,
et
al.
v.
Whitman,
9
a
consent
decree
was
initially
entered
on
October
10,
1995,
which
provided
that
EPA
Page
5
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
propose
regulations
implementing
section
316(
b)
by
July
2,
1999,
and
take
final
action
with
respect
to
those
regulations
by
August
13,
2001.
Under
subsequent
orders
and
an
amended
consent
decree,
the
rulemaking
was
divided
into
three
phases
and
EPA
is
working
under
new
deadlines,
as
described
below:

C
Phase
I
 
Governing
new
facilities
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
(
Final
Rule
published
on
December
18,
2001
at
66
Fed.
Reg.
65256;
upheld
in
all
but
one
respect
in
Riverkeeper,
et
al.
v.
U.
S.
EPA,
No.
02­
4005
(
and
consolidated
cases)
(
2d
Cir.
Feb.
3,
2004));

C
Phase
II
 
Governing
existing
facilities
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
whose
primary
activity
is
to
generate
and
transmit
electric
power
(
or
to
generate
electric
power
for
sale
to
another
entity
for
transmission),
if
the
facilities
meet
certain
other
criteria,
including
a
design
intake
flow
of
at
least
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
Final
Rule
signed
on
February
16,
2004).

C
Phase
III
(
Under
Development)
 
Governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
used
by,
at
a
minimum,
electric
power
producers
not
covered
by
the
Phase
II
rule
(
i.
e.,
those
with
design
intake
flows
less
than
50
million
gallons
per
day)
and
facilities
in
four
industrial
sectors
(
pulp
and
paper,
petroleum
and
coal
products,
chemical
and
allied
products
,
and
primary
metals)
(
signature
on
proposed
rule
due
November
1,
2004;
final
action
by
June
1,
2006).

This
Panel
Report
will
address
only
the
316(
b)
Phase
III
regulations.

2.2
Description
of
Rule
and
its
Scope
The
proposed
Phase
III
rule
could
potentially
apply
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
at:

°
existing
power
plants
with
design
intake
flows
of
less
than
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD);
°
all
other
existing
facilities;
and
°
new
offshore
facilities
that
are
not
covered
by
the
Phase
I
rule,
including
new
offshore
and
coastal
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
and
new
offshore
liquified
natural
gas
(
LNG)
regasification
facilities
While
the
specific
scope
of
the
Phase
III
proposed
rule
has
not
been
determined,
it
is
expected
that
the
basic
criteria
for
determining
applicability
of
the
proposed
rule
will
be
similar
to
those
of
the
Phase
II
regulation.
As
such,
it
is
anticipated
that
the
national
requirements
of
a
Phase
III
rule
would
apply
to
a
facility
that
meets
the
following
criteria:
Page
6
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
°
is
a
point
source;
°
uses
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
withdrawing
water
from
a
"
water
of
the
United
States";
°
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
its
water
intake
solely
for
cooling
purposes;
and,
°
has
a
design
intake
flow
greater
than
a
threshold
amount,
yet
to
be
determined
(
intakes
below
the
threshold
would
be
subject
to
case­
by­
case
determinations
on
the
basis
of
best
professional
judgement).

2.3
Related
Federal
Rules
The
Phase
III
rule
is
unlikely
to
duplicate,
overlap
or
conflict
with
other
federal
rules.
However,
Phase
III
rulemaking
is
related
to
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
regulations,
which
together
establish
requirements
for
certain
facilities
subject
to
CWA
§
316(
b).
The
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
regulations
are
described
in
more
detail
below.

The
Phase
I
cooling
water
intake
regulation
establishes
the
best
technology
available
(
BTA),
based
on
a
two­
compliance
track
approach,
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Based
on
facility
size,
Track
I
establishes
national
intake
capacity
and
velocity
requirements
as
well
as
location­
and
capacitybased
requirements
to
reduce
intake
flow
below
certain
proportions
of
certain
water
bodies
(
referred
to
as
"
proportional­
flow
requirements").
It
also
requires
the
permit
applicant
to
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
under
certain
conditions
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
Track
II
allows
permit
applicants
to
conduct
site­
specific
studies
to
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
alternatives
to
the
Track
I
requirements
will
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
to
a
level
of
reduction
comparable
to
the
level
the
facility
would
achieve
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
if
it
met
the
Track
I
requirements.
See
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
I.

The
Phase
II
regulation
applies
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
existing
facilities
that
generate
and
transmit
electric
power
and
that
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
MGD
or
greater
and
that
meet
other
applicability
criteria.
Under
this
rule,
EPA
established
performance
standards
for
the
reduction
of
impingement
mortality
and,
when
appropriate,
entrainment.
The
performance
standards
consist
of
ranges
of
reductions
in
impingement
mortality
and/
or
entrainment
(
e.
g.,
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
and/
or
entrainment
by
60
to
90
percent).
These
performance
standards
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
type
of
performance
standard
applicable
to
a
particular
facility
(
i.
e.,
reductions
in
impingement
only
or
impingement
and
entrainment)
is
based
on
several
factors,
including
the
facility's
location
(
i.
e.,
source
water
body),
rate
of
use
(
capacity
utilization
rate),
and
the
proportion
of
the
water
body
withdrawn.

The
Phase
II
final
rule
provides
five
compliance
alternatives,
as
follows:
Page
7
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
(
1)
Under
§
125.94(
a)(
1)(
i)
and
(
ii),
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
may
demonstrate
that
it
has
already
reduced
its
flow
commensurate
with
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system,
or
that
it
has
already
reduced
its
design
intake
velocity
to
0.5
ft/
s
or
less.
If
a
facility
can
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
it
has
reduced,
or
will
reduce,
flow
commensurate
with
a
closed
cycle
recirculating
system,
the
facility
is
deemed
to
have
met
the
performance
standards
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
(
see
§
125.94
(
a)(
1)(
i)).
Those
facilities
would
not
be
required
to
submit
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
with
their
NPDES
application.
If
the
facility
can
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
is
has
reduced,
or
will
reduce
maximum
through­
screen
design
intake
velocity
to
0.5
ft/
s
or
less,
the
facility
is
deemed
to
have
met
the
performance
standards
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
only.
Facilities
that
meet
the
velocity
requirements
would
only
need
to
submit
application
studies
related
to
determining
entrainment
reduction,
if
subject
to
the
performance
standards
for
entrainment.

(
2
and
3)
Under
§
125.94(
a)(
2)
and
(
3),
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
may
demonstrate
to
the
Director
either
that
its
current
cooling
water
intake
structure
configuration
meets
the
applicable
performance
standards,
or
that
it
has
selected
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
that,
in
combination
with
any
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
meet
the
specified
performance
standards
in
§
125.94(
b)
and/
or
the
requirements
in
§
125.94(
c).
Alternatives
(
2)
and
(
3)
would
require
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
whose
detail
and
cost
would
vary
depending
on
characteristics
of
the
facility
and
water
body.

(
4)
Under
§
125.94(
a)(
4),
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
may
demonstrate
that
it
has
installed
and
is
properly
operating
and
maintaining
a
rule­
specified
and
approved
design
and
construction
technology
in
accordance
with
§
125.99(
a)
or
(
b).
Submerged
cylindrical
wedgewire
screen
technology
is
a
rule­
specified
design
and
construction
technology
that
may
be
used
in
instances
in
which
a
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream
and
meets
other
criteria
specified
at
§
125.99(
a).
In
addition,
under
this
compliance
alternative,
a
facility
or
other
interested
person
may
submit
a
request
to
the
Director
for
approval
of
a
different
technology.
If
the
Director
approves
the
technology,
it
may
be
used
by
all
facilities
with
similar
site
conditions
under
his
or
her
jurisdiction
if
allowed
under
the
State's
administrative
procedures.
Facilities
that
install
the
technology
specified
and
approved
under
the
rule
or
a
different
technology
approved
by
the
Director
in
accordance
with
this
compliance
option
would
be
subject
to
permitting
and
monitoring
requirements
substantially
less
burdensome
than
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.

(
5)
Under
§
125.94(
a)(
5)
(
i)
or
(
ii),
if
the
Director
determines
that
a
facility's
costs
of
compliance
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
considered
by
the
Administrator
for
a
like
facility
to
meet
the
applicable
performance
standards,
or
that
the
costs
of
compliance
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
meeting
the
applicable
performance
standards
at
the
facility,
the
Director
must
make
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Under
this
alternative,
a
facility
would
either
compare
Page
8
10
In
the
final
Phase
II
rule,
the
calculation
baseline
is
assumed
to
be
a
shoreline
intake
with
oncethrough
cooling
system,
with
no
impingement
or
entrainment
reduction
controls.

Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
its
projected
costs
of
compliance
using
a
particular
technology
or
technologies
to
the
costs
the
Agency
considered
for
a
like
facility
in
establishing
the
applicable
performance
standards,
or
compare
its
projected
costs
of
compliance
with
the
projected
benefits
at
its
site
of
meeting
the
applicable
performance
standards.
If
in
either
case
costs
of
compliance
are
significantly
greater
than
the
projected
costs
or
projected
benefits,
the
technology
selected
by
the
Director
must
achieve
an
efficacy
level
that,
in
the
judgement
of
the
Director,
comes
as
close
as
practicable
to
the
applicable
performance
standards
without
resulting
in
compliance
costs
that
are
significantly
greater
than
such
projected
costs
or
benefits.
Alternative
(
5)
would
require
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
whose
detail
and
cost
would
vary
depending
on
characteristics
of
the
facility
and
water
body.

3.
OVERVIEW
OF
PROPOSAL
UNDER
CONSIDERATION
3.1
Potential
Requirements
Under
the
Proposed
Phase
III
Rule
EPA
is
in
the
early
stages
of
data
analysis,
option
formulation
and
assessment
for
the
Phase
III
regulation.
Therefore,
the
options
described
here
must
be
viewed
as
preliminary,
subject
to
potential
change
pending
the
outcome
of
relevant
analyses.

Nevertheless,
given
that
the
environmental
concerns
and
the
technologies
available
to
mitigate
these
concerns
are
similar
to
those
considered
under
the
Phase
II
rule,
the
Phase
III
rule
appears
likely
to
be
conditioned
upon
factors
such
as
design
intake
flow
(
DIF),
percent
of
design
intake
flow
used
for
cooling,
capacity
utilization
rate
(
for
power
producers),
cooling
water
intake
structure
location,
and
economic
impact.
As
discussed
below,
EPA
anticipates
adjusting
the
applicability
of
requirements
like
those
proposed
in
Phase
II
to
Phase
III
facilities
based
on
various
threshold
criteria
appropriate
for
Phase
III
facilities.

The
Phase
III
rule
may
include
performance
requirements
for
some
or
all
in­
scope
facilities
similar
to
those
adopted
under
Phases
I
and
II.
These
may
include
requirements
for
facilities
to
either:
1)
reduce
design
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
system,
or
2)
to
reduce
impingement
rates
and/
or
entrainment
rates
to
specified
levels
relative
to
a
baseline.
10
Requirements
to
reduce
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
might
vary
based
on
location
(
i.
e.,
water
body
type),
the
relative
proportion
of
water
withdrawn
by
a
specific
facility,
and
utilization
rate
(
power
producers
only).

As
an
example
of
the
specific
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
performance
requirements
under
consideration,
the
Phase
II
regulation
specifies:
Page
9
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
C
Impingement
Performance
Standard:
all
facilities
must
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95%
from
a
calculation
baseline
for
fish
and
shellfish;

C
Entrainment
Performance
Standard:
reduce
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
by
60
to
90%
from
the
calculation
baseline,
if
the
facility
has
a
capacity
utilization
rate
of
15%
or
greater
and
either
(
i)
the
facility
uses
cooling
water
withdrawn
from
a
tidal
river,
estuary,
ocean,
or
Great
Lake,
or
(
ii)
the
facility
uses
cooling
water
withdrawn
from
a
stream
or
river
and
the
facility's
design
intake
flow
exceeds
5%
of
the
mean
annual
flow
of
the
stream
or
river.

Alternative
performance
standards
may
also
be
considered,
as
well
as
regulatory
options
based
on
design
standards
or
some
other
approach.
As
EPA
moves
forward
with
development
of
the
Phase
III
regulation,
additional
scooping,
economic
impact,
and
environmental
impact
analyses
will
be
conducted,
and
the
Agency
will
fully
consider
such
information
in
its
decision
making.

3.2
Options
Likely
to
be
Proposed
As
discussed
above,
EPA
is
considering
performance
requirements
that
are
consistent
with
the
performance
requirements
in
the
Phase
II
rule.
EPA
is
also
considering
compliance
alternatives
similar
to
those
of
the
Phase
II
Final
Rule.

EPA
is
considering
developing
regulatory
options
based
on
criteria
or
thresholds
that
would
be
used
to
determine
which
Phase
III
facilities
are
subject
to
which
specific
performance
requirements.
As
a
result,
EPA
anticipates
that
some
Phase
III
facilities
could
be
subject
to
cooling
water
intake
permit
conditions
based
on
best
professional
judgement
(
BPJ),
some
could
be
subject
to
national
requirements
for
impingement
controls
only,
and
some
could
be
subject
to
national
requirements
for
entrainment
controls
as
well.
In
general,
consistent
with
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
rules,
the
more
sensitive
or
biologically
productive
the
water
body,
or
the
greater
the
potential
for
the
facility
to
cause
or
contribute
to
an
adverse
impact,
the
more
stringent
the
requirements
that
might
be
proposed
as
reflecting
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.

EPA
may
consider
other
criteria,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
percent
of
design
intake
flow
used
for
cooling,
proportion
of
source
water
body
withdrawn,
utilization
rate,
and
cooling
water
intake
location,
to
establish
its
regulatory
options
for
Phase
III.
Moreover,
EPA
may
combine
these
criteria
to
ensure
Phase
III
requirements
provide
for
the
use
of
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impacts.
For
example,
the
Agency
may
combine
intake
flow
with
location
to
adequately
address
the
potential
impacts
from
Phase
III
facilities.
Ultimately,
EPA
will
select
among
the
options
based
on
its
analyses
of
environmental
impacts,
costs
and
economic
impacts,
and
small
entity
impacts
associated
with
each
distinct
regulatory
option.
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
4.
APPLICABLE
SMALL
ENTITY
DEFINITIONS
Tables
4­
1
and
4­
2
show
the
SBA
small
entity
definitions
for
each
of
the
4­
digit
SIC
codes
represented
among
the
parent
entities
of
the
in­
scope
facilities
surveyed
by
EPA
to
date.

Table
4­
1.
Small
entity
definitions
for
parent
entities
of
Phase
III
manufacturer
facilities
surveyed
and
found
in­
scope.
SIC
Code
SIC
Code
Description
Sector
SBA
Small
Entity
Size
Standard
0133
Sugarcane
and
Sugar
Beets
Other
500,000
Revenue
1011
Iron
Ores
Other
500
Employees
1311
Crude
Petroleum
and
Natural
Gas
Oil
and
Gas
500
Employees
1381
Drilling
Oil
and
Gas
Wells
Oil
and
Gas
500
Employees
2046
Wet
Corn
Milling
Other
750
Employees
2062
Cane
Sugar
Refining
Other
750
Employees
2063
Beet
Sugar
Other
750
Employees
2092
Prepared
Fresh
or
Frozen
Fish
and
Seafoods
Seafood
Processing
500
Employees
2211
Broadwoven
Fabric
Mills,
Cotton
Other
1,000
Employees
2421
Sawmills
and
Planing
Mills,
General
Other
500
Employees
2611
Pulp
Mills
Paper
750
Employees
2621
Paper
Mills
Paper
750
Employees
2631
Paperboard
Mills
Paper
750
Employees
2676
Sanitary
Paper
Products
Paper
500
Employees
2679
Converted
Paper
and
Paperboard
Products,
NEC
Paper
500
Employees
2812
Alkalies
and
Chlorine
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2813
Industrial
Gases
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2816
Inorganic
Pigments
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2819
Industrial
Inorganic
Chemicals,
NEC
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2821
Plastics
Material
and
Synthetic
Resins,
and
Nonvulcanizable
Elastomers
Chemicals
750
Employees
2824
Manmade
Organic
Fibers,
Except
Cellulosic
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2833
Medicinal
Chemicals
and
Botanical
Products
Chemicals
750
Employees
2834
Pharmaceutical
Preparations
Chemicals
750
Employees
2869
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals,
NEC
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2873
Nitrogenous
Fertilizers
Chemicals
1,000
Employees
2899
Chemicals
and
Chemical
Preparations,
NEC
Chemicals
500
Employees
2911
Petroleum
Refining
Petroleum
1,500
Employees
3312
Steel
Works,
Blast
Furnaces
(
Including
Coke
Ovens),
and
Rolling
Mills
Steel
1,000
Employees
3313
Electrometallurgical
Products,
Except
Steel
Steel
750
Employees
3315
Steel
Wiredrawing
and
Steel
Nails
and
Spikes
Steel
1,000
Employees
3316
Cold­
Rolled
Steel
Sheet,
Strip,
and
Bars
Steel
1,000
Employees
3317
Steel
Pipe
and
Tubes
Steel
1,000
Employees
3334
Primary
Production
of
Aluminum
Aluminum
1,000
Employees
3353
Aluminum
Sheet,
Plate,
and
Foil
Aluminum
750
Employees
3421
Cutlery
Other
500
Employees
3861
Photographic
Equipment
and
Supplies
Other
500
Employees
Page
11
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Table
4­
2.
Small
entity
definitions
for
parent
entities
of
Phase
III
electric
generator
facilities
surveyed
and
found
in­
scope.
SIC
Code
SIC
Code
Description
SBA
Small
Entity
Size
Standard
1311
Crude
Petroleum
and
Natural
Gas.
500
Employees
1542
General
Contractors
 
Nonresidential
Buildings,
Other
than
Industrial
Buildings
and
Warehouses
27,500,000
Revenue
2621
Paper
Mills
750
Employees
4911
Electric
Services
4,000,000
MWh
4924
Natural
Gas
Distribution
500
Employees
4925
Mixed,
Manufactured,
or
Liquefied
Petroleum
Gas
Production
and/
or
Distribution
5,000,000
Revenue
4931
Electric
and
Other
Services
Combined
5,000,000
Revenue
4932
Gas
and
Other
Services
Combined
5,000,000
Revenue
4953
Refuse
Systems
10,000,000
Revenue
6211
Security
Brokers,
Dealers
and
Flotation
Companies
5,000,000
Revenue
9111
Executive
Offices
50,000
Population
Page
12
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
5.
SMALL
ENTITIES
THAT
MAY
BE
SUBJECT
TO
THE
PROPOSED
REGULATION
For
purposes
of
the
Phase
III
rulemaking,
EPA
is
considering
all
facilities
to
which
section
316(
b)
applies
and
that
are
not
regulated
under
Phases
I
or
II.
As
discussed
above,
Phase
I
applies
to
all
new,
land­
based
facilities,
and
Phase
II
applies
to
existing
utility
and
nonutility
electric
power
producers
that
have
design
intake
flows
of
at
least
50
MGD
and
meet
other
applicability
criteria.
Thus,
a
Phase
III
regulation
could
apply
to
a
wide
range
of
existing
facilities
such
as
new
coastal
and
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
and
new
offshore
LNG
terminals.
(
For
purposes
of
this
report,
facilities
that
are
potentially
subject
to
a
Phase
III
rule
are
identified
as
"
Phase
III
facilities")

EPA
anticipates
that
a
majority
of
Phase
III
facilities
will
fall
into
the
following
major
categories
of
economic
activity:
electricity
producers
with
design
intake
flows
less
than
50
MGD;
industrial
chemicals;
pulp
&
paper;
primary
metals
(
iron
and
steel,
aluminum);
and
petroleum
refining.

EPA
conducted
a
questionnaire
survey
of
these
major
industrial
sectors.
Using
standard
methods
of
survey
estimation,
EPA
is
able
to
estimate
the
national
population
of
facilities
in
these
industrial
sectors
that
may
potentially
be
affected
by
a
phase
III
rule,
and
the
number
of
these
which
are
owned
by
small
entities
(
Table
5­
1).

EPA
has
not
yet
completed
analysis
of
survey
data
for
the
new
offshore
facilities
that
could
potentially
be
subject
to
the
Phase
III
rule,
and
therefore
cannot
at
present
estimate
the
number
of
such
facilities
owned
by
small
entities.
However,
based
on
experience
with
effluent
guidelines
for
the
Oil
&
Gas
Extraction
category
and
other
recent
research,
EPA
currently
believes
that
a
great
majority
of
the
owner­
entities
in
this
category
are
large
businesses.
Conversely,
research
and
preliminary
survey
analysis
suggest
that
the
majority
of
potentially
in­
scope
seafood
processing
vessels
may
be
owned
by
small
entities
that
are
geographically
concentrated
in
Alaska
and
Washington.
However,
a
substantial
number
of
the
largest
vessels
are
owned
by
three
large
businesses.
Page
13
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Table
5­
1.
Estimated
Number
of
Phase
III
Facilities
Owned
by
Small
and
Large
Firms
(
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration),
and
estimated
design
intake
flow
Total
Design
Flow
(
MGD)
Small
Firm
Large
Firm
Industry
Group
Design
Flow
Range
Electric
Generators
(
n
=
121)
2
­
10
MGD
192
7
33
10
­
20
MGD
449
27
20
­
50
MGD
1,807
10
44
50
­
250
MGD
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
>
250
MGD
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
Electric
Generators
All
Design
Flows
2,448
17
104
Manufacturers
(
n
=
630)
2
­
10
MGD
892
24
133
10
­
20
MGD
1,380
21
69
20
­
50
MGD
6,513
21
183
50
­
250
MGD
12,967
12
131
>
250
MGD
23,116
36
Manufacturers
All
Design
Flows
44,868
78
552
Chemicals
All
Design
Flows
11,608
13
170
Metals
All
Design
Flows
9,301
16
82
Pulp
and
Paper
All
Design
Flows
14,891
38
214
Petroleum
Refining
All
Design
Flows
3,135
2
34
Other
*
All
Design
Flows
5,934
9
52
All
Industries
(
n=
751)
All
Design
Flows
47,316
95
656
*
This
is
not
an
estimate
of
affected
facilities
in
other
industries,
it
merely
represents
surveyed
facilities
that
were
thought
to
be
in
one
of
the
four
industries
selected
for
survey,
but
which
identified
their
primary
business
as
other
than
one
of
the
four
industries
surveyed.
Page
14
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
6.
SUMMARY
OF
SMALL
ENTITY
OUTREACH
6.1
Pre­
Panel
Outreach
EPA
conducted
numerous
outreach
activities
during
the
development
of
the
original
industry
survey
(
1998­
1999).
Although
this
outreach
was
conducted
primarily
to
obtain
feedback
on
the
survey
and
questionnaires
in
connection
with
an
information
collection
request,
it
also
made
widely
known
the
Agency's
plans
to
develop
regulations
implementing
section
316(
b)
and
it
resulted
in
numerous
communications
with
potentially
affected
firms
and
industry
associations.

During
this
time,
EPA
conducted
outreach
with
a
variety
of
industrial
groups,
including
American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute,
American
Petroleum
Institute,
American
Chemistry
Council
(
formerly
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association),
Edison
Electric
Institute,
and
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(
EPRI),
and
environmental
groups
including:
Hudson
Riverkeepers,
New
York/
New
Jersey
Baykeeper,
Widener
University
School
of
Law
(
Delaware
Baykeepers),
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.

Further
outreach
was
conducted
in
2003,
in
connection
with
the
information
collection
request
for
the
2003
survey
of
oil
&
gas
extraction
facilities
and
seafood
processing
vessels.
In
conjunction
with
this
ICR
effort,
EPA
has
coordinated
extensively
with
the
International
Association
of
Drilling
Contractors
and
the
National
Food
Processors
Association
among
others
(
Table
6­
1).

Table
6­
1.
Industry
Organization
Representatives
Consulted
Regarding
the
2003
Survey
Organization
Point
of
Contact
Contact
Info.

Pacific
Coast
Federation
of
Fishermen's
Associations
and
Institute
for
Fisheries
Resources
Dr.
Zeke
Grader
fish4ifr@
aol.
com
Pacific
Coast
Federation
of
Fishermen's
Associations
Glen
H.
Spain
(
541)
689­
2000
National
Food
Processors
Association
Rick
Jarman
rjarmin@
nfpa­
food.
org
National
Fisheries
Institute
Bob
Colette
703­
524­
8880
x232
American
Fishermen's
Research
Foundation
and
Western
Fishboat
Owners
Association
Wayne
Heikkila
(
707)
443­
1098
At­
Sea
Processors
Association
(
APA)
Trevor
McCabe
(
907)
276­
8252
International
Association
of
Drilling
Contractors
Alan
Spackman
(
281)
578­
7171
Western
State
Petroleum
Association
(
WSPA)
Suzanne
R.
Noble
805­
966­
7113
Mineral
Management
Service
Dr.
Kay
Marano
Briggs
703­
787­
1646
Offshore
Operators'
Committee
Kent
Satterlee
III
504­
728­
4143
Page
15
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
As
part
of
the
outreach
efforts,
the
Agency
developed
a
web
site
to
provide
access
to
the
latest
status
and
information
on
the
section
316(
b)
rulemaking,
which
may
be
viewed
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ost/
316b.

The
outreach
activities
described
above
did
not
specifically
target
small
entities,
but
the
associations
involved
have
many
small
entities
as
members.
EPA
began
outreach
targeted
at
small
entities
in
August
2002,
held
a
first
outreach
meeting
for
small
entities
on
October
1,
2002,
and
held
a
second
(
pre­
panel)
outreach
meeting
on
January
22,
2004.

In
August
and
September
2002,
EPA
identified
25
small
entities
among
the
respondents
to
the
2000
survey
of
electric
generators
and
manufacturers,
and
attempted
to
contact
all
of
them.
EPA
also
tried
to
contact
another
21
firms
that
might
be
small
entities
but
whose
status
required
research
and
inquiry,
leading
to
identification
of
two
more
small
entities.
Upon
direct
inquiry
and
review,
some
firms
thought
to
be
small
entities
were
found
to
be
large
entities
and
some
facilities
would
not
be
subject
to
a
Phase
III
rule,
leaving
21
small
entities.
These
small
entities
were
sent
brief
descriptions
of
the
Phase
III
rulemaking,
the
small
business
advocacy
review
process,
and
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
SERs
(
Appendix
A).
Those
expressing
interest
in
either
the
outreach
meeting
or
the
rulemaking
were
sent
the
background
document
identified
in
Appendix
A,
describing
the
Phase
III
rulemaking.

A
summary
of
the
outreach
meeting
held
October
1,
2002
appears
in
Appendix
B
and
comments
received
after
that
meeting
appear
in
Appendix
C.
Following
this
meeting,
the
deadline
for
signature
of
the
Phase
III
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
was
extended
and
EPA
decided
to
delay
the
Phase
III
panel
process
in
order
to
focus
resources
on
completing
Phase
II
rulemaking.
Preparation
for
the
Phase
III
Panel
was
resumed
about
a
year
later.

EPA
also
contacted
industry
associations
with
a
request
that
they
identify
potential
small
entity
representatives.
These
included
the
American
Public
Power
Association,
National
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Association,
American
Municipal
Power
­
Ohio,
Minnesota
Municipal
Utilities
Association,
Electric
Power
Supply
Association,
American
Chemistry
Council,
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association,
National
Petrochemical
and
Refiners
Association,
American
Petroleum
Institute,
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association,
American
Iron
&
Steel
Institute,
International
Association
of
Drilling
Contractors,
Offshore
Operators
Committee,
At­
Sea
Processors
Association,
and
the
National
Food
Processors
Association.

EPA
held
a
pre­
panel
outreach
meeting
for
potential
SERs
on
January
22,
2004,
and
provided
the
materials
listed
in
Appendix
A.
These
included
a
revised
background
document,
examples
of
regulatory
costs
under
a
hypothetical
set
of
regulatory
requirements,
and
an
analysis
of
costs
and
benefits
developed
by
the
Small
Business
Administration.
A
summary
of
that
meeting
appears
in
Appendix
B
and
comments
resulting
from
the
meeting
appear
in
Appendix
C.
Page
16
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
6.2
Panel
Outreach
The
Panel
was
convened
on
February
27,
2004.
The
Panel
held
an
outreach
meeting
and
telephone
conference
for
SERs
on
March
16,
2004.
Materials
were
provided
to
SERs
in
advance
of
the
meeting
(
Appendix
A).
Appendix
B
lists
the
people
attending
and
provides
notes
on
the
verbal
comments
of
Panel
members
and
SERS
attending
the
meeting.
Page
17
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
7.
LIST
OF
SMALL
ENTITY
REPRESENTATIVES
(
SERs)

Industry
Business
or
Municipality
Representative
Electric
Generators
Municipal
City
of
Dover
(
Dover
Light
&
Power)
116
East
Third
St.
Dover,
OH
44622
David
G.
Borland
(
Superintendent)
330­
343­
3442
dborland@
doverohio.
com
Municipal
Richmond
Power
and
Light
P.
O.
Box
908
Richmond,
IN
47375
Bob
Crye
(
Superintendent)
765­
973­
7215
bobc@
RP­
L.
com
Municipal
Henderson
Municipal
Power
&
Light
419
N.
Water
St.
Henderson,
KY
42419
Wayne
Thompson
270­
826­
2726
WThompson@
hmpl.
net
Municipal
Village
Of
Winnetka
510
Green
Bay
Road
Winnetka,
IL
60093
Jeffrey
M.
Pietka
847­
716­
3601
jpietka@
winnetka.
org
Municipal
Crawfordsville
Electric
Light
&
Power
Co
PO
Box
428
Crawfordsville,
IN
47933­
0428
Steve
Gillan
(
Environment,
Safety
and
Training
Coordinator)
765­
362­
1900
steveg@
celp.
com
Municipal
Iola
Electric
Department
1220
West
54
Hwy.
Iola,
KS
66749
Steven
D.
Robb
620­
365­
4950
powerplt@
iolaks.
com
(
continued
on
next
page)
Page
18
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Industry
Business
or
Municipality
Representative
Manufacturers
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products
NYCOA
333
Sundial
Avenue
Manchester,
NH
03103­
7230
http://
www.
nycoa.
net/
John
Pollono
603­
627­
5150
ext
18
JPollono@
nycoa.
net
Paper
and
Allied
Products
Oconto
Falls
Tissue,
Inc.
2079­
A
Lawrence
Drive
De
Pere,
WI
54115
Jim
Kellam
920­
983­
8379
JimK@
GBonline.
com
Steel
North
American
Stainless
­
Ghent
6870
Highway
42
East
Ghent,
KY
41045
Steve
Shaver
502­
347­
6000
SShaver@
northamericanstainless.
com
Steel
Bayou
Steel
Corporation
P.
O.
Box
5000
La
Place,
LA
70069­
5000
Wendy
Stehling
985­
652­
0322
WendyS@
bayousteel.
com
Paper
and
Allied
Products
Mohawk
Paper
Mills,
Inc.
PO
Box
497
Cohoes,
NY
12047
George
Milner
518­
233­
6205
MilnerG@
mohawkpaper.
com
Petroleum
and
Coal
Products
Countrymark
Cooperative,
Inc.
225
S
East
St
Indianapolis,
IN
Donald
Horning
812­
838­
8133
Horning@
countrymark.
com
Paper
and
Allied
Products
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corp.
PO
Box
3170
Port
Townsend,
WA
98368
Eveleen
Muehlethaler
360­
379­
2112
EveleenM@
ptpc.
com
Page
19
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Associations
Supporting
Small
Entities
(
these
are
not
SERs)

Description
Organization
or
Association
Contact
Person
"
APPA
is
the
service
organization
for
the
nation's
more
than
2,000
local
publicly
owned
electric
utilities."
APPA
represents
a
number
of
publicly
owned
electric
utilities
that
may
be
subject
to
a
Phase
III
rule.
American
Public
Power
Association
2301
M
Street,
NW
Washington,
DC
20037
Teresa
Pugh
202­
467­
2943
tpugh@
appanet.
org
"
The
National
Petrochemical
and
Refiners
Association
(
NPRA)
represents
almost
500
companies,
including
virtually
all
U.
S.
refiners
and
petrochemical
manufacturers."
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
(
NPRA)
1899
L
Street,
N.
W.,
Suite
1000
Washington,
D.
C.
20036­
3896
Tom
Wigglesworth
202­
457­
0480
tom_
wigglesworth@
npra
dc.
org
"
The
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA)
is
the
national
trade
association
of
the
forest,
pulp,
paper,
paperboard
and
wood
products
industry."
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
1111
19th
St
NW
Washington
DC
20036
Meg
McCarthy
202­
463­
2700
meg_
mccarthy@
afandpa.
org
Jerry
Schwartz
jerry_
schwartz@
AFandPA.
o
rg
Page
20
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
8.
SUMMARY
OF
COMMENTS
FROM
SMALL
ENTITY
REPRESENTATIVES
List
of
Written
Comments
from
Small
Entity
Representatives
Name
Organization
Date
Received
Pages
Small
Entity
Comments
Received
after
Panel
Outreach
Meeting
of
March
16,
2004
David
G.
Borland
(
Superintendent)
Dover
Municipal
Light
Plant
303
East
Broadway
Dover,
OH
44622
April
13,
2004
5
Donald
M.
Horning
(
Regulatory
Compliance
Manager)
Countrymark
Cooperative,
Inc.
1200
Refinery
Road
Mt.
Vernon,
IN
47620
March
31,
2004
3
Eveleen
Muehlethaler
(
Vice
President)
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
100
Paper
Mill
Hill
Road
Port
Townsend,
WA
98368
March
30,
2004
3
Wendy
Stehling
Bayou
Steel
Corporation
La
Place,
LA
70069
March
30,
2004
2
John
Pollono
NYCOA
333
Sundial
Avenue
Manchester,
NH
03103­
7230
March
30,
2004
1
Small
Entity
Comments
Received
after
Pre­
Panel
Outreach
Meeting
of
January
22,
2004
David
G.
Borland
(
Superintendent)
Dover
Municipal
Light
Plant
303
East
Broadway
Dover,
OH
44622
February
6,
2004
5
Bob
Crye
(
Superintendent)
Richmond
Power
&
Light
2000
U.
S.
27
South
Richmond,
Indiana
47374
February
5,
2004
2
Donald
M.
Horning
(
Regulatory
Compliance
Manager)
Countrymark
Cooperative,
Inc.
1200
Refinery
Road
Mt.
Vernon,
IN
47620
February
6,
2004
2
Eveleen
Muehlethaler
(
Vice
President)
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
100
Paper
Mill
Hill
Road
Port
Townsend,
WA
98368
February
6,
2004
3
Small
Entity
Comments
Received
after
Pre­
Panel
Outreach
Meeting
of
October
1,
2002
Steven
D.
Robb
Iola
Electric
Department
1220
West
54
Hwy.
Iola,
KS
66749
October
23,
2002
1
Page
21
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
This
summary
encompasses
comments
from
both
pre­
panel
outreach
and
the
Panel
outreach.
Some
small
entity
representatives
(
SERs),
in
their
comments
provided
after
the
Panel
outreach
meeting,
assumed
that
their
pre­
panel
comments
would
be
taken
into
account
by
the
Panel.
Panel
representatives
were
present
and
introduced
to
SERs
at
the
January
22
pre­
panel
outreach
meeting
and
SERs
were
assured
at
that
meeting
that
their
comments
would
be
considered.
Dover
Light
and
Power
submitted
its
comments
on
April
13th
as
"
additional
comments"
to
those
"
previously
submitted."
Port
Townsend
Paper,
in
its
March
30th
comment,
stated
that
"
The
opinions
expressed
in
our
previous
comments
[
of
February
6th]
still
apply,
but
Port
Townsend
paper
would
like
to
emphasize
some
of
the
points
we
made
in
the
past,
and
to
highlight
some
concerns
that
have
recently
been
brought
to
our
attention."
This
summary
is
focused
on
comments
submitted
after
the
Panel
outreach
meeting,
but
the
complete
text
of
all
small
entity
comments
was
reviewed
and
is
included
in
the
Appendix.

8.1
Number
and
Types
of
Entities
Affected
Comments
from
Dover
Light
&
Power
(
Dover,
Ohio)
point
to
considering
the
impacts
on
local
economies
of
regulating
small
municipal
power
plants.
Dover
Light
&
Power
contributes
substantially
to
the
local
and
regional
economy
and
noted
that
more
than
90%
of
public
power
systems
serve
communities
of
less
than
50,000
population
and
more
than
95%
have
fewer
than
20
employees.
Dover
Light
and
Power
submitted,
as
a
comment,
material
provided
to
Dover
by
its
industry
trade
association,
the
American
Public
Power
Association
(
APPA).
APPA
estimates
that
approximately
50
member
utilities
may
be
subject
to
a
Phase
III
rule
and
that
about
90%
of
these
may
be
small
entities.

8.2
Potential
Reporting,
Record
Keeping,
and
Compliance
Requirements
SERs
agreed
generally
that
costs
of
the
sort
projected
by
EPA
could
impose
a
significant
financial
burden
on
small
businesses,
and
could
impose
especially
large
burdens
in
certain
industries.
In
particular,
Port
Townsend
Paper
and
Bayou
Steel
noted
that,
in
their
respective
industries,
the
economic
and
financial
climate
has
been
especially
severe
over
the
past
3­
5
years.

SERs
commented
on
the
level
of
projected
costs
of
conducting
demonstration
studies
and
verification
monitoring,
and
their
need
to
hire
consultants
in
order
to
satisfy
such
reporting
requirements.
They
encouraged
EPA
to
find
ways
to
reduce
the
cost
of
studies,
monitoring,
reporting
and
record­
keeping,
such
as
using
an
intake
flow
capacity
threshold
for
applicability,
identifying
conditions
under
which
installation
&
proper
operation
of
an
approved
technology
could
satisfy
rule
requirements
without
demonstration
studies
and
verification
monitoring,
and/
or
identifying
conditions
under
which
technology­
based
standards
could
be
applied
rather
than
performance
standards
for
I&
E
reduction.
Page
22
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
SER
comments
on
compliance
costs
were
generally
coupled
with
suggestions
that
EPA
should
consider
thresholds
for
applicability
(
see
below)
that
would
exempt
many
low­
flow
facilities
from
Phase
III
requirements,
and
suggestions
that
EPA
consider
designating
approved
technologies
without
further
requirements
for
demonstration
studies
and
verification
monitoring.

SERs
specifically
mentioned
reporting
and
record­
keeping
costs
associated
with
permit
application,
environmental
studies,
verification
monitoring,
and
reporting
requirements,
and
noted
that
these
costs
(
if
they
remained
comparable
to
costs
reported
in
the
outreach
materials,
which
illustrated
the
application
of
Phase
II
requirements
to
Phase
III
facilities)
can
equal
or
exceed
technology
costs.

Dover
Light
and
Power
and
Richmond
Power
and
Light,
both
municipal
power
plants,
noted
that
compliance
costs
estimated
by
EPA
for
a
facility
with
a
small
design
capacity
are
significant
for
small
communities
and
utilities.
Dover
Light
&
Power
commented
that
the
cost
estimated
by
EPA
would
have
a
substantial
economic
impact
on
a
small
system
with
a
very
limited
customer
base,
and
that
EPA's
projected
costs
for
verification
monitoring
(
based
on
the
Phase
II
rule)
would
be
inordinately
burdensome
for
small
municipal
utilities.

Port
Townsend
Paper
commented
that
costs
as
estimated
by
EPA
would
impose
a
substantial
financial
burden
on
small
businesses
such
as
Port
Townsend
Paper,
which
faces
significant
economic
challenges
because
of
the
recent
US
economic
slump,
shifting
markets,
and
a
weak
global
economy.
Despite
a
recent
upturn
in
global
and
domestic
markets,
Port
Townsend
has
yet
to
see
significant
improvement
in
their
line
of
business.
They
noted
that
estimated
permitting,
monitoring
and
reporting
costs
for
a
facility
such
as
theirs
were
considerably
greater
than
the
capital
costs
and
operating
costs
of
the
technologies
used
to
minimize
environmental
impact.

Dover
Light
&
Power
commented
that
EPA
may
not
have
fully
considered
costs
for
installing
new
equipment
and
its
operation
and
maintenance
and
the
higher
level
of
staffing
needed
(
with
associated
wages
&
benefits).
In
its
comment,
Dover
submitted
information
from
the
American
Public
Power
Association
which
expands
on
Dover's
concerns.
APPA
believes
it
likely
that
downtime
for
retrofitting
may
last
1­
3
months
and
that
this
may
have
a
disproportionate
impact
on
smaller
utilities
that
have
only
one
generation
source
and
one
intake.
The
utility
would
have
to
purchase
power,
resulting
in
an
increased
cost
and
potentially
a
rate
increase
to
consumers.

In
a
comment
submitted
by
Dover
Light
and
Power,
the
APPA
states
that
many
types
of
I&
E
controls
may
not
be
realistic
at
older
facilities
because
of
limited
space
for
new
construction.
APPA
stated
that
it
is
aware
of
State
decisions
against
installing
control
equipment
because
of
the
very
limited
land
available
to
the
utility.

Several
SERs
expressed
a
concern
about
leaves
and
other
debris
obstructing
intake
screens.
This
is
now
a
seasonal
problem
that
is
manageable
at
their
facilities,
but
it
does
require
staff
time.
Page
23
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Retrofitting
these
intakes
to
decrease
the
through­
screen
velocity
or
to
install
fine­
mesh
screens
at
the
shoreline
could
increase
the
time
and
effort
needed
to
clear
debris.
This
consideration
might
limit
the
range
of
technologies
that
are
economically
feasible
for
facilities
with
a
small
staff
and
budget.

8.3
Related
Federal
Rules
In
comments
provided
after
a
pre­
panel
outreach
meeting
on
January
22,
2004,
Richmond
Power
&
Light
remarked
that
reliability
(
of
electric
power)
could
be
affected.
This
comment
presumably
refers
to
reliability
at
a
local
level.
SERs
have
not
identified
any
adverse
impacts
upon
energy
prices
or
supply
at
a
national
level.

8.4
Regulatory
Flexibility
Alternatives
SERs
generally
favor
balancing
considerations
of
cost
and
benefit
when
evaluating
regulatory
alternatives,
and
see
the
need
for
national
regulation
only
for
situations
or
conditions
in
which
harm
is
likely
or
can
be
demonstrated.

Delayed
Implementation;
Flexibility
in
Timing
of
Implementation
Some
SERs
suggested
that
it
is
desirable
to
allow
for
delayed
implementation
by
small
entities
when
this
would
avoid
an
undue
financial
impact.
Comments
from
Dover
Light
and
Power
(
see
above)
suggest
that
EPA
may
have
underestimated
the
downtime
required
for
retrofitting
at
small
power
plants.

Thresholds
for
Applicability
SERs
commented
generally
in
favor
of
an
intake
flow
threshold
for
applicability
of
national
requirements.
Below
such
a
threshold,
Phase
III
facilities
would
be
excluded
from
national
requirements
and
instead
would
be
subject
to
case­
by­
case
determinations
by
permitting
authorities
using
best
professional
judgement
as
to
the
best
technology
available.
These
particular
small
entities
have
plants
with
small­
capacity
intakes
(
between
1
and
20
MGD)
and
generally
recommended
thresholds
above
the
design
intake
flow
of
their
plants.
These
SER
comments
appeal
to
the
relatively
small
quantity
of
water
used
nationwide
below
various
capacity
thresholds,
the
comparatively
high
cost
per
gallon
of
water
of
controlling
I&
E
at
small­
capacity
intakes,
and
either
the
absence
of
evidence
for
adverse
impacts
or
the
small
numbers
of
fish
impinged
at
smallcapacity
intakes.

SER
comments
suggested
various
capacity
thresholds,
from
20
MGD
to
50
MGD,
with
the
possible
exception
of
special
situations
where
adverse
impact
can
reasonably
be
expected
(
e.
g.,
when
a
large
fraction
of
the
source
water
is
withdrawn).
SERs
reported
that,
to
their
knowledge,
Page
24
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
demonstrated
for
the
small­
capacity
intakes
that
they
are
familiar
with.

Approved
Technologies
Commentors
suggested
that
EPA
designate
a
number
of
alternative
approved
technologies.
Proper
installation
and
operation
of
these
technologies
would
then
either
constitute
compliance,
or
use
of
an
approved
technology
would
greatly
reduce
the
requirements
for
information
collection
and
reporting
that
were
adopted
for
the
Phase
II
rule.
Countrymark
Cooperative
Petroleum
Refinery
suggested
that
EPA
identify
intake
structures
with
designs
less
likely
to
contribute
to
I&
E,
and
that
such
designs
should
not
have
additional
or
new
requirements.
Several
SERs
commented
on
the
need
for
designs
that
minimize
accumulation
of
debris,
that
are
easy
to
clean,
and
that
require
less
frequent
maintenance.

For
those
facilities
that
would
be
within
scope
of
a
Phase
III
rule,
Port
Townsend
Paper
recommended
providing
a
suite
of
technologies
(
approved
technologies)
designated
as
BTA
for
satisfying
the
performance
standards.
Facilities
installing
an
approved
technology
would
be
considered
in
compliance
and
would
not
be
subject
to
extensive
and
burdensome
application,
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements.
Port
Townsend
Paper
included
a
Phase
II
alternative,
maximum
through­
screen
velocity
of
0.5
ft/
sec,
as
one
of
their
recommended
alternatives.
This
SER
commented
"
Facilities
should
be
able
to
choose
how
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
rule
in
the
manner
that
best
suits
their
individual
circumstances."

Subcategorization
One
SER
recommended
identifying
industrial
subcategories
that
could
be
adversely
impacted
and
reducing
economic
burden
for
these
subcategories.

Design
Capacity
versus
Actual
Water
Use
SERs
questioned
the
merits
of
using
design
capacity,
rather
than
actual
water
use,
in
applicability
thresholds,
and
also
noted
some
complexities
of
determining
design
capacity
that
EPA
should
consider
(
e.
g.,
multiple
pumps
that
cannot
all
be
operated
simultaneously
because
other
factors
limit
the
intake's
capacity).

Port
Townsend
Paper
suggested
that
actual
water
withdrawal
rather
than
design
capacity
is
a
more
appropriate
basis
for
an
applicability
threshold.
Many
facilities
may
have
lower
intake
and
discharge
flows
as
a
permit
condition
or
because
they
do
not
or
cannot
use
the
entire
design
capacity.
An
applicability
threshold
based
on
design
capacity
rather
than
actual
water
use
may
penalize
facilities
for
conserving
water.
Bayou
Steel
also
recommended
that
thresholds
for
Page
25
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
applicability
of
requirements
should
be
based
upon
actual
average
water
intake
rather
than
design
capacity.

Dover
Light
&
Power
noted
that
their
intake
structure
is
designed
for
12,000
GPM,
while
the
capacity
of
all
three
pumps
(
6,000
GPM
per
pump)
is
18,000
gPM,
and
only
two
pumps
are
used
at
any
given
time.

Environmental
Benefits
vs.
Costs;
Need
for
New
Requirements
SERs
generally
favored
balancing
considerations
of
cost
and
benefit
when
evaluating
regulatory
alternatives.
SERs
see
the
need
for
national
regulation
only
for
situations
or
conditions
in
which
environmental
harm
is
likely
or
can
be
demonstrated,
and
do
not
believe
that
new
regulations
are
needed
for
small­
capacity
intakes
unless
there
is
a
compelling
reason.
There
may
be
certain
intake
designs
or
locations
that
could
be
prohibited
or
encouraged.

Dover
Light
&
Power
commented
that
EPA's
projected
costs
would
be
inordinately
burdensome
for
small
municipal
utilities
and
that,
for
small
intakes,
these
expenses
cannot
be
justified
by
potential
benefits
to
the
environment.
They
observed
that
the
value
of
fish
saved
would
be
much
less
than
expenses
incurred
[
citing
a
report
provided
by
the
Small
Business
Administration]
for
intakes
with
less
than
20
MGD
design
capacity.
Dover
Light
&
Power
observed
that
these
economic
impacts
and
low
benefit­
cost
ratios
require
careful
consideration,
especially
as
new
requirements
would
affect
a
system
having
a
very
minor
impact
on
the
fish
population
in
the
Tuscarawas
River.
Dover
Light
&
Power
studied
fish
impingement
mortality
in
1988­
89,
and
found
low
numbers
of
impinged
fish,
with
about
85%
of
these
being
gizzard
shad
no
larger
than
1
oz.,
many
of
them
impinged
because
of
a
cold
weather
event
and
which
might
have
died
in
any
event.

Port
Townsend
Paper
recommended
that
EPA
should
focus
on
facilities
having
a
reasonable
likelihood
of
causing
adverse
environmental
impact
(
AEI).
This
could
be
done
by
establishing
one
or
more
applicability
thresholds
and
exempting
facilities
that
do
not
exceed
those
thresholds.
The
authority
to
seek
additional
studies
or
impose
additional
requirements
should
be
appropriately
limited.
EPA
should
consider
regulating
only
impingement,
not
entrainment,
under
appropriate
circumstances.
They
cited
an
EPRI
report
which
suggested
that
entrainment
may
pose
a
low
risk
of
AEI
in
many
circumstances.
EPA
should
investigate
costs
and
benefits
of
alternative
thresholds.

Port
Townsend
Paper
is
concerned
about
a
possible
requirement
to
reduce
both
impingement
and
entrainment
for
all
intakes
on
tidal
rivers,
estuaries
and
oceans.
Port
Townsend
paper
states
that
its
intake
does
not
withdraw
from
a
biologically
rich
water.

Countrymark
Cooperative
Petroleum
Refinery
has
an
intake
structure
that
they
feel
does
not
generally
cause
impingement
and
does
not
merit
new
requirements:
"
The
cooling
water
intake
Page
26
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
structure
is
mounted
within
a
permanent
barge
structure
and
consists
of
[
a]
submerged
basin
with
passive
water
inlet
holes."
...
"
With
this
design,
direct
impingement
does
not
generally
occur."
...
"
Countrymark
feels
that
our
current
water
intake
structure
design
minimizes
impingement
and
entrainment.
It
is
our
opinion
that
no
further
upgrades
are
warranted."
Page
27
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
9.
PANEL
FINDINGS
AND
DISCUSSION
The
Panel's
findings
and
discussion
are
based
upon
information
that
was
available
at
the
time
this
report
was
drafted.
EPA
is
continuing
to
develop
and
refine
analyses
relevant
to
the
proposed
rule.
Any
recommendations
that
the
Panel
makes
regarding
regulatory
alternatives
for
reducing
the
rule's
impact
on
small
entities
may
require
further
analysis
and
modification
to
ensure
that
they
are
practicable,
enforceable,
environmentally
sound,
and
consistent
with
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
other
applicable
law.

9.1
Number
and
Types
of
Entities
Affected
The
number
and
types
of
entities
potentially
affected
by
a
Phase
III
rule
are
discussed
under
Section
5.
The
Panel
makes
recommendations
below
under
Section
9.5
in
connection
with
SER
comments
(
Section
8.1)
on
this
subject.

9.2
Potential
Reporting,
Record
Keeping,
and
Compliance
Requirements
Materials
provided
to
SERs
by
EPA
presented
examples
of
the
potential
cost
of
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Phase
II
rule,
including
technology­
related
costs
(
capital,
operation
&
maintenance)
and
costs
related
to
reporting
and
record­
keeping
(
e.
g.,
comprehensive
demonstration
study,
verification
monitoring).

SERs
suggested
that
the
costs
projected
by
EPA
could
impose
a
significant
financial
burden
on
some
small
businesses,
especially
in
certain
industries.
For
example,
as
noted
by
Port
Townsend
Paper
and
Bayou
Steel,
the
financial
burden
could
be
particularly
significant
in
their
respective
industries,
which
have
experienced
an
especially
severe
economic
and
financial
climate
over
the
past
3­
5
years.

There
was
general
agreement
among
SERs
that
the
projected
costs
of
conducting
demonstration
studies
and
verification
monitoring
were
substantial
and
would
likely
impose
a
significant
burden,
particularly
as
most
small
entities
would
need
to
hire
outside
consultants
in
order
to
satisfy
these
requirements.
They
also
questioned
whether
the
environmental
impacts
associated
with
their
relatively
small
cooling
water
withdrawals
warranted
the
estimated
study
costs.
They
encouraged
EPA
to
find
ways
to
minimize
the
costs
of
demonstration
studies,
monitoring,
reporting
and
record
keeping.

The
Panel
shares
this
concern
and
recommends
that
EPA
develop
regulatory
alternatives
that
minimize
these
types
of
costs.
For
example,
the
Phase
II
rule
included
a
pre­
approved
technology
option
that
allowed
facilities
to
avoid
the
demonstration
study
requirement
while
still
requiring
them
to
conduct
verification
monitoring
and
to
demonstrate
attainment
of
performance
standards.
In
Phase
II,
EPA
identified
only
one
technology
on
one
water
body
type
as
an
eligible
pre­
approved
technology
(
wedgewire
screens
in
freshwater
rivers
and
streams).
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
include
a
similar
provision
in
the
proposed
Phase
III
rule
and
explore
ways
Page
28
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
to
expand
the
availability
of
a
pre­
approved
technology
option
to
low­
flow
facilities
and/
or
identify
other
ways
to
reduce
the
associated
monitoring
and
study
costs.
One
promising
approach,
suggested
by
one
SER,
would
be
to
eliminate
the
verification
monitoring
requirement
for
low­
flow
facilities
that
install
and
properly
operate
an
approved
technology.

9.3
Related
Federal
Rules
The
Panel
did
not
identify
any
federal
rules
that
duplicate,
overlap,
or
conflict
with
the
proposed
Phase
III
rule.
Although
one
SER
expressed
concern
that
the
anticipated
Phase
III
requirements
might
adversely
impact
reliability
of
electric
power
generation,
which
could
implicate
Executive
Order
13211
relating
to
energy
effects,
the
Panel
does
not
find
this
to
be
the
case.
Based
on
the
analysis
conducted
for
the
Phase
II
rulemaking,
the
Panel
believes
that
the
rule
is
unlikely
to
have
a
significant,
adverse
impact
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy,
at
either
the
local
or
national
level.
The
Phase
II
rule
contained
substantial
flexibility
for
power
plants
and
permitting
authorities
to
work
together
to
minimize
the
potential
for
such
impacts,
and
the
Panel
recommends
that
similar
flexibility
be
provided
in
Phase
III.
Further,
the
total
amount
of
energy
generation
affected
by
Phase
III
is
estimated
to
be
only
about
10%
of
capacity
at
a
national
level.
In
contrast,
Phase
II
affected
about
half
of
national
generation
capacity.

9.4
Regulatory
Flexibility
Alternatives
The
SERs
suggested
a
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
for
reducing
the
impacts
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
that
the
Panel
believes
warrant
further
consideration,
as
discussed
below.

Delayed
Implementation
Dover
Light
and
Power
provided
comments
from
its
industry
trade
association,
the
American
Public
Power
Association
(
APPA),
recommending
that
implementation
of
the
Phase
III
rule
be
delayed
until
2010
in
order
to
allow
time
for
implementation
of
Phase
II
to
be
substantially
completed.
APPA
was
concerned
about
the
limited
number
of
consultants
with
sufficient
expertise
to
design
and
retrofit
cooling
water
intake
structures
for
316(
b)
compliance,
estimating
that
only
a
few
dozen
such
companies
nationally.
More
generally,
SERs
recommended
delayed
implementation
of
rule
requirements
to
ease
potential
financial
hardship
resulting
from
compliance
costs.

The
Panel
notes
that
significant
implementation
flexibility
was
included
in
the
Phase
II
rule.
Facilities
were
allowed
up
to
three
and
one
half
years
following
rule
promulgation
to
submit
their
initial
demonstration
study
and
related
application
materials.
The
rule
provides
that
downtime
for
technology
installation
should
be
scheduled
to
coincide
with
otherwise
necessary
downtime
and
that
additional
downtime
be
scheduled
to
minimize
impacts
on
electricity
reliability.
Further,
following
installation
of
control
technologies,
additional
time
was
allowed
to
adaptively
Page
29
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
manage
the
technologies
to
meet
performance
standards
in
response
to
changing
or
unpredictable
environmental
conditions.
The
Panel
recommends
that
this
level
of
flexibility
be
provided
for
Phase
III
requirements.
The
Panel
also
recommends
that
EPA
consider
the
availability
of
contractor
resources
as
it
develops
the
implementation
schedule
for
Phase
III.

Thresholds
for
Applicability
Most
SERs
recommended
an
applicability
threshold
in
the
range
of
20
to
50
MGD.
Under
this
approach,
facilities
that
fell
below
the
threshold
would
continue
to
be
regulated
on
an
individual
BPJ
basis
by
State
and
local
permitting
authorities,
but
would
not
be
subject
to
uniform
national
requirements.
These
SERs
noted
the
relatively
small
quantity
of
water
used
nationwide
below
various
capacity
thresholds,
the
comparatively
high
cost
per
gallon
of
water
of
controlling
impingement
and
entrainment
(
I&
E)
at
small­
capacity
intakes,
and
either
the
absence
of
evidence
for
adverse
impacts
or
the
small
numbers
of
fish
impinged
at
small­
capacity
intakes.
The
Panel
notes
that
in
some
cases,
even
small
intake
flows
could
cause
significant
adverse
environmental
impacts.
BPJ
based
permitting
decisions
would
be
able
to
address
such
situations
on
a
sitespecific
basis.

In
response
to
these
comments,
EPA
developed
additional
information
on
Phase
III
facilities
within
various
design
intake
flow
ranges,
under
the
assumption
that
they
were
required
to
comply
with
Phase
II
requirements.
This
information
included
design
intake
flow
(
DIF)
and
average
intake
flows
(
AIF),
for
all
facilities
and
for
only
those
incurring
technology
costs;
the
numbers
of
facilities
potentially
subject
to
either
impingement
and
entrainment
(
I&
E)
or
impingement­
only
(
I)
performance
standards;
and
average
revenues
and
costs
per
facility.
This
information
is
presented
in
Tables
1­
4
below
(
Section
9.5).

Based
on
these
preliminary
analyses
(
which
the
Panel
understands
may
need
to
be
further
refined
prior
to
final
development
of
a
proposed
rule),
the
Panel
notes
the
following:

!
Of
the
750
potentially
in­
scope
facilities,
319
(
43%)
have
DIFs
below
20
MGD,
and
these
facilities
account
for
6%
of
total
DIF
and
5%
of
total
AIF.
Of
these
319
facilities,
88
(
28%),
accounting
for
3%
of
total
DIF
and
AIF,
would
be
required
to
install
technology
to
reduce
I
and/
or
E,
at
an
average
annual
cost
of
about
$
238,000
per
facility
and
a
total
national
cost
of
$
21
million
per
year.
The
remaining
231
facilities
would
incur
permitting
and
monitoring
costs
only,
averaging
about
$
10,000
per
facility
per
year.
Total
costs
for
facilities
below
20
MGD
would
be
about
$
24
million
per
year,
or
about
11%
of
the
costs
for
all
facilities.
This
group
includes
53
out
of
95
potentially
impacted
small
entities
(
56%).

!
Of
the
750
potentially
in­
scope
facilities,
577
(
77%)
have
DIFs
below
50
MGD,
and
these
facilities
account
for
23%
of
total
DIF
and
30%
of
total
AIF.
Of
these
577
facilities,
191
(
33%),
accounting
for
12%
of
total
DIF
and
14%
of
total
AIF,
would
be
required
to
install
technology
to
reduce
I
and/
or
E,
at
an
average
annual
cost
of
about
$
355,000
per
Page
30
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
facility
and
a
total
national
cost
of
$
68
million
per
year.
The
remaining
386
facilities
would
incur
permitting
and
monitoring
costs
only,
averaging
about
$
15,000
per
facility
per
year.
Total
costs
for
facilities
below
50
MGD
would
be
about
$
74
million
per
year,
or
about
33%
of
the
costs
for
all
facilities.
This
group
includes
82
out
of
95
potentially
impacted
small
entities
(
86%).

Setting
an
applicability
threshold
at
20
MGD
would
thus
exclude
43%
of
potentially
inscope
facilities,
including
53%
of
small
entities,
that
collectively
account
for
11%
of
the
national
costs
but
only
5­
6%
of
flow,
which
the
Panel
used
as
a
proxy
for
expected
benefits.
Some
72%
of
the
excluded
facilities
are
not
projected
to
install
I&
E
reduction
technologies
but
would
still
incur
permitting
and
monitoring
costs
if
covered,
which
could
lead
to
improved
operation
of
currently
installed
technologies
in
some
cases.
Setting
an
applicability
threshold
at
50
MGD
would
exclude
77%
of
potentially
in­
scope
facilities,
including
86%
of
small
entities,
that
collectively
account
for
33%
of
the
national
costs
and
23­
30%
of
flow.
Some
67%
of
the
excluded
facilities
are
not
projected
to
install
I&
E
reduction
technologies
but
would
still
incur
permitting
and
monitoring
costs
if
covered.
Setting
a
threshold
at
either
level
would
remove
a
significant
number
of
potentially
impacted
small
entities
from
the
scope
of
the
rule.

Based
on
this
information,
the
Panel
believes
that
an
effective
way
to
substantially
reduce
potential
economic
impacts
on
small
businesses
would
be
to
set
an
applicability
threshold
of
20
MGD.
Facilities
below
20
MGD
represent
a
small
proportion
of
the
total
flow
associated
with
the
Phase
III
rulemaking.
To
the
extent
that
flow
is
a
good
proxy
for
environmental
impacts,
setting
a
threshold
at
this
level
would
not
substantially
reduce
the
environmental
benefits
of
the
rule.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
analyze
a
range
of
potential
thresholds,
particularly
those
between
20
MGD
and
50
MGD.

The
Panel
understands
that
EPA
must
consider
other
statutory
factors,
such
as
economic
achievability,
in
determining
appropriate
regulatory
requirements.
The
Panel
expects
that
EPA
would
analyze
the
economic
impacts
of
potential
regulatory
requirements
for
facilities
below
these
potential
thresholds
and
factor
this
analysis
into
the
choice
of
options
for
the
proposed
rule.
The
Panel
also
notes
that
EPA
has
already
established
requirements
under
Phase
II
that
apply
to
power
plants
with
DIFs
greater
than
or
equal
to
50
MGD.
In
general,
the
Panel
would
expect
technology
costs
and
environmental
benefits
to
be
similar
for
facilities
in
other
industries
with
DIFs
above
this
level.
Thus,
unless
EPA
finds
that
economic
achievability
is
a
significant
issue
for
some
other
industry
sector,
requirements
similar
to
Phase
II
for
facilities
with
DIFs
above
50
MGD
might
be
appropriate.
If
impacts
differ
substantially
across
sectors,
subcategorization
by
economic
sector
may
be
appropriate.
The
Panel
also
notes
that
few
small
entities
have
DIFs
that
exceed
50
MGD.

Finally,
the
Panel
notes
the
recommendation
by
some
SERs
that
regulatory
requirements
be
based
on
actual
flows,
rather
than
design
flows.
The
Panel
recognizes
the
implementation
challenges
associated
with
such
an
approach
(
e.
g.,
permits
might
need
to
be
reopened
if
usage
levels
changed)
but
believes
that
this
recommendation
nonetheless
merits
further
consideration.
Page
31
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
One
approach
would
be
to
allow
facilities
to
make
a
binding
commitment
not
to
exceed
a
particular
intake
flow
level
for
the
duration
of
the
permit.
This
would
be
similar
to
a
provision
in
the
Phase
II
rule
that
allowed
facilities
to
make
a
binding
commitment
not
to
exceed
15%
of
generation
capacity,
and
thus
be
subject
to
performance
standards
for
impingement
only.

9.5
Methodological
Issues
Dover
Light
and
Power
provided
comments
from
its
industry
trade
association,
American
Public
Power
Association,
that
raise
several
issues
regarding
EPA's
methodology
in
analyses
prepared
for
this
report.
First,
APPA's
estimate
of
facilities
potentially
subject
to
the
Phase
III
rule
differs
from
EPA's.
APPA
estimates
that
approximately
50
utilities
may
be
subject
to
a
Phase
III
rule
and
that
about
90%
of
these
may
be
small
entities.
EPA
estimates
that
approximately
121
electric
generators
may
be
subject
to
a
Phase
III
rule,
of
which
about
25
are
public
power
utilities
(
19
of
them
owned
by
small
entities).
The
difference
might
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
EPA
excluded
from
its
estimates
facilities
that
have
design
capacities
not
exceeding
2
MGD
and
any
facilities
not
subject
to
NPDES
permit
requirements.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
seek
further
information
from
APPA
and
attempt
to
reconcile
the
difference.
Secondly,
APPA
questions
whether
EPA
is
allowing
for
enough
down­
time
to
retrofit
an
intake.
APPA
believes
it
likely
that
a
public
power
system
would
experience
1­
3
months
of
down­
time
to
retrofit
an
intake
with
I&
E
controls,
owing
to
distance
from
metropolitan
centers
and
because
of
competition
with
larger
utilities
for
the
services
of
qualified
contractors.
EPA
estimates
2­
8
weeks
of
downtime
for
retrofitting,
and
anticipates
that
retrofitting
would
occur
during
down­
time
scheduled
for
regular
maintenance.
The
Panel
anticipates
that
the
Phase
III
rule
will
incorporate
flexible
implementation
provisions,
as
adopted
in
Phase
II,
which
should
be
sufficient
to
address
APPA's
concerns.
Nonetheless,
the
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
seek
further
information
from
APPA
to
identify
any
necessary
modifications
to
the
assumptions
used
for
its
cost
and
economic
impact
analyses
prepared
for
this
report.

Dover
OH
Light
&
Power
also
commented
that
EPA
may
not
have
fully
considered
all
relevant
compliance
costs
to
small
entities,
including
costs
for
installing
new
equipment
and
its
operation
and
maintenance
and
the
higher
level
of
staffing
needed
(
with
associated
wages
&
benefits).
With
respect
to
staffing,
Dover
noted
that
small
public
power
facilities
have
very
few
employees,
and
attached
supporting
comments
from
the
APPA
stating
that
the
public
power
facilities
likely
to
be
subject
to
a
Phase
III
rule
typically
have
fewer
than
20
employees.
In
light
of
this
information,
the
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
review
its
assumptions
used
to
develop
costs
and
economic
impacts
to
ensure
that
these
assumptions
are
appropriate
for
facilities
with
smaller
budgets
and
staffs.

The
APPA
comments
submitted
by
Dover
Light
&
Power
also
stated
that
older
facilities
may
not
be
able
to
adopt
many
types
of
I&
E
controls
because
of
limited
space
for
new
construction.
APPA
further
stated
that
it
is
aware
of
State
decisions
not
to
require
installation
of
control
equipment
because
of
the
very
limited
land
available
to
the
utility.
The
Panel
notes
that
Page
32
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
EPA's
costing
methodology
takes
into
account
such
space
limitations
by
calculating
the
cost
of
designing
and
building
either
an
expanded
shoreline
intake
or
a
submerged,
offshore
intake.
These
modifications
cost
more
than
simple
modifications
to
existing
intakes.
Page
33
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
9.6
Preliminary
Data
Analysis:
Tables
Page
34
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Table
1:
Average
Flows
for
Phase
III
Facilities
(
manufacturers
and
electric
generators)

Facility
Design
Intake
Flow
(
DIF)
Estimated
Number
of
Facilities
(
estim.
no.
owned
by
small
entities)
Design
Intake
Flow
(
DIF)**
Average
Intake
Flow
(
AIF)**

Estimated
Total
all
Facilities
(
MGD)
Percentage
of
Total
Estimated
Average
per
Facility
(
MGD)
Estimated
Total
all
Facilities
(
MGD)
Percentage
of
Total
Estimated
Average
per
Facility(
MGD)

2­
10
195
(
29)
986
2%
5
435
2%
2
10­
20
124
(
23)
1,758
4%
14
869
3%
7
20­
35
176
(
x)
*
4,715
10%
27
4,061
15%
23
35­
50
82
(
x)
*
3,419
7%
42
2,714
10%
33
50­
250
134
(
4)
13,209
28%
98
6,496
23%
48
250+
39
(
9)
23,151
49%
589
13,150
47%
335
Total
all
DIFs
750
(
95)
47,238
100%
27,725
100%

Owned
by
Small
Entities
(
all
DIFs)
95
4,014
8%
1,637
6%

This
table
applies
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
in
the
electric
generation
and
manufacturing
sectors
expected
to
be
subject
to
§
316(
b).
It
does
not
include
facilities
in
the
Oil
&
Gas
Extraction
category.
The
table
does
not
include
Phase
III
facilities
having
DIF
at
or
below
2
MGD;

these
account
for
an
estimated
126
facilities
(
9
electric
generators
and
117
manufacturers)
having
a
total
DIF
of
100
MGD
and
a
total
AIF
of
32
MGD.

*
There
are
28
small
entities
with
a
DIF
of
20
to
50
MGD.
This
group
of
facility
sizes
cannot
be
broken
out
further
without
compromising
individual
facility
information.

**
Phase
II
facilities
accounted
for
a
total
DIF
of
362,074
MGD
and
a
total
AIF
of
212,476
MGD.
Page
35
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Page
36
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Table
2:
Illustration
of
Applying
Technology
Requirements
for
the
Phase
II
Rule
to
Phase
III
Facilities
(
manufacturers
and
electric
generators)

Facility
Design
Intake
Flow
(
DIF)
Estimated
Number
of
Facilities
Performance
standards
required
(
when
Phase
II
requirements
are
applied)
Facilities
incurring
NO
technology
costs
(
when
Phase
II
requirements
are
applied)

I&
E
requirement
I­
only
requirement
Est
No.
of
Facilities
Median
P&
M
Cost
*

2­
10
195
38
281
230
$
2,366
10­
20
124
20­
35
176
15
161
108
$
2,366
35­
50
82
43
39
47
$
2,366
50­
250
134
66
107
61
$
2,366
250+
39
All
DIFs
750
162
588
446
$
2,366
Owned
by
Small
Entities
(
all
DIFs)
95
58
$
2,366
This
table
applies
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
in
the
electric
generation
and
manufacturing
sectors
expected
to
be
subject
to
§
316(
b).
It
does
not
include
facilities
in
the
Oil
&
Gas
Extraction
category.
The
table
does
not
include
Phase
III
facilities
having
DIF
at
or
below
2
MGD.

Approximately
406
facilities
that
would
not
incur
technology
capital
costs
would
incur
total
costs
of
$
2,366
for
permitting
and
monitoring.

Approximately
40
facilities
that
would
not
incur
technology
capital
costs
would
incur
an
average
of
$
60,449
for
permitting
and
monitoring.

*
The
median
permitting
and
monitoring
cost
(
P&
M)
is
provided
instead
of
the
average
P&
M
cost
to
avoid
disclosure
of
individual
facility
costs.
Page
37
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Table
3:
Illustration
of
Average
Revenues
and
Technology
Costs
for
Phase
III
Facilities
(
manufacturers
and
electric
generators)
when
Phase
II
Requirements
are
Applied
Facility
Design
Intake
Flow
(
DIF)
All
Facilities
Subset:
Facilities
incurring
technology
costs
(
when
Phase
2
requirements
are
applied)

Estimated
Number
of
Facilities
Average
Revenue
per
Facility*

($
million)
Total
National
Cost**

($
million)
No.
Facilities
Incurring
Technology
Costs
Average
Cost
per
Facility**
No.
facilities
with
I&
E
Requirement
No.
facilities
with
I­
only
Requirement
2­
10
195
$
222
M
$
14
M
42
$
291,942
30
58
10­
20
124
$
252
M
$
10
M
46
$
189,636
20­
35
176
$
321
M
$
41
M
68
$
566,090
40
63
35­
50
82
$
9
M
35
$
237,992
50­
250
134
$
482
M
$
35
M
90
$
383,348
48
65
250+
39
$
1592
M
$
112
M
23
$
4,801,258
All
DIFs
750
$
221
M
304
118
186
Owned
by
Small
Entities
(
all
DIFs)
95
$
86
M
$
10
36
$
284,425
This
table
applies
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
in
the
electric
generation
and
manufacturing
sectors
expected
to
be
subject
to
§
316(
b).
It
does
not
include
facilities
in
the
Oil
&
Gas
Extraction
category.
The
table
does
not
include
Phase
III
facilities
having
DIF
at
or
below
2
MGD.

*
Average
annual
revenues,
in
June
2003
dollars.

**
Approximate,
annualized,
pre­
tax
cost
to
comply
with
Phase
2
requirements,
in
2002
dollars.
Includes
permit
and
monitoring
costs.
Page
38
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Table
4:
Average
Flows
for
Phase
III
Facilities
(
manufacturers
and
electric
generators)
That
Incur
Technology
Capital
Costs
When
Phase
II
Requirements
are
Applied
Facility
Design
Intake
Flow
(
DIF)
Estimated
Number
of
Facilities
Subset:
Facilities
Incurring
Technology
Capital
Costs
Est.
No.
Facilities
Total
DIF
(
MGD)
Percent
of
DIF
Percent
of
Total
Industry
DIF
Total
AIF
(
MGD)
Percent
of
AIF
Percent
of
Total
Industry
AIF
2­
10
195
42
556
4%
1%
220
3%
1%

10­
20
124
46
961
7%
2%
451
6%
2%

20­
35
176
68
2,475
19%
5%
1,949
26%
7%

35­
50
82
35
1,981
15%
4%
990
13%
4%

50­
250
134
90
6,985
54%
15%
3,869
52%
14%

250+
39
23
Total
all
DIFs
750
304
12,959
100%
27%
7,479
100%
28%

Owned
by
Small
Entities
(
all
DIFs)
95
36
2,063
16%
4%
1,038
14%
4%

This
table
applies
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
in
the
electric
generation
and
manufacturing
sectors
expected
to
be
subject
to
§
316(
b).
It
does
not
include
facilities
in
the
Oil
&
Gas
Extraction
category.
The
table
does
not
include
Phase
III
facilities
having
DIF
at
or
below
2
MGD.
Page
39
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Appendix
A:
List
of
Materials
EPA
Shared
With
Small
Entity
Representatives
Pre­
Panel
Outreach
Pre­
panel
Outreach
meeting
held
October
1,
2002
1.
Background
Information
for
Potential
Small­
Entity
Representatives
on
EPA's
Rulemaking
Project
(
316b_
PhaseIII_
Background.
pdf)
2.
Information
on
intake
technologies
and
their
costs
(
ten
PDF
files)

After
the
outreach
meeting
held
October
1,
2002
3.
Powerpoint
slides
used
for
outreach
meeting
(
briefing­
background.
ppt)
4.
Summary
of
meeting
(
Mtg
Summary_
100102.
wpd)

Pre­
panel
outreach
meeting
held
January
22,
2004
1.
Background
Information
for
Potential
Small­
Entity
Representatives
on
EPA's
Rulemaking
Project
(
316b_
Phase3_
Background_
2004.
pDF)
2.
Cost
Examples
(
Example_
1.
pDF,
Example_
2.
pDF)
3.
Attachments
for
Cost
Examples
(
Table
2
Capital
Cost.
pdf,
Table
3­
4
cost
factor.
pdf,
Table
5­
6
OM.
pdf,
Table
7
ICR
costs.
pdf)

After
the
outreach
meeting
held
January
22,
2004
4.
Additional
table
for
background
document
showing
numbers
of
facilities
(
and
number
owned
by
small
entities)
by
intervals
of
design
intake
flow
(
Table_
H­
1_
SB_
flow.
pdf)
5.
Small
Business
Administration's
analysis
of
costs
and
benefits
of
some
regulatory
alternatives
(
PhaseIII
SBA
REPORT
Exec
Summary
1.9.04.
doc
and
PhaseIII
SBA
REPORT
1.9.04.
zip)
6.
Meeting
summary
(
Meeting
Notes
22jan04.
pDF)
7.
Suggestions
on
providing
comments
(
SER
Comment
guidance.
pdf)
8.
Information
about
the
compliance
alternatives
proposed
for
Phase
2
facility
cooling
water
intakes
(
Ch_
A1.
pDF)
Page
40
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Appendix
A
(
continued):
List
of
Materials
EPA
Shared
With
Small
Entity
Representatives
Panel
Outreach
Panel
outreach
meeting
held
March
16,
2004
1.
Letter
from
the
Panel
Chair
(
4
pages)

2.
Description
of
the
Phase
II
Final
Rule
(
10
pages)

3.
Examples
of
Estimated
Costs
of
Technologies
to
Small
Businesses
(
10
pages)

4.
What
regulatory
alternatives
might
be
considered
by
the
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
for
the
Phase
3
rulemaking
on
cooling
water
intake
structures?"
(
3
pages)

5.
Questions
and
Solicitation
of
Comments
for
Small
Entity
Representatives
for
EPA's
Proposed
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
(
3
pages)
Page
41
Final
Report
of
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel:
EPA
Rulemaking
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Phase
III
Appendix
B:
Summary
of
Outreach
Meetings
With
Small
Entity
Representatives
B.
1:
Summary
of
Panel
Outreach
Meeting
on
March
16,
2004
B.
2:
Summary
of
Pre­
panel
Outreach
Meeting
on
January
22,
2004
Page
42
Appendix
B.
1:
Summary
from
the
Panel's
Outreach
Meeting
with
Small
Entity
Representatives
on
March
16,
2004
Meeting
Participants:

Small
Entity
Representatives:

David
G.
Borland,
City
of
Dover
(
Dover
Light
&
Power),
Dover,
OH
Bob
Crye,
Richmond
Power
and
Light,
Richmond,
IN
Maria
Eichelberger,
North
American
Stainless,
Ghent,
KY
Eveleen
Muehlethaler,
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corp.,
Port
Townsend,
WA
Panel
Members:

Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA):
Represented
by
Thomas
M.
Sullivan,
Chief
Counsel,
Office
of
Advocacy
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB):
Represented
by
James
A.
Laity,
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA):
Represented
by
Mary
T.
Smith,
Division
Director,
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division,
Office
of
Water
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair,
EPA:

Alexander
Cristofaro,
EPA
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair
and
Director,
Office
of
Business
Regulatory
Policy
and
Management
Other
Participants:

U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA):
Keith
Holman,
Office
of
Advocacy,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
Joseph
Johnson,
Office
of
Advocacy,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Policy,
Economics
and
Innovation:
Patrick
Easter
Mindy
Gampel
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water:
Ghulam
Ali
Elicia
Blumberg
(
for
Tetra
Tech
Incorporated,
an
EPA
contractor)
George
Denning
Page
43
John
Fox
Paul
Shriner
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
General
Counsel:
Pooja
Parikh
Associations
supporting
small
entity
representatives:
Meg
McCarthy,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
Welcome
and
Introductions/
Words
from
the
SBREFA
Panel
Chair:
(
Mr.
Alexander
Cristofaro,
EPA
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair,
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation)

Mr.
Cristofaro
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
again
during
the
usual
rulemaking
process
following
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
process.
Mr.
Cristofaro
stated
that
EPA,
OMB
and
SBA
would
prepare
a
report
based
upon
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
being
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.

Mr.
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
(
Mr.
John
Fox,
Phase
III
Rulemaking
Manager,
EPA
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD))

Mr.
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.
Page
44
Question
and
Answer
Session/
Comments
from
Small
Entity
Representatives:
(
participants
were
called
upon
in
alphabetical
order
of
first
names).

Bob
Crye,
Richmond
Power
and
Light,
explained
that
they
are
a
small
utility
(
approximately
40
staff),
and
lack
an
environmental
department.
As
such,
Mr.
Crye
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
a
question
on
whether
the
costs
presented
in
the
outreach
materials
looked
high
or
low,
Mr.
Crye
replied
that
he
believed
they
may
be
high,
but
could
not
be
certain
as
his
utility
had
never
conducted
studies
or
gotten
price
quotes
for
this
purpose.
In
answer
to
other
questions,
Mr.
Crye
described
the
current
intake
configuration:
stationary
screens
located
in
the
center
of
Whitewater
River,
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.

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.
Mr.
Borland
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
kill
ocurred
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
Mr.
Crye
and
Mr.
Borland
agree
that
the
regulations
should
be
tailored
to
fit
the
needs
of
the
individual
facilities.
A
Panel
member
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,
although
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.
Mr.
Borland
was
asked
about
the
number
of
pumps,
and
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.
Ms.
Eveleen
Muehlethaler,
of
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
all
four
are
run,
the
intake
flow
would
be
Page
45
11
Clarification
inserted
by
editor
11
MGD,
though
normally
only
one
or
two
pumps
are
run,
which
reduces
that
number
significantly.

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
the
intake
is
designed
as
a
one
or
two
pump
system.
Because
they
don't
have
a
flow
meter,
Ms.
Muehlethaler
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
preferred
approach
would
be
an
approved
technology
that
could
be
considered
[
the
best
technology
available
based
on11]
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,
Ms.
Muehlethaler
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
crib
intake
design.
The
Port
Townsend
facility
has
not
experienced
major
debris
loading
­
the
crib
is
cleaned
approximately
once
every
8
years.
Ms.
Muehlethaler
reiterated
that
EPA
should
clarify
whether
DIF
would
be
based
on
actual
use
or
capacity.
Regarding
use
of
BPJ
in
permitting,
Ms.
Muehlethaler
generally
supports
the
idea
though
she
is
concerned
about
over­
zealous
permit
writers.
Finally
she
had
a
general
question
regarding
when
impingement
controls
would
be
required
as
opposed
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
controls.
Port
Townsend,
as
an
ocean
intake,
would
need
both
types
of
controls
[
if
Phase
III
requirements
came
to
resemble
those
of
the
Phase
II
rule11]
and
Ms.
Muehlethaler
does
not
understand
why
this
should
be
the
case.

A
Panel
member
responded
to
Eveleen's
concern
about
interpretations
of
permit
requirements.
He
explained
that
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
States
may
have
more
stringent
standards
than
national
standards.
If
EPA
issues
national
standards
in
Phase
III,
this
will
provide
a
default
for
permit
writers,
who
might
otherwise
vary
in
their
best
professional
judgement..
The
Panel
member
asked
Eveleen
whether
she
preferred
the
current
status
(
permit
writers
determining
requirements
independently
using
BPJ)
to
national
standards.
Eveleen
answered
that
she
preferred
a
blend:
EPA
guidelines
presenting
acceptable
technologies
would
be
her
first
choice.
A
Panel
member
asked
whether
Port
Townsend
had
current
protective
technologies
on
the
intakes;
Ms.
Muehlethaler
answered
that
the
structure
is
unchanged
from
the
last
century,
and
consists
of
barscreens
at
the
intake
crib
spaced
0.5
inches
apart.
The
Panel
member
also
asked
whether
the
1.5­
2
MGD
figure
referred
to
DIF
or
actual
intake.
Ms.
Muehlethaler
replied
that
this
was
a
question
of
definition:
with
four
pumps
it
was
11
MGD,
but
with
typical
operation,
only
up
to
2
MGD.
A
Panel
member
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.
The
Panel
member
asked
if
it
would
be
problematic
for
Ms.
Muehlethaler's
facility
if
the
rule
threshold
were
based
upon
Page
46
average
intake
of
2
MGD;
she
replied
that
they
would
need
to
purchase
monitoring
equipment.
The
flows
as
reported
are
calculated
flows.
Ms.
Muehlethaler
was
asked
if
the
facility
reused
cooling
water
for
processes.
She
explained
that
some
water
is
used
in
the
condensation
process
(
cooling
of
process
equipment),
so
she
would
need
clarification
on
what
constituted
cooling
water.

Maria
Eichelberger,
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.
Eichelberger
asked
about
the
role
of
cost
analyses
in
Phase
III.
Mr.
Fox
answered
that
the
cost
analyses
provided
to
SERs
represented
EPA's
estimates
of
costs
to
Phase
III
facilities
if
Phase
II
requirements
were
applied
to
them
and
that
cost
analyses
would
be
made
for
other
regulatory
alternatives.
Maria
also
expressed
concern
about
consistency
among
permit
writers,
that
some
may
be
stricter
than
others.
A
Panel
member
replied
that
this
was
similar
to
a
concern
expressed
by
Eveleen,
and
explained
that
inconsistency
among
and
within
States
was
due
in
part
to
the
lack
of
uniform
national
regulations.
Ms.
Eichelberger
asked
if
EPA
had
a
minimum
cost
in
mind.
A
Panel
member
answered
that
if
EPA
promulgates
national
requirements
for
Phase
III,
facilities
might
be
allowed
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.
Eichelberger
suggested
that
it
might
be
beneficial
to
increase
the
de
minimis
threshold
to
help
small
businesses.

Ms.
Muehlethaler
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.
A
Panle
member
mentioned
that
some
Phase
III
facilities
are
actually
quite
large,
and
utilize
far
more
than
50
MGD.

A
Panel
member
wished
to
know
if
the
Port
Townsend
Paper
and
North
American
Stainless
facilities
have
cooling
water
requirements
in
their
NPDES
permits.
Ms.
Muehlethaler
replied
that
Port
Townsend
does
not,
aside
from
a
requirement
to
monitor
flow.
Ms.
Eichelberger
replied
that
her
facility
only
had
to
monitor
the
temperature
of
the
discharge.
A
Panel
member
asked
if
the
flows
for
either
facility
exceeded
the
5%
threshold
for
mean
annual
flow
of
the
rivers.
The
answers
were
"
No"
for
both
facilities.

Meg
McCarthy,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association,
expressed
agreement
with
Eveleen
Muehlethaler's
comments.
She
also
wanted
to
know
whether
the
rule
would
cover
facilities
or
intake
structures.
A
Panel
member
answered
that
under
Phase
II,
the
determination
of
applicability
was
done
on
a
facility­
wide
basis.
The
design
flows
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,
there
might
be
a
capacity
or
peaking
facility
issue,
possibly
resulting
in
less
stringent
requirements.
.
An
EPA
staff
member
asked
if
any
paper
facilities
had
different
intakes
solely
dedicated
to
different
processes.
Ms.
McCarthy
answered
that
she
was
not
sure,
but
wanted
to
know
if
the
de
minimis
determination
would
apply
to
the
intake
or
to
a
whole
facility.
A
Panel
member
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.
Ms.
McCarthy
was
asked
if
she
was
Page
47
aware
of
the
two
thresholds
in
Phase
II:
the
total
withdrawal
of
50
MGD
and
the
percentage
of
water
used
for
cooling
(
25%).
A
Panel
member
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.
The
Panel
member
asked
Ms.
McCarthy
whether
cooling
water
is
generally
reused
at
paper
facilities,
and
if
so,
whether
the
25%
threshold
would
be
useful.
Ms.
McCarthy
answered
that
the
25%
provision
was
useful,
though
she
was
not
sure
of
the
exact
numbers
of
facilities
that
reuse
cooling
water
use.
Ms.
Muehlethaler
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
Mr.
Cristofaro
asked
if
there
were
any
further
questions.
As
there
were
none,
he
added
that
the
SERs
can
submit
written
comments
by
30
March
2004,
close
of
business.
Comments
should
be
addressed
to
Mr.
Cristofaro
or
by
email
to
Mr.
Patrick
Easter.
For
process
questions,
SERs
call
Patrick
Easter;
for
technical
questions,
they
may
call
John
Fox.
Mr.
Cristofaro
reminded
SERs
that
EPA
will
consider
their
comments
when
writing
the
rule.
Furthermore,
comments
already
submitted
will
become
part
of
the
permanent
record.
Anyone
who
plans
to
submit
additional
comments
should
notify
EPA.
As
a
last
question,
a
Panel
member
asked
if
anyone
who
was
on
the
phone
had
conducted
a
fish
kill
study,
and
encouraged
submittal
of
comments
on
that
matter.
The
meeting
was
adjourned.
Page
48
Appendix
B.
2:
Summary
from
the
Pre­
Panel
Outreach
Meeting
with
Small
Entity
Representatives
on
January
22,
2004
Meeting
Participants:

Small
Entity
Representatives:
David
G.
Borland,
City
of
Dover
(
Dover
Light
&
Power)
Bob
Crye,
Richmond
Power
and
Light
Donald
Horning,
Countrymark
Cooperative,
Inc.
Steve
Shaver,
North
American
Stainless
 
Ghent
Wendy
Stehling,
Bayou
Steel
Corporation
George
Milner,
Mohawk
Paper
Mills,
Inc.
Eveleen
Muehlethaler,
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corp.

Associations
Supporting
Small
Entities:
Meg
McCarthy,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
Jerry
Schwartz,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
Tom
Wigglesworth,
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
Environmental
Protection
Agency:
Alexander
Cristofaro,
OPEI,
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair
Joan
Crawford,
OPEI
George
Denning,
EAD
Patrick
Easter,
OPEI
John
Fox,
EAD,
Phase
III
Regulation
Manager
Mindy
Gampel,
OPEI
Ken
Munis,
OPEI
Tom
Nakely,
OPEI
Pooja
Parikh,
Office
of
General
Counsel
Martha
Segall,
EAD,
Acting
Director,
Cooling
Water
Intake
Task
Force
Mary
Smith,
EAD,
Division
Director
Eric
Strassler,
EAD
Jennifer
Vernon,
OPEI
Mark
Wilson,
OPEI
Small
Business
Administration:
Keith
Holman,
Office
of
Advocacy
Joe
Johnson,
Office
of
Advocacy
Office
of
Management
and
Budget:
Jim
Laity,
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Other
Participants:
Elicia
Blumberg,
Tetra
Tech
Incorporated
(
EPA
contractor)
Page
49
Welcome
and
Introductions/
Words
from
the
SBREFA
Panel
Chair:
(
Mary
Smith,
Division
Director,
EPA
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division)
(
Alexander
Cristofaro,
EPA
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair)

Mary
Smith
opened
the
meeting
and
invited
everyone
introduce
him/
herself.

Mr.
Cristofaro
summarized
the
SBREFA
process.
He
explained
that
the
SBREFA
process
was
enacted
in
1996,
and
its
purpose
is
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
small
businesses
to
be
part
of
the
regulatory
process.
Input
from
small
businesses
allows
EPA
to
become
aware
of
and
consider
the
circumstances
of
those
entities.
EPA's
main
goal
is
to
develop
alternative
regulatory
approaches
that
meet
the
needs
of
small
businesses
as
much
as
possible.
Mr.
Cristofaro
emphasized
that
it
is
EPA's
hope
to
receive
as
much
input
as
possible
from
the
small
entities
before
writing
the
rule.
Small
business
representatives
should
provide
written
comments
to
EPA
by
February
5,
2004,
so
that
the
panel
meeting
later
in
the
month
will
have
ample
time
to
review
the
comments.
Following
the
official
start
of
the
SBREFA
panel,
small
businesses
will
have
another
opportunity
to
provide
comments.
Also,
he
added
that
Mr.
Fox
would
be
available
at
any
time
to
field
questions.

Mr.
Keith
Holman
welcomed
everyone
to
the
meeting,
and
stated
that
a
second,
more
complete,
set
of
documents
will
be
sent
to
small
entity
representatives
(
SERs)
in
late
February
to
early
March.
These
documents
will
further
explain
316(
b)
in
detail,
and
present
rule
costs.
Mr.
Holman
stated
that
the
SBREFA
process
is
about
getting
a
better
rule
without
creating
unnecessary
burdens
on
small
businesses.

Mr.
Jim
Laity
added
that
the
SBREFA
process
presents
a
unique
opportunity
for
SERs
to
inform
EPA
of
concerns
early
on
in
the
rulemaking
process.
Mr.
Laity
continued
that
it
would
be
particularly
helpful
to
provide
technical
information
that
EPA
might
not
be
aware
of.
Mr.
Laity
recommended
that
anyone
who
has
ideas
on
how
to
accomplish
the
objectives
of
this
rulemaking
better
or
in
a
less
costly
way
should
send
their
suggestions
to
EPA.

Overview
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Rulemaking
(
Mr.
John
Fox,
EPA
Phase
III
Rulemaking
Manager)

The
following
notes
are
taken
from
talking
points
used
by
Mr.
Fox.
They
summarize
the
main
points
covered
by
Mr.
Fox
during
the
meeting:

What
are
impingement
and
entrainment?
Impingement
refers
to
fish
being
trapped
and
held
against
a
screen
or
other
structure
in
the
intake,
or
being
harmed
by
rough
contact
with
the
intake
structure.
Entrainment
refers
to
larvae
of
fish
and
shellfish
being
pulled
into
the
cooling
system.
Entrained
organisms
generally
die
from
thermal
shock
and
mechanical
damage,
though
the
extent
of
mortality
is
still
controversial.

What
facilities
are
subject
to
§
316(
b)?
Page
50
Under
the
Phase
1
and
proposed
Phase
2
rules,
facilities
are
potentially
subject
to
national
requirements
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
if
they
require
a
NPDES
permit
to
discharge
wastewater,
have
a
cooling
water
intake
that
withdraws
water
from
"
a
water
of
the
US,"
and
use
at
least
25%
of
the
intake
water
exclusively
for
cooling
purposes.
We
expect
the
same
will
apply
to
Phase
3
facilities.

What
facilities
will
be
considered
in
the
Phase
3
rulemaking?
Phase
1
addressed
new
facilities
Phase
2
addressed
electric
generators
with
design
capacities
of
at
least
50
MGD
Facilities
that
will
be
considered
for
regulation
under
Phase
3
are:
(
a)
all
existing
facilities,
except
electric
generators
covered
by
the
Phase
2
regulation
(
b)
electric
generators
with
design
capacities
under
50
MGD
(
c)
new
facilities
­
coastal
and
offshore
oil
&
gas
(
platforms
and
MODUs)

What
is
EPA's
schedule
for
regulation
development?
For
compelling
legal
reasons
(
i.
e.
a
consent
decree),
EPA
is
required
to
formally
consider
regulatory
alternatives
by
May
14,
2004,
to
propose
Phase
3
regulations
by
November
1,
2004
to
take
final
action
by
June
1,
2006
What
has
been
decided
about
the
Phase
3
regulation?
The
scope
and
specific
requirements
of
the
Phase
3
regulatory
proposal
are
only
now
starting
to
be
considered.
Decisions
won't
be
made
until
May
and
June
when
EPA
must
prepare
a
proposal
for
inter­
agency
review
at
OMB.
The
scope
and
nature
of
requirements
is
then
subject
to
further
modification
during
interagency
review.
After
a
regulation
is
proposed,
public
comments
must
be
received
and
considered,
and
a
final
round
of
interagency
review
occurs
before
any
final
action
is
taken.

How
will
the
small
business
advocacy
process
affect
the
regulation?
The
Federal
panel
will
Provide
information
and
questions
to
small
entity
representatives
Take
oral
and
written
comments
from
small
entity
representatives
Present
a
report
to
the
EPA
Administrator
with
recommendations
on
how
impacts
upon
small
business
may
be
minimized
by
the
choice
of
regulatory
alternatives
The
panel
report
will
be
presented
before
EPA
considers
regulatory
alternatives
What
regulatory
alternatives
are
under
consideration?

The
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
regulations
lay
the
groundwork
for
defining
what
technologies
and
alternative
approaches
(
such
as
restoration)
may
be
effective
in
satisfying
the
requirements
of
section
316(
b).
We
do
not
expect
that
these
basic
facts
and
approaches
will
change.

The
most
significant
issues
to
be
decided
about
Phase
3
include
what
kinds
of
facilities
and
intake
capacities
need
national
requirements,
and
what
specific
requirements
are
needed.
Page
51
Some
specific
suggestions
under
consideration
include:

#
Flow
thresholds
for
national
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
#
Reduced
permitting
and
monitoring
requirements
for
intakes
with
smaller
design
capacities
(
this
may
be
combined
with
a
requirement
to
use
a
pre­
approved
technology,
with
or
without
verification
monitoring,
depending
on
the
situation)

#
A
capacity
utilization
threshold
for
national
requirements
(
for
example,
in
the
Phase
2
proposal,
electric
generators
would
not
be
required
to
reduce
entrainment
if
their
capacity
utilization
is
less
than
15%)

#
No
entrainment
controls
required
under
some
conditions
(
for
example,
at
freshwater
intakes
with
capacities
under
50
MGD)

#
Identification
of
industrial
subcategories
or
specialties
that
have
high
numbers
of
small
businesses
or
would
have
significant
economic
impacts
from
national
requirements
How
are
regulatory
alternatives
evaluated
and
compared?

#
The
cost
of
an
alternative
and
its
economic
impact
on
businesses
is
evaluated.
This
includes
market
analysis
of
price
changes
and
effects
on
consumers.

#
The
economic
impact
on
small
businesses
is
specifically
evaluated
#
Effects
on
energy
supply
and
demand
are
evaluated
#
Economic
and
fiscal
impacts
on
governmental
entities
(
municipalities,
States,
Tribes)
are
evaluated
#
Environmental
benefits
of
alternatives
are
evaluated
and
are
also
compared
to
the
costs
of
the
alternatives
Page
52
What
technologies
are
used
to
impingement
and
entrainment?
There
is
a
wide
variety
of
technologies.
These
were
described
in
the
paper
sent
two
weeks
ago,
and
are
described
in
more
detail
in
the
documents
found
on
EPA's
316(
b)
web
site.

Technologies
commonly
used
to
control
impingement
are:

surface
shoreline
intakes:
­
traveling
screen
with
fish
handling
&
return
system
­
barriers
and
fish
diversion
systems
submerged
intakes:
­
velocity
cap
­
passive
(
wedgewire)
screen
Question
and
Answer
Session/
Comments
from
Small
Entity
Representatives
The
question
and
answer
session
addressed
the
rulemaking
schedule,
the
schedule
for
submitting
comments
after
this
meeting,
and
the
Panel's
schedule.
Information
was
provided
about
the
types
of
comments
that
would
be
most
helpful
­
for
example,
technical
information
on
cooling
water
intakes
and
impingement
and
entrainment
(
I&
E)
control
technologies,
experiences
with
requirements
under
CWA
section
316(
b),
experiences
with
measuring
I&
E,
any
thoughts
on
the
Phase
II
requirements,
and
so
forth.
In
particular,
Panel
members
suggested
that
SERs
consider
the
Phase
II
approaches
to
streamlined
data
collection
and
approved
technologies,
and
provide
the
Panel
with
suggestions
for
pre­
approved
technologies
under
specific
conditions.
Panel
members
suggested
that
SERs
provide
information
on
I&
E
control
technologies
that
they
have
installed
or
evaluated.
Page
53
Appendix
C:
Written
Comments
Received
from
Small
Entity
Representatives
Comments
resulting
from
the
March
16,
2004
Panel
outreach
meeting:

C.
1
Bayou
Steel
Corporation
(
La
Place,
Louisiana)

C.
2
Countrymark
Cooperative
Refinery
(
Mt.
Vernon,
Indiana)

C.
3
Dover
Light
and
Power
(
Dover,
Ohio)

C.
4
Nylon
Corporation
of
American
(
Manchester,
New
Hampshire)

C.
5
Port
Townsend
Paper
(
Port
Townsend,
Washington)

Comments
resulting
from
the
January
22,
2004
pre­
panel
outreach
meeting:

C.
6
Countrymark
Cooperative
Refinery
(
Mt.
Vernon,
Indiana)

C.
7
Dover
Light
and
Power
(
Dover,
Ohio)

C.
8
Port
Townsend
Paper
(
Port
Townsend,
Washington)

C.
9
Richmond
Power
and
Light
(
Richmond,
Indiana)

Comments
resulting
from
the
October
1,
2002
outreach
meeting:

C.
10
City
of
Iola
Power
Plant
(
Iola,
Kansas)

C.
11
National
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Association
(
Arlington,
VA)

________________________________________________________________
Editorial
Note:
in
the
interest
of
providing
these
documents
in
a
relatively
compact
electronic
file,
we
changed
some
of
the
original
letterhead
formatting
and
fonts,
and
deleted
a
graphics
object
displaying
a
logo
and
letterhead.
Page
54
Appendix
C,
part
C.
1:
Comment
from
Bayou
Steel
Comments
Regarding
the
Possible
Requirements
of
the
Phase
III
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Regulations
Bayou
Steel
Corporation
is
a
member
of
the
Steel
Manufacturers
Association,
which
is
comprised
of
39
mini­
mill
companies
that
operate
125
steel
plants
throughout
North
America.
A
mini­
mill
takes
scrap
metal
and
utilizes
electric­
arc
furnaces
to
melt
the
scrap
into
steel,
making
mini­
mills
the
largest
recyclers
in
the
nation.

In
order
to
determine
how
many
mini­
mills
would
be
affected
by
the
possible
316(
b)
phase
III
rule
making
a
statement
and
question
were
sent
to
the
SMA
member
companies:

EPA
is
proposing
regulations
for
cooling
water
intakes
similar
to
the
316(
b)
phase
II
that
affects
existing
power
producing
facilities.

The
proposed
regulations
would
impact
those
facilities
that
use
cooling
water,
i.
e.,
have
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
withdrawing
water
from
U.
S.
waters
and
at
least
25%
of
the
water
is
used
for
contact
or
non­
contact
cooling;
they
have
an
NPDES
permit
(
or
are
required
to
obtain
one);
and
they
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
MGD
or
greater.

How
many
member
companies
will
this
affect,
i.
e.,
how
many
use
cooling
water
with
a
design
intake
of
50
MGD
or
greater?

Responses
were
received
from
30
facilities,
representing
17
companies
and
4,
including
Bayou
Steel
Corporation,
would
be
affected
by
the
316(
b)
regulations.

General
Comments
1)
While
there
may
be
many
facilities
whose
design
intake
flow
may
be
50
MGD
or
greater,
the
regulation
should
apply
to
those
who
actually
utilize
50
MGD
or
greater.
The
facility
should
be
able
to
demonstrate,
over
a
certain
period
of
time,
that
the
50
MGD
is
not
exceeded.

2)
Financially
­
Bayou
Steel
Corporation,
and
many
of
the
other
mini­
mills
in
the
country,
have
been
struggling
over
the
past
few
years
just
to
remain
in
business.
Bayou
Steel
Corporation
has
just
emerged
from
bankruptcy
last
month
and
considers
itself
lucky
to
still
be
in
operation.
The
monitoring
and
permitting
costs
alone
are
significant
and
would
be
a
large
impact
on
extremely
small
budgets.
Many,
if
not
all,
capital
and
other
projects
for
improvement
at
Bayou
Steel
and
most
other
mini­
mills
have
been
abandoned
or
postponed
indefinitely
due
to
limited
resources.

Wendy
Stehling
Bayou
Steel
Corporation
LaPlace,
LA
on
the
Mississippi
River
wendys@
bayousteel.
com
985/
652­
0322
Page
55
Appendix
C,
part
C.
2:
Comment
from
Coountrymark
Cooperative
COUNTRYMARK
COOPERATIVE,
LLP
1200
Refinery
Road
Mt.
Vernon,
Indiana
47620
March
29,
2004
Mr.
John
Fox
US
EPA
Washington,
DC
20510
Re:
Pre­
Rulemaking
Comments
Phase
III
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Dear
Mr.
Fox,

Countrymark
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
be
a
part
of
the
regulatory
process
and
comment
on
the
Phase
III
Cooling
Water
Intake
proposals.

As
you
know,
Countrymark
Cooperative,
LLP.
is
a
regional,
farmer
owned
cooperative
which
owns
and
operates
a
24,000
barrels
per
day
petroleum
refinery
located
in
Mt.
Vernon,
Indiana.
Countrymark
Co­
op
employs
approximately
300
people.
Countrymark
is
a
small
refinery
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration.

Our
refinery
has
the
ability
to
withdraw
approximately
2
million
gallons
per
day
of
surface
water
from
the
Ohio
River.
This
water
is
treated
and
used
to
supply
both
process
and
cooling
water
for
our
refinery.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
mounted
within
a
permanent
barge
structure
and
consists
of
submerged
basin
with
passive
water
inlet
holes.
The
water
is
then
screened
prior
to
entering
the
pump
well
area.
The
pump
basin
area
is
protected
with
screens
that
are
inspected
and
cleaned
daily.
Typical
debris
includes
vegetation
(
sticks,
leaves,
etc.)
and
river
trash
(
bottles,
plastic,
foam,
etc.).
Only
rarely
would
fish
or
other
water
life
enter
this
area.
In
any
case,
it
does
not
appear
to
become
impinged
upon
the
screens.

With
this
design,
direct
impingement
does
not
generally
occur.
The
next
step
is
sedimentation
and
chemical
treatment
where
silts
and
other
suspended
material
are
removed.
Clean
water
then
moves
from
the
reservoir
into
the
water
supply
system.
After
the
water
is
used,
it
runs
through
an
NPDES
wastewater
treatment
system
and
is
discharged
downstream
at
essentially
ambient
temperatures.

Countrymark
feels
that
our
current
water
intake
structure
design
minimizes
impingement
and
entrainment.
It
is
our
opinion
that
no
further
upgrades
are
warranted.
With
that
said,
we
assume
that
EPA
would
agree.
If
not,
Countrymark
would
question
the
severity
and
necessity
of
further
mandated
controls.
Page
56
Given
the
previous
statements,
Countrymark
offers
the
following
comments:

1.
Additional
environmental
regulations
applying
to
smaller
cooling
water
intake
structures
should
not
be
dictated
unless
there
are
compelling
reasons.
EPA
has
not
shown
that
impingement
and
similar
local
issues
impact
the
environment
/
fish
in
a
significantly
adverse
way
in
all
but
limited
examples.
Perhaps
EPA
should
consider
prohibiting
certain
designs
or
susceptible
locations
(
those
with
endangered
fish,
etc.)

2.
The
Phase
III
regulations
if
warranted,
should
have
a
minimum
flow
threshold
of
no
less
than
20
million
gallons
per
day,
unless
there
are
source
stream
/
lake
considerations
that
add
a
compelling
reason.

3.
EPA
should
not
consider
just
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Consider
all
sources
of
water
intake
structures
and
don't
target
specific
industries
or
activities.
Drinking
/
recreational
/
agricultural
water
withdrawal
intake
structures
also
cause
impingement
/
entrainment.
It
is
either
a
universal
problem
or
not.
It
does
not
seem
fair
to
regulate
specific
users
and
not
all
entities
with
water
intake
structures.

4.
A
registration
process
with
each
regulated
entity
would
include
some
requirement
for
description
of
the
water
withdrawal
intake
structure.
Structure
with
designs
less
likely
to
contribute
to
impingement
or
entrainment
need
not
have
any
other
requirements.

5.
EPA
should
provide
some
level
of
significance
in
terms
of
harm
caused
by
excessive
impingement
or
entrainment.
This
could
be
in
terms
of
number
of
the
fish
entrained
per
day
or
other
easily
gauged
metric.
Water
users
could
then
estimate
the
potential
harm
caused
by
a
poorly
engineered
design.

6.
EPA
should
make
available
detailed
water
intake
designs
that
minimize
impingement
or
entrainment
and
are
easy
to
clean.
There
is
a
strong
incentive
for
the
water
users
to
use
designs
that
minimize
daily
or
periodic
maintenance.
Being
friendly
to
the
environment
is
an
added
benefit.

Countrymark
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
proposed.
Please
contact
me
(
horning@
countrymark.
com
or
812­
838­
8133)
if
you
have
any
questions
or
comments.

Sincerely,
Donald
M.
Horning,
REHS
Regulatory
Compliance
Manager
Page
57
Appendix
C,
part
C.
3:
Comment
from
Dover
Light
&
Power
DOVER
MUNICIPAL
LIGHT
PLANT
303
EAST
BROADWAY
DOVER,
OH
44622­
1914
PHONE
330­
343­
3442
FAX
330­
343­
4626
April
13,
2004
Mr.
Alexander
Cristafaro
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair
c/
o
Mr.
Patrick
Easter
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
MC
1806
A
Washington,
DC
20460
Dear
Mr.
Cristafaro
As
an
SER
Panel
member
I
would
like
to
include
the
following
additional
comments
on
the
Proposed
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Section
316(
b)
Phase
III
Facilities
previously
submitted.
The
comments
were
supplied
to
Dover
Light
&
Power
as
a
member
of
American
Public
Power
Association
(
APPA)
and
I
would
like
to
include
them
as
an
addendum
to
my
previously
submitted
comments.
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
don't
hesitate
to
contact
me
by
email
or
phone.
These
comments
should
help
clarify
the
problem
of
small
entities
on
a
wider
base
of
information
than
the
comments
submitted
based
on
the
operation
of
Dover
Light
&
Power
in
The
City
of
Dover,
Ohio.

Sincerely,

David
G.
Borland
Superintendent
cc:
Mr.
John
Fox,
U.
S.
EPA
Ms.
Theresa
Pugh,
APPA
Page
58
Page
59
What
is
APPA:

The
American
Public
Power
Association
is
a
national
association
for
local
and
stateowned
government
or
public
utilities
that
provide
electricity
to
communities.
Also
provide
water
or
broadband
services
to
their
communities.
There
are
more
than
2,000
municipal
and
other
state
or
community­
owned
electric
utilities
that
provide
electricity
for
approximately
40
million
Americans.
These
public
power
systems
are
among
the
most
diverse
of
the
electric
utility
sector,
representing
utilities
in
small,
medium
and
large
communities
in
49
states
(
all
but
Hawaii).
Seventy­
five
percent
of
public
power
systems
are
located
in
cities
with
populations
of
25,000
people
or
less.
Overall,
public
power
accounts
for
about
14
percent
of
all
kilowatt­
hour
sales
to
consumers.
Ninety
percent
of
APPA's
members
meet
the
definition
of
SBREFA 
meaning
that
they
have
retail
sales
of
<$
4
million
annually
and
serve
populations
of
50,000
people
or
fewer.

APPA
was
established
in
1940
as
a
non­
profit,
non­
partisan
organization.
Its
purpose
is
to
advance
the
public
policy
interests
of
its
members
and
their
consumers,
and
provide
member
services
to
ensure
adequate,
reliable
electricity
at
a
reasonable
price
while
ensuring
protection
of
the
environment.

Scope
of
the
Phase
III
rule
in
the
public
power
community:

Based
upon
APPA's
reading
of
EIA
data
(
from
2000
data),
we
believe
that
there
are
approximately
50
utility
facilities
that
may
be
subject
to
the
Phase
III
rule.
As
explained
below,
we
believe
these
facilities
would
incur
disproportionate
capital,
operating
and
maintenance
costs
that
would
far
outweigh
any
benefits
from
mitigation
or
prevention
of
"
adverse
environmental
impact"
for
entrainment
or
impingement.

Affordability
and
financial
or
economic
impacts
of
possible
requirements:

The
materials
submitted
to
the
SERs
called
for
comments
on
the
financial,
economic
or
affordability
impacts
of
possible
control
requirements.
Most
of
the
APPA
facilities
likely
to
be
covered
by
the
Phase
III
rule
have
less
than
20
employees.
This
is
a
critical
factor
in
understanding
the
regulatory
impact
of
this
possible
rulemaking.
Simply
going
through
the
permitting
requirements,
biological
studies
and
other
paperwork
is
burdensome
to
a
utility
(
or
any
other
business)
with
only
a
few
dozen
employees.
The
few
exceptions
to
this
generalization
would
be
the
larger
APPA
members
which
have
facilities
in
Phase
II
and
Phase
III.
In
that
case,
those
utilities
would
be
regulated
under
Phase
II
requirements
for
their
>
50
MGD
intakes.

Further,
if
the
EPA
(
or
states)
require
technology
retrofits
for
Phase
III
facilities,
it
is
likely
that
the
public
power
system
would
experience
1­
3
months
of
downtime
for
a
number
of
factors.
The
EPA
has
not
considered
that
there
is
a
disproportionate
impact
on
smaller
utilities
that
have
only
one
generation
source
(
and
one
intake)
from
a
Page
60
planned
(
or
unplanned)
outage.
The
utility
would
have
to
purchase
power
on
the
open
market
and
this
would
likely
mean
an
increased
rate
of
approximately
12
percent
(
on
a
nationwide
average).
A
rate
increase
to
consumers,
even
for
a
short
period,
of
up
to
12
percent
is
significant
for
the
smaller
communities
served
by
facilities
subject
to
Phase
III.
The
reason
that
the
retrofit
time
may
take
longer
for
a
public
power
community
is
that
many
are
located
away
from
major
cities
and
available
technology
retrofitting
contractors.
Most
of
the
experienced
contractors
will
be
tied
up
for
years
on
the
far
more
costly
and
sophisticated
Phase
II
retrofits.
Smaller
communities,
especially
those
away
from
major
cities
and
those
not
near
major
airport
hubs,
will
pay
dearly
for
any
necessary
retrofits
and
contractor
time.

APPA
believes
that
EPA,
in
the
Phase
III
rule,
should
set
a
de
minimis
level
of
50
MGD
below
which
the
EPA
national
program
should
defer
to
states
to
make
determinations
about
entrainment
or
impingement
reductions.
APPA
believes
that
these
smaller
systems
do
not
merit
a
national
rule
but
should
be
regulated
under
State
authority.

Alternative
cooling
water
supply:

Most
APPA
members
do
not
have
access
to
an
alternative
cooling
water
supply
without
getting
state
or
local
approval
for
access
to
groundwater.
A
sizable
number
of
Phase
III
facilities
are
located
in
more
arid
regions
where
states
are
less
likely
to
allow
the
use
of
groundwater
for
this
purpose.
In
many
locations,
local
water
authorities
do
not
want
public
power
(
or
other)
utilities
using
groundwater
for
cooling
water.
APPA
recommends
that
the
rule
should
be
designed
to
avoid
creating
incentives
for
further
use
of
groundwater.

Cooling
towers
are
not
feasible
for
Phase
III
facilities:

EPA's
questionnaire
asked
if
the
community
utilities
have
cooling
towers
and
how
this
decision
was
made.
APPA
is
aware
that
some
public
power
utilities
were
constructed
in
the
1970s
and
1980s
and
that
cooling
towers
were
viable
because
they
were
a
part
of
the
design
of
newer
utilities.
However,
EPA
appropriately
decided
that
cooling
towers
weren't
economically
feasible
for
Phase
II
facilities.
Certainly,
cooling
towers
are
even
less
economically
feasible
for
Phase
III
facilities
than
for
Phase
II
facilities.
We
believe
most
of
these
facilities
are
located
within
their
member
community's
borders
and
cooling
tower
plumes
could
also
create
problems.
Therefore,
APPA
questions
the
need
for
EPA
to
pursue
cooling
towers
as
an
option
in
Phase
III.

Alternative
ways
of
controlling
impingement
and
entrainment:

Additionally,
many
types
of
impingement/
entrainment
control
technologies
might
not
be
realistic
for
control
at
older
facilities.
For
example,
in
a
number
of
situations,
APPA
is
Page
61
aware
that
states
rejected
the
decision
to
install
control
equipment
because
of
the
very
limited
"
footprint"
of
the
utility.
Municipal
utilities
are
typically
located
on
public
or
community
land
and
are
often
surrounded
by
other
city
property,
small
industrial
parks,
and
often
share
waterfront
with
other
city
purposes
(
urban
renewal,
industrial
parks,
schools,
community
centers,
libraries,
parks,
ports,
etc).

Need
for
controls:
environmental
benefits
achieved
and
reference
to
state/
Federal
Agencies:

In
the
SER
materials,
EPA
inquired
if
the
state
or
Federal
agencies
had
inquired
about
conducting
studies,
evaluations
or
the
monitoring
results.
APPA
is
aware
of
only
one
E
&
I
study
conducted
for
a
Phase
III
facility.
That
E
&
I
study
was
provided
to
the
EPA
in
2003
and
again
in
2004
for
the
purpose
of
identifying
Phase
III
policy
options.
In
that
instance,
the
state
agency
did
not
see
sufficient
aquatic
harm
to
require
further
action
of
the
utility.
That
intake
was
<
25
MGD.

Economies
of
scale:
Economists
call
it
"
Law
of
Supply
and
Demand"
but
APPA
calls
it
"
Chasing
after
the
same
contractors":

The
EPA
asked
questions
about
economics
and
economies
of
scale
in
retrofit.
Realistically,
there
are
not
as
many
contractors
with
316(
b)
expertise
as
with
316(
a)
or
conventional
water
or
air
pollution
abatement
systems.
As
with
all
new
regulatory
programs,
there
is
a
large
cost
associated
with
being
in
the
first
group
(
Phase
I
and
II
regulated
community)
to
be
regulated.
APPA
is
of
the
opinion
that
there
are
only
a
few
dozen
companies
with
expertise
in
316(
b)
retrofits
in
the
country.
If
this
is
true,
it
will
be
reflected
in
the
costs.
It
would
make
a
great
deal
of
sense
to
let
this
expertise
be
used
on
the
bigger
intake
systems
at,
typically,
larger
utilities
and
to
phase
in
the
Phase
III
utilities
after
Jan.
31,
2010.

APPA
urges
EPA
to
propose
a
rule
that
phases
in
the
new
316(
b)
requirements
for
Phase
III
facilities
under
NPDES
permit
review
beginning
with
any
NPDES
permit
review
commencing
after
Jan.
31,
2010.
This
additional
time
would
allow
for
the
market
to
demonstrate
additional
technologies
to
reduce
flow
or
E
&
I
and
for
the
contractors'
costs
to
begin
reflecting
more
realistic
rates.
Any
utility
pushing
to
implement
316(
b)
studies
or
to
install
retrofits
in
the
first
10
years
after
the
Phase
II
rule
will
be
paying
higher
contractor
rates
as
the
demand
for
those
limited
contractors
will
be
very
high.

Summary
of
APPA's
policy
suggestions
for
Phase
III:

APPA
believes
that
the
environmental
consequences
to
public
power
utilities
with
<
50
MGD
do
not
merit
a
national
EPA
regulatory
program.
The
APPA
recommends
that
the
final
rule
provide
for
State
agencies
to
require
baseline
information,
studies
or
the
installation
of
traveling
screens
or
less
expensive
technology
according
to
the
permit
Page
62
writer's
best
professional
judgment
at
the
first
NPDES
permit
review
beginning
after
Jan.
31,
2010.
This
additional
time
would
allow
CWIS
technology
companies
and
contractors
to
find
ways
to
economize
in
testing
and
perhaps
to
develop
new
CWIS
screens
and
other
devices
scaled
down
to
smaller
utilities
with
smaller
intakes.

Since
we
believe
APPA
has
the
largest
number
of
facilities
in
Phase
III,
as
an
industry,
we
hope
that
the
EPA
(
and
SBA)
will
give
due
consideration
to
these
suggestions.
APPA
is
in
the
process
of
surveying
our
members
so
that
we
will
have
more
substantive
comments
during
the
rule's
official
comment
period.

Submitted
by:
David
G.
Borland
Superintendent
Dover
Light
&
Power
303
East
Broadway
Dover,
Oh
44622
(
330)
343­
3442
dborland@
doverohio.
com
Page
63
Appendix
C,
part
C.
4:
Comment
from
Nylon
Corporation
of
America
John
Pollono
<
jpollono@
nycoa.
net>
03/
30/
04
03:
32
PM
To:
Patrick
Easter/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
RE:
Cooling
Water
Intake
SBREFA
Panel:
Information
Package
and
Meeting
Invitation
Dear
Mr
Easter,

I
have
several
thoughts
with
regards
to
Phase
3
rulemaking
:

support
case
by
case
determination
for
facilities
with
less
than
20
MGD
with
regards
to
impingement
and
entrainment
controls
support
reduced
permitting
and
monitoring
requirements
for
certain
applicable
facilities
support
no
entrainment
controls
under
certain
conditions
support
delayed
implementation
of
new
requirements
for
small
businesses
where
undue
financial
burden
would
be
experienced
support
fair
evaluation
by
the
EPA
of
the
cost
of
compliance
for
a
facility
with
regards
to
site
specific
requirements
John
Pollono
Page
64
Appendix
C,
part
C.
5:
Comment
from
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
[
graphic
object
letterhead
and
logo
deleted]
(
Via
E­
Mail
easter.
patrick@
epa.
gov)
Alexander
Cristofaro
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair
C/
O
Patrick
Easter
USEPA
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
MC
1806A
Washington,
DC
20460
Re:
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
Small
Entity
Representative
Comments
on
EPA's
Proposed
Rulemaking
for
Phase
III
of
the
316(
b)
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Rule
Dear
Mr.
Cristofaro,

Port
Townsend
Paper
is
pleased
to
submit
these
comments
as
part
of
SBREFA
Panel
for
the
Phase
III
of
the
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
(
CWIS)
rulemaking
under
Section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
I
have
consulted
with
Meg
McCarthy
of
the
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
in
the
preparation
of
these
comments,
as
she
attended
the
outreach
meeting
EPA
held
earlier
this
month.
While
I
am
writing
these
comments
from
the
perspective
of
a
small
business,
the
alternatives
proposed
within
these
comments
could
be
applied
more
generally
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
since,
on
the
whole,
these
facilities'
cooling
water
intake
structures
have
not
been
identified
as
causing
adverse
environmental
impacts.

Port
Townsend
Paper
has
previously
submitted
comments
to
EPA
as
a
part
of
the
SBREFA
panel
for
the
Phase
III
rule
(
attached).
The
opinions
expressed
in
our
previous
comments
still
apply,
but
Port
Townsend
Paper
would
like
to
emphasize
some
of
the
points
we
made
in
the
past,
and
to
highlight
some
concerns
that
have
recently
been
brought
to
our
attention.

As
we
stated
previously,
Port
Townsend
Paper
is
a
small
business
faced
with
an
extremely
challenging
economic
climate,
resulting
in
limited
sales,
job
losses
and
closed
plants.
We
are
very
concerned
about
the
potential
costs
(
whether
capital
or
administrative)
that
may
be
imposed
by
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
and
the
impact
they
will
have
on
our
company.

Port
Townsend
Paper
holds
the
opinion
that
EPA
should
not
apply
comprehensive
national
regulations
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
because
of
the
low
risk
that
they
pose.
Alternatively,
Port
Townsend
Paper
endorses
the
idea
of
establishing
a
de
minimis
applicability
threshold
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
of
cooling
water.
Using
this
approach,
facilities
withdrawing
less
than
50
MGD
of
cooling
water
would
be
outside
the
scope
of
the
rulemaking
absent
some
unusual
site­
specific
factor.
Not
applying
comprehensive
national
requirements
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
is
consistent
with
the
fact
that,
according
to
data
collected
in
EPA's
screener
survey,
Phase
III
manufacturing
facilities
such
as
Port
Townsend
Paper
only
comprise
about
2%
of
the
total
national
cooling
water
flow.
Further,
we
are
unaware
of
data
showing,
as
a
general
matter,
that
these
facilities'
CWISs
have
had
an
adverse
impact
on
the
environment.
Since
manufacturing
Page
65
facilities
constitute
such
a
small
percentage
of
the
total
cooling
water
usage
and
their
CWISs
have
not
been
demonstrated
to
result
in
adverse
environmental
impact,
Port
Townsend
Paper
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
to
exclude
from
national
regulation
a
substantial
majority
of
those
facilities.
A
50
MGD
cooling
water
de
minimis
applicability
threshold,
which
has
been
used
by
EPA
in
the
past
to
distinguish
between
Phases
II
and
III,
would
accomplish
that
goal.

For
those
facilities
that
would
be
considered
within
the
scope
of
the
rule,
Port
Townsend
Paper
supports
the
following
regulatory
alternatives
that
would
reduce
the
financial
burden
on
small
businesses.
Facilities
should
be
able
to
choose
how
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
rule
in
the
manner
that
best
suits
their
individual
circumstances.
For
example,
if
a
facility
were
to
maintain
a
maximum
through­
screen
intake
velocity
of
0.5
ft./
sec.
or
implement
a
technology
chosen
from
a
suite
of
technologies
pre­
approved
by
EPA,
then
EPA
should
consider
the
facility
to
be
in
compliance.
If
the
facility
has
chosen
one
of
these
options,
it
should
not
be
required
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
is
meeting
performance
standards
requirements
as
in
Phase
II.
Furthermore,
under
these
options,
permitting
studies
and
monitoring
requirements
should
be
waived,
as
they
pose
a
significant
financial
burden
on
small
businesses
such
as
Port
Townsend
Paper.

Additionally,
Port
Townsend
Paper
is
concerned
with
the
performance
standard
requirements
from
the
Phase
II
rule,
which
group
tidal
rivers,
estuaries
and
oceans
together,
requiring
reductions
of
both
impingement
and
entrainment
for
facilities
on
those
water
body
types.
While
Port
Townsend
Paper
does
withdraw
salt
water
from
the
ocean,
the
water
withdrawn
is
not
like
the
biologically
rich
waters
at
the
mouth
of
a
river
or
estuary.
Port
Townsend
Paper's
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
under
the
docks
at
the
shoreline
of
Port
Townsend
Bay.
The
area
is
subject
to
tidal
movement
but
in
this
case,
the
shoreline
is
an
artificial
breakwater.
The
intake
structure
should
not
be
held
to
the
stricter
standard
of
reducing
both
impingement
and
entrainment
just
because
it
is
withdrawing
ocean
water.

Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
SBREFA
process
and
to
comment
on
the
development
of
regulations
to
establish
requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Section
316(
b)
Phase
III
Facilities.
Please
feel
free
to
contact
me
at
(
360)
379­
2112
if
you
have
any
questions
about
these
comments.

Sincerely,

//
via
e­
mail
3/
30/
04//

Eveleen
Muehlethaler
Vice
President,
Asst.
Mill
Manager
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
Page
66
Appendix
C,
part
C.
6:
Comment
from
Countrymark
Cooperative
COUNTRYMARK
COOPERATIVE,
LLP
1200
Refinery
Road
Mt.
Vernon,
Indiana
47620
February
6,
2004
Re:
Pre­
Rulemaking
Comments
Phase
III
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Dear
Mr.
Fox,

Countrymark
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
be
a
part
of
the
regulatory
process
and
comment
prior
to
proposal.

As
you
know,
Countrymark
Cooperative,
LLP.
is
a
regional,
farmer
owned
cooperative
which
owns
and
operates
a
24,000
barrels
per
day
petroleum
refinery
located
in
Mt.
Vernon,
Indiana.
Countrymark
Co­
op
employs
approximately
300
people.
Countrymark
is
a
small
refinery
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration.

Our
refinery
has
the
ability
to
withdraw
approximately
2
million
gallons
per
day
of
surface
water
from
the
Ohio
River.
This
water
is
treated
and
used
to
supply
both
process
and
cooling
water
for
our
refinery.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
mounted
within
a
permanent
barge
structure
and
consists
of
submerged
basin
with
passive
water
inlet
holes.
The
water
is
then
screened
prior
to
entering
the
pump
well
area.
The
pump
basin
area
is
protected
with
screens
that
are
inspected
and
cleaned
daily.
Typical
debris
includes
vegetation
(
sticks,
leaves,
etc.)
and
river
trash
(
bottles,
plastic,
foam,
etc.).
Only
rarely
would
fish
or
other
water
life
enter
this
area.
In
any
case,
it
does
not
appear
to
become
impinged
upon
the
screens.

With
this
design,
direct
impingement
does
not
generally
occur.
The
next
step
is
sedimentation
and
chemical
treatment
where
silts
and
other
suspended
material
are
removed.
Clean
water
then
moves
from
the
reservoir
into
the
water
supply
system.
After
the
water
is
used,
it
runs
through
an
NPDES
wastewater
treatment
system
and
is
discharged
downstream
at
essentially
ambient
temperatures.

Countrymark
feels
that
our
current
water
intake
structure
design
minimizes
impingement
and
entrainment.
It
is
our
opinion
that
no
further
upgrades
are
warranted.
With
that
said,
we
assume
that
EPA
would
agree.
If
not,
Countrymark
would
question
the
severity
and
necessity
of
further
mandated
controls.
Page
67
Given
the
previous
statements,
Countrymark
offers
the
following
comments:

1.
The
Phase
III
regulations
should
have
a
minimum
flow
threshold
of
no
less
than
5
million
gallons
per
day.

2.
EPA
should
not
consider
just
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Consider
all
sources
of
water
intake
structures
and
don't
target
specific
industries
or
activities.
Drinking
/
recreational
/
agricultural
water
withdrawal
intake
structures
also
cause
impingement
/
entrainment.
It
is
either
a
universal
problem
or
not.
It
does
not
seem
fair
to
regulate
specific
users
and
not
all
entities
with
water
intake
structures.

3.
A
registration
process
with
each
regulated
entity
would
include
some
requirement
for
description
of
the
water
withdrawal
intake
structure.
Structure
with
designs
less
likely
to
contribute
to
impingement
or
entrainment
need
not
have
any
other
requirements.

4.
EPA
should
provide
some
level
of
significance
in
terms
of
harm
caused
by
excessive
impingement
or
entrainment.
This
could
be
in
terms
of
number
of
the
fish
entrained
per
day
or
other
easily
gauged
metric.
Water
users
could
then
estimate
the
potential
harm
caused
by
a
poorly
engineered
design.

5.
EPA
should
make
available
detailed
water
intake
designs
that
minimize
impingement
or
entrainment
and
are
easy
to
clean.
There
is
a
strong
incentive
for
the
water
users
to
use
designs
that
minimize
daily
or
periodic
maintenance.
Being
friendly
to
the
environment
is
an
added
benefit.

Countrymark
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
proposed.
Please
contact
me
(
horning@
countrymark.
com
or
812­
838­
8133)
if
you
have
any
questions
or
comments.

Sincerely,

Donald
M.
Horning,
REHS
Regulatory
Compliance
Manager
Page
68
Appendix
C,
part
C.
7:
Comment
from
Dover
Light
&
Power
DOVER
MUNICIPAL
LIGHT
PLANT
303
EAST
BROADWAY
DOVER,
OH
44622­
1914
PHONE
330­
343­
3442
FAX
330­
343­
4626
Comments
Regarding
316
(
B)
Phase
III
Regulations
and
Small
Municipal
Utility
Concerns
in
anticipation
of
the
EPA
SBREFA
Panel
The
City
of
Dover
is
a
community
of
13,000
located
in
Tuscarawas
County
in
East
Central
Ohio.
Dover
is
one
of
more
than
2000
municipally
owned
public
power
electric
utilities.
Dover
Light
Plant
currently
has
21
total
employees.
Dover
Light
&
Power
is
one
of
many
public
power
systems
that
provide
free
electric
service
to
all
city
owned
facilities
including
street
and
traffic
lights.
This
service
contributes
approximately
$
750,000.00
annually
to
the
City
of
Dover.
Some
public
power
systems
contribute
directly
to
their
cities'
general
fund
budgets,
payment
in
lieu
of
taxes,
in
amounts
near
the
City
of
Dover's
contributed
electric
service.
The
average
household
income
in
Dover
is
$
36,665.
According
to
the
latest
census
figures
about
9.2%
of
the
individuals
in
Dover
live
below
the
poverty
line.
Dover
serves
6541
customers,
5579
residential,
856
commercial
and
106
industrial.
We
are
located
in
American
Electric
Power's
Ohio
Power
service
area
which
is
our
local
competition.
We
have
maintained
a
competitive
rate
structure
with
the
local
investor
owned
utility.
We
feel
our
rates
along
with
our
local
presence
have
helped
maintain
the
local
economy.
An
economic
impact
study
done
on
our
electric
system
indicates
Dover
Light
Plant
contributes
between
$
4,500,000.00
and
$
5,500,000.00
to
the
local
economy
according
to
a
recent
study
by
Ohio
University.
The
study
also
indicated
the
personal
income
effect
ranges
at
between
$
1,000,000.00
and
$
1,500,000.00
for
the
current
full
time
employees.
The
study
also
indicated
20
to
60
additional
area
and
regional
jobs
created
by
the
operation
of
the
plant.

More
than
90%
of
these
of
these
public
power
systems
serve
communities
of
less
than
50,000
population
and
more
than
95%
have
fewer
than
20
employees.
Dover
passed
an
ordinance
in
1898
to
begin
their
own
Electric
Utility
Dover
and
is
one
of
about
500
public
power
systems
that
own
generation
and
operate
units
of
50
Megawatts
or
less.
The
generating
plant
was
built
in
the
early
1900'
s
and
has
been
in
continuous
operation
since
that
time
at
the
current
location
of
303
East
Broadway,
Dover,
Ohio
adjacent
to
the
Tuscarawas
River.

Dover
currently
operates
a
coal/
steam
generating
unit
with
a
nameplate
of
18.5
MW,
a
natural
gas
combustion
turbine
generator
with
a
nameplate
of
15.5
MW
and
an
internal
combustion
generating
unit
with
a
nameplate
of
2.5
MW.

The
18.5
MW
unit
is
the
once
through
cooled
unit
that
uses
Tuscarawas
River
water
for
the
condenser.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
was
originally
constructed
in
1933
and
was
Page
69
designed
for
a
maximum
intake
of
12,000
GPM.
Currently
located
within
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
are
three
6000
gallons
per
minute
(
GPM)
pumps.
The
intake
structure
restricts
our
intake
to
a
maximum
of
two
pumps
in
operation
at
any
time.
Sometimes
we
operate
with
one
pump
and
supplement
the
cooling
water
with
well
water
from
wells
on
power
plant
property.
The
maximum
flow
rate
of
12,000
GPM
capability
of
the
intake
results
in
17.28
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
maximum
flow.
The
base
flow
for
the
river
is
1392
cubic
feet
per
second
or
900
MGD.
The
rate
is
high
due
to
the
large
drainage
area
and
large
amount
of
water
impounded
by
four
flood
control
dams
in
the
drainage
area.
This
means
that
Dover
Light
Plant
uses
1.92%
of
the
river's
base
flow.
The
cooling
water
intake
is
positioned
along
the
riverbank
with
sheet
piling
driven
in
front
of
the
intake
to
prevent
any
large
debris
from
entering
the
intake
screen
area.
This
piling
extends
out
from
the
shore
upstream
of
the
intakes
and
forms
a
channel
about
80
feet
long.
Water
must
run
down
stream
and
then
back
up
through
the
channel
before
entering
the
intake
area.
This
piling
in
front
of
the
intake
acts
as
a
diversion
structure
that
uses
the
river
current
to
carry
organisms
downstream
to
avoid
entrapment.
Water
is
drawn
through
two
5'
6"
high
x
4'
8"
wide
openings
in
the
intake
structure.
These
two
area
are
covered
with
bar
screens
made
of
3/
8"
x
2
½
"
bars
spaced
2
½
"
on
center.
After
the
bar
screen
openings
the
water
then
passes
through
two
traveling
water
screens
with
3/
8"
mesh.
This
results
in
an
average
water
velocity
of
approximately
1.5
feet
per
second.

In
1989
as
part
of
Dover's
NPDES
Permitting
process,
we
performed
a
fish
kill
study.
The
study
was
done
between
October
1988
and
April
1989
in
two
phases.
Phase
one
was
done
from
October
1,
1988
thru
January
5,
1989
and
the
second
was
January
12,
1989
thru
March
30,
1989.
The
study
was
done
to
collect
all
fish
impinged
on
the
traveling
screen
over
a
24
hour
period
every
4
days
for
the
two
three
month
periods.
The
great
preponderance
of
fish
impinged
during
the
study
(
85%)
were
Gizzard
Shad
of
1
ounce
or
smaller.
Total
impinged
Gizzard
Shad
were
156
fish.
Of
the
156
count,
60
were
trapped
on
the
screens
on
only
two
days
when
the
river
froze
over,
January
1,
1989
and
January
5,
1989.
I
believe
this
is
a
very
small
impact
on
the
fish
population
of
the
Tuscarawas
River.
Studies
have
indicated
that
Gizzard
Shad
do
not
have
the
ability
to
withstand
the
cold
temperatures
of
near
freezing
water.
These
temperatures
cause
the
fish
to
become
lethargic
and
in
many
cases
die
as
a
natural
cause.
Another
problem
that
we
experience
annually
is
vegetation
being
impinged
in
our
CWIS.
This
occurs
primarily
during
late
summer
and
fall.
As
lawn
clipping
and
leaves
migrate
into
the
Tuscarawas
River
we
must
maintain
a
continuous
watch
to
keep
the
intake
clear.

If
we
were
to
install
a
fish
handling
system
on
our
rotating
screens
they
would
be
required
to
run
continuously.
Since
these
screens
were
installed
in
1933
I
believe
the
mechanical
wear
and
tear
would
increase
dramatically.
This
would
also
require
more
frequent
rebuilds
of
the
traveling
screens.
The
run
time
would
be
about
5
times
more
than
current
operation
modes
increasing
plant
maintenance
costs.
In
addition
we
would
have
to
increase
staffing
levels
to
allow
current
personnel
to
perform
the
duties
now
required
by
plant
operations.
It
doesn't
appear
the
estimates
would
include
these
type
additional
costs.
Each
additional
employee
required
to
operate
the
plant
would
add
about
$
60,000.00
per
year
in
wages
and
benefits.
It
doesn't
appear
these
additional
costs
were
factored
into
the
calculations.
Even
without
these
additional
cost
numbers
it
would
Page
70
appear
that
the
percentage
increase
is
several
times
higher
than
the
estimated
0.1%
to
0.2%
in
the
Cost
Impact
Analysis
of
the
316
(
B)
Phase
II.

Using
the
information
and
formulas
provided
in
the
"
Background
Information
for
Potential
Small­
Entity
Representatives",
the
cost
of
compliance
to
Dover
Light
Plant
would
be
$
112,612.17
in
Capital
Cost,
$
15,346.15
Annual
O&
M
and
$
58,198.00
for
Information
Collection
Request.
To
a
small
system
with
a
very
limited
customer
base
this
would
have
a
substantial
economic
impact
on
Dover.
The
$
112,612.17
represents
about
7500
man­
hours.
While
the
Annual
O&
M
costs
listed
in
the
EPA
materials
may
only
be
$
58,198.00
that
represents
an
additional
3800
man­
hours.
These
figures
also
do
not
appear
to
include
additional
personnel
that
may
be
required
to
operate
the
new
system.

In
addition
to
the
capital,
O&
M,
and
ICR
costs,
we
anticipate
that
EPA
will
require
two
years
of
verification
monitoring
for
Phase
III
facilities,
just
as
it
has
proposed
for
Phase
II
facilities.
See
Proposed
40
C.
F.
R.
§
125.95
(
b)(
7).
The
costs
of
verification
monitoring
will
be
inordinately
burdensome
on
small
municipal
utilities.
EPA
estimated
the
annual
costs
(
in
2001
dollars)
of
Phase
II
verification
monitoring
as
follows:
Freshwater
Marine
Impingement
$
16,985
$
21,623
Entrainment
$
37,369
$
46,044
TOTAL
$
54,354
$
67,667
Source:
EPA's
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Rule
(
DCN:
4­
0001),
Table
8.

There
is
no
basis
for
assuming
that
verification
monitoring
for
Phase
III
will
be
any
less
extensive
than
what
is
required
for
Phase
II,
and
therefore
the
costs
for
Phase
III
should
be
comparable
to
what
EPA
has
estimated
for
Phase
II.
In
addition
to
these
costs,
we
will
need
to
commit
resources
to
planning
for
the
monitoring
and
providing
oversight
to
the
contractor
who
will
perform
the
monitoring.
Using
cost
figures
outlined
in
the
paragraph
above,
the
total
freshwater
compliance
monitoring
cost
of
$
54,354.00
would
represents
almost
3600
man­
hours.

For
small
intakes,
these
types
of
expenses
cannot
be
justified
by
the
potential
benefits
to
the
environment.
The
value
of
fish
saved
by
the
improved
intake
technologies
undoubtedly
will
be
much
less
than
the
expenses
incurred
by
the
utility.
Page
71
The
SBREFA
Panel
Support
for
Cooling
Water
Phase
III
Regulations
under
Section
3126
(
B)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
Final
Report
has
a
Cost
Benefit
Comparison
of
various
regulatory
options.
All
the
options
listed
indicate
a
negative
cost
benefit
ratio
for
all
CWIS
(
cooling
water
intake
structure)
with
a
DIF
(
design
intake
flow)
for
20
MGD
or
less.
These
negative
cost
benefit
ratios
range
from
$
0.37
benefit
for
every
dollar
spent
for
compliance
cost
for
2
to10
MGD
intakes
to
about
$
0.72
benefit
for
every
dollar
spent
for
10
to
20
MGD
intake
structures.
I
think
with
the
added
economic
impact
and
negative
cost
benefit
ratios
require
careful
consideration
prior
to
added
regulation
on
a
system
that
currently
has
very
minor
impact
on
the
fish
population
in
the
Tuscarawas
River.

David
G.
Borland,
Superintendent
Dover
Light
&
Power
Generating
Plant
Page
72
Appendix
C,
part
C.
8:
Comment
from
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
February
6,
2004
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
Preliminary
Comments
on
EPA
Approach
to
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Phase
III
Rulemaking
Dear
Mr.
Fox:

Port
Townsend
Paper
is
pleased
to
submit
these
comments
on
EPA's
proposed
approach
to
Phase
III
of
the
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
(
CWIS)
rulemaking
under
Section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
I
have
consulted
with
Meg
McCarthy
of
the
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
in
the
preparation
of
these
comments,
as
she
attended
the
outreach
meeting
EPA
held
last
month.
While
I
am
writing
these
comments
from
the
perspective
of
a
small
business,
the
alternatives
proposed
within
these
comments
could
be
applied
more
generally
to
all
Phase
III
facilities
since,
on
the
whole,
these
facilities'
cooling
water
intake
structures
have
not
been
identified
as
causing
adverse
environmental
impacts.

As
a
small
business,
Port
Townsend
Paper
is
concerned
about
the
potential
costs
and
burdens
that
may
be
imposed
by
the
Phase
III
rulemaking.
Port
Townsend
Paper,
like
many
small
paper
manufacturers,
currently
is
facing
significant
economic
challenges.
The
recent
economic
slump
and
shifting
markets
resulted
in
the
closure
of
our
two
bag
plants
and
the
loss
of
over
200
jobs.
In
addition,
the
weak
global
economy
has
limited
sales
overseas.
While
there
has
been
an
upturn
in
the
global
and
domestic
markets
recently,
we
still
have
not
seen
a
significant
improvement
in
our
businesses.
Capital
expenditure
has
been
restricted
and
further
downsizing
of
our
remaining
personnel
has
occurred.
Our
limited
resources
must
be
spent
wisely
to
insure
our
continued
existence.
Any
additional
costs
will
only
exacerbate
that
economic
challenge.
For
example,
the
initial
capital
cost
of
retrofitting
a
facility
with
an
intake
technology
plus
the
compliance
costs
of
annual
monitoring
and
reporting,
as
estimated
by
the
EPA,
would
pose
a
substantial
financial
burden
on
small
businesses
such
as
Port
Townsend
Paper.

Additionally,
according
to
the
Small
Business
Administration's
analysis
of
the
benefits
and
costs
of
some
of
the
regulatory
alternatives
for
the
Phase
III
rulemaking,
the
permitting,
monitoring
and
reporting
costs
were
considerably
greater
than
the
capital
costs
and
operating
costs
of
the
technologies
used
to
minimize
environmental
impact.
SBA
also
indicates
that
the
cost­
benefit
ratio
for
the
rulemaking
would
improve
if
regulatory
alternatives
were
adopted
that
deregulate
smaller
facilities,
eliminating
cumbersome
regulations
on
small
entities
that
provide
few
environmental
benefits
per
dollar
invested.

Our
comments
are
premised
on
the
notion
that
despite
decades
of
operation,
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
operated
by
Port
Townsend
Paper
and
other
Phase
III
facilities
are
not
thought
to
present
an
adverse
environmental
impact
to
the
aquatic
resources
located
near
those
intakes.
Page
73
Port
Townsend
Paper
would
support
the
following
regulatory
approaches
for
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
that
take
this
into
account.

1.
EPA
should
consider
not
applying
comprehensive
national
regulations
to
all
Phase
III
facilities.
There
are
several
alternatives
that
EPA
could
utilize
to
determine
which
facilities
would
be
regulated.
Options
include:

A
EPA
should
focus
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
only
on
facilities
with
a
reasonable
likelihood
of
causing
adverse
environmental
impact
(
AEI)
through
cooling
water
withdrawals.
As
an
initial
matter,
EPA
should
establish
one
or
more
applicability
thresholds
and
exempt
from
the
scope
of
the
rulemaking,
facilities
that
do
not
fall
within
those
thresholds.
The
authority
to
seek
additional
studies
or
impose
additional
requirements
should
be
appropriately
limited.
Stakeholders
have
suggested
various
de
minimis
applicability
thresholds
ranging
from
10­
250
MGD.
For
example,
SBA
suggests
that
facilities
withdrawing
less
than
20
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
should
be
outside
the
scope
of
the
rulemaking,
absent
some
unusual
site­
specific
factor
that
would
cause
a
permit
writer
to
seek
additional
study
or
impose
additional
requirements.
Further
investigation
into
the
costs
and
benefits
of
each
of
the
various
threshold
levels
should
be
conducted.

A
Additionally,
if
EPA
uses
the
amount
of
water
withdrawal
as
an
applicability
criterion,
Port
Townsend
Paper
suggests
that
EPA
base
that
criterion
on
actual
intake
flow,
as
opposed
to
the
design
intake
flow.
Many
manufacturers,
including
small
businesses,
are
already
functioning
with
lower
intake
and
discharge
volumes
as
required
by
their
NPDES
permits
or
have
a
demonstrated
track
record
of
lower
water
withdrawal.
By
basing
the
flow
threshold
on
design
intake
without
considering
that
the
actual
intake
volume
may
be
significantly
lower,
the
EPA
is
in
effect
penalizing
facilities
for
conserving
water.
Port
Townsend
suggests
that
the
EPA
utilize
the
more
reasonable
and
consistent
alternative
of
basing
the
flow
threshold
on
past
actual
intake
volume,
not
on
design
intake
volume.

A
Alternatively,
EPA
should
exclude
all
Phase
III
facilities
from
regulation
except
in
those
cases
where
the
permit
writer
determines
that
based
on
available
scientific
data
a
CWIS
has
resulted
in
an
adverse
environmental
impact.
For
those
facilities
the
permit
writer
should
use
best
professional
judgment
to
include
in
the
facility's
NPDES
permit
provisions
for
the
application
of
best
technology
available
or
equivalent
(
see
below)
to
minimize
that
impact.

2.
Port
Townsend
Paper
would
support
alternative
regulatory
approaches
for
those
facilities
that
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
in
order
to
lessen
the
effect
of
the
rule
on
small
businesses.

A
Best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
could
be
defined
by
EPA
as
a
designated
suite
of
technologies
for
facilities
that
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
rulemaking
in
order
to
reduce
the
economic
burden
posed
by
the
considerable
permitting,
monitoring
and
reporting
costs.
Plants
that
agree
to
install
an
approved
technology
would
be
considered
to
be
in
compliance
with
Section
316(
b)
and
not
be
subject
to
extensive
monitoring
costs
and
burdensome
reporting
requirements.
Page
74
A
EPA
should
consider
regulating
only
impingement
(
not
entrainment)
at
plants
in
appropriate
circumstances.
EPRI
has
produced
a
report
that
shows
that
in
many
instances
a
significant
water
withdrawal
and
healthy
fish
populations
can
co­
exist,
so
the
risks
of
dropping
entrainment
controls
for
plants
in
this
category
are
likely
to
be
small
while
cost
savings
would
be
significant.

A
EPA
should
consider
identifying
industrial
subcategories
that
could
be
adversely
affected
by
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
and
reducing
the
rulemaking's
economic
burden
for
these
subcategories.

Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
SBREFA
process
and
to
comment
on
the
development
of
regulations
to
establish
requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Section
316(
b)
Phase
III
Facilities.
Please
feel
free
to
contact
me
at
(
360)
379­
2112
if
you
have
any
questions
about
these
comments.

Sincerely,

Eveleen
Muehlethaler
Vice
President,
Asst.
Mill
Manager
Port
Townsend
Paper
Corporation
Page
75
Appendix
C,
part
C.
9:
Comment
from
Richmond
Power
&
Light
February
5,
2004
Richmond
Power
&
Light
2000
U.
S.
27
South
Richmond,
Indiana
47374
Comments
on
the
316
(
b)
Phase
III
Rule
Development
Dear
EPA,

Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
rule.

Richmond
Power
&
Light
is
located
in
Wayne
County
Indiana.
Population
is
approximately
39,000.
The
Utility
employees
one
hundred
and
forty
people.
The
Municipal
has
been
generating
electricity
for
over
one
hundred
years.
Richmond
has
a
strong,
consistent
industrial
base
consisting
of
mostly
small
to
medium
sized
industrial
plants.

The
utility
owns
and
operates
2
pulverized
coal
units.
Unit
one,
a
33­
megawatt
unit
and
unit
2,
a
60­
megawatt
unit.
Each
unit
has
its
own
dedicated
cooling
tower.
River
water
is
drawn
from
the
east
fork
of
the
Whitewater
River.
Daily
makeup
flow
is
approximately
one
million
gallons
per
day.
We
have
no
NPDES
permit.

Small
entities
like
Richmond
are
very
concerned
with
any
new
proposed
rule.

Some
concerns
are:

Small
entities
have
no
environmental
department.

All
work
would
be
performed
by
outside
contractors.

Reliability
could
be
affected.

Economic
burden
could
be
significant.

Studies
alone
would
be
expensive.

Ratepayers
could
possibility
see
increases.

Additional
staff
may
need
to
be
added.
Page
76
Cost
summaries
contained
in
the
"
Background
Information
For
Small
Entity
Representatives"
indicate
compliance
cost
of
a
2MGD
in
example
one
are
$
46,943
for
capital
costs,
$
5249
for
O&
M
and
$
58198
for
ICR.
These
alone
are
significant
for
small
communities
and
utilities.

Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
rule
making.
If
you
have
any
questions
or
need
further
information,
please
call.
Page
77
Appendix
C,
part
C.
10:
Comment
from
City
of
Iola
Power
Plant
Note:
This
comment
resulted
from
the
October
1,
2002
outreach
meeting
conducted
the
first
time
this
proposed
rule
was
preparing
for
a
Panel.

City
of
Iola
Power
Plant
(
Iola,
Kansas)

This
comment
was
sent
via
email.

Steve
Robb
<
powerplt@
iolaks.
com>
10/
23/
02
02:
04
PM
To:
Deborah
Nagle/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
EPA316b
The
City
of
Iola
Power
Plant
was
started
in
1900.
The
power
plant
has
used
river
water
from
the
Neosho
river
for
cooling
systems
since
the
very
start
as
we
do
today.
The
river
water
(
surface
water)
is
used
in
a
once
thru
pass
for
cooling
steam
condensers,
then
returned
to
the
river.
From
1900
to
1962
the
power
plant
operated
24
hours
per
day
7
days
per
week
365
days
per
year.
From
1962
to
present
the
power
plant
only
operates
3
to
4
months
per
year
during
peak
seasons.
In
1995
the
power
plant
installed
a
new
traveling
screen
with
3/
8"
square
woven
mesh
wire
screens.
We
use
a
bar
rack
in
front
of
the
intake
structure
and
a
solid
barrier
at
water
level
to
keep
floating
derbies
out
of
our
traveling
screens.
We
have
had
no
problem
with
fish
or
other
river
life
being
trapped
in
our
intake
screens.
To
reduce
the
size
of
our
screens
would
make
it
impossible
for
us
to
operate
our
system.
Tree
leaves,
sticks
and
mud
during
high
water
plug
our
screens
reasonably
quick.
The
steam
equipment
we
are
using
are
3
megawatt
and
5
megawatt
condensing
steam
turbines.
Total
daily
flow
can
go
from
6
MGD
to
24
MGD
depending
on
day
to
day
operations.

Thanks
Steve
Robb
Power
Plant
Superintendent.
[
Iola
Electric
Department,
Iola,
KS]
Page
78
12
Electric
Power
Research
Institute.
December
2002.
Impacts
of
Water
Withdrawals
on
Fish
Populations
and
Communities.
Prepared
by
Oak
Ridge
National
Laboratories.
EPRI
TR­
100­
5178
Appendix
C,
part
C.
11:
Comment
from
the
National
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Association
(
NRECA)

Note:
This
comment
resulted
from
the
October
1,
2002
outreach
meeting
conducted
the
first
time
this
proposed
rule
was
preparing
for
a
Panel.
At
that
time,
EPA
had
identified
one
potential
SER
affiliated
with
NRECA.
That
entity
was
acquired
by
a
large
entity.
___________________________________________________________

NRECA
Preliminary
Comments
Section
316(
b)
Regulations
­­
Phase
III
Comments
on
Preliminary
EPA
Phase
III
Material
EPA
has
not
established
the
precision
of
their
cost
estimates.
Because
the
large
number
of
site
specific
factors
likely
to
affect
costs
are
not
included,
the
accuracy
of
the
cost
estimates
are
highly
uncertain.
As
a
result,
EPA's
ability
to
predict
the
actual
costs
for
retrofitting
intake
technologies
at
existing
facilities
is
in
doubt.

Alternative
Regulatory
Approach
Risk
Management
Approach
­­
To
the
greatest
extent
practicable,
the
rules
should
reflect
the
principles
of
risk
management.
The
rules
should
minimize
transaction
costs
like
costs
for
preparing
permit
applications
and
performing
baseline
biological
studies.
EPA
should
attempt
to
identify
low­
risk
facilities
and
instances
where
risks
to
certain
sectors
of
the
environment
are
minimal.

Plants
With
Closed
Cycle
Recirculating
Cooling
­­
should
be
exempt
from
the
rule.

Flow
Threshold
­­
EPA
should
consider
exempting
cooling
water
intakes
with
an
average
flow
of
50
MGD
or
less
from
the
rule.

Impingement
Only
­­
EPA
should
consider
regulating
only
impingement
(
not
entrainment)
at
cooling
water
intakes
with
flows
below
100
MGD.
EPRI12
has
produced
a
report
that
shows
that
in
many
instances
a
significant
water
withdrawal
and
healthy
fish
populations
can
co­
exist,
so
the
risks
of
dropping
entrainment
controls
for
intakes
in
this
category
are
likely
to
be
small
while
cost
savings
would
be
significant.

Screening
Tool
­­
EPA
should
consider
developing
a
screening
tool
as
recommended
in
UWAG's
Phase
II
comments.
In
may
be
possible
to
identify
intakes
with
low
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impacts
based
on
a
tool
that
uses
a
small
amount
of
readily
available
data.

For
Remaining
Facilities
­­
EPA
should
provide
a
two
track
process:
Page
79
 
In
the
first
track,
one
of
the
options
EPA
should
consider
is
an
approach
that
does
not
rely
on
particular
performance
criteria.
Rather,
EPA
would
identify
a
small
number
of
technologies
as
"
best".
Plants
that
agree
to
install
technologies
on
this
list
would
be
deemed
to
be
in
compliance
with
316(
b).
For
intakes
with
flows
below
100
MGD,
EPA
should
consider
specifying
technologies
that
address
only
impingement,
not
entrainment.

­
OR
­

 
In
the
second
track
­­
an
essential
part
of
this
approach
­­
dischargers,
at
their
option,
may
perform
a
cost
/
benefit
analysis
and
develop
a
site­
specific
solution
as
proposed
in
Phase
II.
Restoration
is
also
an
option
that
dischargers
would
be
allowed
to
consider
on
this
track.