Date:    7/22/99 1:30pm
Subject: Bad News on Cornell

I heard from DEC and Comell today, and they don't like our "agreements". I 
have discussed this with Ron, and he wants to wait for input from you.

Pat McNally called, he spoke to Hal Craft this morning:

1. Cornell has not agreed to any specifics. They have agreed generally to the 
"criteria" and "offsets" actions, but they want to discuss at the 8/17 
meeting before committing to specific actions.

2. They think our write-up about the ouffall relocation study is off-base.

Steve Eidt called:

1. He does not like the outfall relocation study writeup, especially the 
specific comment about the photic zone and phosphorus availability.

2. He and Phil DeGaetano have a big problem with the specific reference to 
offsets, although he concurs with the remainder of the writeup on NPS 
mitigation - but he stresses that they will be looking for EPA money to get 
the projects done.

3. He does not support the use of the word explicit in describing the 
criteria that will be developed to evaluate if the Plant is having an adverse 
impact. He thinks we need to set up a process' for decision-making that 
allows for reason and judgment - and not develop a rigid numeric approach.

Options for us to consider now include:

1. Wait until after the 8/17 meeting before we characterize the "agreements" 
and send out our review document.

2. Delete the "agreements" from the document and explain that agreements are 
being sought on next steps. We could either identify the topics on which we 
are seeking agreement or just be silent.

3. Maintain the substance of the three bullets but characterize them as EPA's 
recommendations for which we are seeking agreement.