U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
FOR
COOLING
WATER
INTAKE
STRUCTURES
PHASE
II
EXISTING
FACILITY
FINAL
RULE
December
23,
2003
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1b
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2a
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2a(
i)
Need
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2a(
ii)
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
2b
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
3
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
3a
Nonduplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
3b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
3c
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
3d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
3e
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
3f
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
3g
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
4a
Respondents/
SIC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
4b
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
4b(
i)
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
4b(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
5
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION,
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
50
5a
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
5b
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
5c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
5d
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
6
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
.
.
53
6a
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
6b
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
6b(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
6b(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
6c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
73
6d
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
73
6e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
ii
6e(
i)
Respondent
Tally
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
6e(
ii)
Agency
Tally
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
6f
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
6g
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
APPENDIX
A
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Analysis
for
the
Information
Collection
Requirements
of
the
Final
Section
316(
b)
Existing
Facility
Proposal
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
1.
Selected
NPDES
State
Statutory/
Regulatory
Provisions
Addressing
the
Impact
from
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
Table
2.
Industry
Organization
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
Table
3.
Environmental
Organization
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
Table
4.
Federal
and
State
Government
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
Table
5.
Industry
Categories
and
SIC
Codes
for
Phase
II
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
Table
6.
Number
of
Facilities
Assumed
to
Comply
with
Information
Collection
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
Table
7.
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
Sample
Types
.
.
.
.
.
58
Table
8.
Average
Burden
per
Facility
for
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
Table
9.
Average
Burden
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
Table
10.
Average
Director
Burden
for
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
Table
11.
Average
Burden
&
Costs
per
Facility
for
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
.
.
.
.
71
Table
12.
Average
Burden
&
Costs
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
Table
13.
Average
Director
Burden
&
Costs
for
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
Table
14.
Estimating
Federal
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
73
Table
15.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
Table
16.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
1
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
TITLE:
Information
Collection
Request
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Final
Rule
U.
S.
EPA
ICR
NUMBER:
2060.02
1b
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
The
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
final
rule
requires
the
collection
of
information
from
existing
facilities
that
generate
and
transmit
electric
power
or
generate
electric
power
but
sell
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission,
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
(
CWIS)

and
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
more.
Section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
requires
that
any
standard
established
under
Section
301
or
306
of
the
CWA
and
applicable
to
a
point
source
must
require
that
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
CWISs
at
that
facility
reflect
the
best
technology
available
(
BTA)
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Such
impact
occurs
as
a
result
of
impingement
(
where
fish
and
other
aquatic
life
are
trapped
on
technologies
at
the
entrance
to
cooling
water
intake
structures)
and
entrainment
(
where
aquatic
organisms,
eggs,
and
larvae
are
taken
into
the
cooling
system,
passed
through
the
heat
exchanger,
and
then
pumped
back
out
with
the
discharge
from
the
facility).
The
final
rule
establishes
requirements
applicable
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
These
requirements
seek
to
establish
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
CWISs.

Under
the
final
rule,
Phase
II
existing
facilities
are
defined
as
existing
facilities
that
meet
the
applicability
criteria
specified
in
§
125.91
and
that
both
generate
and
transmit
electric
power,

or
generate
electric
power
but
sell
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission.
The
applicability
criteria
in
§
125.91
specify
that
an
existing
facility
is
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
subject
to
this
regulation
if
it
is
a
point
source
that
uses
or
proposes
to
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
both
generates
and
transmits
electric
power
or
generates
electric
power
but
sells
it
to
another
entity
for
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
2
transmission,
has
at
least
one
CWIS
that
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
it
withdraws
(
measured
on
an
average
monthly
basis)
for
cooling
purposes,
and
has
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
more.
In
the
case
of
a
cogeneration
facility
that
shares
a
CWIS
with
another
existing
facility,
only
that
portion
of
the
cooling
water
intake
flow
that
is
used
in
the
cogeneration
process
shall
be
considered
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
the
50
MGD
and
25
percent
criteria
are
met.
Use
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
includes
obtaining
cooling
water
by
any
sort
of
contract
or
arrangement
with
an
independent
supplier
(
or
multiple
suppliers)

of
cooling
water
if
the
supplier
or
suppliers
withdraw(
s)
water
from
waters
of
the
United
States.

Use
of
cooling
water
does
not
include
obtaining
cooling
water
from
a
public
water
system
or
use
of
treated
effluent
that
otherwise
would
be
discharged
to
a
water
of
the
United
States.

EPA
chose
the
50
MGD
threshold
to
focus
the
final
rule
on
the
largest
existing
electric
power
generating
facilities.
The
50
MGD
threshold
is
reasonable
because
it
addresses
a
substantial
percentage
of
the
cooling
water
flow
withdrawn
by
existing
electric
power
generating
facilities.
EPA
believes
the
regulation
of
existing
power
generating
facilities
with
flows
of
50
MGD
or
greater
in
Phase
II
will
address
those
existing
facilities
with
the
greatest
potential
to
cause
or
contribute
to
adverse
environmental
impact.
While
the
25
percent
threshold
generally
does
not
affect
existing
electric
power
generating
facilities
since
such
facilities
typically
use
the
majority
of
their
intake
flow
for
cooling,
EPA
has
included
this
threshold
both
to
ensure
consistency
with
the
new
facility
rule
requirements
and
in
anticipation
of
the
Phase
III
rule,
which
will
address
existing
manufacturing
facilities
and
other
existing
electric
power
generating
facilities.

Existing
electric
power
generating
facilities
that
do
not
meet
the
threshold
requirements
regarding
the
amount
of
water
withdrawn
for
cooling
water
purposes
in
§
125.91(
a),
and
existing
manufacturing
facilities,
will
be
addressed
at
a
later
date
in
the
Phase
III
Existing
Facility
rulemaking.
Until
that
time,
these
facilities
must
meet
requirements
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case,

best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ)
basis.

In
the
final
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
rule,
an
existing
facility
may
choose
one
of
the
following
four
compliance
alternatives
for
establishing
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
at
the
site:

(
1)(
i)
Demonstrate
that
it
has
reduced,
or
will
reduce,
its
flow
commensurate
with
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system.
In
that
event,
the
facility
will
not
be
required
to
further
demonstrate
that
it
meets
the
performance
standards
for
either
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment.
In
addition,

the
facility
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
in
§
125.95,
§
125.96,
§
125.97,
§
125.98,
and
§
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
3
125.99.
However,
the
facility
may
still
be
subject
to
any
more
stringent
requirements
established
under
§
125.94(
f);
or
(
ii)
Demonstrate
that
it
has
reduced,
or
will
reduce,
its
maximum
through­
screen
design
intake
velocity
to
0.5
ft/
s
or
less.
In
that
event,
the
facility
will
not
be
required
to
further
demonstrate
that
it
meets
the
performance
standards
for
impingement
mortality
and
are
not
subject
to
the
impingement
requirements
in
§
125.95,
§
125.96,
§
125.97,
§
125.98,
and
§
125.99.
However,

the
facility
may
still
be
subject
to
any
more
stringent
requirements
established
under
§
125.94(
f);

(
2)
Demonstrate
that
its
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,

and/
or
restoration
measures
meet
the
performance
standards
specified
in
§
125.94(
a)
and/
or
the
restoration
requirements
in
§
125.94(
d);

(
3)
Demonstrate
that
the
facility
has
selected
design
and
construction
technologies,

operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
that
will,
in
combination
with
any
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
meet
the
performance
standards
specified
in
§
125.94(
a)
and/
or
the
restoration
requirements
in
§
125.94(
d);

(
4)
Demonstrate
that
the
facility
has
installed
and
properly
operates
and
maintains
an
approved
design
and
construction
technology
in
accordance
with
§
125.99(
a)
or
(
b).
If
the
facility
installs
and
properly
operates
the
approved
design
and
construction
technology
in
§
125.99(
a),
it
meets
the
requirements
in
§
125.94(
b)(
1)(
ii)
for
reducing
impingement
mortality;
or
Demonstrate
that
the
costs
of
compliance
with
the
otherwise
applicable
performance
standards
in
§
125.94(
a)
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
considered
by
the
Administrator
when
establishing
such
performance
standards,
or
that,
for
this
facility,
the
costs
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
national
performance
requirements
in
§
125.94(
a).
The
facility
may
receive
site­
specific
performance
standards
based
on
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available.

The
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
final
rule
requires
several
distinct
types
of
information
collection
as
part
of
the
NPDES
application.
In
general,
the
information
will
be
used
to
identify
which
of
the
performance
standard
requirements
in
the
rule
apply
to
the
facility,
how
the
facility
is
meeting
these
requirements,
and
whether
the
facility
is
meeting
the
goal
of
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Specific
data
requirements
that
would
apply
to
all
facilities
are:
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
4
°
source
water
physical
data
which
shows
the
physical
configuration
of
all
source
waterbodies
used
by
the
facility,
identifies
and
characterizes
the
source
waterbody's
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features,
and
provides
location
through
maps.

°
cooling
water
intake
structure
data
which
shows
the
configuration
and
location
of
cooling
water
intakes
structures,
provides
details
on
the
design
operation
of
each
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
diagrams
flow
distribution
and
water
balance.

°
cooling
water
system
data
that
characterizes
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
system
and
its
relationship
to
the
CWIS.

Additionally,
most
Phase
II
facilities
(
except
those
facilities
meeting
the
requirements
of
compliance
alternative
1),
must
conduct
a
comprehensive
demonstration
study
(
Study)
that
characterizes
the
source
water
baseline
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
structure(
s),
characterizes
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake(
s),
and
confirms
that
the
technology(
ies),
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
proposed
and/
or
implemented
at
the
CWIS
meet
the
applicable
performance
standards
specified
in
§
125.94.
The
final
rule
requires
that
Phase
II
existing
facilities
submit
the
information
required
for
the
Study
consistent
with
the
compliance
alternative
selected.
The
Study
includes
the
following
data
requirements.

°
proposal
for
information
collection
that
describes
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technology(
ies),
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
to
be
evaluated
in
the
study,
describes
any
historical
studies
that
are
proposed
to
be
used
in
the
study,

summarizes
any
past,
ongoing,
or
voluntary
consultation
with
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
(
including
a
copy
of
written
comments
received
as
a
result
of
such
consultation),
and
provides
a
sampling
plan
for
any
new
field
studies
proposed
to
be
conducted.

°
source
waterbody
flow
information
to
support
the
determination
of
whether
the
facility
exceeds
proportional
flow
thresholds
(
i.
e.,
whether
the
facility
withdraws
more
than
a
certain
proportion
of
source
waterbody
flow),
including
the
annual
mean
flow
for
intakes
located
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams,
and
a
description
of
the
waterbody
thermal
stratification
for
intakes
located
in
lakes
or
reservoirs.

°
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
characterization
study
that
provides
information
to
support
the
development
of
a
calculation
baseline
for
evaluating
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
and
to
characterize
current
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.

°
technology
and
compliance
assessment
information
that
explains
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
that
are
in
place
or
have
been
selected
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
calculates
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
5
entrainment
that
would
be
achieved
by
the
selected
technologies
and
operational
measures,
and
demonstrates
that
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
the
CWIS
have
been
selected
to
reflect
BTA
at
the
site.
This
information
includes
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
and
possibly
a
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Compliance
Plan.

°
information
to
support
proposed
restoration
measures
(
if
the
facility
proposes
to
use
restoration
measures)
that
describes
the
restoration
measures
that
are
proposed
to
be
implemented;
quantifies
the
combined
benefits
from
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures;
presents
a
plan
for
implementing
and
maintaining
the
efficacy
of
the
restoration
measures;
and
summaries
of
consultations
with
appropriate
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies;
design
and
engineering
calculations,
drawings
and
maps;
and
a
final
report
from
an
independent
peer
review
of
materials
submitted.

°
information
to
document
installation
and
proper
operation
and
maintainance
of
approved
design
and
construction
technology
to
show
that
an
approved
technology
has
been
(
or
will
be)
properly
installed
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
rule.

°
verification
monitoring
plan
that
describes
the
monitoring
that
will
be
used
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures.

Additional
data
requirements
apply
to
facilities
that
choose
to
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Specific
data
requirements
that
would
apply
to
these
facilities
include:

°
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study
that
documents
the
cost
of
implementing
the
design
and
construction
technology
plan
and
the
costs
of
the
alternative
technologies
and
operational
measures
that
the
facility
proposes
to
implement
at
the
site.

°
valuation
of
the
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
that
uses
a
comprehensive
methodology
to
fully
value
the
impacts
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
at
the
site
and
the
benefits
achievable
by
compliance
with
the
applicable
requirements.

°
identification
and
description
of
qualitative
and
non­
monetized
benefits
that
describes
any
qualitative
and
non­
monetized
benefits
that
would
be
realized
at
the
site.

°
site­
specific
technology
plan
that
describes
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
(
existing
and
proposed)
that
the
facility
has
selected;
demonstrates
the
efficacy
of
the
technologies;
and
demonstrates
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures
selected
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
6
would
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
to
the
extent
necessary
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
§
125.94;
and
includes
design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
plan.

In
addition
to
the
information
requirements
of
the
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permits
normally
specify
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
conducted
by
the
permitted
entity.
Phase
II
existing
facilities
are
required
to
perform
biological
monitoring
of
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
results
of
each
facility's
monitoring
efforts
are
to
be
reported
yearly
to
the
permitting
Director
in
an
annual
status
report.
Finally,
facilities
are
required
to
maintain
records
of
all
submitted
documents,
supporting
materials,
and
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years
(
or
as
directed
by
the
Director).
Facilities
are
also
required
to
perform
a
verification
study
to
demonstrate
that
they
are
meeting
the
required
level
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction.

An
authorized
State
must
update
programs
to
be
consistent
with
the
final
cooling
water
intake
requirements
or
may
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
it
has
adopted
alternative
regulatory
requirements
in
its
NPDES
program
that
will
result
in
environmental
performance
within
a
watershed
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
otherwise
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.
Following
review,
the
Director
will
approve
alternative
regulatory
requirements.
State
Directors
are
required
to
also
review
all
materials
submitted
to
them
by
the
facilities
within
the
scope
of
the
final
regulation,
confirm
their
compliance
with
the
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
rule,
and
issue
NPDES
permits
with
appropriate
conditions
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
the
facilities'
CWISs.

As
suggested,
the
primary
users
of
the
data
collected
under
the
final
rule
will
be
States
authorized
to
administer
the
NPDES
permitting
program,
and
the
EPA.
It
is
anticipated
that
other
government
agencies,
both
at
the
State
and
Federal
level,
as
well
as
public
interest
groups,
private
companies,
and
many
individuals
will
also
use
the
data.

During
the
first
three
years
after
rule
promulgation,
the
information
collection
required
by
the
rule
will
involve
responses
from
an
estimated
total
of
463
facilities
and
46
States
and
Territories
and
cost
approximately
$
307.5
million
(
including
operation
and
maintenance
costs),

with
an
annual
average
of
334
respondents,
1,700,392
burden
hours,
and
$
102.5
million
per
year
(
see
Section
6
and
Exhibit
A11
in
Appendix
A
for
additional
detail).
1
EPA
2000.
Detailed
Industry
Questionnaire:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Wastewater
Management,
Washington,
D.
C.
OMB
Control
No.
2040­
0213.

12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
7
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2a
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
following
sections
describe
the
need
for
this
information
collection
and
the
legal
authority
under
which
this
information
will
be
collected.

2a(
i)
Need
for
the
Collection
The
information
requirements
of
the
final
rule
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
existing
facilities
are
complying
with
the
rule's
provisions,
and
thereby
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
resulting
from
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
due
to
the
withdrawal
of
cooling
water.
There
is
substantial
evidence
that
existing
cooling
water
intake
structures
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
nearby
environment.
There
is
also
evidence
that
current
systems
are
not
using
the
Best
Technology
Available
To
Minimize
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
(
BTA),
and
that
a
national
regulatory
approach
is
justified.

Evidence
that
Significant
Environmental
Impact
is
Occurring
as
a
Result
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
EPA
estimates
that
facilities
under
the
scope
of
the
final
rule
withdraw
on
average
more
than
214
billion
gallons
of
cooling
water
a
day
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
1
The
withdrawal
of
such
large
quantities
of
cooling
water
in
turn
affects
large
quantities
of
aquatic
organisms
including
phytoplankton
(
tiny,
free­
floating
photosynthetic
organisms
suspended
in
the
water
column),

zooplankton
(
small
aquatic
animals,
including
fish
eggs
and
larvae,
that
consume
phytoplankton
and
other
zooplankton),
fish
and
shellfish.
Aquatic
organisms
drawn
into
cooling
water
intake
structures
are
either
impinged
on
components
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
or
entrained
in
the
cooling
water
system
itself.

Impingement
takes
place
when
organisms
are
trapped
against
intake
screens
by
the
force
of
the
water
being
drawn
into
through
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
velocity
forces
of
the
water
withdrawal
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
can
prevent
proper
gill
movement,

remove
fish
scales,
and
cause
other
physical
damage.
Impingement
can
causes
the
physical
harm
2
EPA.
2004.
Chapter
A7:
Entrainment
Survival,
Case
Study
Analysis
for
the
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule.

12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
8
or
death
of
affected
organisms
through
exhaustion,
starvation,
asphyxiation,
and
descaling.
Death
from
impingement
can
occur
immediately
or
subsequently
after
an
organism
is
returned
to
the
waterbody
as
it
succumbs
to
physical
damage.

Entrainment
occurs
when
organisms
are
drawn
through
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
into
the
cooling
system.
Organisms
that
become
entrained
are
normally
relatively
small
aquatic
organisms,
including
early
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
Many
of
these
small
organisms
serve
as
prey
for
larger
organisms
higher
on
the
food
chain
which
tend
to
be
commercially
and
recreationally
desireable
species.
As
entrained
organisms
pass
through
a
facility's
cooling
system
they
are
subject
to
mechanical,
thermal,
and
sometimes
chemical
stress.
Sources
of
such
stress
include
physical
impacts
in
the
pumps
and
condenser
tubing,
pressure
changes
caused
by
diversion
of
the
cooling
water
into
the
plant
or
by
the
hydraulic
effects
of
the
condensers,
sheer
stress,

thermal
shock
in
the
condenser
and
discharge
tunnel,
and
chemical
toxic
effects
from
antifouling
agents
such
as
chlorine.
Like
death
from
impingement,
death
from
entrainment
can
occur
immediately
or
subsequently
after
an
organism
is
returned
to
the
waterbody
as
it
succumbs
to
the
damage
from
the
stresses
encountered
as
it
passed
through
the
cooling
water
system.
It
is
EPA's
position
that
the
current
state
of
the
science
indicates
that
there
is
little
to
no
chance
of
survival
for
organisms
which
are
entrained
by
cooling
water
intake
structures.
2
The
environmental
impacts
attributable
to
impingement
and
entrainment
at
individual
facilities
may
result
in
appreciable
losses
of
early
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish,
serious
reductions
in
forage
species,
reductions
in
recreational
and
commercial
landings,
and
extensive
losses
over
relatively
short
intervals
of
time.
EPA
estimates
that
the
current
number
of
age­
one
equivalent
fish
and
shellfish
killed
from
impingement
and
entrainment
from
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
the
facilities
covered
by
this
Phase
II
rule
is
over
4
billion
organisms
annually.

The
following
are
among
other
recent
documented
examples
of
impact
occurring
as
a
result
of
cooling
water
intake
structures:

A.
Brayton
Point
Pacific
Gas
&
Electric's
Brayton
Point
plant
(
formerly
owned
by
New
England
Power
Company)
is
located
in
Mt.
Hope
Bay,
in
the
northeastern
reach
of
Narragansett
Bay,
Rhode
Island.
To
increase
electric
generating
capacity,
Unit
4
was
switched
from
closed­
cycle
to
once­
3
Comparison
of
Trends
in
the
Finfish
Assemblages
of
Mt.
Hope
Bay
and
Narragansett
Bay
in
Relation
to
Operations
of
the
New
England
Power
Brayton
Point
Station.
Mark
Gibson,
Rhode
Island
Division
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Marine
Fisheries
Office,
June
1995
and
revised
August
1996.

4
Southern
California
Edison.
1988.
Report
on
1987
data:
marine
environmental
analysis
and
interpretation,
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station.

5
Ibid.

6
Swarbrick,
S.
and
R.
F.
Ambrose.
1989.
Technical
report
C:
entrapment
of
juvenile
and
adult
fish
at
SONGS.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.

7
Kastendiek,
J.
and
K.
Parker.
1988.
Interim
technical
report:
midwater
and
benthic
fish.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.

12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
9
through
cooling
in
1985.
The
modification
of
Unit
4
increased
cooling
water
intake
flow
by
45
percent.
Studies
designed
to
evaluate
whether
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
was
affecting
fish
species
abundance
trends
found
that
Mt.
Hope
Bay
experienced
a
progressively
steady
rate
of
decline
in
finfish
species
of
recreational,
commercial,
and
ecological
importance.
3
In
contrast,

species
abundance
trends
were
relatively
stable
in
coastal
areas
and
portions
of
Narragansett
Bay
that
are
not
influenced
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
Further
strengthening
the
evidence
that
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
was
contributing
to
the
documented
declines
was
the
finding
that
the
rate
of
population
decline
increased
substantially
with
the
full
implementation
of
the
once­
through
cooling
mode
for
Unit
4.

B.
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station
The
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station
(
SONGS)
is
located
on
the
coastline
of
the
Southern
California
Bight,
approximately
2.5
miles
southeast
of
San
Clemente,
California.
4
The
marine
portions
of
Units
2
and
3,
which
are
once­
through,
open­
cycle
cooling
systems,
began
commercial
operation
in
August
1983
and
April
1984,
respectively.
5
Since
then,
many
studies
evaluated
the
impact
of
the
SONGS
facility
on
the
marine
environment.

In
a
normal
(
non­
El
Niño)
year,
an
estimated
121
tons
of
midwater
fish
(
primarily
northern
anchovy,
queenfish,
and
white
croaker)
may
be
entrained
at
SONGS.
6
The
fish
lost
include
approximately
350,000
juveniles
of
white
croaker,
a
popular
sport
fish;
this
number
represents
33,000
adult
individuals
or
3.5
tons
of
adult
fish.
Within
3
kilometers
of
SONGS,
the
density
of
queenfish
and
white
croaker
in
shallow­
water
samples
decreased
by
34
and
36
percent,

respectively.
Queenfish
declined
by
50
to
70
percent
in
deepwater
samples.
7
In
contrast,
relative
abundances
of
bottom­
dwelling
adult
queenfish
and
white
croaker
increased
in
the
vicinity
of
8
Swarbrick,
S.
and
R.
F.
Ambrose.
1989.
Technical
report
C:
entrapment
of
juvenile
and
adult
fish
at
SONGS.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.

9
Kastendiek,
J.
and
K.
Parker.
1988.
Interim
technical
report:
midwater
and
benthic
fish.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.

12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
10
SONGS.
8
Increased
numbers
of
these
and
other
bottom­
dwelling
species
were
believed
to
be
related
to
the
enriching
nature
of
SONGS
discharges,
which
in
turn
support
elevated
numbers
of
prey
items
for
bottom
fish.
9
Additional
documented
examples
of
impacts
occurring
as
a
result
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
are
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
rule
and
the
Technical
Development
Document
.

Evidence
That
Point
Sources
Are
Not
Using
Best
Technology
Available
To
Minimize
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
The
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Rule
addresses
CWISs
at
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities.
In
general
and
based
on
available
data,
most
older
existing
facilities
use
conventional
traveling
screens
as
a
baseline
technology.
These
screens
are
designed
to
prevent
debris
from
entering
the
cooling
water
system,
not
to
minimize
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
most
common
intake
designs
include
front­
end
trash
racks
(
usually
consisting
of
fixed
bars)
to
prevent
large
debris
from
entering
system.
They
are
equipped
with
screen
panels
mounted
on
an
endless
belt
that
rotates
through
the
water
vertically.
Most
conventional
screens
have
3/
8­
inch
mesh
that
prevents
smaller
debris
from
clogging
the
condenser
tubes.
The
screen
wash
is
typically
high
pressure
(
80
to
120
pounds
per
square
inch
(
psi)).
Screens
are
rotated
and
washed
intermittently
and
fish
that
are
impinged
often
die
because
they
are
trapped
on
the
stationary
screens
for
extended
periods.
The
high­
pressure
wash
also
frequently
kills
fish
or
they
are
re­
impinged
on
the
screens.
Conventional
traveling
screens
are
used
by
a
majority
of
existing
facilities
within
the
scope
of
this
rule.

Based
on
an
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule
of
data
collected
through
the
detailed
industry
questionnaire
and
the
short
technical
questionnaire,
EPA
believes
that
the
Phase
II
rule
will
apply
to
approximately
543
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities.
For
these
in­
scope
facilities,
EPA
has
compared
the
technologies
employed
to
those
identified
as
best
technology
available
for
purposes
of
establishing
the
performance
requirements
under
the
final
rule.
Of
these
facilities,
108
operate
at
less
than
15
percent
capacity
utilization,
98
of
which
require
impingement
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
11
controls
only.
Of
the
remaining
435
facilities
(
i.
e.,
those
that
exceed
15
percent
capacity
utilization):


Of
the
90
Phase
II
existing
facilities
located
on
freshwater
lakes
or
reservoirs,
EPA
estimates
that
one
facility
will
need
to
install
both
impingement
and
entrainment
controls,

68
of
these
facilities
will
have
to
install
impingement
controls
only
,
and
that
21
facilities
already
have
impingement
controls
that
meet
the
rule
requirements;


As
for
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities
located
on
the
Great
Lakes,
EPA
estimates
that
37
of
these
facilities
will
have
to
install
impingement
and
entrainment
controls
and
that
16
facilities
already
have
impingement
controls
that
meet
the
rule
requirements;


Of
the
78
facilities
located
on
estuaries,
tidal
rivers,
or
oceans,
EPA
estimates
that
3
facilities
would
already
meet
the
final
impingement
and
entrainment
controls.
The
remaining
75
facilities
will
need
to
install
additional
technologies
to
reduce
impingement,

entrainment,
or
both;


EPA
estimates
that
of
214
facilities
located
on
freshwater
river
or
streams,
165
are
at
or
below
the
flow
threshold
(
i.
e.,
intake
flow
threshold
of
five
(
5)
percent
of
the
mean
annual
flow),
of
which
78
of
these
facilities
would
have
to
install
additional
impingement
controls
and
45
would
install
both
impingement
and
entrainment
controls
(
the
remaining
facilities
have
controls
in
place
the
meet
the
rule
requirements).
EPA
estimates
that
53
facilities
exceed
the
flow
threshold,
all
of
which
would
require
impingement
and
entrainment
controls;


The
rule
will
not
require
any
changes
at
approximately
75
large
existing
facilities
with
recirculating
wet
cooling
systems
(
e.
g.,
wet
cooling
towers
or
ponds).

These
data
indicate
that
the
majority
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
are
not
employing
technologies
that
achieve
performance
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
final
rule.

Evidence
that
a
National
Regulatory
Approach
Is
Warranted
NPDES
permitting
authorities
have
codified
the
requirements
of
Section
316(
b)
in
a
variety
of
ways.
In
1993,
after
evaluating
State
regulations
and
statutes
relating
to
Section
316(
b),
EPA
determined
that
of
the
then
40
States
with
NPDES
permitting
authority,
the
majority
did
not
have
statutes
or
regulations
specifically
addressing
CWISs
in
any
detail.
Table
1
below
summarizes
some
of
the
State
authorities
EPA
identified
that
did
address
CWISs.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
12
States
such
as
California
and
Florida
have
developed
regulatory
requirements
that
closely
mirror
the
statutory
language
of
Section
316(
b).
Additionally,
several
other
NPDES
States
have
included
language
in
their
statutes
or
regulations
referencing
either
Section
316(
b)
or
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
I,
which
is
the
blank
section
of
the
Federal
NPDES
regulations
reserved
for
criteria
applicable
to
cooling
water
intake
structures.
For
example,
New
Jersey's
NPDES
regulations
state,
"[
T]
he
criteria
applicable
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
shall
be
as
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
I
when
the
USEPA
adopts
these
criteria."
Other
States
merely
restate
the
statutory
language.
For
example,
New
York's
NPDES
regulations
require
that
"[
t]
he
location,

design,
construction
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures,
in
connection
with
point
source
thermal
discharges,
shall
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact."
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
13
Table
1.
Selected
NPDES
State
Statutory/
Regulatory
Provisions
Addressing
the
Impact
from
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
NPDES
State
Citation
Summary
of
Requirements
Connecticut
RCSA
Section
22a,

430­
4
Provides
for
coordination
with
other
Federal/
State
agencies
with
jurisdiction
over
fish,
wildlife,
or
public
health,
which
may
recommend
conditions
necessary
to
avoid
substantial
impairment
of
fish,
shellfish,
or
wildlife
resources
New
Jersey
NJAC
Section
7:
14A­
11.6
Criteria
applicable
to
intake
structure
shall
be
as
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
125,
when
EPA
adopts
these
criteria
New
York
6
NYCRR
Section
704.5
The
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
intake
structures
in
connection
with
point
source
thermal
discharges
shall
reflect
BTA
for
minimizing
environmental
impact
Maryland
MRC
Section
26.08.03
Detailed
regulatory
provisions
addressing
BTA
determinations
Illinois
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
306.201
(
1998)
Requirement
that
new
intake
structures
on
waters
designated
for
general
use
shall
be
so
designed
as
to
minimize
harm
to
fish
and
other
aquatic
organisms
Iowa
567
IAC
62.4(
455B)
Incorporates
40
CFR
part
401,
with
cooling
water
intake
structure
provisions
designated
"
reserved"

California
Cal.
Wat.
Code
Section
13142.5(
b)
Requirements
that
new
or
expanded
coastal
power
plants
or
other
industrial
installations
using
seawater
for
cooling
shall
use
best
available
site,
design
technology,
and
mitigation
measures
feasible
to
minimize
intake
and
mortality
of
marine
life
In
discussions
with
State
and
EPA
regional
contacts,
EPA
has
found
that
there
are
numerous
issues
associated
with
the
lack
of
a
national
regulatory
approach
to
implementing
section
316(
b)
requirements.
None
of
the
State
programs
establish
national
performance
standards
for
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
believes
that
such
national
standards
promote
consistent
application
of
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
particularly
believes
that
national
regulations
are
needed
to
ensure
consistency
in
determining
which
facilities
are
subject
to
section
316(
b)

requirements,
what
environmental
impacts
must
be
addressed,
which
available
technologies
are
best,
and
how
to
determine
permit
requirements
that
fulfill
section
316(
b).
In
addition,
many
implementation
issues
require
clarification,
including
but
not
limited
to
what
data
are
sufficient
to
support
316(
b)
decisions,
what
is
the
appropriate
scope
and
focus
of
316(
b)
studies,
and
what
is
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
14
the
appropriate
role
of
practices
such
as
restoration.
The
existing
case­
by­
case
approach
results
in
high
administrative
burdens
being
imposed
on
applicants
and
permit
writers
relative
to
the
final
rule.
As
EPA
has
discussed
at
67
FR
17167,
such
burdens
can
be
associated
with
the
need
to
determine
in
each
case
whether
adverse
impacts
are
occurring,
the
nature
and
level
of
any
such
impacts,
and
which
design
and
construction
technologies
constitute
the
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impacts,
including
consideration
of
costs
and
benefits.

Further,
these
case­
by­
case
approaches
increase
the
likelihood
that
each
significant
cooling
water
intake
permitting
issue
becomes
a
point
of
contention
between
the
applicant
and
permit
writer,

which
experience
indicates
slows
the
permitting
process,
makes
it
more
resource
intensive,
and
makes
it
less
effective
and
more
costly.
EPA
also
is
aware
of
varying
practices
among
States.

For
example,
in
discussions
with
State
and
EPA
regional
contacts,
EPA
has
found
that
there
are
differences
in
the
manner
in
which
States
have
implemented
their
Section
316(
b)
authority
through
the
years.
Some
States
and
Regions
review
Section
316(
b)
requirements
each
time
an
NPDES
permit
is
reissued.
These
permitting
authorities
may
re­
evaluate
the
potential
for
impact
and
whether
operations
or
other
conditions
influencing
the
potential
for
impact
have
changed
at
the
facility.
Other
permitting
authorities
were
found
to
have
made
initial
determinations
for
facilities
in
the
1970s
but
not
to
have
revisited
the
determinations
since.

As
discussed
above,
EPA
believes
that
approaches
to
implementing
Section
316(
b)
vary
greatly.
It
is
evident
that
some
authorities
have
regulations
and
other
program
mechanisms
in
place
to
ensure
continued
implementation
of
Section
316(
b)
and
evaluation
of
the
potential
impact
from
cooling
water
intake
structures,
while
others
do
not.
Furthermore,
Section
316(
b)

determinations
are
currently
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
based
on
permit
writers'
best
professional
judgment.
Through
discussions
with
some
State
permitting
officials
(
e.
g.,
in
California,
Georgia,
and
New
Jersey),
EPA
was
asked
to
establish
national
standards
in
order
to
help
ease
the
case­
by­
case
burden
on
permit
writers
and
to
promote
national
uniformity
with
respect
to
implementation
of
Section
316(
b).

2a(
ii)
Authority
for
the
Collection
Section
316
was
included
in
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
of
1972
for
the
express
purpose
of
regulating
thermal
discharges
and
to
address
the
environmental
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Moreover,
Section
316(
b)
is
the
only
provision
in
the
CWA
that
focuses
exclusively
on
water
intake.
Section
316(
b)
provides
that
"[
a]
ny
standard
established
pursuant
to
[
CWA
Section
301]
or
[
CWA
Section
306]
and
applicable
to
a
point
source
shall
require
that
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
15
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact."
The
requirements
of
Section
316(
b)
are
closely
linked
to
several
of
the
core
elements
(
e.
g.,
secs.
301,

304,
306
and
402)
of
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
program
established
under
the
CWA.
Conditions
implementing
Section
316(
b)
are
and
will
continue
under
this
rule
to
be
included
in
NPDES
permits
issued
under
Section
402
of
the
CWA.

The
final
Phase
II
rule
implements
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
as
it
applies
to
"
Phase
II
existing
facilities"
as
defined
in
this
rule.
The
final
rule
establishes
requirements,
reflecting
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
applicable
to
the
location,

design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
II
existing
power
generating
facilities
that
withdraw
at
least
fifty
(
50)
MGD
of
cooling
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
The
final
rule
does
not
apply
to
existing
manufacturing
facilities
or
to
power
generating
facilities
that
withdraw
less
than
fifty
(
50)
MGD
of
cooling
water.
These
facilities
will
be
addressed
in
a
separate
rulemaking.

The
final
Phase
II
rule
is
being
issued
under
the
authority
of
sections
101,
301,
304,
306,

308,
316,
401,
402,
501,
and
510
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
33
U.
S.
C.
1251,
1311,
1314,

1316,
1318,
1326,
1341,
1342,
1361,
and
1370.
This
rule
partially
fulfills
the
obligations
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
under
a
consent
decree
in
Riverkeeper
Inc.,
et
al.

v.
Whitman,
United
States
District
Court,
Southern
District
of
New
York,
No.
93
Civ.
0314
(
AGS).

The
final
rule
partially
fulfills
EPA's
obligation
to
comply
with
an
Amended
Consent
Decree.
The
Amended
Consent
Decree
was
filed
on
November
22,
2000,
in
the
United
States
District
Court,
Southern
District
of
New
York,
in
Riverkeeper
Inc.,
et
al.
v.
Whitman,
No.
93
Civ
0314
(
AGS),
a
case
brought
against
EPA
by
a
coalition
of
individuals
and
environmental
groups.

The
original
Consent
Decree,
filed
on
October
10,
1995,
provided
that
EPA
was
to
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
interim
orders
and
the
Amended
Consent
Decree,
EPA
has
divided
the
rulemaking
into
three
phases
and
is
working
under
new
deadlines.
As
required
by
the
Amended
Consent
Decree,
on
November
9,
2001,
EPA
took
final
action
on
a
rule
governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
used
by
new
facilities
(
Phase
I).
66
FR
65255
(
December
18,
2001).
The
Amended
Consent
Decree
also
requires
that
EPA
issue
a
proposed
rule
by
February
28,
2002,
(
67
FR
17121,
April
9,
2002)
and
take
final
action
on
this
10
Under
the
Amended
Consent
Decree,
EPA
is
to
propose
regulations
in
Phase
II
that
are
"
applicable
to,
at
a
minimum:
(
i)
existing
utilities
(
i.
e.,
facilities
that
both
generate
and
transmit
electric
power)
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
whose
intake
flow
levels
exceed
a
minimum
threshold
to
be
determined
by
EPA
during
the
Phase
II
rulemaking
process;
and
(
ii)
existing
non­
utility
power
producers
(
i.
e.,
facilities
that
generate
electric
power
but
sell
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission)
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
whose
intake
flow
levels
exceed
a
minimum
threshold
to
be
determined
by
EPA
during
the
Phase
II
rulemaking
process."

12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
16
rule
by
February
16,
2004
(
Phase
II).
10
The
decree
requires
further
that
EPA
propose
regulations
governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
used,
at
a
minimum,
by
smaller­
flow
power
plants
and
factories
in
four
industrial
sectors
(
pulp
and
paper
making,
petroleum
and
coal
products
manufacturing,
chemical
and
allied
manufacturing,
and
primary
metal
manufacturing)
by
November
1,
2004,
and
take
final
action
by
June
1,
2006
(
Phase
III).

2b
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
final
rule
includes
both
information
that
must
be
submitted
to
permitting
authorities
and
data
that
must
be
collected
and
maintained
on­
site
by
the
facility.
Each
existing
facility
maintains
facility­
level
records
of
the
characterization
data,
plans,
measurements,
diagrams,
and
calculations
submitted
to
the
Directors,
as
well
as
the
analytical
results
of
monitoring
actions.

Facilities
could
use
the
data
to:


characterize
environmental
conditions
and
monitor
existing
CWIS
performance

determine
appropriate
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational,
or
restoration
measures

monitor
the
performance
of
design
and
construction
technologies,
or
operational
or
restoration
measures.

Permit
writers
will
also
use
these
data
to
verify
the
appropriate
compliance
actions
are
selected
and
implemented.
Under
the
final
rule,
EPA
and
NPDES
Directors
are
to
maintain
records
compiled
from
the
regulated
facilities.
Much
of
the
basic
information
obtained
from
the
NPDES
permit
application
is
stored
in
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database.
PCS
is
used
to
track
permit
limits,
permit
expiration
dates,
monitoring
data,
and
other
data,
and
provides
EPA
with
a
nationwide
inventory
of
permit
holders.
EPA
stores
basic
notice
of
intent
(
NOI)

information
submitted
for
coverage
under
an
NPDES
general
permit
in
the
NOI
database
housed
at
the
NOI
Processing
Center.

EPA
Headquarters
uses
the
information
contained
in
PCS
and
the
NOI
databases
to
develop
reports
on
permit
issuance,
backlog,
and
compliance
rates.
The
Agency
also
uses
the
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
17
information
to
respond
to
public
and
Congressional
inquiries,
develop
and
guide
its
policies,

formulate
its
budgets,
assist
States
in
acquiring
authority
for
permitting
programs,
and
manage
the
NPDES
program
to
ensure
national
consistency
in
permitting.
States
can
use
this
initial
permit
information
along
with
the
additional
documentation
and
the
annual
reports
to
track
facility
monitoring,
compliance
violations,
and
enforcement
activities.

Permittees
must
reapply
for
NPDES
permits
every
five
years.
The
re­
application
process
is
the
primary
mechanism
for
obtaining
up­
to­
date
and
new
information
concerning
on­
site
conditions.
Although
under
the
final
rule,
existing
facilities
provide
data
from
self­
monitoring
activities
in
annual
reports
to
the
permitting
authority,
these
reports
are
a
less
comprehensive
information
gathering
process
than
is
the
permit
application
process.
EPA
and
States
will
use
reapplication
data
to
identify
new
species
at
risk
or
other
potential
concerns
that
could
lead
the
permit
writers
to
take
the
following
actions:


specify
additional
permit
limitations

assess
compliance
with
applicable
standard
requirements

place
appropriate
special
conditions
in
permits.

Environmental
and
citizen
groups
are
expected
to
use
the
data
collected
under
the
final
rule
to
independently
assess
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
for
affected
water
bodies
in
their
location.
In
addition,
the
data
will
be
useful
for
the
scientific
community
for
assessing
the
impact
of
CWISs
on
recreational
and
commercial
fisheries
productivity
and
aquatic
ecosystem
health.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
18
3
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
The
following
sections
verify
and
affirm
that
this
Information
Collection
Request
satisfies
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
data­
collection
guidelines,
has
public
support,
and
does
not
duplicate
another
collection.

3a
Nonduplication
Given
that
the
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
final
rule
applies
to
existing
facilities,
current
data
sources
may
already
exist
for
the
information
required
under
the
final
rule.
Therefore,
it
was
important
that
EPA
review
existing
data
sources
to
identify
currently
available
information
on
entities
subject
to
Section
316(
b)
regulation
and
to
ensure
that
the
data
requested
by
the
rule
are
not
otherwise
accessible.
Data
sources
reviewed
included:
data
collected
by
offices
within
EPA;

data,
reports,
and
analyses
published
by
other
federal
agencies;
reports
and
analyses
published
by
industry;
and
publicly
available
financial
information
compiled
by
government
and
private
organizations.
From
this
effort,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
information
collection
and
reporting
requirements
considered
in
this
ICR
are
not
contained
or
duplicated
in
other
routinely
collected
documents
or
reports.

3b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
A
summary
of
the
ICR
for
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule
was
included
in
the
proposal
with
a
request
for
comment
(
67
FR
17208).

3c
Consultations
It
is
worth
noting
that
outreach
and
information
collection
is
often
not
limited
to
the
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
rule
or
any
other
phase
of
the
rulemaking.
EPA
has
undertaken
a
widereaching
effort
to
collect
information
applicable
to
all
phases.
The
clearest
example
of
this
type
of
collection
effort
is
the
industry
surveys
distributed
by
EPA
in
2000.
The
database
of
response
information
has
guided
many
decisions
and
analyses
for
all
three
Phases
of
the
rulemaking.

The
following
paragraphs
describe
the
specific
outreach
activities
that
EPA
Staff
performed
during
the
development
of
the
final
Section
316(
b)
rule
for
existing
facilities.
The
11
U.
S.
EPA,
Information
Collection
Request,
Detailed
Industry
Questionaires:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
&
Watershed
Case
Study
Short
Questionnaire,
Section
3,
1999.

12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
19
outreach
activities
were
intended
to
provide
EPA
with
feedback
on
issues
such
as
adverse
environmental
impact,
BTA,
and
the
potential
cost
associated
with
various
regulatory
alternatives.

EPA
conducted
a
program
of
outreach
to
industry
groups,
environmental
groups,
and
other
government
entities
to
get
early
feedback
on
the
Section
316(
b)
regulatory
effort.
EPA
coordinated
with
industry
and
environmental
organization
representatives,
States,
and
regulators
with
the
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE),
in
an
effort
to
find
alternative
approaches
for
regulating
existing
facilities.

In
addition
to
outreach
to
industry
groups,
environmental
groups,
and
other
government
entities
in
the
development,
testing,
refinement,
and
completion
of
the
316(
b)
survey,
11
which
has
been
used
as
a
source
of
data
for
the
Phase
II
final
rule,
EPA
has
made
presentations
on
the
Section
316(
b)
rulemaking
effort
in
general
at
eleven
professional
and
industry
association
meetings.
EPA
also
conducted
two
public
meetings
in
June
and
September
of
1998
to
discuss
issues
related
to
the
Section
316(
b)
rulemaking
effort.
In
September
1998
and
April
1999,
EPA
staff
participated
in
technical
workshops
sponsored
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
on
issues
relating
to
the
definition
and
assessment
of
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
staff
have
participated
in
other
industry
conferences,
met
upon
request
on
numerous
occasions
with
industry
representatives,
and
met
on
a
number
of
occasions
with
representatives
of
environmental
groups.

In
the
months
leading
up
to
publication
of
the
proposed
Phase
I
rule,
EPA
conducted
a
series
of
stakeholder
meetings
to
review
the
draft
regulatory
framework
for
the
proposed
rule
and
invited
stakeholders
to
provide
their
recommendations
for
the
Agency's
consideration.
EPA
managers
have
met
with
the
Utility
Water
Act
Group,
Edison
Electric
Institute,
representatives
from
an
individual
utility,
and
with
representatives
from
the
petroleum
refining,
pulp
and
paper,

and
iron
and
steel
industries.
EPA
conducted
meetings
with
environmental
groups
attended
by
representatives
from
between
3
and
15
organizations.
EPA
also
met
with
the
Association
of
State
and
Interstate
Water
Pollution
Control
Administrators
(
ASIWPCA)
and,
with
the
assistance
of
ASIWPCA,
conducted
a
conference
call
in
which
representatives
from
17
states
or
interstate
organizations
participated.
EPA
also
met
with
OMB
and
utility
representatives
and
other
federal
agencies
(
the
Department
of
Energy,
the
Small
Business
Administration,
the
Tennessee
Valley
Authority,
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration's
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
and
the
Department
of
Interior's
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service).
After
publication
of
the
proposed
Phase
I
rule,
EPA
continued
to
meet
with
stakeholders
at
their
request.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
20
EPA
received
more
than
2000
comments
on
the
Phase
I
proposed
rule
and
NODA.
In
some
cases
these
comments
have
informed
the
development
of
the
Phase
II
rule
proposal.

In
January,
2001,
EPA
also
attended
technical
workshops
organized
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
and
the
Utilities
Water
Action
Group.
These
workshops
focused
on
the
presentation
of
key
issues
associated
with
different
regulatory
approaches
considered
under
the
Phase
I
proposed
rule
and
alternatives
for
addressing
316(
b)
requirements.

On
May
23,
2001,
EPA
held
a
day­
long
forum
to
discuss
specific
issues
associated
with
the
development
of
regulations
under
§
316(
b).
At
the
meeting,
17
experts
from
industry,
public
interest
groups,
States,
and
academia
reviewed
and
discussed
the
Agency's
preliminary
data
on
cooling
water
intake
structure
technologies
that
are
in
place
at
existing
facilities
and
the
costs
associated
with
the
use
of
available
technologies
for
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment.

Over
120
people
attended
the
meeting.

On
August
21,
2001,
EPA
staff
participated
in
a
technical
symposium
sponsored
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
in
association
with
the
American
Fisheries
Society
on
issues
relating
to
the
definition
and
assessment
of
adverse
environmental
impact
for
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA.

EPA
received
more
than
3000
comments
on
the
Phase
II
proposed
rule
and
NODA.
EPA
management
and
staff
also
held
a
number
of
meetings
and
conference
calls
with
industry
representatives
and
plaintiffs
to
clarify
the
administrative
record.
EPA
also
drafted
several
supporting
documents
and
responded
to
written
questions
that
industry
representatives
submitted
to
EPA.

On
May
6th
and
7th,
2003,
EPA
hosted
a
symposium
on
Technologies
for
Protecting
Aquatic
Organisms
from
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
in
Arlington,
Virginia.
The
2­
day
symposium
provided
a
forum
for
technology
transfer
and
information
exchange
among
selected
experts
in
the
field
as
well
as
interested
researchers,
engineers,
scientists,
and
consultants
from
government,
industry,
academia,
and
environmental
organizations.

The
tables
below
provide
lists
of
the
major
commenters
on
the
Phase
II
proposed
rule
and
NODA.
Tables
2,
3,
and
4
are
for
industry
organizations,
environmental
organizations,
and
Federal
and
State
governments,
respectively.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
21
Table
2.
Industry
Organization
Representatives
Organization
Point
of
Contact
American
Public
Power
Association
Teresa
Pugh
Edison
Electric
Institute
Richard
Bozec/
Thomas
Kuhn/
Quinlan
Shea
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
Doug
Dixon
PG&
E
Mark
Carney
PSEG
Maureen
Vaskis/
Mark
Strickland
Harvard
University
Robert
Stavins
Utility
Water
Act
Group
Dave
Bailey/
Kristy
Bulleit/
Jim
Stine
Table
3.
Environmental
Organization
Representatives
Organization
Point
of
Contact
Tufts
University
Frank
Ackerman
Atlantic
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission
Carrie
Selberg/
John
O'Shea
Delaware
Riverkeeper
Maya
Van
Rossum
Riverkeeper
Reed
Super
Table
4.
Federal
and
State
Government
Representatives
Organization
Point
of
Contact
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
Jim
Wright/
John
Shipp
NOAA,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
Brian
Pawlak/
William
Hogarth
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
Debra
Littleton/
Robert
Gross
Alabama
DEM
John
Poole,
Jr.

Arkansas
DEQ
Mo
Shafii
Organization
Point
of
Contact
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
22
Arkansas
Office
of
the
Governor
Mike
Huckabee
California
SWRCB
Celeste
Canti
California
Energy
Commission
Terrence
O'Brien
Florida
DEP
Allen
Hubbard
Indiana
DEM
Timothy
Method
Louisiana
DEQ
Gary
Aydell
Maryland
DNR
Rich
McLean/
James
Dieter
Massachusetts
OEA
Thomas
Skinner
Michigan
DEQ
Russell
Harding
New
Jersey
DEP
Bradley
Campbell
New
York
DEC
Peter
Duncan/
Denise
Sheehan
North
Dakota
DOH
Randy
Kowalski
Pennsylvania
DEP
Christine
Martin
Pennsylvania
Fish
and
Boat
Commission
John
Arway
Rhode
Island
Office
of
Attorney
General
Patrick
Lynch
Tennessee
Wildlife
Association/
Tennessee
DEC
Aubrey
McKinney/
Paul
Davis
Tennessee
Wildlife
Resources
Agency
Gary
Myers
Texas
CEQ
Kathleen
White
Texas
NRCC
Daniel
Burke
3d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
has
concluded
that
less
frequent
data
collection
may
fail
to
identify
in
a
timely
manner
adverse
environmental
impact
resulting
from
the
operation
of
existing
CWISs.
In
addition,
less
frequent
collection
would
also
hinder
the
ability
of
EPA,
States,
and
facility
operators
to
take
advantage
of
technological
improvements
in
impingement
and
entrainment
technologies
as
they
occur,
or
to
track
long­
term
trends.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
23
3e
General
Guidelines
The
information
collection
requirements
of
the
final
rule
are
in
accordance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
guidelines
at
5
CFR
1320.5(
d)(
2).
Requests
for
supplemental
information
for
the
purposes
of
emergency
response
or
enforcement
activities
are
exempt
from
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
requirements.

3f
Confidentiality
Applications
for
an
NPDES
permit
may
contain
confidential
business
information.

However,
EPA
does
not
consider
the
specific
information
being
requested
by
the
final
rule
to
be
typical
of
confidential
business
or
personal
information.
If
a
respondent
does
consider
this
information
to
be
of
a
confidential
nature,
the
respondent
may
request
that
such
information
be
treated
as
such.
All
confidential
data
will
be
handled
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
§
122.7,
40
CFR
Part
2,
and
EPA's
Security
Manual
Part
III,
Chapter
9,
dated
August
9,
1976.

3g
Sensitive
Questions
The
Section
316(
b)
Existing
Facility
final
rule
does
not
require
respondents
to
divulge
information
pertaining
to
private
or
personal
information,
such
as
sexual
behavior
or
religious
beliefs.
Therefore,
this
section
is
not
applicable.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
24
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4a
Respondents/
SIC
The
applicability
criteria
of
the
final
rule
at
§
125.91
define
an
existing
facility
as
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
subject
to
this
regulation
if
it
is
a
point
source
that
uses
or
proposes
to
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
both
generates
and
transmits
electric
power
or
generates
electric
power
but
sells
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission,
has
at
least
one
CWIS
that
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
it
withdraws
(
measured
on
an
average
monthly
basis)
for
cooling
purposes,

and
has
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
more.
Use
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
includes
obtaining
cooling
water
by
any
sort
of
contract
or
arrangement
with
an
independent
supplier
(
or
multiple
suppliers)
of
cooling
water
if
the
supplier
or
suppliers
withdraw(
s)
water
from
waters
of
the
United
States.
Use
of
cooling
water
does
not
include
obtaining
cooling
water
from
a
public
water
system
or
use
of
treated
effluent
that
otherwise
would
be
discharged
to
a
water
of
the
United
States.

Typically,
respondents
under
the
Phase
II
rule
include
existing
electric
power
generating
facilities
because
they
are
associated
with
large
cooling
water
needs.
Facilities
in
the
traditional
steam
electric
utility
category
are
classified
under
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes
4911
and
493,
while
nonutility
power
producers
are
classified
under
the
major
code
that
corresponds
to
the
primary
purpose
of
the
facility
(
e.
g.,
the
primary
code
may
be
SIC
49
if
the
primary
purpose
of
the
facility
is
to
generate
electricity).
Nonutility
power
producers
affected
by
the
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
final
rule
are
anticipated
to
be
classified
under
SIC
49
(
i.
e.,
their
primary
purpose
is
to
generate
electricity);
nonutility
power
producers
classified
under
other
SIC
codes
(
i.
e.,
whose
primary
purpose
is
not
generating
electricity)
will
be
addressed
at
a
later
date
under
the
Phase
III
Existing
Facility
rule.
SIC
Codes
are
provided
in
Table
5.

Table
5.
Industry
Categories
and
SIC
Codes
for
Phase
II
Rule
Respondent
Industry
Categories
SIC
Codes
Traditional
Steam
Electric
Utilities
SIC
codes
4911
and
493
Steam
Electric
Nonutility
Power
Producers:

Nonindustrial
SIC
Major
Group
49
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
25
4b
Information
Requested
The
following
sections
provide
details
on
data
items
requested
and
associated
activities
that
the
final
rule
would
require
respondents
to
undertake
to
provide
this
information.
The
two
principal
respondent
categories
are
existing
facilities
subject
to
the
final
rule
and
NPDES
program
Directors
(
i.
e.,
States
and
Territories
authorized
under
CWA
Section
402(
b)
to
administer
the
NPDES
permit
program,
and
EPA
regional
offices).

Information
requirements
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
will
differ
depending
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected
by
the
applicant.
As
discussed
in
Section
1,
four
compliance
alternatives
are
available
to
an
existing
facility.
Certain
information
requirements
are
applicable
to
all
existing
permitted
facilities
to
which
the
rule
applies,
other
information
requirements
apply
based
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected.

Since
Section
316(
b)
standards
are
implemented
through
NPDES
permits,
the
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Rule
affects
Directors
in
a
manner
similar
to
other
changes
to
NPDES
program
requirements.
There
are
currently
45
States
and
one
Territory
authorized
under
CWA
Section
402(
b)
to
implement
the
NPDES
permit
program,
these
new
cooling
water
intake
structure
requirements
potentially
affect
authorized
State
NPDES
programs.
To
be
consistent
with
the
final
rule,
States
must
revise
their
current
regulations
or
may
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator
that
the
State
has
adopted
alternative
regulatory
requirements
that
will
result
in
environmental
performance
within
a
watershed
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
otherwise
be
achieved
by
the
requirements
of
§
125.94.
Implementation
of
the
Phase
II
regulations
begins
upon
promulgation
of
the
final
rule.

4b(
i)
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
Data
items
required
by
the
final
rule
are
gathered
for
either
record
keeping
or
reporting
purposes.
There
are
several
data
items
that
are
collected
only
during
the
year(
s)
prior
to
the
beginning
of
each
permit
cycle,
and
others
that
are
required
to
be
collected
on
an
annual
basis.

Reporting
Requirements
The
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
final
rule
would
not
require
Directors
to
prepare
or
submit
any
reports,
beyond
what
is
currently
required
of
them
under
the
NPDES
program.
However,
Directors
would
need
to
review,
maintain
records
of,
and
make
permitting
determinations
based
upon
all
documents
and
reports
submitted
to
them
by
existing
facilities.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
26
Phase
II
existing
facilities
must
report
the
information
required
under
paragraphs
(
r)(
2),

(
3),
and
(
5)
of
§
122.21
and
§
125.95
with
their
application.
At
the
time
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
submits
its
NPDES
permit
renewal
application
(
180
days
prior
to
expiration
of
its
current
permit,
in
accordance
with
§
122.21(
d)(
2)),
the
final
rule
requires
the
facility
to
submit
information
demonstrating
that
it
is
employing
BTA
for
its
cooling
water
intake
structure
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
in
compliance
with
Section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA.
The
information
will
be
used
to
identify
which
of
the
requirements
in
the
rulemaking
apply
to
the
facility,
how
the
facility
is
meeting
these
requirements,
and
whether
the
facility
is
meeting
the
goal
of
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Three
types
of
information
are
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
applications
for
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities:

(
1)
source
water
physical
data,
as
required
under
§
122.21(
r)(
2),

(
2)
cooling
water
intake
structure
data,
as
required
under
§
122.21(
r)(
3),
and
(
3)
cooling
water
system
data,
as
per
requirements
under
§
122.21(
r)(
5).

Depending
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected,
a
facility
may
also
need
to
conduct
a
comprehensive
demonstration
study
(
Study)
as
stipulated
under
§
125.95(
b)(
1)
through
§
125.95(
b)(
8)
as
applicable
for
the
selected
compliance
alternative.
In
accordance
with
§
125.95(
a)(
2),
the
facility
must
submit
any
applicable
portions
of
the
Study,
except
for
the
Proposal
for
Information
Collection,
required
by
paragraph
(
b)
of
§
125.95
and
the
information
required
in
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3)
and
(
5)
with
the
NPDES
permit
application.
The
Study
includes
the
following
components:

(
1)
a
proposal
for
information
collection
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
1)],

(
2)
source
waterbody
flow
information
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
2)],

(
3)
an
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
characterization
study
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
3)],

(
4)
technology
compliance
and
assessment
information
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
4)],

(
5)
information
to
support
proposed
restoration
measures
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
5)],

(
6)
information
to
document
installation
and
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
approved
design
and
construction
technology
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
6)],
and
(
7)
a
verification
monitoring
plan
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
8)].

Additional
types
of
information
as
stipulated
under
§
125.95
(
b)(
7)
are
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
applications
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
choose
to
request
site­
specific
determinations
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
(
BTA).
The
additional
types
of
information
that
would
be
required
to
be
included
in
the
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
27
NPDES
permit
applications
as
part
of
the
Study
for
these
facilities
are:
(
1)
a
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study,
(
2)
a
valuation
of
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
(
3)
identification
and
description
of
qualitative
and
non­
monetized
benefits,
and
(
4)
a
site­
specific
technology
plan.

Summaries
of
the
information
requirements
for
Phase
II
facilities
are
provided
below.

A.
Source
Water
Physical
Data
EPA
is
requiring
source
water
information
to
evaluate
potential
impact
to
the
waterbody
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
placed.
Typically,
intake
structures
are
located
offshore,
at
the
shoreline,
or
at
the
end
of
an
approach
intake
canal.
The
intake
structure
affects
different
species
or
life
stages
depending
on
its
location
in
the
source
water
and
the
source
water
type.
For
example,
intakes
located
at
the
shoreline
could
affect
spawning
and
nursery
areas,
while
intakes
located
offshore
could
affect
migratory
routes.
In
addition,
the
proximity
of
the
intake
structures
to
sensitive
aquatic
ecological
areas
may
result
in
potential
environmental
impact.
Specific
source
water
physical
data
items
under
§
122.21(
r)(
2)
include:


a
narrative
description
and
scaled
drawings
showing
the
physical
configuration
of
all
source
water
bodies
used
by
the
facility,
including
areal
dimensions,
depths,
salinity
and
temperature
regimes,
and
other
documentation
that
supports
the
determination
of
the
waterbody
type
where
each
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
[
§
122.21(
r)(
2)(
i)];


identification
and
characterization
of
the
source
waterbody's
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features,
as
well
as
the
methods
used
to
conduct
any
physical
studies
to
determine
the
intake's
area
of
influence
within
the
waterbody
and
the
results
of
each
study
[
§
122.21(
r)(
2)(
ii)];
and

locational
maps
[
§
122.21(
r)(
2)(
iii)].

B.
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Data
Under
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
3),
facilities
are
required
to
submit
information
on
the
intake
structure
design
and
operation
and
the
facility's
water
balance
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
impingement
and
entrainment
of
aquatic
organisms.
Information
on
the
design
of
the
intake
structure
and
its
location
in
the
water
column
allows
EPA
to
evaluate
which
species
or
life
stages
would
potentially
be
subject
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
Information
on
the
operation
of
the
intake
structure
and
a
diagram
of
the
facility's
water
balance
would
be
used
to
identify
the
proportion
of
intake
water
used
for
cooling,
make­
up,
and
process
water,
and
to
evaluate
whether
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
28
the
effects
of
the
intake
would
be
continuous,
intermittent
or
seasonal.
The
water
balance
diagram
also
would
provide
a
picture
of
the
total
flow
in
and
out
of
the
facility,
allowing
EPA
to
evaluate
compliance
with
the
flow
reduction
requirements
for
intakes
located
on
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.
Specific
intake
structure
data
items
include:


a
narrative
description
of
the
configuration
of
each
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
where
it
is
located
in
the
waterbody
and
in
the
water
column
[
§
122.21(
r)(
3)(
i)]


latitude
and
longitude
in
degrees,
minutes,
and
seconds
for
each
cooling
water
intake
structure
[
§
122.21(
r)(
3)(
ii)]
;


a
narrative
description
of
the
operation
of
each
cooling
water
intake
structure,
including
design
intake
flows,
daily
hours
of
operation,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable
[
§
122.21(
r)(
3)(
iii)];


a
flow
distribution
and
water
balance
diagram
that
includes
all
sources
of
water
to
the
facility,
recirculating
flows,
and
discharges
[
§
122.21(
r)(
3)(
iv)];
and

engineering
drawings
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
[
§
122.21(
r)(
3)(
v)].

C.
Cooling
Water
System
Data
Facilities
are
required
to
submit
cooling
water
system
data
in
accordance
with
§
122.21(
r)(
5)
for
the
purpose
of
evaluating
the
relationship
between
the
cooling
water
system
and
the
associated
intake(
s)
and
determining
whether
the
facility
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
it
withdraws
for
cooling
purposes.
Data
requirements
include:


a
narrative
description
of
the
operation
of
each
of
the
cooling
water
systems,
relationship
to
cooling
water
intake
structures,
proportion
of
the
design
intake
flow
that
is
used
in
the
system,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable
[
§
122.21(
r)(
5)(
i)]
and

engineering
calculations
and
supporting
data
to
support
the
description
of
the
cooling
water
system
required
[
§
122.21(
r)(
5)(
ii)].

D.
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Under
§
125.95(
b),
facilities
are
required
to
submit
information
in
the
form
of
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
to
characterize
the
source
water
baseline
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake,
characterize
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake,
and
confirm
that
the
technology(
ies),
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
proposed
and/
or
implemented
at
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
29
the
intake
meet
the
applicable
requirements
of
§
125.94.
Study
requirements
vary
based
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected
[
see
§
125.94(
b)].
Specific
Study
data
items
include:

Proposal
for
Information
Collection.
In
accordance
with
§
125.95
(
b)(
1),
this
activity
includes:


a
description
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
to
be
evaluated
in
the
Study
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
1)(
i)]


a
list
and
description
of
any
historical
studies
characterizing
impingement
and
entrainment
and/
or
the
physical
and
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intakes
and
their
relevance
to
the
proposed
Study.
If
the
facility
proposes
to
use
existing
source
waterbody
data,
the
facility
must
demonstrate
the
extent
to
which
the
data
are
representative
of
current
conditions,
that
existing
data
are
sufficient
to
develop
a
scientifically
valid
estimate
of
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
site,

and
that
the
data
were
collected
using
appropriate
quality
assurance/
quality
control
procedures
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
1)(
ii)];


a
summary
of
any
past,
ongoing
or
voluntary
consultation
with
appropriate
Federal,
State
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
agencies
that
is
relevant
to
the
Study
and
a
copy
of
any
written
comments
received
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
1)(
iii)];


a
sampling
plan
for
any
new
field
studies
that
the
facility
proposes
to
conduct.
The
sampling
plan
must
document
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
sampling
and
data
analysis.
The
proposed
sampling
and
data
analysis
methods
must
be
appropriate
for
a
quantitative
survey
and
must
take
into
account
the
methods
used
in
other
studies
performed
in
the
source
waterbody.
The
sampling
plan
must
include
a
description
of
the
study
area
(
including
the
area
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure),
and
provide
a
taxonomic
identification
of
the
sampled
or
evaluated
biological
assemblages
(
including
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish)
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
1)(
iv)].

Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information.
As
required
under
§
125.95
(
b)(
2),
this
includes:


if
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
the
facility
must
provide
the
annual
mean
flow
of
the
waterbody
and
any
supporting
documentation
and
engineering
calculations
to
support
the
analysis
of
which
requirements
specified
in
§
125.94(
a)(
2)(
i)
or
(
ii)
would
apply
to
the
facility
based
on
its
water
intake
flow
in
proportion
to
the
mean
annual
flow
of
the
river
or
stream
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
2)(
i)];
and
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
30

if
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
lake
(
other
than
one
of
the
Great
Lakes)
or
reservoir
and
the
facility
proposes
to
increase
its
design
intake
flow,
the
facility
must
provide
a
narrative
description
of
the
waterbody
thermal
stratification,
and
any
supporting
documentation
and
engineering
calculations
to
show
that
the
natural
thermal
stratification
and
turnover
pattern
will
not
be
disrupted
by
the
total
design
intake
flow
in
a
way
that
adversely
impacts
water
quality
or
fisheries
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
2)(
ii)].

Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
Under
§
125.95
(
b)(
3),
the
following
activities
are
required:


taxonomic
identifications
of
those
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
their
life
stages
that
are
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
and
are
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
3)(
i)];


a
characterization
of
those
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
life
stages
that
are
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
and
are
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment,

including
a
description
of
the
abundance
and
temporal/
spatial
characteristics
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake,
based
on
the
collection
of
a
sufficient
number
of
years
of
data
to
characterize
annual,
seasonal
and
daily
variations
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
(
e.
g.,
related
to
climate/
weather
differences,
spawning,
feeding
and
water
column
migration)
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
3)(
ii)];
and

documentation
of
current
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish,
and
any
species
protected
under
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
Law
(
including
threatened
or
endangered
species)
at
the
facility
and
an
estimate
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
under
the
calculation
baseline.
The
documentation
may
include
historical
data
that
are
representative
of
the
current
operation
of
the
facility
and
of
biological
conditions
at
the
site.
Impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
samples
must
be
collected
during
periods
of
representative
operational
flows
for
the
intake
and
the
flows
associated
with
the
samples
must
be
documented
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
3)(
iii)].

Technology
Compliance
and
Assessment
Information.
If
the
facility
chooses
to
use
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
in
whole
or
in
part
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94,
the
facility
must
submit,
as
stipulated
under
§
125.95(
b)(
4),
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
which
includes
the
following:


the
capacity
utilization
rate
for
the
facility
and
supporting
data
(
including
the
average
annual
net
generation
of
the
facility
(
in
Mwh)
measured
over
a
five
year
period
(
if
available)
of
representative
operating
conditions
and
the
total
net
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
31
capability
of
the
facility
(
in
MW))
and
calculations,
and
an
explanation
of
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
in
place
or
selected,
in
accordance
with
§
125.95
(
b)(
4)(
i);


a
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
(
existing
or
proposed),
including
fishhandling
and
return
systems,
that
the
facility
has
in
place
or
will
use
to
meet
the
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
of
those
species
expected
to
be
most
susceptible
to
impingement,
and
information
that
demonstrates
the
efficacy
of
the
technology
for
those
species
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
4)(
i)(
A)];


a
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
(
existing
or
proposed)
that
the
facility
has
in
place
or
will
use
to
meet
the
requirements
to
reduce
entrainment
of
those
species
expected
to
be
the
most
susceptible
to
entrainment,
and
information
that
demonstrates
the
efficacy
of
the
technology
for
those
species
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
4)(
i)(
B)];


calculations
of
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
would
be
achieved
by
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
the
facility
has
selected
based
on
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
In
determining
compliance
with
the
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment,
the
facility
must
first
determine
the
calculation
baseline
upon
which
to
assess
the
total
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
Reductions
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
from
this
baseline
as
a
result
of
any
design
and
construction
technologies
already
implemented
at
the
facility
should
be
added
to
the
reductions
expected
to
be
achieved
by
any
additional
design
and
construction
technologies
that
will
be
implemented.
Facilities
that
recirculate
a
portion
of
their
flow
may
take
into
account
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
associated
with
the
reduction
in
flow
when
determining
the
net
reduction
associated
with
existing
technology
and
operational
measures.
This
estimate
must
include
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
the
suitability
of
the
technology(
ies)
based
on
the
species
that
are
found
at
the
site,
and/
or
operational
measures
and
may
be
determined
based
on
representative
studies
(
i.
e.,
studies
that
have
been
conducted
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
same
waterbody
type
with
similar
biological
characteristics)
and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
4)(
i)(
C)];
and

design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
above
descriptions
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
4)(
i)(
E)].
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
32

If
a
facility
proposes
compliance
based
on
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Compliance
Plan
during
the
first
permit
term
after
promulgation
of
the
rule,
then
the
facility
must
submit
both
the
design
and
construction
technology
plan
and
the
following:
a
list
of
operational
parameters
to
be
monitored
during
the
first
permit
term
and
the
frequency
that
they
will
be
monitored,
as
required
under
§
125.95
(
b)(
4)(
ii)(
A);
a
list
of
activities
and
schedule
to
optimize
efficacy
of
installed
technology
within
the
first
permit
term,
as
required
under
§
125.95
(
b)(
4)(
ii)(
B);
and,
when
applying
for
reissuance
of
the
permit,
the
facility
must
submit,
in
accordance
with
§
125.95
(
b)(
4)(
ii)(
C),
the
results
of
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
as
stipulated
under
§
125.95
(
b)(
8).

Information
to
Support
Proposed
Restoration
Measures.
If
the
facility
proposes
to
use
restoration
measures,
the
following
information,
as
required
under
§
125.95
(
b)(
5)

must
be
submitted:


a
list
and
narrative
description
of
the
restoration
measures
the
facility
has
selected
and
proposes
to
implement
to
increase
fish
and
shellfish
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
5)(
ii)];


a
quantification
of
the
combined
benefits
from
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures
and
the
proportion
of
the
efficacy
that
can
be
attributed
to
each.
This
quantification
must
include:
(
1)
the
absolute
and
percent
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
be
achieved
through
the
use
of
any
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
that
the
facility
has
selected
(
i.
e.,
the
benefits
the
facility
would
achieve
through
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction);
(
2)
a
demonstration
of
the
increase
in
fish
and
shellfish
that
can
be
attributed
to
the
restoration
measures
the
facility
has
selected;
and
(
3)
a
demonstration
that
the
combined
efficacy
of
the
design
and
construction
technology(
ies),
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
will
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
at
a
level
comparable
to
that
which
the
facility
would
achieve
were
it
to
implement
the
requirements
of
§
125.94.
If
it
is
not
possible
to
demonstrate
quantitatively
that
restoration
measures
will
meet
the
performance
standards,
the
facility
may
make
a
qualitative
demonstration
that
such
measures
will
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
at
a
level
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
5)(
iii)];


a
plan
for
implementing
and
maintaining
the
efficacy
of
the
restoration
measures
selected
and
supporting
documentation
to
show
that
the
restoration
measures,
or
the
restoration
measures
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
33
technology(
ies)
and
operational
measures,
will
meet
the
applicable
performance
standards
under
§
125.94
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
5)(
iv)];


a
summary
of
any
past,
ongoing,
or
voluntary
consultation
with
appropriate
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
agencies
regarding
the
proposed
restoration
measures
that
is
relevant
to
this
Study
and
a
copy
of
any
written
comments
received
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
5)(
v)];


design
and
engineering
calculations,
drawings,
and
maps
documenting
that
the
proposed
restoration
measures
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
technologies
and/
or
operational
measures
or
alone
will
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
within
the
waterbody,
including
community
structure
and
function,
at
a
substantially
similar
level
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
if
you
were
to
employ
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
meet
the
performance
standards
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
5)(
vi)];
and

a
final
report
from
an
independent
peer
review
of
the
items
submitted
for
this
section
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
5)(
vii)];.

Information
to
Support
Site­
specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact.
If
the
facility
chooses
to
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA,
the
facility
must
provide,
as
required
under
§
125.95
(
b)(
7),
the
following
additional
information
with
its
application:


Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study.
The
facility
must
perform
and
submit,
in
accordance
with
§
125.95
(
b)(
7)(
i),
the
results
of
a
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study
that
documents
the
costs
of
implementing
the
design
and
construction
technology
plan
under
§
125.95(
b)(
4)(
i)
and
the
costs
of
the
alternative
technologies,
operational,
and
restoration
measures
the
facility
proposes
to
implement
at
the
site
to
meet
the
site­
specific
performance
requirements.
The
facility
must
submit
detailed
engineering
cost
estimates
to
document
the
costs
of
implementing
the
technologies
or
operational
measures
in
the
design
and
construction
technology
plan.


Valuation
of
the
Monetized
Benefits
of
Reducing
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment.
If
the
facility
is
seeking
a
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
because
of
costs
wholly
out
of
proportion
to
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
of
§
125.94(
a)
and
(
d),
the
facility
must
use,
in
accordance
with
§
125.95
(
b)(
7)(
ii),
a
comprehensive
methodology
to
fully
value
the
impacts
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
at
the
site
and
the
benefits
achievable
by
compliance
with
the
applicable
requirements
of
§
125.94.
The
benefit
study
must
include
the
following:
a
description
of
the
methodology(
ies)
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
34
used
to
value
commercial,
recreational,
and
ecological
benefits
(
including
nonuse
as
required
under
§
125.95(
b)(
7)(
ii)(
A);
documentation
of
the
basis
for
any
assumptions
and
quantitative
estimates,
as
required
under
§
125.95(
b)(
7)(
ii)(
B);
an
analysis
of
the
effects
of
significant
sources
of
uncertainty
on
the
results
of
the
study,
as
required
under
§
125.95(
b)(
7)(
ii)(
C);
and
a
final
report
from
an
independent
peer
review
of
the
items
submitted,
as
required
under
§
125.95(
b)(
7)(
ii)(
D).


Identification
and
Description
of
Qualitative
and
Non­
Monetized
Benefits.
As
required
under
§
125.95
(
b)(
7)(
iii),
the
facility
must
identify
and
provide
a
narrative
description
of
any
qualitative
and
non­
monetized
benefits
that
would
be
realized
at
the
site
if
the
performance
standards
were
met.


Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study,
the
identification
and
description
of
qualitative
and
nonmonetized
benefits,
and
the
valuation
of
the
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
required
by
§
125.95(
b)(
7)(
i),(
ii)
and
(
iii),
the
facility
must
submit
a
site­
specific
technology
plan
that
contains
the
following
information
in
accordance
with
§
125.95
(
b)(
7)(
iv):

#
a
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
(
existing
and
proposed)
that
the
facility
has
selected
in
accordance
with
§
125.94(
c)
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
7)(
iv)(
A)];

#
an
engineering
estimate
of
the
efficacy
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures.
This
estimate
must
include
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
the
suitability
of
the
technologies
or
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
representative
studies
(
e.
g.,
studies
that
have
been
conducted
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
same
waterbody
type
with
similar
biological
characteristics)
and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies.
If
restoration
measures
will
be
used,
an
estimate
must
be
provided
of
the
increase
fish
and
shellfish
within
the
watershed
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
7)(
iv)(
B)];

#
documentation
which
demonstrates
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures
selected
would
meet
performance
requirements
of
§
125.94
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
7)(
iv)(
C)];
and
#
design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
descriptions
required
by
§
125.95(
b)(
7)(
iv)(
A)
and
(
B)
[
§
125.95
(
b)(
7)(
iv)(
D)].
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
35
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
The
Study
must
include
a
plan
to
conduct,
at
a
minimum,

two
years
of
monitoring
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures.
As
stipulated
in
§
125.95
(
b)(
8),
the
verification
study
must
begin
once
the
technologies,
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
are
implemented
and
continue
for
a
period
of
time
that
is
sufficient
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
is
meeting
the
performance
standards
of
§
125.94.
The
plan
must
describe
the
frequency
of
monitoring
and
the
parameters
to
be
monitored
and
the
basis
for
determining
the
parameters
and
the
frequency
and
duration
for
monitoring.

Annual
Reporting
Requirements
In
addition
to
the
one­
time
reporting
requirements,
facilities
would
be
required
to
provide
the
following
information
to
the
Director
in
a
yearly
status
report:

°
monitoring
records
as
required
by
§
125.97(
a)
and
§
125.97(
b).

Record
Keeping
Requirements
All
operators
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
be
required
to
keep
records
and
to
report
information
and
data
to
the
permitting
authority
to
show
compliance
with
any
requirements
to
which
they
are
subject.
Records
would
be
required
to
be
maintained
for
a
period
of
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
of
permit
issuance
unless
extended
by
the
request
of
the
Director.
Each
operator
would
be
required
to
maintain
records
of:

°
all
data
used
to
complete
the
permit
application
and
show
compliance
with
the
requirements
°
any
supplemental
information
developed
under
§
125.95
°
any
compliance
monitoring
data
submitted
under
§
125.96.

4b(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
As
mentioned
above,
respondents
would
include
both
existing
facilities
and
NPDES
permit
program
Directors.
Their
information
collection
activities
are
described
below.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
36
Permit
Application
Activities
All
facilities
and
Directors
will
need
to
perform
start­
up
activities
such
as:
reading
the
rule,

planning
for
the
implementation
of
the
rule,
and
training
staff
to
perform
various
tasks
necessary
to
comply
with
the
rule.
Activities
performed
during
the
permit
application
process
are
performed
only
once
during
each
ICR
period.
However,
these
application
activities
are
repeated
again
during
the
fifth
year
of
the
permit
cycle
as
part
of
the
permit
renewal
process.

A.
General
Information
Phase
II
existing
facilities
must
perform
several
data
gathering
activities
as
part
of
the
permit
application
process.
Under
the
final
rule,
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
be
required
to
gather
application
information
as
specified
by
40
CFR
122.21(
r)
so
that
the
Director
can
evaluate
the
potential
impact
to
the
waterbody
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
located.
The
information
collected
under
40
CFR
122.21(
r)
includes
source
water
physical
data,
cooling
water
intake
structure
data,
and
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
cooling
water
system
description.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
source
water
physical
data
include:


describing
the
physical
configuration
of
the
source
waterbody
where
each
CWIS
is
located,
including
areal
dimensions,
depths,
salinity
and
temperature
regimes
and
providing
other
documentation
that
supports
the
determination
of
waterbody
type;


preparing
scaled
drawings
showing
the
physical
configuration
of
the
source
waterbody;


characterizing
and
documenting
the
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features
of
the
source
waterbody;


conducting
physical
studies
to
determine
the
intake's
area
of
influence
within
the
waterbody
and
summarizing
the
results
of
such
studies
(
including
a
description
of
methods
used);


preparing
locational
maps;
and
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
37

maintaining
copies
of
these
documents
as
well
as
copies
of
any
information
used
in
their
development
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
cooling
water
intake
structure
data
include:

°
preparing
a
narrative
description
of
the
configuration
of
each
CWIS
and
its
location
within
the
waterbody
and
in
the
water
column;

°
measuring
and
documenting
the
latitude
and
longitude
of
each
CWIS
in
degrees,
minutes,

and
seconds;

°
developing
a
narrative
that
describes
the
operation
of
each
CWIS,
including
design
flows,

daily
hours
of
operation,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation,
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable;

°
developing
a
flow
distribution
and
water
balance
diagram
for
the
facility
that
includes
all
sources
of
water
to
the
facility,
recirculating
flows,
and
discharges
°
creating
engineering
drawings
and
locational
maps
in
support
of
the
CWIS
descriptions
mentioned;
and
°
maintaining
copies
of
these
documents
as
well
as
copies
of
any
information
used
in
their
development
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
the
Phase
II
existing
facility
cooling
water
system
data
include:


preparing
a
narrative
description
of
the
operation
of
each
of
the
facility's
cooling
water
systems,
relationship
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s),
proportion
of
design
flow
that
is
used
in
the
system,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable;


producing
the
necessary
engineering
calculations
and
supporting
data
to
support
the
narrative
description;
and

maintaining
a
copy
of
the
description
and
information
required
to
support
its
development
for
three
years
after
submittal.

B.
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
(
Study)

Phase
II
existing
facilities
(
except
those
deemed
to
have
met
the
performance
standard
in
accordance
with
§
125.94(
a)(
1))
are
required
to
gather
and
submit
additional
information
in
the
form
of
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
to
characterize
the
source
water
baseline
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake,
characterize
the
operation
of
the
intake,
and
confirm
that
the
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
38
technology(
ies),
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
proposed
and/
or
implemented
at
the
intake
meet
the
applicable
performance
standards.

As
part
of
the
Study,
the
facility
must
develop
and
submit
a
proposal
for
the
collection
of
information
to
support
the
Study.
Activities
include:

°
developing
a
description
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
to
be
evaluated
in
the
Study;

°
developing
a
list
and
description
of
any
historical
studies
characterizing
impingement
and
entrainment
and/
or
the
physical
and
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intakes
and
their
relevancy
to
the
Study;

°
collecting
information
to
demonstrate
the
extent
to
which
the
existing
data
are
representative
of
current
conditions,
are
sufficient
to
develop
a
scientifically
valid
estimate
of
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
were
collected
using
appropriate
quality
assurance/
quality
control
procedures;

°
developing
a
summary
of
any
consultation
with
appropriate
Federal,
State
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
agencies
that
is
relevant
to
the
Study
and
documenting
any
written
comments
received;

°
developing
a
sampling
plan
for
any
new
field
studies
that
are
proposed
to
be
conducted;

°
documenting
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
sampling
and
data
analysis
°
developing
a
description
of
the
study
area
(
including
the
area
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure);
taxonomic
identification
of
the
sampled
or
evaluated
biological
assemblages
(
including
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish);
and
sampling
and
data
analysis
methods;

°
preparing
and
submitting
the
proposal
for
the
collection
of
information;

°
maintaining
records
of
all
materials
used
to
develop
the
proposal
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

As
part
of
the
Study,
facilities
with
intakes
located
on
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs
must
also
submit
source
waterbody
flow
information.
Activities
include:

°
developing
a
narrative
describing
the
annual
mean
flow
of
the
waterbody
if
the
CWIS
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,

°
developing
a
narrative
description
of
the
waterbody
thermal
stratification
if
the
CWIS
is
located
in
a
lake
or
reservoir
°
gathering
and
producing
supporting
documentation
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
39
°
performing
engineering
calculations
to
support
the
analysis
of
the
applicable
requirements;

and
°
maintaining
a
record
of
pertinent
documents
for
three
years
after
submittal.

As
part
of
the
Study,
the
facility
must
also
perform
an
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
to
provide
information
to
support
the
development
of
a
calculation
baseline
for
evaluating
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
and
to
characterize
current
impingement
and
entrainment.
Activities
include:

°
developing
a
taxonomic
identification
of
those
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
their
life
stages
that
are
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
and
are
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment;

°
developing
a
description
of
the
abundance
and
temporal/
spatial
characterization
of
the
fish
and
shellfish
and
their
life
stages
that
are
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
and
are
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
based
on
several
years
of
data;

°
collecting
a
sufficient
number
of
years
of
data
to
characterize
annual,
seasonal
and
daily
variations
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment;

°
documenting
current
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
at
the
facility
and
estimating
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
under
the
calculation
baseline;

°
identifying
species
that
are
protected
under
Federal,
State
or
Tribal
law
(
including
threatened
and
endangered
species)
that
might
be
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
by
the
CWIS;
and
°
maintaining
a
copy
of
the
study
and
the
materials
required
to
produce
it
for
three
years
after
submittal.

If
the
facility
chooses
to
use
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
in
whole
or
in
part
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94,
the
facility
must
also
submit
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
as
part
of
the
Study.
And,
depending
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected,
the
facility
may
also
need
to
submit
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Compliance
Plan.
For
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan,
activities
include:

°
calculating
the
capacity
utilization
rate
for
the
facility
and
collecting
supporting
data;

°
developing
narrative
descriptions
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
(
existing
and
proposed),
including
fishhandling
and
return
systems,
that
the
facility
has
in
place
or
that
will
be
used
to
meet
the
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
40
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
of
those
species
expected
to
be
the
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
reduce
entrainment
of
those
species
expected
to
be
the
most
susceptible
to
entrainment;

°
collecting
information
to
demonstrate
the
efficacy
of
the
technology
for
those
species
expected
to
be
the
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
reduce
entrainment
of
those
species
expected
to
be
the
most
susceptible
to
entrainment;

°
calculating
and
documenting
the
current
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
at
the
facility
to
serve
as
a
baseline;

°
calculating
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
would
be
achieved
by
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
the
facility
has
selected;

°
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
the
suitability
of
the
technology(
ies)
based
on
the
species
that
are
found
at
the
site,
and/
or
operational
measures
and
may
be
determined
based
on
representative
studies
(
i.
e.,
studies
that
have
been
conducted
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
same
waterbody
type
with
similar
biological
characteristics)

and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies;

°
producing
the
necessary
design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
narrative
descriptions
°
maintaining
records
of
all
materials
used
to
develop
the
design
and
construction
technology
plan
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

If
the
facility
proposes
to
measure
compliance
during
the
first
permit
term
after
promulgation
using
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Compliance
Plan
in
accordance
with
§
125.94(
e),
the
facility
must
submit
the
following
information:

°
list
of
operational
parameters
to
be
monitored
during
the
first
permit
term
and
the
associated
monitoring
frequency;

°
list
of
activities
and
schedule
to
optimize
efficacy
of
installed
technology
within
the
first
permit
term;
and
°
when
applying
for
reissuance
of
the
permit,
the
results
of
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
must
be
submitted.

If
the
facility
proposes
to
use
restoration
measures,
the
facility
must
also
submit
Information
to
Support
Proposed
Restoration
Measures
as
part
of
the
Study.
Activities
include:


developing
a
list
of
the
restoration
measures
that
the
facility
has
selected
and
proposes
to
implement
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
41

collecting
information
and
performing
calculations
to
quantify
the
combined
benefits
from
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures,
and
the
proportion
of
the
benefits
that
can
be
attributed
to
each

developing
a
plan
for
implementing
and
maintaining
the
efficacy
of
the
restoration
measures

preparing
supporting
documentation
to
show
that
the
restoration
measures
will
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody,
including
the
community
structure
and
function,
to
a
level
comparable
or
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94

consulting
with
appropriate
fishery
and
wildlife
management
agency(
ies)
and
preparing
documentation
of
the
consultation
activities

performing
design
and
engineering
calculations
supporting
the
proposed
restoration
measures

preparing
supporting
drawings
and
maps

maintaining
a
copy
of
the
information
for
three
years
after
submittal.

As
part
of
the
Study,
the
facility
must
also
prepare
a
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
to
conduct,
at
a
minimum,
two
years
of
monitoring
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures.
The
verification
study
must
begin
once
the
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures
are
implemented
and
continue
for
a
sufficient
period
of
time
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
is
meeting
the
performance
standards
in
§
125.94.
Activities
include:

°
developing
a
narrative
description
of
the
frequency
of
monitoring
and
the
parameters
to
be
monitored
and
the
information
that
will
be
included
in
the
yearly
status
report;

°
developing
a
narrative
description
of
the
basis
for
determining
the
parameters
and
the
frequency
and
duration
of
monitoring;

°
performing
the
verification
study
and
documenting
monitoring
results;
and
°
maintaining
copies
of
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
and
monitoring
records,
along
with
the
materials
required
to
produce
them
for
three
years
after
submittal.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
42
C.
Information
to
Support
Site­
Specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
As
an
alternative
to
demonstrating
that
their
existing
or
selected
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures
meet
the
performance
standards
specified
in
§
125.94,
facilities
may
request
site­
specific
determinations
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
because
of
costs
wholly
out
of
proportion
to
those
considered
by
the
Administrator
in
establishing
the
applicable
performance
standards,
or
because
costs
are
wholly
out
of
proportion
to
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
of
§
125.94(
a)
and
(
d)
at
the
site.
Facilities
that
choose
to
request
site­
specific
determinations
of
BTA
must
submit
additional
information
as
part
of
their
Study,
including
a
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study,
a
valuation
of
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment,
an
identification
and
description
of
qualitative
and
non­
monetized
benefits,
and
a
site­
specific
technology
plan.

Activities
that
would
be
required
for
the
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study
include:


producing
detailed
engineering
cost
estimates
to
document
the
costs
of
implementing
the
technologies
or
operational
measures
in
the
design
and
construction
technology
plan;


producing
detailed
engineering
cost
estimates
to
document
the
costs
of
the
alternative
technologies
and
operational
measures
proposed
to
be
implemented
at
the
facility;


producing
the
necessary
engineering
calculations,
drawings
and
narrative
descriptions
to
support
the
cost
estimates;


documenting
and
submitting
the
results
of
the
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study;
and

maintaining
records
of
all
materials
used
to
develop
the
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

For
facilities
that
seek
a
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
because
of
costs
wholly
out
of
proportion
to
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
of
§
125.94,

the
activities
required
for
the
valuation
of
the
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
include:


developing
a
comprehensive
methodology
to
fully
value
the
commercial,
recreational,
and
ecological
benefits;


developing
documentation
for
the
basis
of
assumptions
and
quantitative
estimates;


producing
an
analysis
of
the
effects
of
significant
sources
of
uncertainty
on
the
results
of
the
study;
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
43

preparing
a
final
report
from
an
independent
peer
review
of
items
submitted;


documenting
and
submitting
the
results
of
the
valuation
of
the
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment;
and

maintaining
records
of
all
materials
used
to
develop
the
valuation
of
the
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

Activities
required
to
identify
and
describe
qualitative
and
non­
monetized
benefits
include:


identifying
and
providing
a
narrative
description
of
any
qualitative
and
non­
monetized
benefits
that
would
be
realized
at
the
site
if
the
performance
standards
were
met.

Activities
required
to
produce
the
site­
specific
technology
plan
include:


developing
narrative
descriptions
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
(
existing
and
proposed)
that
the
facility
has
selected;


collecting
information
to
demonstrate
the
efficacy
of
the
selected
technologies;


developing
an
engineering
estimate
of
the
efficacy
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
or
operational
measures
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment;


developing
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
the
suitability
of
the
technologies
or
operational
measures
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
the
results
of
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study;


characterizing
efficacy
estimates
based
on
representative
studies
and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies;


developing
documentation
to
demonstrate
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures
selected
would
reduce
impingment
mortality
and
entrainment
to
the
extent
necessary
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
§
125.94;


producing
the
necessary
design
calculations,
drawings
and
estimates
to
support
the
narrative
descriptions;
and

maintaining
records
of
all
materials
used
to
develop
the
site­
specific
technology
plan
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
44
Annual
Activities
A.
Biological
Monitoring
All
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
need
to
monitor
both
impingement
and
entrainment
of
the
commercial,
recreational
and
forage
base
fish
and
shellfish
species
and
their
life
stages
identified
in
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
The
monitoring
methods
used
must
be
consistent
with
those
used
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
The
facility
must
follow
the
monitoring
frequencies
identified
below
for
at
least
two
years
after
the
initial
permit
issuance.
After
that
time,
the
Director
may
approve
a
request
for
less
frequent
sampling
in
the
remaining
years
of
the
permit
term
and
when
the
permit
is
reissued,
if
supporting
data
show
that
less
frequent
monitoring
would
still
allow
for
the
detection
of
any
seasonal
and
daily
variations
in
the
species
and
numbers
of
individuals
that
are
impinged
or
entrained.

Impingement
monitoring
involves
collecting
data
on
aquatic
organisms
trapped
on
the
outer
part
of
an
intake
structure
or
against
screening
devices
during
periods
of
cooling
water
withdrawal,
to
determine
the
taxa
and
abundance
of
impinged
organisms.
Specific
monitoring
activities
include:

°
collecting
samples
to
monitor
impingement
rates
for
each
species
over
a
24­
hour
period,

no
less
than
once
per
month
when
the
CWIS
is
in
operation;

°
enumerating
impinged
organisms;

°
performing
statistical
analyses
to
summarize
rates;
and
°
maintaining
records
of
impingement
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.

Entrainment
monitoring
involves
the
collection
of
data
on
eggs,
larvae,
and
other
plankton
incorporated
with
cooling
water
flow
(
entering
and
passing
through
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
into
a
cooling
water
system),
to
determine
the
taxa
and
abundance
of
entrained
organisms.
Specific
activities
include:

°
collecting
samples
to
monitor
entrainment
rates
for
each
species
over
a
24­
hour
period,
no
less
than
biweekly
during
the
primary
period
of
reproduction,
larval
recruitment,
and
peak
abundance
when
the
CWIS
is
in
operation;

°
enumerating
entrained
organisms;

°
performing
statistical
analyses
to
summarize
entrainment
rates;
and
°
maintaining
records
of
entrainment
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
45
B.
Yearly
Status
Report
All
Phase
II
existing
facilities
subject
to
the
final
rule
would
be
required
to
prepare
and
submit
a
yearly
status
report
that
details
compliance
with
requirements
set
by
the
rule
and
with
any
additional
provisions
specified
within
the
permit.
Preparation
of
the
report
requires:

°
compiling
biological
monitoring
records
for
each
CWIS;

°
compiling
records
of
visual
or
remote
inspections;
and
°
maintaining
a
copy
of
the
report
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
its
submission.

Director
Activities
NPDES
program
Directors
will
act
to
ensure
the
implementation
of
the
final
rule
as
required
under
§
125.98.
To
successfully
meet
their
responsibilities,
EPA
anticipates
that
Directors
will
be
involved
in
the
following
activities,
as
stipulated
under
§
125.98(
a)
and
§
125.98(
b):

°
reading
and
understanding
the
rule;

°
mobilization
and
planning;
and
°
training
facility
and
consultant
staff.

The
Director
should
review
materials
submitted
by
the
applicant
prior
to
each
renewal
period
to
determine
if
there
have
been
any
changes
in
facility
operations
or
physical
and
biological
attributes
of
the
source
waterbody.
Any
changes
should
be
evaluated
to
determine
the
need
for
additional
or
more
stringent
conditions
in
the
permit.

Section
316(
b)
requirements
are
implemented
for
a
facility
through
an
NPDES
permit.

The
Director
must
determine,
based
on
the
information
submitted
by
the
existing
facility
in
its
permit
application,
the
appropriate
requirements
and
conditions,
as
described
in
§
125.98(
b)(
1)

through
§
125.98(
b)(
4)
to
include
in
the
permit
based
on
the
alternative
for
establishing
BTA
chosen
by
the
facility.
Specific
activities
include:

°
reviewing
and
analyzing
facility
data;

°
making
determinations
concerning
facilities
such
as:
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
46

after
receiving
the
initial
permit
application,
the
Director
must
determine
applicable
standards
in
§
125.94
to
apply
to
the
existing
facility
and
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
standards;


for
each
subsequent
permit
renewal,
the
Director
must
review
the
application
materials
and
monitoring
data
to
determine
whether
requirements,
or
additional
requirements,
for
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,

and/
or
restoration
measures
should
be
included
in
the
permit
to
meet
the
performance
standard;


the
Director
must
develop
permit
conditions
that,
at
a
minimum,
include
the
requirements
that
implement
the
provisions
of
§
125.94(
a)(
1),(
2),
and
(
3);
§
125.94(
b)(
1),(
2),(
3)
and
(
4);
§
125.94(
c)(
1),(
2)
and
(
3);
§
125.94(
d);
§
125.94(
e)(
i)
and
(
ii);
§
125.94(
f)
and
§
125.94(
g).
In
determining
compliance
with
flow
requirements
in
§
125.94(
a)(
3)(
ii),
the
Director
must
consider
anthropogenic
factors
(
those
not
considered
"
natural")
unrelated
to
the
Phase
II
existing
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
can
influence
the
occurrence
and
location
of
a
thermocline,
including
source
water
inflows,
other
water
withdrawals,
managed
water
uses,
wastewater
discharges,
and
flow/
level
management
practices.
The
Director
must
coordinate
with
appropriate
Federal,
State
or
Tribal
fish
or
wildlife
agencies
to
determine
if
the
disruption
is
beneficial
to
the
management
of
the
fisheries
[
§
125.98(
b)(
1)].


the
Director
must
review
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
required
in
§
125.95(
b)(
4)
to
evaluate
the
suitability
and
feasibility
of
the
technology
or
operational
measures
proposed
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
In
each
reissued
permit,
the
Director
must
include
a
condition
requiring
the
facility
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
commensurate
with
the
efficacies
of
the
installed
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures,
but
not
less
than
the
performance
standards
in
§
125.94.
If
the
facility
chooses
to
measure
compliance
for
the
first
permit
term
employing
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
in
§
125.94(
e),
the
Director
must
review
and
approve
the
plan
and
require
the
facility
to
meet
the
terms
of
the
plan.
In
considering
the
permit
application,
the
Director
must
review
the
performance
of
the
technologies
implemented
and
require
additional
or
different
design
and
construction
technologies,
if
needed,
to
meet
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction
requirements
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
In
addition,
the
Director
must
consider
any
chemical,
water
quality,
and
other
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
47
anthropogenic
stresses
on
the
source
waterbody
and
whether
more
stringent
conditions
are
reasonably
necessary
in
accordance
with
§
125.94(
e)

[
§
125.98(
b)(
1)(
i)].


if
the
Director
determines
that
restoration
measures
are
appropriate
at
the
Phase
II
existing
facility,
the
Director
must
review
the
Information
to
Support
Proposed
Restoration
Measures
required
under
§
125.95
(
b)(
5)
and
determine
whether
the
proposed
measures
will
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
at
a
substantially
similar
level
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.
If
the
application
includes
a
qualitative
demonstration
for
restoration
measures
that
will
result
in
increases
in
fish
and
shellfish
that
are
difficult
to
quantify,
the
Director
must
determine
whether
the
proposed
measures
will
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
at
a
level
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.
The
Director
must
also
review
and
approve
the
proposed
verification
monitoring
plan
submitted
and
require
that
the
monitoring
continue
for
a
sufficient
period
of
time
to
demonstrate
that
the
restoration
measures
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94(
d)
and
§
125.95(
b)(
8).


for
a
facility
that
requests
requirements
based
on
site­
specific
BTA
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
the
Director
must
review
the
application
materials
and
any
other
information
the
Director
may
have
that
would
be
relevant
to
a
determination
of
whether
alternative
requirements
are
appropriate
for
the
facility.

If
the
Director
determines
that
alternative
requirements
are
appropriate,
the
Director
must
make
a
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
in
accordance
with
§
125.94(
c)
[
§
125.98(
b)(
1)(
iii)].


at
a
minimum,
the
permit
must
require
the
permittee
to
perform
the
monitoring
required
in
§
125.96.
The
Director
may
modify
the
monitoring
program
when
the
permit
is
reissued
and
during
the
term
of
the
permit
based
on
changes
in
physical
or
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
CWIS.
The
Director
may
require
continued
monitoring
based
on
the
results
of
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
in
§
125.95(
b)(
8).


at
a
minimum,
the
permit
must
require
the
permitee
to
report
and
keep
records
as
required
by
§
125.97.


for
a
facility
that
requests
requirements
based
on
site­
specific
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
the
Director
must
review
the
application
materials
and
any
other
information
they
may
have
that
would
be
relevant
to
a
determination
of
whether
alternative
requirements
are
appropriate
for
the
facility.
If
the
Director
determines
that
alternative
requirements
are
appropriate,
he/
she
must
make
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
48
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
in
accordance
with
§
125.94(
c).


the
Director
may
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator
that
the
State
or
Tribe
has
adopted
alternative
regulatory
requirements
that
will
result
in
environmental
performance
within
a
watershed
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
otherwise
be
achieved
by
the
requirements
of
§
125.94.


the
Director
may
establish
more
stringent
requirements
as
BTA
if
the
Director
determines
that
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
applicable
requirements
of
paragraphs
§
125.94(
b)
and
(
c)
would
not
ensure
compliance
with
Federal,
State,

or
Tribal
law
[
§
125.98(
b)(
1)(
i)]


if
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
has
determined
that
a
facility's
compliance
with
§
125.94
would
result
in
a
conflict
with
a
safety
requirement
established
by
the
Commission,
the
Director
must
make
a
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
that
is
less
stringent
than
the
requirements
of
§
125.94
to
the
extent
necessary
for
the
facility
to
comply
with
the
Commission's
safety
requirement
facility
compliance
tracking

record
keeping
for
all
reports,
documents,
and
supporting
materials
submitted
by
facilities
in
fulfilment
of
their
cooling
water
intake
requirements
of
their
NPDES
permit
[
§
125.98(
b)(
3)].
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
49
5
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION,
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
The
following
sections
describe
EPA
activities
related
to
analyzing,
maintaining,
and
distributing
the
information
collected.

5a
Agency
Activities
EPA
is
responsible
for
promulgating
this
rule
and
overseeing
its
implementation.

Implementation
of
reporting
and
monitoring
requirements
would
rely
extensively
on
State
governments
in
those
States
that
have
authorization
under
CWA
Section
402(
b)
to
implement
the
NPDES
permit
program.
In
States
that
do
not
have
NPDES
permitting
authority,
EPA
is
responsible
for
administering
the
program.
Under
these
circumstances,
EPA
performs
the
same
activities
as
those
outlined
for
Directors
in
Section
4.

EPA
will
also
be
involved
in
the
review
of
State­
issued
NPDES
permits
for
compliance
with
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Regulation
requirements.
EPA
typically
reviews
NPDES
permits
in
the
early
stages
of
implementation
of
new
regulations.
As
such,
EPA
assumes
that
it
will
perform
a
detailed
review,
make
comments,
and
follow
up
on
comments
for
the
316(
b)

portions
of
State­
issued
NPDES
permits,
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.

5b
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
The
final
rule
provides
minimum
requirements
regarding
the
type
of
information
collected.

Directors
of
NPDES
programs
are
primarily
responsible
for
determining
which
collection
method
and
information
management
strategy
is
most
appropriate.
EPA
will
maintain
some
of
the
compliance
data
in
its
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database.
PCS
is
the
national
computerized
management
information
system
that
automates
entry,
updating,
and
retrieval
of
NPDES
data
and
tracks
permit
issuance,
permit
limits
and
monitoring
data,
and
other
data
pertaining
to
facilities
regulated
under
NPDES.
This
technology
reduces
the
burden
to
the
permitting
authority
of
gathering,
analyzing,
and
reporting
national
permit
and
water
quality
data.

Permitting
authorities
are
responsible
for
reviewing
permit
applications,
permits,

monitoring
reports,
etc.
to
verify
the
accuracy
of
the
data.
Permitting
authorities
are
also
responsible
for
entering
that
data
into
PCS.
Different
authorities
have
different
approaches
for
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
50
entering
the
data
into
PCS
and
different
approaches
for
checking
data
quality.
This
includes
the
use
of
coding
forms,
double­
entry,
technical
review,
etc.
Many
states
have
developed
state
databases
that
are
tailored
to
individual
state
needs
with
the
system
formatted
for
uploads
directly
to
PCS
from
the
state
system.
Permit
data
can
be
accessed
by
the
public
in
one
of
two
ways:

$
via
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA)
by
submitting
a
request
to
EPA
or
the
State.

$
via
an
on­
line
query
using
EPA's
Envirofacts
Data
Warehouse
and
Applications
website
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
enviro/
index_
java.
html.
Accessing
data
via
Envirofacts
provides
a
method
to
combine
PCS
data
with
other
EPA
databases
and
mapping
tools.

5c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
final
rule's
minimum
design
intake
flow
requirements
would
exclude
most
existing
small
entities
from
the
compliance
requirements.
As
a
result,
the
final
rule
is
expected
to
affect
only
a
small
absolute
number
of
facilities
owned
by
small
entities,
representing
a
very
small
percentage
of
all
facilities
owned
by
small
entities
in
the
electric
power
industry.
EPA
has
estimated
that
25
in­
scope
electric
generators
owned
by
small
entities
(
out
of
a
total
of
543
estimated
in­
scope
electric
generators)
would
be
regulated
by
this
final
rule.
Of
the
25
generators,
16
are
projected
to
be
owned
by
a
municipality,
six
by
a
rural
electric
cooperative,

two
by
a
municipal
marketing
authority,
and
one
by
a
political
subdivision.
In
addition,
EPA
estimates
that
only
a
small
percentage
of
all
small
entities
in
the
electric
power
industry,

approximately
1.3
percent,
would
be
subject
to
the
final
rule.

EPA
considers
the
final
information
collection
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
the
minimum
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
Section
316(
b)
goal
of
"
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact"
is
met.
Because
small
entities
constitute
a
very
small
share
of
the
potentially
affected
facilities
and
because
only
a
small
percentage
of
all
small
entities
in
the
electric
power
industry
are
subject
to
the
rule,
providing
them
greater
flexibility
such
as
less
frequent
data
collection
and
reporting
requirements
would
not
have
a
large
effect
on
their
overall
burden,
but
could
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
final
rule.
Furthermore,
because
the
reporting
requirements
differ
by
source
waterbody
type
and
compliance
alternative
selected,
entities
of
all
sizes
have
the
flexibility
to
minimize
their
total
compliance
costs
including
the
costs
and
burden
of
information
collection
requirements.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
51
5d
Collection
Schedule
EPA
anticipates
that
463
Phase
II
existing
facilities
will
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
final
rule
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.
Due
to
the
multiple
years
of
data
that
must
be
collected
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study,
the
permitting
process
is
anticipated
to
take
up
to
three
years
to
complete.
However,
of
the
463
facilities
projected
to
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
final
rule
during
the
ICR
approval
period,
337
are
scheduled
to
have
permits
issued
during
the
three­
year
ICR
approval
period;
these
facilities
will
be
on
an
accelerated
schedule
and
thus
will
receive
their
permits
as
scheduled.
Since
these
are
existing
facilities,
it
is
assumed
that
they
will
be
able
to
draw
on
some
existing
data.
In
addition,

EPA
assumes
that
these
facilities
will
have
reopener
clauses
included
in
their
permits
to
allow
for
the
results
of
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Studies
to
be
submitted
after
permit
issuance
and
for
the
permits
to
be
modified
based
on
the
results
of
these
studies,
if
necessary.
The
remaining
206
facilities
will
not
receive
their
initial
permit
renewals
until
after
the
ICR
approval
period,
and
thus
will
have
sufficient
time
to
perform
their
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Studies
prior
to
receiving
their
initial
permit
renewals.

Of
the
463
facilities
that
begin
the
application
process
during
the
ICR
approval
period,

190
will
begin
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.
Table
6
provides
the
estimated
implementation
schedule
for
these
463
facilities,
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

Table
6.
Number
of
Facilities
Assumed
to
Comply
with
Information
Collection
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
Type
of
Activity
ICR
Approval
Period
3/
2004­
2/
2005
3/
2005­
2/
2006
3/
2007­
2/
2007
Facilities
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
229
113
121
Facilities
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
of
Operations
0
98
92
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
52
6
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
The
following
sections
present
the
proposed
rationale,
assumptions
made
and
results
of
EPA's
estimation
of
burden
and
costs
for
the
implementation
of
the
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
final
rule.

6a
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
This
section
describes
the
burden
estimates
for
facilities
and
Directors,
as
well
as
the
methods
used
and
assumptions
made
to
derive
them.
Respondent
activities
are
separated
into
those
activities
associated
with
the
NPDES
permit
application
and
those
activities
associated
with
monitoring
and
reporting
after
the
permit
is
issued.
The
reason
for
this
is
that
the
permit
cycle
is
every
five
years,
while
ICRs
must
be
renewed
every
three
years.
Therefore,
the
application
activities
occur
only
once
per
facility
during
an
ICR
approval
period,
and
so
they
are
considered
one­
time
burden
for
the
purpose
of
this
ICR.
By
contrast,
the
monitoring
and
reporting
activities
that
occur
after
issuance
of
the
permit
occur
on
an
annual
basis.
For
estimates
of
re­
permitting
burdens
see
Exhibits
A.
12
and
A.
13
in
Appendix
A.

Facility
Burdens
Information
collection
would
require
in­
scope
facilities
to
devote
time
(
i.
e.,
as
measured
by
staff
hours)
and
resources
(
e.
g.,
copies
of
documents
and
report
mailings)
to
produce
the
necessary
NPDES
permit
applications,
implementation
plans,
and
yearly
status
reports.
EPA
expects
that
facility
employees,
including
managers,
engineers,
engineering
technicians,

statisticians,
biologists,
biological
technicians,
draftsmen,
and
clerical
staff,
will
devote
time
toward
gathering,
preparing,
and
submitting
the
various
documents.
To
develop
representative
profiles
of
each
employee's
relative
contribution,
EPA
assumed
burden
estimates
that
reflect
the
staffing
and
expertise
typically
found
in
manufacturing
facilities
and
power
generating
plants.
In
doing
this,
EPA
considered
the
time
and
qualifications
necessary
to
complete
a
variety
of
tasks:

reviewing
instructions,
planning
responses,
researching
data
sources,
gathering
and
analyzing
data,
typing
or
writing
the
information
requested,
reviewing
results,
conferring
with
permitting
authorities
and
expert
consultants,
and
sending
documents.

EPA
anticipates
that
facilities
will
use
contracted
services
to
perform
many
of
their
required
sampling
and
analyzing
tasks.
The
contracted
staff
are
likely
to
include
project
managers,

biologists,
statisticians,
and
biological
technicians.
The
work
done
by
these
contracted
employees
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
53
will
be
done
on­
site
on
a
regular
basis.
Therefore,
the
hourly
burdens
associated
with
their
work
are
included
in
the
overall
burden
estimates
for
each
facility.

For
each
activity
burden
assumption,
EPA
selected
time
estimates
to
reflect
the
expected
effort
necessary
to
carry
out
these
activities
under
normal
conditions
and
reasonable
labor
efficiency
rates.
EPA
assumed
that
the
majority
of
the
actual
work
performed
by
facility
staff,

such
as
researching,
collecting,
and
analyzing
data,
as
well
as
writing
the
documents,
will
be
carried
out
by
junior
technical
staff.
Burdens
associated
with
managerial
and
senior
engineering
staff
include
time
for
actions
such
as
occasional
or
seasonal
visits
to
supervise
sampling
efforts,
as
well
as
periodic
review
of
lab
results
and
documentation.
EPA
assumed
that
the
facilities
will
employ
a
drafter
to
perform
computer
aided
drafting
(
CAD)
operations.
For
contracted
employees,
EPA
assumed
that
the
majority
of
the
work
would
be
carried
out
by
the
biologists
and
the
biological
technicians.

Tables
8
and
9
provide
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
facilities
performing
the
NPDES
permit
application,
annual
monitoring,
and
annual
reporting
activities
associated
with
the
final
rule.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
hourly
burdens
for
facilities
see
Exhibits
A.
1
and
A.
2
in
Appendix
A.

The
activities
listed
in
the
first
column
of
both
Tables
8
and
9
correspond
to
the
facility
respondent
activities
outlined
earlier
in
Section
4b(
ii).
All
facilities
will
be
subject
to
the
start­
up
and
permit
application
activities
listed
in
Table
8.
For
the
other
listed
activities
only
a
subset
of
facilities
are
expected
to
perform
them.
The
set
of
activities,
that
each
facility
is
estimated
to
perform
is
based
on
the
rule
requirements
that
the
facility
is
subject
to
and
the
type
of
water
body
that
it
draws
from.
For
a
detailed
presentation
of
the
number
of
facilities
performing
each
activity
see
Exhibits
A.
5
and
A.
6
in
Appendix
A.

A.
Start­
Up
Activities
In
Table
8
the
start­
up
burdens
account
for
reading
the
published
regulations,
sample
permits,
and
any
guidance
materials
associated
with
the
rule;
determining
the
required
staff
and
resources
necessary
to
successfully
complete
the
application
process,
and
meet
all
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
requirement;
and
training
staff
to
perform
tasks
that
they
would
not
be
required
to
conduct
if
the
rule
were
not
implemented.
It
is
assumed
for
the
analysis
that
facilities
will
receive
their
reissued
permits
at
the
beginning
of
the
year.
Thus,
during
the
first
year
(
2004),

facilities
will
perform
permit
application
activities
for
their
permits
that
are
reissued
at
the
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
54
beginning
of
the
second
year
(
2005).
It
is
also
assumed
that
facilities
that
become
subject
to
the
rule
during
the
first
three
years
will
be
granted
an
accelerated
permit
approval
process
so
that
permit
reissuance
is
not
delayed.
In
subsequent
years,
facilities
required
to
perform
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Studies
will
need
to
begin
collecting
monitoring
data
two
to
three
years
prior
to
permit
renewal.
Furthermore,
all
facilities
will
begin
the
other
permit
application
activities
in
the
year
just
prior
to
receiving
their
reissued
permits.
These
start­
up
activities,
applicable
to
all
facilities,
are
assumed
to
be
performed
by
facility
management
and
junior
technical
staff.

B.
Permit
Application
Activities
Permit
application
activities
refer
to
the
development
and
submittal
of
the
required
elements
of
the
application
for
reissuance
of
the
NPDES
permit.

As
part
of
the
permit
application
process,
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
will
gather
source
water
physical
data,
cooling
water
intake
structure
data
and
cooling
water
system
data.
EPA
anticipates
that
much
of
the
data
required
to
characterize
the
water
body
and
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
has
already
been
gathered
by
the
facility,
and
that
much
of
the
actual
facility
burden
is
from
deriving
the
requested
information
from
this
data.

To
derive
the
source
water
physical
data,
EPA
assumes
that
junior
technical
staff
will
work
with
a
Computer­
Aided
Drafting
(
CAD)
operator
to
develop
a
description
of
the
physical
configuration
of
the
source
water
body
where
the
CWIS
is
located,
including
areal
dimensions,

depths,
salinity
and
temperature
regimes.
The
CAD
operator
will
produce
scaled
drawings
showing
the
physical
configuration
of
the
source
water
body
and
prepare
locational
maps
of
the
water
body.
The
junior
technical
staff
will
use
this
information
and
available
data
to
produce
a
report
characterizing
and
documenting
the
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features
of
the
source
water
body.
Depending
on
the
extent
of
existing
information
it
may
be
necessary
for
some
facilities
to
conduct
physical
studies
to
determine
the
intake's
area
of
influence
within
the
water
body.

Cooling
water
intake
structure
data
will
be
used
to
develop
a
report
on
the
operation
of
the
intake
structure.
EPA
assumes
that
a
CAD
operator
will
assist
junior
technical
staff
in
preparing
a
narrative
description
of
the
configuration
of
the
CWIS
and
its
location
within
the
waterbody
and
in
the
water
column,
including
measurements
of
the
latitude
and
longitude
of
the
CWIS.
In
addition,
junior
technical
staff
will
develop
a
narrative
that
describes
the
operation
of
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
55
the
CWIS,
including
design
flows,
daily
hours
of
operation,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation,
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable.
Management
will
review
and
revise
this
data.

Junior
technical
staff
will
also
develop
a
narrative
characterizing
the
facility's
cooling
water
system,
which
includes
a
flow
distribution
and
water
balance
diagram
for
the
facility
depicting
all
sources
of
water
to
the
facility,
recirculating
flows,
and
discharges.
Management
will
review
and
revise
this
characterization.
EPA
also
anticipates
that
the
junior
technical
staff
will
perform
engineering
calculations
for
the
source
water
body
and
CWIS
documents.
Management
will
review
and
revise
these
calculations.

In
addition,
Phase
II
existing
facilities
need
to
comply
with
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
requirements
depending
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected.
Facilities
that
already
have
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system
are
not
required
to
submit
a
Study
and
facilities
that
already
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
0.5
ft/
s
or
less
are
also
exempted
from
impingement
requirements.

However,
facilities
choosing
to
install
new
technologies
rather
than
reducing
flows
to
levels
commensurate
with
closed­
cycle
recirculating
systems
are
required
to
gather
and
submit
additional
information
in
the
form
of
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
to
confirm
that
the
technology(
ies),
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
proposed
and/
or
implemented
at
the
intake
meet
the
applicable
performance
standards.

The
Study
characterizes
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
confirms
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures
the
facility
has
selected
and/
or
implemented
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
meet
the
applicable
requirements
prior
to
each
permit
renewal
application.
The
Study
entails
a
proposal
for
information
collection,
source
waterbody
flow
information,
an
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
characterization
study,
technology
compliance
and
assessment
information,
information
to
support
proposed
restoration
measures,
information
to
document
installation
and
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
approved
design
and
construction
technology,
information
to
support
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
and
a
verification
monitoring
plan.
The
facility
hourly
burdens
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
these
requirements
include
developing
and
submitting
narrative
descriptions,
supporting
documentation,
and
engineering
calculations.

C.
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Requirements
(
1)
Proposal
for
Information
Collection
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
56
As
a
first
step
in
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
the
facility
must
develop
and
submit
a
proposal
for
the
collection
of
information
to
support
the
Study.
EPA
assumes
that
junior
technical
staff
will
develop
a
list
and
description
of
any
historical
studies
characterizing
impingement
and
entrainment
and/
or
the
physical
and
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intakes
and
their
relevancy
to
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
The
facility
management
will
review
the
collected
information
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
existing
data
are
representative
of
current
conditions,
are
sufficient
to
develop
a
scientifically
valid
estimate
of
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
were
collected
using
appropriate
quality
assurance/
quality
control
procedures.
Junior
technical
staff
are
assumed
to
develop
a
description
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
to
be
evaluated
in
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
Facility
management
will
review
and
revise
this
description.

Although
some
facilities
are
likely
to
have
sufficient
available
information
to
forego
an
extensive
monitoring
study,
EPA
assumes
that
all
facilities
performing
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
will
perform
an
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
involving
between
two
and
three
years
of
monitoring.
Therefore,
these
facilities
will
need
to
develop
and
submit
a
source
water
sampling
plan
that
documents
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
sampling
and
data
analysis,
as
well
as
describes
the
study
area
(
including
the
area
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
at
least
100
meters
beyond).
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
will
review
source
water
and
CWIS
data.
They
will
use
this
information
to
write
a
draft
of
the
source
water
sampling
plan.
A
CAD
operator
will
assist
the
junior
technical
staff
in
this
effort.
The
facility
manager
will
supervise
this
effort,
review
the
draft,

and
consult
with
the
manager
of
the
contracted
firm
that
will
perform
the
monitoring.
The
contracted
manager
will
review
the
draft
and
provide
feedback.

(
2)
Source
Water
Body
Flow
Information
As
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
facilities
with
intakes
located
on
freshwater
rivers/
streams
must
submit
source
water
body
flow
information.
This
information
is
used
to
determine
the
impact
of
the
CWIS
on
the
natural
flow
of
the
source
water
and
is
an
important
factor
in
determining
the
appropriate
technologies.
Similarly,
facilities
with
intakes
on
freshwater
lakes
or
reservoirs
need
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
the
CWIS
disrupts
the
thermal
stratification
of
the
water
body.
EPA
anticipates
that
most
facilities
will
have
ready
access
to
existing
flow
and
thermal
stratification
information.
However,
EPA
assumes
that
some
facilities
will
need
to
take
flow
or
thermal
stratification
measurements
immediately
around
the
intake.
Junior
technical
staff
are
expected
to
gather
existing
information
and
take
measurements
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
57
for
freshwater
river
and
stream
flows,
and
for
lakes
and
reservoirs.
Junior
technical
staff
will
perform
engineering
calculations
and
develop
a
report.
Facility
management
will
review
and
revise
this
information.

(
3)
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
The
required
level
of
effort
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
is
likely
to
vary
considerably
depending
on
the
availability
of
existing
data
and
the
complexity
of
the
habitat
and
waterbody
in
which
the
CWIS
will
be
located.
For
the
purpose
of
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates,
it
is
assumed
that
each
existing
facility
that
is
required
to
perform
a
Study
will
also
perform
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
EPA
assumes
that
the
sampling
required
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
will
take
two
years
for
facilities
drawing
from
freshwater
bodies
and
three
years
for
those
facilities
drawing
from
marine
waters.
Therefore,
the
entire
application
process
can
take
up
to
three
years
to
complete.
The
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
activities
will
be
performed
in
years
prior
to
the
reissuance
of
the
NPDES
permit.

This
estimate
takes
into
account
that
some
facilities
will
have
access
to
existing
data,

which
may
allow
them
to
reduce
the
duration
of
the
monitoring
period,
while
other
facilities
may
require
additional
time
due
to
the
confounding
effects
of
other
factors
such
as
very
dry
years
or
fish
kills
due
to
red
tides.
Facilities
that
become
subject
to
the
rule
within
the
first
three
years
are
assumed
to
provide
the
Director
with
preliminary
study
results,
and
complete
the
monitoring
after
the
permit
has
been
issued,
to
avoid
delays
in
permit
reissuance.
The
monitoring
study
consists
of
an
extensive
sampling
effort
performed
primarily
by
contracted
employees,
and
then
the
characterization
of
the
data
in
the
form
of
a
study
report
that
is
produced
by
both
facility
and
contracted
employees.

To
accurately
characterize
the
effects
of
impingement
and
entrainment
on
the
aquatic
communities
found
in
the
source
water,
offshore
monitoring
must
occur
at
the
same
time
that
monitoring
for
impingement
and
entrainment
is
occurring.
As
a
result,
EPA
assumes
that
monitoring
is
performed
simultaneously
at
the
facility
for
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
offshore
at
the
edge
of
the
determined
zone
of
influence.
Since
impingement
more
often
impacts
adult
organisms,
while
entrainment
affects
juvenile
organisms,
offshore
samples
must
be
taken
of
both
juvenile
and
adult
organisms.
Therefore,
EPA
assumes
that
four
types
of
sampling
as
presented
in
Table
7
will
occur.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
58
Table
7.
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
Sample
Types
Sample
Type
Location
of
Sample
Impingement
Sample
At
the
intake
structure.

Entrainment
Sample
In
the
facility.

Offshore
Sample
for
Juvenile
Organisms
At
the
edge
of
the
zone
of
influence.

Offshore
Sample
for
Adult
Organisms
At
the
edge
of
the
zone
of
influence.

To
accurately
characterize
seasonal
and
annual
fluctuations
in
aquatic
communities
impacted
by
the
CWIS,
EPA
assumes
sampling
is
performed
at
the
facility
on
a
biweekly
basis
over
two
years
for
freshwater
facilities
and
three
years
for
marine
facilities.
EPA
believes
that
a
sizable
majority
of
the
monitoring
work
will
be
carried
out
by
the
biologists
and
biological
technicians.
Over
the
course
of
the
study,
other
employees
will
also
spend
time
contributing
to
the
use
of
the
monitoring
data.

(
4)
Technology
and
Compliance
Assessment
Information
The
portion
of
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
and
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan,
if
requested)
associated
with
evaluation
of
potential
CWIS
effects
will
be
conducted
during
the
year
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
NPDES
permit,
to
allow
the
facility
time
to
incorporate
information
from
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
already
underway.

(
i)
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
If
the
facility
chooses
to
use
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
in
whole
or
in
part
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94,
the
facility
must
also
submit
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
as
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
EPA
assumes
that
a
CAD
operator
will
delineate
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence,
and
that
junior
technical
staff
will
assist
the
CAD
operator,
and
management
will
review
this
work.
Junior
technical
staff
will
perform
engineering
calculations
to
determine
anticipated
impingement
rates,

and
develop
narrative
descriptions
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
(
existing
and
proposed),
used
to
meet
the
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality.
Management
will
review
the
calculations
and
write­
up.
Those
facilities
that
need
to
address
entrainment
will
spend
approximately
the
same
amount
of
time
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
59
performing
engineering
calculations
and
developing
a
narrative
description.
Finally
junior
technical
staff
will
document
that
these
chosen
technologies
reflect
BTA
at
the
facility's
site.

(
ii)
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
Since
submittal
of
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
is
optional
and
voluntary,
EPA
has
not
included
costs
for
the
development
of
the
plan
in
this
ICR.

(
5)
Information
To
Support
Proposed
Restoration
Measures
Facilities
are
not
required
to
use
restoration
measures
to
maintain
fish
and
shellfish,
but
may
voluntarily
choose
to
use
restoration
measures
to
supplement
design
and
construction
technologies.
EPA
thus
assumed
that
facilities
would
propose
to
use
restoration
measures
only
if
additional
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures
are
not
feasible
at
the
facility.
Therefore,
in
order
to
provide
a
conservative
estimate
of
burden
and
costs,
EPA
has
not
included
evaluation
of
the
proposed
restoration
measures
in
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates.

(
6)
Information
to
Document
Installation
and
Proper
Operation
and
Maintenance
of
Approved
Design
and
Construction
Technology
EPA
assumes
that
facilities
that
choose
to
demonstrate
that
they
have
installed
and
are
properly
maintaining
and
operating
an
approved
technology
must
provide
the
director
with
the
information
detailed
in
the
source
water
body
flow
information
and
the
design
and
construction
technology
plan.
It
will
be
up
to
the
directors
discretion
to
decide
whether
they
would
need
to
perform
a
pilot
study
or
the
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
However,
to
be
conservative
EPA
has
assumed
that
these
facilities
would
perform
one
or
more
of
these
studies.

(
7)
Information
to
Support
Site­
Specific
Determination
of
BTA
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
Facilities
may
choose
to
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
in
lieu
of
meeting
the
performance
standards
of
§
125.94(
a).
If
a
facility
requests
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
BTA,
it
will
first
need
to
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
it
meets
one
of
two
cost
criteria.
The
first
criteria
requires
the
facility
to
demonstrate
that
its
cost
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
specified
would
be
significantly
greater
than
those
considered
when
the
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
60
performance
standards
were
established.
The
second
criteria
requires
a
facility
to
demonstrate
that
its
costs
would
be
wholly
out
of
proportion
to
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
performance
standards
at
the
facility's
site.

For
the
purpose
of
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates,
EPA
assumed
that
all
respondents
requesting
a
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
would
claim
that
costs
outweighed
benefits,
and
therefore
would
perform
the
activities
associated
with
the
valuation
of
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment,
in
addition
to
performing
the
activities
associated
with
the
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study
and
the
site­
specific
technology
plan.

Performing
the
site­
specific
determination
is
voluntary,
so
EPA
has
not
included
evaluation
of
the
proposed
site­
specific
measures
in
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates.

(
i)
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
EPA
assumes
that
for
a
facility
to
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
its
actual
implementation
costs
will
be
higher
than
those
suggested
by
the
performance
standard,
the
facility
will
need
to
provide
the
Director
with
detailed
information
about
the
site,
along
with
engineering
calculations
and
cost
estimates
used
to
justify
this
conclusion.
Much
of
the
site­
specific
information
will
have
been
gathered
during
the
initial
permit
application
process
and
the
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization.
Likewise,
many
of
the
initial
engineering
calculations
will
have
been
performed
for
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan.
Therefore,
the
main
effort
for
the
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
will
be
for
the
facility
to
justify
the
cost
estimates
it
claims
that
it
will
incur
to
install
and
operate
the
BTA
prescribed
in
the
performance
standards.
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
will
develop
cost
estimates
and
prepare
an
initial
draft
of
the
study.
The
facility
manager
will
oversee
the
work
done
by
the
junior
staff
and
revise
the
initial
draft.
The
junior
technical
staff
will
revise
and
finalize
the
report
for
final
draft
review
and
preparation
of
an
executive
summary
by
the
management.

(
ii)
Valuation
of
Monetized
Benefits
of
Reducing
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
After
the
detailed
list
of
impacted
species
is
developed,
facility
and
contracted
staff
will
work
together
to
develop
estimates
of
the
commercial
and
recreation
value
of
the
impacted
species
and
the
other
species
which
depend
on
them
as
a
food
source.
EPA
assumes
the
biologists
contracted
to
do
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
will
take
the
lead
on
developing
the
monetized
benefit
estimates
to
develop
a
comprehensive
valuation
of
the
current
impacts
from
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
at
the
site
and
the
benefits
derived
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
61
from
reducing
the
impact
to
commercial
and
recreational
species
residing
in
the
source
water.

The
junior
technical
staff
will
assist
the
biologist
to
develop
and
revise
the
monetized
benefit
estimates.
A
statistician
will
help
with
the
development
of
present
value
estimates
for
the
technology
costs
and
the
monetized
benefits
so
that
they
can
be
compared.
Facility
management
and
the
contracted
manager
will
review
and
revise
the
work.

(
iii)
Identification
and
Description
of
Quantitative
and
non­
Monetized
Benefits
Facilities
choosing
to
demonstrate
that
their
costs
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
must
use
a
comprehensive
methodology
to
fully
value
the
impacts
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
at
the
site
and
the
benefits
achievable
by
compliance
with
the
applicable
requirements.
To
compare
benefits
to
costs,
the
facility
must
have
cost
estimates.
EPA
assumes
that
the
facility
will
use
the
cost
information
from
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
for
this
purpose.
To
begin
assessment
of
potential
benefits,
the
facility
will
need
estimates
of
impingement
and
entrainment
reductions
resulting
from
use
of
the
proposed
technology
at
the
facility.
EPA
assumes
that
the
facility
will
use
the
estimates
of
impingement
and
entrainment
reductions
from
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
for
this
purpose.
The
facility
must
then
estimate
the
potential
recreational
and
commercial
value
of
these
organisms
over
the
same
period
of
time
that
it
would
be
paying
for
the
proposed
technology.

EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
will
review
mortality
data
derived
from
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study,
and
develop
a
list
of
species,

their
impacted
life
stages,
and
corresponding
mortality
and
injury
reduction
estimates.
The
facility
manager
will
review
and
revis
this
list.

(
iv)
Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan
This
plan
is
based
on
the
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study,
and
the
valuation
of
monetized
benefits
if
one
was
performed
by
the
facility.
It
describes
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
selected,

and
provides
information
that
demonstrates
the
effectiveness
of
the
selected
technologies
or
measures
for
reducing
the
impacts
on
the
species
of
concern.
As
with
the
site
specific
determination,
these
costs
are
only
incurred
by
the
facility
when
they
voluntarily
choose
this
option.
Therefore,
they
are
not
included
in
the
aggregate
facility
cost
estimate.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
62
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
will
develop
a
narrative
description
of
the
technologies
and
measures
selected
by
the
facility.
The
facility
manager
will
review
and
revise
this
description.
The
facility
must
document
the
efficacy
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
or
operational
measures
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
will
document
the
efficacy
of
the
technologies
or
measures
based
on
the
information
used
to
support
a
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA,
and
results
from
representative
studies
and/
or
site­
specific
pilot
studies.

Facility
management
will
review
and
revise
this
document.

Both
the
narrative
description
and
the
documentation
of
efficacy
for
the
proposed
technology
or
measures
will
require
engineering
calculations,
design
estimates,
and
drawings.

EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
will
perform
this
engineering
work
and
facility
management
will
review
and
revise
it.
In
addition,
a
biologist
will
assist
the
junior
technical
staff
with
the
efficacy
calculations,
and
the
contract
manager
will
review
the
work.

(
8)
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
As
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
facilities
must
include
a
plan
to
conduct,
at
a
minimum,
two
years
of
monitoring
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures.
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
will
write
a
plan
that
describes
the
frequency
and
duration
for
monitoring,
the
locations
to
be
monitored,
the
basis
for
determining
the
locations,
and
the
information
that
will
be
included
in
the
final
report.
A
CAD
operator
will
assist
the
junior
technical
staff
with
the
drawings
and
diagrams
contained
in
the
plan.
The
facility
management
will
oversee
the
writing
of
the
plan
and
review/
revise
the
various
drafts
of
the
plan
before
it
is
finalized.

In
the
first
two
years
of
operation
under
their
reissued
NPDES
permits,
existing
facilities
are
required
to
use
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
data
to
perform
verification
studies
(
as
described
in
their
verification
monitoring
plans)
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures.
It
is
assumed
that
facilities
begin
verification
monitoring
when
they
receive
their
permits,
monitor
for
2
years,
and
submit
the
monitoring
results
&
study
analysis
at
the
beginning
of
the
third
year.
Thus,

EPA
assumes
that
Directors
will
not
be
reviewing
any
verification
studies
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
63
Table
8.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)

Start­
up
Activities
43
Permit
Application
Activities
247
Proposal
for
Collection
of
Information
for
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
272
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
103
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
134
Freshwater
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
1,152
Marine
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
16,783
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology
0
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,556
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology
1,185
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,859
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
128
Total*
31,399
*
The
total
does
not
reflect
the
average
burden
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
will
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

B.
Annual
Facility
Activities
The
principle
annual
activity
for
most
facilities
will
be
biological
monitoring.
Burden
estimates
for
annual
biological
monitoring
are
less
than
those
for
the
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
performed
by
some
facilities
as
part
of
the
permit
application
process.
Biological
monitoring
is
assumed
to
be
performed
at
one
location
on
a
monthly
basis
for
impingement
and
on
a
biweekly
basis
for
entrainment.
The
monitoring
results
are
analyzed
and
summarized
in
a
yearly
status
report.
Those
facilities
that
submitted
a
verification
monitoring
plan
as
part
of
their
permit
application
will
also
use
the
first
two
years
of
monitoring
data
to
produce
a
verification
study.
For
a
more
detailed
account
of
the
annual
burden
for
facilities
see
Exhibit
A.
2
in
Appendix
A.

Table
9.
Average
Burden
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)

Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Freshwater)
379
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)

12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
64
Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Marine)
482
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Freshwater)
614
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Marine)
776
Yearly
Status
Report
Activities
324
Verification
Study
122
Total*
2,697
*
The
total
does
not
reflect
the
average
burden
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
will
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

Director
Burdens
The
Phase
II
final
rule
will
require
Directors
to
devote
time
and
resources
to
review
and
respond
to
the
NPDES
permit
applications;
proposal,
study
and
sampling
plans;
and
yearly
status
reports
submitted
to
them.
EPA
assumed
that
all
NPDES
permit
program
Directors
will
also
undergo
start­
up
activities
in
preparation
for
administering
the
provisions
of
the
Section
316(
b)

Phase
II
rule.
As
part
of
these
start­
up
activities,
Directors
are
expected
to
train
junior
technical
staff
on
how
to
review
materials
submitted
by
facilities,
and
then
use
these
materials
to
determine
the
specific
conditions
of
each
facility's
NPDES
permit
with
regard
to
its
CWIS.
In
addition,

EPA
assumes
that
senior
and
junior
technical
staff
will
spend
time
to
study
and
understand
the
rule
and
in
planning
activities.

A.
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
EPA
expects
that
State
senior
technical,
junior
technical,
and
clerical
staff
will
devote
time
toward
gathering,
preparing,
and
submitting
the
various
documents.
EPA
assumed
burden
estimates
that
reflect
the
staffing
and
expertise
used
by
States
for
the
NPDES
permit
administration
process.
In
doing
this,
EPA
considered
the
time
and
qualifications
necessary
to
complete
various
tasks
such
as:
reviewing
submitted
documents
and
supporting
materials,

verifying
data
sources,
planning
responses,
determining
specific
permit
requirements,
writing
the
actual
permit,
conferring
with
facilities
and
the
interested
public,
and
entering
the
permit
information
into
the
PCS
database.
Table10
provides
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
Directors
performing
various
activities
associated
with
the
final
rule.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
Director
hourly
burdens,
see
Exhibit
A.
3
in
Appendix
A.

(
1)
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Requirements
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
65
The
Director
must
review
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
to
evaluate
the
suitability
and
feasibility
of
the
technology
or
operational
measures
proposed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94.
In
addition,
if
the
facility
proposes
restoration
measures,
the
Director
must
review
the
Information
to
Support
Proposed
Restoration
Measures
and
determine
whether
the
proposed
measures,
alone
or
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures,
will
meet
the
performance
standards.
For
all
facilities,
the
Director
must
review
and
approve
the
proposed
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
and
require
that
the
monitoring
continue
for
a
sufficient
period
of
time
to
demonstrate
that
the
design
and
construction
technology,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94(
a)
and
(
d).
For
a
facility
that
requests
requirements
based
on
site­
specific
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
the
Director
must
review
the
application
materials
submitted
and
any
other
information,
including
quantitative
and
qualitative
benefits,
that
would
be
relevant
to
a
determination
of
whether
alternative
requirements
are
appropriate
for
the
facility.
In
developing
performance
requirements
for
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
for
inclusion
in
a
permit,

the
Director
must
review
information
on
proposed
methods
submitted
by
the
facility,
evaluate
those
proposed
by
the
facility
and
other
available
methods,
and
specify
how
compliance
with
the
requirements
must
be
determined
including
the
averaging
period
for
determining
the
percent
reduction
required
by
the
performance
standards
and
restoration
requirements.

EPA
assumes
that
the
Directors
will
spend
a
significant
amount
of
time
reviewing
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
characterization
studies
and
the
design
and
construction
technology
plans
and
technology
installation
and
operation
compliance
plans.
A
significant
amount
of
review
time
is
also
expected
for
those
facilities
that
choose
to
request
site­
specific
determinations
of
BTA
to
review
the
required
supporting
studies.
The
additional
effort
devoted
to
reviewing
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
characterization
studies
is
due
to
the
fact
that
the
studies
cover
multiple
years
worth
of
data
collected
at
the
site.
The
additional
effort
devoted
to
reviewing
the
information
to
support
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
is
due
to
the
complexity
of
the
required
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study
or
valuation
of
monetized
benefits
for
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment.

In
addition,
EPA
assumes
that
Directors
will
spend
a
significant
amount
of
time
reviewing
restoration
measures
for
roughly
10
percent
of
the
facilities.

(
2)
Monitoring
Conditions
In
determining
the
applicable
monitoring
requirements,
the
Director
must
consider
the
facility's
verification
monitoring
plan
and
modify
the
monitoring
program
based
on
changes
to
the
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
66
physical
or
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
requirement
for
modifying
the
monitoring
program
may
be
made
during
the
term
of
the
permit
or
when
the
permit
is
reissued.
EPA
assumes
that
junior
technical
staff
will
review
the
facility's
verification
monitoring
plan
and
make
recommendations
for
modifying
the
monitoring
program.

Senior
technical
staff
will
review
and
implement
the
recommendations.

(
3)
Record
Keeping
and
Reporting
EPA
assumes
that
clerical
and
junior
technical
staff
will
review
the
monitoring
data
and
status
report
from
the
facilities
regarding
record
keeping.
Senior
technical
personnel
will
oversee
their
work.

(
4)
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Approval
For
facilities
choosing
to
demonstrate
that
they
have
installed
and
properly
operate
and
maintain
a
design
and
construction
technology
approved
in
accordance
with
§
125.99,
the
Director
must
review
the
information
submitted
in
the
Information
to
Document
Installation
and
Proper
Operation
and
Maintenance
of
Approved
Design
and
Construction
Technology
and
determine
if
they
meet
the
criteria
in
§
125.99.
EPA
assumes
that
junior
technical
staff
will
review
the
documentation
submitted
by
the
facility
for
compliance
as
required
in
§
125.95(
b)(
6).

Senior
technical
staff
will
provide
technical
oversight
for
this
work.
Moreover,
if
a
person
requests
approval
of
a
technology
under
§
125.99(
b),
the
Director
must
review
the
information
submitted
and
determine
its
suitability
for
widespread
use
at
facilities
with
similar
site
conditions
in
its
jurisdiction
with
minimal
study.
The
Director
must
evaluate
the
adequacy
of
the
technology
when
installed
in
accordance
with
the
required
design
criteria
and
site
conditions
to
consistently
meet
the
performance
requirements
in
§
125.94.
The
Director
must
only
approve
a
technology
following
public
notice
and
consideration
of
comment
regarding
such
approval.
EPA
assumes
that
senior
technical
staff
will
review
the
information
submitted
and
evaluate
the
adequacy
of
the
proposed
technology.
Junior
technical
staff
will
work
under
the
technical
direction
of
senior
personnel
in
this
regard
and
provide
assistance
in
reviewing
and
compiling
the
public
comments
received.

B.
Annual
Director
Activities
Facilities
required
to
perform
annual
biological
monitoring
for
impingement
and
entrainment
are
required
to
submit
an
annual
report,
which
details
inspection
and
maintenance
records
for
impingement
and
technology
controls
and
a
detailed
analysis
of
monitoring
results.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
67
EPA
assumes
that
directors
will
use
these
reports
to
track
facility
compliance
and
to
determine
if
a
reduction
in
monitoring
frequency
is
appropriate.

Table
10.
Average
Director
Burden
for
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)

Director
Start­
up
Activities
(
per
State/
Territory)
100
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
(
per
Facility)
789
Verification
Study
Review
(
per
Facility)*
21
Review
of
Alternative
Regulatory
Requirements
(
per
Facility)
192
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
Total**
1,152
*
Since
facilities
must
monitor
for
at
least
two
years
before
submitting
their
verification
study
for
review,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
that
Directors
will
incur
burden
for
this
activity
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

**
The
total
does
not
reflect
the
average
director
burden
for
each
facility
since
not
all
facilities
will
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

6b
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
This
section
describes
cost
estimates
for
facilities
and
Directors,
as
well
as
the
methods
used
to
derive
them.
The
cost
estimates
include
both
initial
permitting
costs
and
annual
cost
for
facilities
and
Directors.
Because
of
the
five
year
permit
cycle
facilities
and
Directors
will
not
incur
repermitting
costs
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Therefore,
repermitting
costs
are
not
covered
in
this
section.
For
detailed
estimates
of
re­
permitting
costs
see
Exhibits
A.
12
and
A.
13
in
Appendix
A.

6b(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
The
costs
to
the
respondent
facilities
associated
with
the
ICR
activities
can
be
estimated
by
multiplying
the
time
spent
in
each
labor
category
by
an
appropriately
loaded
hourly
wage
rate.

All
base
wage
rates
used
for
facility
labor
categories
were
derived
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistic's
(
BLS)
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
2002­
2003
(
BLS,
2002).
These
reported
labor
rates
were
based
upon
data
from
the
year
2000,
and
required
adjustment
for
inflation.
Inflation
factor
were
derived
from
the
BLS
Employment
Cost
Index
(
BLS,
2003),
was
used
to
adjust
the
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
labor
rates
to
reflect
labor
rates
for
June
of
2002.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
68
Compensatory
loading
factors
ranging
from
35%
to
53%,
depending
on
the
labor
category,
were
used
to
account
for
any
paid
leave,
supplemental
pay,
insurance,
retirement
and
savings,
and
required
and
nonrequired
benefits
received
by
employees
(
BLS,
2003b).
EPA
assumed
an
additional
loading
factor
of
15%
to
account
for
general
overhead
costs
directly
attributable
to
facility
employees
performing
work
in
support
of
the
permit
process.
Expenses
for
contracted
employees
typically
include
higher
overhead
costs,
as
well
as
fee
to
ensure
profit
for
the
contracting
company.
EPA
assumes
that
the
overhead
for
the
contracted
employees
will
be
50%
and
the
fee
will
be
8%.

To
represent
the
base
labor
rate
for
facility
management,
EPA
used
the
average
national
salary
for
an
engineering
manager
of
$
84,070
per
year.
This
figure
was
divided
by
2,080
hours
to
derive
the
hourly
managerial
wage
rate
of
approximately
$
40
per
hour.
After
adjusting
this
rate
for
inflation,
compensation
and
overhead,
the
rate
is
approximately
$
77
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
of
$
40,020
for
an
engineering
technician
was
used
to
represent
the
base
labor
rate
for
junior
technical
staff.
After
determining
the
hourly
wage
rate
and
adjusting
for
inflation
and
other
factors,
this
labor
rate
was
approximately
$
37
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
for
a
drafter
performing
CAD
work
was
reported
to
be
$
17
per
hour,
and
after
adjusting
and
loading
the
rate
it
is
approximately
$
32.
The
reported
average
annual
salary
for
clerical
workers
was
$
21,130,
and
the
fully
adjusted
and
loaded
hourly
rate
is
approximately
$
17
per
hour.

To
represent
the
base
labor
rate
for
a
contracted
manager
of
monitoring
work
done
onsite
EPA
used
the
average
national
salary
for
a
natural
sciences
manager
of
$
75,880
per
year,

with
a
fully
loaded
rate
of
$
87
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
for
a
statistician
was
$
51,990
per
year,
with
an
adjusted
hourly
rate
of
approximately
$
59
per
hour.
Biologists
and
biological
technicians
had
an
average
hourly
pay
of
$
24
and
$
15,
and
a
fully
loaded
rate
of
$
57
and
$
36,

respectively.

Director
Labor
Costs
For
Director
costs,
all
of
the
base
labor
rates
and
compensation
factors
were
derived
from
published
employment
cost
trends
for
State
and
local
government
workers
for
the
first
quarter
of
2001
(
BLS,
2001).
These
labor
rates
were
adjusted
to
reflect
labor
rates
for
June
of
2002
(
BLS,

2003a).
EPA
chose
the
BLS
labor
category
of
white­
collar
professional
specialist
to
represent
the
senior
administrative
and
technical
staff
that
will
oversee
and
manage
the
NPDES
permit
program.
The
base
hourly
rate
for
this
category
was
approximately
$
29
per
hour,
and
after
adjusting
for
compensation
and
inflation
it
is
approximately
$
52
per
hour.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
69
Similarly,
EPA
chose
the
BLS
labor
category
of
white­
collar
professional
technical
to
represent
the
junior
technical
staff
that
EPA
expects
to
perform
the
majority
of
the
actual
NPDES
permitting
work.
The
reported
base
pay
for
this
category
was
approximately
$
18
per
hour,
which
becomes
approximately
$
31
per
hour
after
being
adjusted
for
compensation,
overhead,
and
inflation.
The
hourly
wage
for
State
government
clerical
workers
was
$
13
per
hour
before
adjustment,
and
approximately
$
24
afterward.

6b(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
A
facility
incurs
capital/
start­
up
costs
when
it
purchases
equipment
or
builds
structures
that
are
needed
for
compliance
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
and
that
the
facility
would
not
use
otherwise.
A
facility
incurs
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
when
it
uses
services,
materials,
or
supplies
that
are
needed
to
comply
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
and
that
the
facility
would
not
use
otherwise.
Any
costs
for
the
operation
and
upkeep
of
capital
equipment
are
considered
O&
M
costs.
Another
type
of
O&
M
cost
is
for
the
purchase
of
contracted
services,
such
as
laboratory
analyses.
The
purchase
of
supplies
such
as
filing
cabinets
and
services
such
as
photocopying
or
boat
rental
are
also
considered
O&
M
costs,
and
are
referred
to
as
other
direct
costs
(
ODCs).

As
part
of
the
evaluation
of
potential
CWIS
effects
performed
under
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan,
EPA
anticipates
that
facilities
will
perform
pilot
studies
to
estimate
efficacy
for
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
used
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
EPA
assumes
that
these
facilities
will
be
willing
to
spend
approximately
10%
of
the
anticipated
costs
of
installing
and
operating
the
proposed
technologies.

As
part
of
the
economic
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
has
developed
technology
cost
estimates
for
those
facilities
that
EPA
anticipates
will
install
new
technologies.
If
the
efficacy
of
a
proposed
technology
is
well
documented
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
same
waterbody
type
with
similar
biological
characteristics,
the
facility
may
choose
to
rely
on
existing
information.
EPA
considers
the
effectiveness
and
reliability
of
wedgewire
screen
technology
in
freshwater
environments
to
be
sufficiently
well
documented.
Therefore,
those
freshwater
facilities
installing
or
operating
wedgewire
screen
technology
are
assumed
to
rely
upon
existing
information
and
forgo
the
pilot
study.

Average
pilot
study
capital
costs
are
expected
to
range
from
$
165,000
to
$
469,000,

depending
on
the
technology
installed
and
the
waterbody
location.
EPA
assumes
the
pilot
study
impingement
samples
will
be
analyzed
on­
site
by
the
biologists,
due
to
the
difficulty
of
preserving
impingement
samples
for
shipment
to
an
outside
laboratory.
Analysis
of
the
pilot
study
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
70
entrainment
samples
will
be
performed
by
an
outside
laboratory,
at
a
cost
of
$
6,000
for
freshwater
facilities
and
$
7,800
for
facilities
with
CWISs
located
in
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.
Pilot
study
ODC
costs
are
assumed
to
be
approximately
$
1,000
for
materials
and
supplies
used
by
facilities
conducting
pilot
studies.

EPA
assumes
that
samples
taken
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
will
be
analyzed
by
a
contracted
laboratory.
The
outside
laboratories
will
perform
taxonomic
classification,
data
tabulation,
and
then
deliver
the
data
back
to
the
facility.

For
the
monitoring
required
by
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study,
this
service
is
estimated
to
cost
$
78,000
for
facilities
with
CWISs
located
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs,
and
$
152,100
for
facilities
with
CWISs
located
in
the
Great
Lakes,
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.
For
facilities
with
CWISs
located
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs
ODCs
are
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
5,200
and
$
13,000
for
facilities
with
CWISs
located
in
the
Great
Lakes,
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.

For
annual
O&
M
costs,
EPA
again
assumes
that
the
analysis
of
impingement
monitoring
samples
will
be
done
on­
site,
while
entrainment
monitoring
samples
will
be
performed
by
an
outside
laboratory.
Laboratory
analysis
for
entrainment
samples
is
estimated
to
cost
$
7,800
per
year
for
facilities
with
CWISs
located
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs,
and
an
estimated
$
10,140
per
year
for
facilities
with
CWISs
located
in
estuaries/
tidal
rivers,
the
Great
Lakes,
or
oceans.
The
ODCs
associated
with
biologivcal
monitoring
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs
are
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
500
annually
and
$
650
for
facilities
with
CWISs
located
in
the
Great
Lakes,
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.

In
general,
the
labor
costs
and
O&
M
costs
reported
in
this
analysis
are
assumed
to
represent
typical
average
national
cost
estimates
that
are
likely
to
be
incurred
by
existing
facilities
and
by
permitting
authorities.
EPA
attempted
to
take
into
account
various
factors
such
as
decreases
in
labor
efficiency
that
occur
during
extreme
climate
conditions,
equipment
down
time,

and
the
occasional
sample
that
might
need
to
be
replaced
because
it
was
lost
or
spoiled
during
transport.
Tables
11
and
12
provide
a
summary
of
facility
level
average
labor
costs,
capital
and
O&
M
costs
over
the
three
year
ICR
period.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
all
compliance
costs
for
facilities,
see
Exhibits
A.
1
and
A.
2
in
Appendix
A.

Table
11.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
and
Costs
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
71
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2002$)
Captial
(
2002$)
O&
M
(
2002$)

Start­
up
Activities
43
$
2,247
$
0
$
50
Permit
Application
Activities
247
$
10,605
$
0
$
500
Proposal
for
Collection
of
Information
for
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
272
$
12,990
$
0
$
750
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
103
$
3,729
$
0
$
200
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
134
$
5,295
$
0
$
400
Freshwater
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
1,152
$
437,271
$
0
$
83,203
Marine
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
16,783
$
798,401
$
0
$
165,100
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,556
$
81,001
$
165,321
$
7,000
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology
1,185
$
60,217
$
242,872
$
1,000
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,859
$
94,881
$
469,073
$
8,800
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
128
$
6,267
$
0
$
400
Total*
31,399
$
1,512,904
$
877,266
$
267,403
*
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
will
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
72
Table
12.
Average
Burden
and
Costs*
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2002$)
O&
M
(
2002$)

Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Freshwater)
379
$
18,727
$
500
Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Marine)
482
$
23,837
$
650
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Freshwater)
614
$
30,724
$
8,300
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Marine)
776
$
38,517
$
10,790
Yearly
Status
Report
Activities
324
$
17,402
$
750
Verification
Study
122
$
6,957
$
500
Total**
2,697
$
138,166
$
23,492
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.

**
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
burden
and
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
will
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

Director
O&
M
Costs
EPA
does
not
anticipate
any
operation
and
maintenance
costs
other
than
ODCs
for
Directors
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule.
Table13
provides
estimates
of
average
Director
labor
costs
and
ODCs.
For
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
Director
costs,
see
Exhibit
A.
3
in
Appendix
A.

Table
13.
Average
Director
Burden
and
Costs*
for
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2002$)
O&
M
(
2002$)

Director
Start­
up
Activities
(
per
State/
Territory)
100
$
3,936
$
50
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
(
per
Facility)
789
$
36,213
$
300
Verification
Study
Review
(
per
Facility)**
21
$
770
$
10
Review
of
Alternative
Regulatory
Requirements
(
per
Facility)
192
$
6,954
$
100
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
$
1,859
$
25
Total***
1,152
$
51,734
$
2,487
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.

**
Since
facilities
must
monitor
for
at
least
two
years
before
submitting
their
verification
study
for
review,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
that
Directors
will
incur
burden
and
costs
for
this
activity
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

***
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
director
burden
and
costs
for
each
facility
since
not
all
facilities
will
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
73
6c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
As
mentioned
previously,
there
are
46
States
and
Territories
authorized
to
administer
the
NPDES
permitting
program.
For
in­
scope
facilities
applying
for
reissued
permits
in
the
10
unauthorized
States
and
Territories,
EPA
will
incur
costs
and
burdens
similar
to
those
incurred
by
States
with
permitting
authority.
This
analysis,
however,
assumes
that
facilities
complying
with
the
rule
during
the
ICR
approval
period
will
be
in
NPDES­
authorized
States.

EPA
typically
reviews
NPDES
permits
in
the
early
stages
of
implementation
of
new
regulations.
This
review
ensures
that
the
key
provisions
of
the
rule
are
implemented
properly
by
the
States.
Based
on
historical
reports
submitted
for
316(
b)
demonstrations,
EPA
assumes
that
it
will
take
about
39
hours
on
average
to
perform
a
detailed
review,
make
comments,
and
follow
up
on
comments
for
the
316(
b)
portions
of
a
State­
issued
NPDES
permit.
Table
14
summarizes
Federal
burden
and
cost
estimates.
Further
detail
is
provided
in
Exhibit
A.
4
in
Appendix
A.

Table
14.
Estimating
Federal
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2002$)
O&
M(
2002$)

Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
Activities
(
per
Permitted
Facility)
39
$
1,457
$
50
6d
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
During
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation,
there
are
an
estimated
463
facilities
along
with
46
States
and
Territories
that
the
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
final
rule
will
affect.
The
final
rule
would
require
each
respondent
to
comply
with
one
or
more
provisions.
In
turn,
each
provision
has
numerous
activities
associated
with
it.
Exhibits
A.
5
and
A.
6
in
Appendix
A
provide
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
respondents
and
responses
expected
for
each
provision
of
the
rule
during
each
year
of
the
ICR
approval
period.
The
annual
estimates
are
based
on
the
compliance
schedule
used
to
estimate
the
cost
of
the
final
rule.
In
addition,
Exhibits
A.
7­
A.
10
provide
a
summary
of
the
respondent
burdens
and
costs
for
each
year
of
the
ICR
approval
period.

These
estimates
were
calculated
by
multiplying
facility
and
Director
level
burden
and
cost
estimates
in
Exhibits
A.
1­
A.
3
by
the
number
of
respondents
performing
each
activity
in
Exhibit
A.
5
(
see
Appendix
A).
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
74
6e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
This
section
provides
a
description
of
bottom
line
data
collection
and
record
keeping
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
implementation
of
the
final
rule.

6e(
i)
Respondent
Tally
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
for
facilities
and
Directors
are
the
total
annual
hours
and
costs
collectively
incurred
for
all
activities
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Table
15
provides
a
summary
of
the
average
annual
number
of
respondents,
burden
hours,
and
costs.
A
more
detailed
summary
can
be
found
in
Exhibit
A.
11
in
Appendix
A.

Table
15.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Average
Annual
Respondents
Average
Annual
Burden
(
hours)
Average
Annual
Labor
Costs
(
2002$)
Average
Annual
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
(
2002$)
Total
Average
Annual
Costs
(
2002$)

Facilities
294
1,595,786
$
76,700,662
$
20,962,058
$
97,662,720
State
Directors
40
104,606
$
4,785,678
$
37,200
$
4,822,878
Totals
334
1,700,392
$
81,486,340
$
20,999,258
$
102,485,598
6e(
ii)
Agency
Tally
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
for
the
Federal
agency
are
the
total
annual
hours
and
costs
collectively
incurred
for
all
activities
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Table
16
provides
a
summary
of
the
average
annual
agency
burden
hours,
and
costs.
A
more
detailed
summary
can
be
found
in
Exhibit
A.
11
in
Appendix
A.
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
75
Table
16.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Average
Annual
Burden
(
hours)
Average
Annual
Labor
Costs
(
2002$)
Average
Annual
O&
M
Costs
(
2002$)
Total
Average
Annual
Costs
(
2002$)

Agency
Totals
4,406
$
163,476
$
5,617
$
169,093
6f
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
The
change
in
burden
results
from
final
regulatory
changes
that
require
information
collection
and
record
keeping
activities.
These
final
regulatory
changes
partially
fulfill
EPA's
obligation
to
comply
with
the
consent
agreement
entered
in
Cronin
v.
Browner,
93
Civ.
0314
(
AGS)
S.
D.
N.
Y.,
filed
Oct.
10,
1995,
and
amended
in
Riverkeeper,
Inc.
v.
Whitman,
filed
November
21,
2000.
These
agreements
require
that
EPA
propose
and
finalize
regulations
that
implement
Section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
by
specified
dates.
The
final
rule
is
a
direct
result
of
the
consent
agreement
requirements.

6g
Burden
Statement
The
annual
average
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
collection
of
information
by
facilities
responding
to
the
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
final
rule
is
estimated
to
be
5,428
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
1,595,786
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
annual
average
of
294
facilities).
The
Director
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
review,
oversight,
and
administration
of
the
rule
is
estimated
to
average
2,615
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
104,606
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
40
States
on
average
per
year).

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
12/
23/
03
Internal
Final
Agency
Review
Draft­
Predecisional,
Deliberative­
Do
not
quote,
cite
or
release
76
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
number
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.
