SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Cooling Water Intake Structure Phase II Existing Facilities (Renewal)

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

1a.	Title of the Information Collection

 ADVANCE \d0 	Cooling Water Intake Structure Phase II Existing
Facilities (Renewal)

1b.	Short Characterization/Abstract

 ADVANCE \d0 	The section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule
requires the collection of information from existing point source
facilities that generate and transmit electric power (as a primary
activity) or generate electric power but sell it to another entity for
transmission, use a cooling water intake structure (CWIS) that uses at
least 25 percent of the water it withdraws from waters of the U.S. for
cooling purposes, and have a design intake flow of 50 million gallons
per day (MGD) or more.  Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (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 CWIS)
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 316(b) Phase
II rule establishes requirements applicable to the location, design,
construction, and capacity of CWISs at Phase II existing facilities. 
These requirements establish the BTA for minimizing adverse
environmental impact associated with the use of CWISs.

Existing electric power generating facilities that do not meet the
threshold requirements in § 125.91 of the Phase II rule are not
covered by this Information Collection Request (ICR).

All Phase II existing facilities must reduce impingement mortality for
all life stages of fish and shellfish by 80 to 95% from the calculation
baseline.  Some Phase II existing facilities must also reduce
entrainment for all life stages of fish and shellfish by 60 to 90% from
the calculation baseline.  A Phase II existing facility may choose one
of the following five compliance alternatives in § 125.94(a) for
establishing BTA 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 this case,
the facility will not be required to demonstrate further that it meets
the impingement mortality and entrainment performance standards; 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 this
case, the facility will not be required to demonstrate further that it
meets the performance standards for impingement mortality;

2.	Demonstrate that its existing design and construction technologies,
operational measures, and/or restoration measures meet the performance
standards specified in § 125.94(b) and/or the restoration requirements
in § 125.94(c);

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(b) and/or the
restoration requirements in § 125.94(c);

4.	Demonstrate that the facility has installed, or will install, and
properly operate and maintain an approved design and construction
technology in accordance with § 125.99(a) or (b); or

5.	Demonstrate that the facility has selected, installed, and is
properly operating and maintaining, or will install and properly operate
and maintain design and construction technologies, operational measures,
and/or restoration measures determined to be the BTA for the facility in
accordance with § 125.94(a)(5)(i) and (ii).The facility must meet one
of two cost tests: (1) demonstrate that costs of compliance under
alternatives 2–4 would be significantly greater than costs considered
by the Administrator, or (2) demonstrate that costs of compliance under
alternatives 2–4 would be significantly greater than the benefits of
complying with the applicable performance standards at the facility.

The section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule requires several
distinct types of information collection as part of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) application.  In general,
the information is 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
performance requirements.  Specific data requirements that apply to all
facilities regardless of the compliance alternative selected are:

(	Source water physical data that 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

(	CWIS data that shows the configuration and location of cooling water
intake structures, provides details on the design operation of each
CWIS, 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 existing facilities must submit a
Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) 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 design
and construction technology(ies), operational measures and/or
restoration measures proposed and/or implemented at the CWIS meet the
applicable national performance standards specified in § 125.94. The
required components of the CDS that a Phase II existing facility must
submit are dependent on the compliance alternative selected.  Facilities
that choose to meet the performance standards under the compliance
alternative in § 125.94(a)(1)(i) are not require to submit a CDS.
Facilities that choose to meet the performance standards under the
compliance alternative in §125.94(a)(1)(ii) are required to only submit
a CDS for the entrainment requirements, if applicable.  Facilities that
choose to meet the performance standards under the compliance
alternative in §125.94(a)(4) are required to submit only the Technology
Installation and Operation Plan and the Verification Monitoring Plan. 
Facilities that are required to meet only impingement mortality
reduction requirements in § 125.94(b)(1) are required to submit only a
CDS for the impingement mortality reduction requirements.  The CDS
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 is designed to withdraw more than 5% of 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 to show that the total design intake flow will
not disrupt the natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern
(where present) of the source water in a way that adversely impacts
fisheries;

(	Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study that
provides information to support the development of a calculation
baseline for evaluating impingement mortality and/or entrainment and to
characterize current impingement mortality and/or entrainment;

(	Design and Construction Technology Plan and a Technology Installation
and Operation Plan that includes technology and compliance assessment
information that explains the design and construction technologies and
operational measures that are in place or have been selected to reduce
impingement mortality and/or entrainment; calculates the reduction in
impingement mortality and 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;

(	Restoration Plan (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; and

(	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, and/or restoration
measures.

Additional data requirements apply to facilities that choose to request
a site-specific determination of BTA for minimizing adverse
environmental impact i.e., with the compliance alternative in
§125.94(a)(5)(i) or (ii)).  Specific data requirements that would apply
to such a facility include:

(	Comprehensive cost evaluation study that documents the cost of
implementing the design and construction technologies, operational
measures, and/or restoration measures to meet the applicable performance
standards and a demonstration that the cost is significantly greater
than those costs considered by the Administrator;

(	Benefits valuation of reducing impingement and entrainment that uses a
comprehensive methodology to fully value the impacts of impingement
mortality and/or entrainment at the site and the benefits achievable by
compliance with the applicable requirements;

(	A narrative description of any non-monetized benefits that would be
realized at the facility if it were to meet the performance standards
and a qualitative assessment of their magnitude and significance;

Site-specific technology plan that describes the design and operation of
all design and construction technologies, operational measures and/or
restoration measures (existing and proposed) that the facility has
selected; demonstrates the efficacy of the technologies; and
demonstrates that the design and construction technologies, operational
measures and/or restoration measures selected would reduce impingement
mortality and/or 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. Monitoring must be
conducted in accordance with the Verification Monitoring Plan required
by § 125.95(b)(7), the Technology Installation and Operation Plan
required by § 125.95(b)(4)(ii), the Restoration Plan required by
§ 125.95(b)(5), if applicable, and any additional monitoring specified
by the Director to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
requirements of § 125.94.  The results of each facility’s monitoring
efforts are to be reported to the permitting Director every two years.

Finally, facilities are required to maintain records of all submitted
documents, supporting materials, and monitoring results for at least 3
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, as
appropriate.

Authorized State Directors are required to review all materials
submitted to them by the facilities within the scope of the 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 316(b)
Phase II Existing Facility rule are the States authorized to administer
the NPDES permitting program, and EPA.  Other government agencies, both
at the State and Federal level, as well as public interest groups,
private companies, and many individuals also use the data.

On January 25, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit remanded to EPA certain provisions in the 2004 Final Regulations
to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase
II Existing Facilities (see Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, No.
04-6692-ag(L) [2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2007]).  EPA is continuing to review the
decision to determine its impact on the Phase II Rule. Therefore, this
ICR does not address the results of the court decision.

During the 3 years covered by this ICR (which correspond to years 4–6
after rule promulgation) the information collection required by the rule
will involve responses from an estimated total of 508 facilities and 41
States and Territories and cost approximately $242 million (including
operating and maintenance costs), with an annual average of 429
respondents, 1,240,599 burden hours, and a cost $80.6 million per year
(for additional detail, see Section 6 and Exhibit A11 in Appendix A).

2.	Need for and Use of the Collection

2a.	Need/Authority for the Collection

 ADVANCE \d0 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 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility
rule are necessary to ensure that Phase II 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.

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 CWISs.  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
CWISs reflect the BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impact.”
The requirements of Section 316(b) are closely linked to several of the
core elements (e.g., sections 301, 304, 306 and 402) of the 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.

2b.	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

 ADVANCE \d0 	The 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility 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
Phase II 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; and/or 

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

Permit writers will also use these data to verify that the appropriate
compliance actions are selected and implemented.  Under the 316(b) Phase
II Existing Facility rule, EPA and State 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—in the process of
being replaced by the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). 
PCS and ICIS are used to track permit limits, permit expiration dates,
monitoring data, and other data, and provide EPA with a nationwide
inventory of permit holders.  

EPA Headquarters uses the information contained in PCS and ICIS
databases to develop reports on permit issuance, backlog, and compliance
rates.  The Agency also uses the 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 bi-annual reports to track facility
monitoring, compliance violations, and enforcement activities.

Permittees must reapply for NPDES permits every 5 years.  The
re-application process is the primary mechanism for obtaining up-to-date
and new information concerning on-site conditions. Although under the
316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule, existing facilities provide data
from self-monitoring activities in bi-annual reports to the permitting
authority, these reports are a less comprehensive information-gathering
process than the permit application process.  EPA and States will use
re-application 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; or

(	Place appropriate special conditions in permits.

Environmental and citizen groups are expected to use the data collected
under the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule to independently assess
impingement and entrainment rates for affected waterbodies 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.

3.	Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

 ADVANCE \d3 	The following sections verify and affirm that this ICR
satisfies the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) data-collection
guidelines, has public support, and does not duplicate another
collection.

3a.	Nonduplication

 ADVANCE \d0 	Given that the Phase II Existing Facility rule applies to
existing facilities, current data sources may already exist for the
information required under the 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

In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any agency
developing a non-rule-related ICR must solicit public comments before
submitting the ICR to OMB.  These comments, which are used partly to
determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered
when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB.

This ICR was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2007.  The
notice included a request for comments on the content and impact of
these information collection requirements on the regulated community. 
EPA received no comments on this ICR.

3c.	Consultations

 ADVANCE \d0 	EPA finalized the requirements addressed in this ICR after
receiving comments from the public and the regulated community.  No
formal consultations with persons outside EPA have occurred since the
original 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule and its corresponding
ICR were published in 2004.  However, the Agency does consider, and act
on, the comments it receives in its daily dealings with the public and
with the regulated community.  EPA Headquarters staff responsible for
program oversight in the applicable program areas were contacted to
provide revised information and data for this ICR.

3d.	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

 ADVANCE \d0 	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 become available, or to
track long-term trends.

3e.	General Guidelines

 ADVANCE \d0 	The information collection requirements of the 316(b)
Phase II Existing Facility rule are in accordance with the PRA
guidelines at Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
1320.5(d)(2).  Requests for supplemental information for the purposes of
emergency response or enforcement activities are exempt from the PRA
requirements.

3f.	Confidentiality

 ADVANCE \d0 	Applications for an NPDES permit may contain confidential
business information.  However, EPA does not consider the specific
information being requested by the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility
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) Phase II Existing Facility 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.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

4a.	Respondents/SIC/NAICS

The applicability criteria of the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility 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 CWIS, 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 from waters of the U.S. (measured on an average
annual basis) for cooling purposes, and has a design intake flow of 50
MGD or more.  Use of a CWIS 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.

Respondents include existing electric power generating facilities. 
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 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) are not 316(b) Phase II existing
facilities.  SIC and NAICS Codes are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.	Industry Categories and SIC Codes for 316(b) Phase II Existing
Facility Rule

 ADVANCE \u3 Respondent Industry Categories	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Traditional Steam Electric Utilities	SIC codes 4911 and 493	221112,
221113, 221119, 221121, 221122

Steam Electric Nonutility Power Producers: Nonindustrial	SIC Major Group
49

	4b.	Information Requested

The following sections provide details on data items requested and
associated activities that the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule
requires respondents to provide in their application.  The two principal
respondent categories are Phase II existing facilities subject to the
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).  There are currently 45 States and
the Virgin Islands authorized under CWA Section 402(b) to implement the
NPDES permit program.

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

4b(i).	Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements

Data items required by the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule are
gathered for either record keeping or reporting purposes.  There are
several data items that are collected only during the year(s) before the
beginning of each permit cycle and others that are required to be
collected on an annual basis.  A discussion of all reporting
requirements follows below.

Reporting Requirements

 ADVANCE \u2 	The Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule does
not require Directors to prepare or submit any reports beyond what is
currently required of them under the NPDES program.  However, Directors
need to review, maintain records of, and make permitting determinations
on the basis of all documents and reports submitted to them by Phase II
existing facilities.

Phase II existing facilities must report with their application the
information required under § 125.95 and paragraphs (r)(2), (3), and
(5) of § 122.21.  At the time a Phase II existing facility submits its
NPDES permit renewal application (approximately 180 days before
expiration of its current permit, in accordance with § 122.21(d)(2)),
it must submit information demonstrating that it is employing, or will
employ BTA for its CWIS to minimize adverse environmental impact in
compliance with Section 316(b) of the CWA.  A facility whose existing
permit expires before July 9, 2008, may request the Director for a
schedule to submit the information required in § 125.95.  The
information will be used to identify which of the requirements the
facility must meet, 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). 
Source water information is required 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.  In addition, the proximity of the intake structures
to sensitive aquatic ecological areas might result in potential
environmental impact.

2.	CWIS data, as required under § 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 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.

3.	Cooling water system data, per the requirements at § 122.21(r)(5). 
Facilities are required to submit cooling water system data 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.

Depending on the compliance alternative selected, a facility may also
need to conduct a CDS as stipulated at § 125.95(b)(1) through
§ 125.95(b)(7) as applicable.  The CDS is necessary to characterize
the source water baseline in the vicinity of the intake, characterize
the operation of the cooling water intake, and confirm that the design
and construction technology(ies), operational measures, and/or
restoration measures proposed and/or implemented at the intake meet the
applicable requirements of § 125.94.

The CDS 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/or Entrainment Characterization Study
[§ 125.95 (b)(3)];

4.	Technology and compliance assessment information [§ 125.95 (b)(4)];

5.	Restoration plan [§ 125.95 (b)(5)];

6.	Information to support site-specific determination of BTA for
minimizing adverse environmental impact [§ 125.95 (b)(6)]; and

7.	A verification monitoring plan [§ 125.95 (b)(7)].

In accordance with § 125.95(a)(2), the facility must submit any
applicable portions of the CDS, except for the Proposal for Information
Collection, and the information required at 40 CFR 122.21(r)(2), (3) and
(5), with the NPDES permit application. The Proposal for Information
Collection must be submitted prior to the start of any information
collection to support other components of the CDS

The specific requirements of each component of the CDS are detailed
under the Respondent Activities section below.

Annual Reporting Requirements

In addition to the one-time reporting requirements, facilities are
required to provide the following information to the Director in
bi-annual status report:

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

Record Keeping Requirements

 ADVANCE \u2 	All operators of Phase II existing facilities are 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 are required to be maintained for a period of at least
3 years from the date of permit issuance unless extended at the request
of the Director.  Each operator is 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 include both Phase II existing
facilities and NPDES permit program Directors.  Their information
collection activities are described below.

Permit Application Activities

 ADVANCE \u2 	All facilities 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

 ADVANCE \u2 	Phase II existing facilities must perform several data
gathering activities as part of the permit application process.  Under
the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule, all facilities are required
to gather application information as specified at 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, CWIS data, and
cooling water system data.

Activities related to source water physical data include: [40 CFR
122.21(r)(2)]

(	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

(	Maintaining copies of these documents as well as copies of any
information used in their development for a period of 3 years after
submittal.

Activities related to the report on cooling water intake structure data
include: [40 CFR 122.21(r)(3)]

(	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 3 years after
submittal.

Activities related to the report of the Phase II existing facility
cooling water system data include: [40 CFR 122.21(r)(5)]

(	Preparing a narrative description of the operation of each of the
facility’s cooling water systems, relationship to the CWIS(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 3 years after submittal.

B. Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) Requirements

As previously discussed, depending on the compliance alternative
selected, facilities may need to complete all or portions of the CDS. 
The specific reporting requirements for each component of the CDS are
discussed below.

Proposal for Information Collection

 ADVANCE \u2 	The facility must develop and submit a proposal for the
collection of information to support the CDS.  In accordance with
§ 125.95(b)(1), this activity includes:

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

(	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 relevance
to the proposed CDS.  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)];

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

(	Developing 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 CWIS), 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)];

(	Maintaining records of all materials used to develop the proposal for
a period of 3 years after submittal.

Source Waterbody Flow Information

 ADVANCE \u2 	As part of the CDS, facilities with intakes located on
freshwater rivers/streams or lakes/reservoirs must also submit source
waterbody flow information as required under § 125.95(b)(2). This
includes:

(	If the CWIS 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
whether the facility’s design intake flow is greater than 5 percent of
the mean annual flow of the river or stream for purposes of determining
applicable performance standards under paragraph § 125.95(b). 
Representative historical data (from a period of time up to 10 years, if
available) must be used [§ 125.95(b)(2)(i)]; 

(	If the CWIS is located in a lake (other than one of the Great Lakes)
or a 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 total design intake flow after the
increase will not disrupt the natural thermal stratification and
turnover pattern in a way that adversely impacts water quality or
fisheries including the results of any consultations with Federal,
State, or Tribal fish or wildlife management agencies
[§ 125.95(b)(2)(ii)]; and

(	The facility must maintain records of all pertinent documents for a
period of 3 years after submittal.

Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study

 ADVANCE \u2 	As part of the CDS, the facility must also perform an
Impingement Mortality and/or 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.  Under § 125.95(b)(3), the
following activities are required:

(	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 [§ 125.95(b)(3)(i)];

(	A characterization of those species of fish and shellfish and any
species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal Law (including
threatened or endangered species) identified pursuant to
§ 125.95(b)(3)(i), including a description of the abundance and
temporal/spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the intake, based on
sufficient 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)];

(	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) identified pursuant to § 125.95(b)(3)(i) 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 to support the
calculations required in paragraph § 125.95(b)(4)(i)(C) and
(b)(5)(iii) 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)]; and

(	Maintenance of a copy of the study and the materials required to
produce it for 3 years after submittal.

Technology and Compliance Assessment Information

 ADVANCE \u2 	If the facility chooses to use design and construction
technologies and/or operational measures, in whole or in part, to meet
the requirements of § 125.94, the facility must submit a Design and
Construction Technology Plan and a Technology Installation Operation
Plan.  Under § 125.95(b)(4)(i), the facility is required to include
the following in the Design and Construction Technology Plan: 

(	The capacity utilization rate for the facility and supporting data
(including the average annual net generation of the facility (in MWh)
measured over a 5-year period (if available) of representative operating
conditions and the total net capability of the facility (in MW)) and
underlying 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 and/or operational measures (existing or
proposed), including fish-handling 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 or operational measures for those species
[§ 125.95(b)(4)(i)(A)];

(	A narrative description of the design and operation of all design and
construction technologies and/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 technologies and/or operational measures 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/or operational measures the facility has selected on
the basis of the Impingement Mortality and/or 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 and/or operational measures
already implemented at the facility should be added to the reductions
expected to be achieved by any additional design and/or construction
technologies that will be implemented.  Facilities that recirculate a
portion of their flow, but do not reduce flow sufficiently to satisfy
the compliance option in § 125.94(a)(1)(i) 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/or operational measures.  This estimate must
include a site-specific evaluation of the suitability of the
technologies based on the species that are found at the site, and/or
operational measures and may be determined on the basis of
representative studies (i.e., studies that have been conducted at CWISs
located in the same waterbody type with similar biological
characteristics) and/or site-specific technology prototype or pilot
studies [§ 125.95(b)(4)(i)(C)];

(	Design calculations, drawings, and estimates to support the
descriptions required under § 125.95(b)(4)(i)(A) and (B) [§ 125.95
(b)(4)(i)(D)]; and

(	Maintenance of records of all materials used to develop the design and
construction technology plan for a period of 3 years after submittal.

Under § 125.95(b)(4)(ii), the facilities are required to include the
following in the Technology Installation and Operation Plan:

A schedule for the installation and maintenance of any new design and
construction technologies.  Any downtime of generating units to
accommodate installation and/or maintenance of these technologies should
be scheduled to coincide with otherwise necessary downtime (e.g., for
repair, overhaul, or routine maintenance of the generating units) to the
extent practicable.  Where additional downtime is required, the facility
may coordinate scheduling of this downtime with the North American
Electric Reliability Council and/or other generators in the facility’s
area to ensure that impacts to reliability and supply are minimized, as
required under § 125.95(b)(4)(ii)(A);

A list of operational and other parameters to be monitored, and the
location and frequency that the facility will monitor them, as required
under § 125.95(b)(4)(ii)(B);

A list of activities the facility will undertake to ensure to the degree
practicable the efficacy of installed design and construction
technologies and operational measures, and the facility’s schedule for
implementing them, as required under § 125.95(b)(4)(ii)(C);

A schedule and methodology for assessing the efficacy of any installed
design and construction technologies and operational measures in meeting
applicable performance standards or site-specific requirements,
including an adaptive management plan for revising design and
construction technologies, operational measures, operation and
maintenance requirements, and/or monitoring requirements if the
facility’s assessment indicates that applicable performance standards
or site-specific requirements are not being met, as required under
§ 125.95(b)(4)(ii)(D); and 

If a facility chooses the compliance alternative in § 125.94(a)(4),
documentation that the appropriate site conditions in § 125.99(a) or
(b) exist at the facility, as required under § 125.95(b)(4)(ii)(E).

Restoration Plan

 ADVANCE \u2 	If the facility proposes to use restoration measures, the
following information, as required under § 125.95(b)(5) must be
submitted:

(	A demonstration that the facility has adequately evaluated the use of
design and construction technologies and/or operational measures to meet
the performance requirements and an explanation on how the determination
that restoration would be more feasible, cost-effective, or
environmentally desirable was made [§ 125.95 (b)(5)(i)];

(	A narrative description of the design and operation of all restoration
measures (existing and proposed) that the facility has in place or will
use to produce fish and shellfish [§ 125.95(b)(5)(ii)];

(	Quantification of the ecological benefits of the proposed restoration
measures.  The facility must use information from the Impingement
Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study required in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section to estimate the reduction in fish and
shellfish impingement mortality and/or entrainment that would be
necessary for the facility to comply with § 125.94(c)(2).  The
facility must then calculate the production of fish and shellfish that
it will achieve with the restoration measures it will or has already
installed.  The facility must include a discussion of the nature and
magnitude of uncertainty associated with the performance of these
restoration measures.  The facility must also include a discussion of
the time frame within which these ecological benefits are expected to
accrue [§ 125.95(b)(5)(iii)];

(	Demonstration of compliance with performance standards.  If the
restoration measures address the same fish and shellfish species
identified in the Impingement Mortality and/OR Entrainment
Characterization Study (in-kind restoration), the facility must
demonstrate that the production of these fish and shellfish from the
restoration measures meets the requirements of § 125.94(b).  If the
restoration measures address fish and shellfish species different from
those identified in the Impingement Mortality and/OR Entrainment
Characterization Study (out-of-kind restoration), the facility must
demonstrate that the restoration measures produce ecological benefits
substantially similar to or greater than those that would be realized
through in-kind restoration.  Such a demonstration should be based on
applicable multi-agency watershed restoration plans; site-specific,
peer-reviewed ecological studies; and/or consultation and concurrence of
appropriate federal, state, and tribal natural resource agencies
[§ 125.95(b)(5)(iv)]; 

(	A plan using an adaptive management method for implementing,
maintaining, and demonstrating the efficacy of the restoration measures
the facility has selected and for determining the extent to which the
restoration measures or the restoration measures in combination with
design and construction technologies and operational measures, have met
the applicable requirements under § 125.94(c)(2).

The plan must include:

A monitoring plan that includes a list of the restoration parameters
that will be monitored, the frequency at which the facility will monitor
them, and success criteria for each parameter [§ 125.95 (b)(5)(v)(A)]
;

A list of activities the facility will undertake to ensure the efficacy
of the restoration measures, a description of the linkages between these
activities and the items in § 125.95 (b)(5)(iv)(A), and an
implementation schedule [§ 125.95 (b)(5)(v)(B)]; and 

A process for revising the plan as new information including monitoring
data, becomes available, if the applicable performance standards under
§ 125.94 are not being met [§ 125.95 (b)(5)(v)(C)].

(	A summary of any past or on going consultation with appropriate
Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies on the
facility’s use of restoration measures including a summary of the
consultations and a copy of any written comments received as a result of
such consultations [§ 125.95(b)(5)(vi)];

(	If requested by the Director, a peer review of the items submitted by
the facility for the Restoration Plan.  The facility must choose the
peer reviewers with the concurrence of the Director and in consultation
with EPA and Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management
agencies with responsibility for fish and wildlife potentially affected
by the facility’s CWIS(s).  Peer reviewers must have appropriate
qualifications (e.g., in the fields of geology, engineering, and/or
biology) depending upon the materials to be reviewed.) [§ 125.95
(b)(5)(vii)];

A description of the information to be included in a biannual status
report to the Director [§ 125.95 (b)(5)(viii)]; and

(	Maintain documentation of all materials submitted to support the
Restoration Plan for a period of 3 years.

Information to Support Site-specific Determination of Best Technology
Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact

 ADVANCE \u2 	If the facility chooses to request a site-specific
determination of BTA, the facility must provide, as required under
§ 125.94(b)(6), the following additional information with its
application:

(	Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study.  The facility must perform and
submit, in accordance with § 125.95(b)(6)(i), the results of a
comprehensive cost evaluation study that includes:

-	Engineering cost estimates in sufficient detail to document the costs
of implementing design and construction technologies, operational
measures and/or restoration measures at the facility that would be
needed to meet the performance requirements in § 125.94(b)
[§ 125.95(b)(6)(i)(A)];

-	A demonstration that the costs documented above significantly exceed
those considered by the Administrator for a facility in establishing the
applicable performance standards [§ 125.95(b)(6)(i)(B)]; and

-	Engineering cost estimates in sufficient detail to document the costs
of implementing the design and construction technologies, operational
measures, and/or restoration measures in the facility’s Site-Specific
Technology Plan developed in accordance with paragraph
§ 125.95(b)(6)(iii) [§ 125.95(b)(6)(i)(C)]

(	Benefits Valuation Study.  If the facility is seeking a site-specific
determination of BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impact because
of costs significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the
otherwise applicable requirements of § 125.94(b) and (c) at the site,
the facility must prepare a Benefits Valuation Study using 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.  In addition
to the valuation estimates, the benefit study must include the
following:

-	A description of the methodology(ies) used to value commercial,
recreational, and ecological benefits (including any non-use benefits,
if applicable) [§ 125.95(b)(6)(ii)(A)];

-	Documentation of the basis for any assumptions and quantitative
estimates, including a determination of entrainment survival at the
facility (based on a study approved by the Director)
[§ 125.95(b)(6)(ii)(B)];

-	An analysis of the effects of significant sources of uncertainty on
the results of the study [§ 125.95(b)(6)(ii)(C)]; 

-	If requested by the Director, a peer review of the items the facility
submitted in the Benefits Valuation Study.  The facility must choose the
peer reviewers with the concurrence of the Director who may consult with
EPA and Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies
with responsibility for fish and wildlife potentially affected by
facility’s CWIS.  Peer reviewers must have appropriate qualifications
depending upon the materials to be reviewed [§ 125.95(b)(6)(ii)(D)];
and

-	A narrative description of any non-monetized benefits that would be
realized at the site if the facility were to meet the performance
standards and a qualitative assessment of magnitude and significance of
the benefits [§ 125.95(b)(6)(ii)(E)].

(	Site-Specific Technology Plan.  On the basis of the results of the
Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and the Benefits Valuation Study,
the facility must submit a Site-Specific Technology Plan to the Director
for review and approval.  The plan must contain the following
information: 

-	A narrative description of the design and operation of all existing
and proposed design and construction technologies, operational measures,
and/or restoration measures that the facility has selected in accordance
with § 125.94(a)(5) [§ 125.95(b)(6)(iii)(A)];

-	An engineering estimate of the efficacy of the proposed and/or
implemented design and construction technologies or operational
measures, and/or restoration measures.  This estimate must include a
site-specific evaluation of the suitability of the technologies or
operational measures for reducing impingement mortality and/or
entrainment (as applicable) of all life stages of fish and shellfish
based on representative studies (e.g., studies that have been conducted
at CWISs located in the same waterbody type with similar biological
characteristics) and, if applicable, site-specific technology prototype
or pilot studies.  If restoration measures will be used, the facility
must provide a Restoration Plan that includes the elements described in
paragraph § 125.95 (b)(5). [§ 125.95(b)(6)(iii)(B)]; 

-	A demonstration that the proposed and/or implemented design and
construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration
measures achieve an efficacy that is as close as practicable to the
applicable performance standards of § 125.94(b) without resulting in
costs significantly greater than either the costs considered by the
Administrator for a similar facility in establishing the applicable
performance standards, or as appropriate, the benefits of complying with
the applicable performance standards at the facility
[§ 125.95(b)(6)(iii)(C)]; and

-	Design and engineering calculations, drawings, and estimates prepared
by a qualified professional to support the descriptions required above
[§ 125.95(b)(6)(iii)(D)]. 

Maintain all records and documentation of site specific studies
conducted for a period of at least 3 years after submittal.

Verification Monitoring Plan

 ADVANCE \u2 	As part of the CDS, the facility must prepare a plan to
conduct, at a minimum, 2 years of monitoring to verify the full-scale
performance of the proposed or implemented design and construction
technologies, operational measures.  As stipulated in § 125.95 (b)(7),
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 national performance standards of § 125.94(b) or
site-specific requirements developed pursuant to 125.94(a)(5).

The plan must provide the following:

Description of the frequency and duration of monitoring, the parameters
to be monitored, and the basis for determining the parameters and the
frequency and duration for monitoring. The parameters selected and
duration and frequency of monitoring must be consistent with any
methodology for assessing success in meeting applicable performance
standards in your Technology Installation and Operation Plan
[§ 125.95(b)(7)(i)];

A proposal on how naturally moribund fish and shellfish that enter the
CWIS would be identified and taken into account in determining
compliance with the performance standards at § 125.94
[§ 125.95(b)(7)(ii)];

A description of the information to be included in a bi-annual status
report to the Director [§ 125.95(b)(7)(iii)], and

The facility must maintain all documentation supporting the verification
monitoring plan for a period of at least 3 years.

Annual Activities

A. Biological Monitoring

 ADVANCE \u2 	All Phase II existing facilities, as appropriate to the
compliance alternative selected, would need to perform monitoring in
accordance with the Technology Installation and Operation Plan, the
Restoration Plan, the Verification Monitoring Plan, and any additional
monitoring specified by the Director.  The facility must follow the
monitoring frequencies identified in the permit after the initial permit
issuance.  After that time, the Director may modify the program based on
changes in physical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the
cooling water intake structures.

B. Bi-Annual Status Report

 ADVANCE \u2 	All Phase II existing facilities subject to the 316(b)
Phase II Existing Facility rule are required to prepare and submit a
bi-annual 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 and other
information. The other information may include operation and maintenance
records, summaries of adaptive management activities, or any other
information that is relevant to determining compliance with the terms of
the facility’s Technology Operation and Installation Plan and/or
Restoration Plan.

(	Maintaining a copy of the report for a period of 3 years after its
submission.

Director Activities

 ADVANCE \u2 	NPDES program Directors will act to ensure the
implementation of the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule as required
under § 125.98.  Section 316(b) requirements are implemented for a
facility through an NPDES permit.  Directors will be involved in
reviewing application studies and developing permit conditions.

Following receipt of a permit application, the Director will conduct the
following activities as described in § 125.98(a) and (b) and below.

Application Activities

 ADVANCE \u2 	The Director must determine which of the standards
specified in § 125.94 apply to the facility. In addition, the Director
must review materials to determine compliance with the applicable
standards.

If a facility submits a request in accordance with § 125.95(a)(3) to
reduce the information about its CWISs and the source waterbody required
to be submitted in its permit application (this request is not
authorized in the first permit term after promulgation of this rule),
the Director must approve the request within 60 days if conditions at
the facility and in the waterbody remain unchanged since the
facility’s previous application.

At each permit renewal, the Director must review the application
materials and monitoring data to determine whether new or revised
requirements for design and construction technologies, operational
measures, or restoration measures should be included in the permit to
meet the national performance standards in § 125.94 or alternative
site-specific requirements established pursuant to 125.94(a)(5).

The Director should review materials submitted by the applicant before
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.

Permitting Activities

 ADVANCE \u2 	The Director must determine, using 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 on
the basis of the compliance alternative in § 125.94(a) selected by the
facility.  The Director must perform the following in developing permit
conditions:

Develop Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements.  Requirements that
implement the applicable provisions of § 125.94 must be included in
the permit conditions.  The Director must evaluate the performance of
the design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or
restoration measures proposed and implemented by the facility and
require additional or different design and construction technologies,
operational measure, and/or restoration measures, if needed to meet the
applicable impingement mortality and entrainment reduction, or
production, requirements.

In determining compliance with the performance standards for facilities
proposing to increase withdrawals of cooling water from a lake (other
than a Great Lake) or a reservoir in § 125.94(b)(3), the Director must
consider anthropogenic factors (those not considered “natural”)
unrelated to the Phase II existing facility’s CWISs that can influence
the occurrence and location of a thermocline.  Anthropogenic factors may
include source water inflows, other water withdrawals, managed water
uses, wastewater discharges, and flow/level management practices (e.g.,
some reservoirs release water from deeper bottom layers).  The Director
must coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, or Tribal fish and
wildlife agencies to determine if any disruption of the natural thermal
stratification resulting from the increased withdrawal of cooling water
is beneficial to the management of fisheries.  The Director must also
determine whether to impose more stringent conditions to comply with the
requirements of other applicable State and Tribal law, or other Federal
Law.

To develop appropriate requirements for the CWIS(s), the Director must
do the following:

(i)	Review and approve the Design and Construction Technology Plan
required in § 125.95(b)(4) to evaluate the suitability and feasibility
of the design and construction technology and/or operational measures
proposed to meet the requirements of § 125.94(b) or alternative
site-specific requirements established pursuant to 125.94(a)(5).

(ii)	If the facility proposes restoration measures in accordance with
§ 125.94(c), review and approve the Restoration Plan required under
§ 125.95(b)(5) to determine whether the proposed measures, alone or in
combination with design and construction technologies and/or operational
measures, will meet the requirements under § 125.94(c); 

(iii)	In each reissued permit, include a condition in the permit
requiring the facility to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment
(or to increase fish production, if applicable) commensurate with the
efficacy at the facility of the installed design and construction
technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures;

(iv)	If the facility implements design and construction technologies
and/or operational measures and requests that compliance with the
requirements in § 125.94 be measured for the first permit term (or
subsequent permit terms, if applicable) employing the Technology
Installation and Operation Plan in accordance with § 125.95(b)(4)(ii),
the Director must review the Technology Installation and Operation Plan
to ensure it meets the requirements of § 125.95(b)(4)(ii). If the
Technology Installation and Operation Plan meets the requirements of
§ 125.95(b)(4)(ii), the Director must approve the Technology
Installation and Operation Plan and require the facility to meet the
terms of the plan including any revision to the plan that may be
necessary if applicable performance standards or alternative
site-specific requirements are not being met. If the facility implements
restoration measures and requests that compliance with the requirements
in § 125.94 be measured for the first permit term (or subsequent
permit terms, if applicable) employing a Restoration Plan in accordance
with § 125.95(b)(5), the Director must review the Restoration Plan to
ensure it meets the requirements of § 125.95(b)(5). If the Restoration
Plan meets the requirements of § 125.95(b)(5), the Director must
approve the plan and require the facility to meet the terms of the plan
including any revision to the plan that may be necessary if applicable
performance standards or site-specific requirements are not being met.
In determining whether to approve a Technology Installation and
Operation Plan or Restoration Plan, the Director must evaluate whether
the design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or
restoration measures the facility has installed, or proposes to install,
can reasonably be expected to meet the applicable performance standards
in § 125.94(b), restoration requirements in § 125.94(c)(2), and/or
alternative site-specific requirements established pursuant to
§ 125.94(a)(5), and whether the Technology Installation and Operation
Plan and/or Restoration Plan complies with the applicable requirements
of § 125.95(b). In reviewing the Technology Installation and Operation
Plan, the Director must approve any reasonable scheduling provisions
that are designed to ensure that impacts to energy reliability and
supply are minimized, in accordance with § 125.95(b)(4)(ii)(A). If the
facility does not request that compliance with the requirements in
§ 125.94 be measured employing a Technology Installation and Operation
Plan and/or Restoration Plan, or the facility has not been in compliance
with the terms of its current Technology Installation and Operation Plan
and/or Restoration Plan during the preceding permit term, the Director
must require the facility to comply with the applicable performance
standards in § 125.94(b), restoration requirement in § 125.94(c)(2),
and/or alternative site specific requirements developed pursuant to
§ 125.94(a)(5). In considering a permit application, the Director must
review the performance of the design and construction technologies,
operational measures, and/or restoration measures implemented and
require additional or different design and construction technologies,
operational measures, and/or restoration measures, and/or improved
operation and maintenance of existing technologies and measures, if
needed to meet the applicable performance standards, restoration
requirements, and/or alternative site-specific requirements;

(v)	Review and approve the proposed Verification Monitoring Plan
submitted under § 125.95(b)(7) (for design and construction
technologies) and/or monitoring provisions of the Restoration Plan
submitted under § 125.95(b)(5)(v) and require that the monitoring
continue for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate whether the
design and construction technology, operational measures, and/or
restoration measures meet the applicable performance standards in
§ 125.94(b), restoration requirements in 125.94(c)(2) and/or
site-specific requirements established pursuant to § 125.94(a)(5);

(vi)	If a facility requests requirements on the basis of a site-specific
determination of BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impact, the
Director must review the application materials submitted under
§ 125.95(b)(6) and any other information submitted, including
quantitative and qualitative benefits, that would be relevant to a
determination of whether alternative requirements are appropriate for
the facility.  If a facility submits a study to support entrainment
survival at the facility, the Director must review and approve the
results of that study.  If the Director determines that alternative
requirements are appropriate, the Director must make a site-specific
determination of BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impact in
accordance with § 125.94(a)(5).  The Director may request revisions to
the information submitted by the facility in accordance with
§ 125.95(b)(6) if it does not provide an adequate basis to make this
determination.  Any site-specific performance standard established on
the basis of new and/or existing design and construction technologies,
operational measures, and/or restoration measures, must achieve an
efficacy that is, in the Director’s judgment, as close as practicable
to the applicable performance standard, but that does not result in
costs that are significantly greater than the costs considered by the
Administrator or the benefits of establishing the applicable performance
standards in § 125.94(b); and

(vii)	In developing performance requirements to reduce impingement
mortality and entrainment for inclusion in a permit, the Director must
review information on proposed methods submitted by the facility under
§ 125.95(b)(4)(ii)(D) and/or (b)(5)(v)(A), evaluate those and other
available methods, and specify how assessment of success in meeting the
performance standards and/or restoration requirements must be determined
including the averaging period for determining the percent reduction in
impingement mortality and entrainment and/or the production of fish and
shellfish. Compliance for facilities who request that compliance be
measured employing a Technology Installation and Operation Plan and/or
Restoration Plan must be determined in accordance with
§ 125.98(b)(1)(iv).

(2)	Develop Monitoring Conditions.  The permit must require the facility
to perform the monitoring in accordance with the Verification Monitoring
Plan required by 125.95(b)(7), the Technology Installation and Operation
Plan in § 125.95(b)(4)(ii), and if applicable, the Restoration Plan
required by § 125.95(b)(5).  The Director must consider the
facility’s Verification Monitoring Plan, Technology Installation and
Operation Plan, and/or Restoration Plan, as appropriate, in determining
additional applicable monitoring requirements in accordance with
§ 125.96.  The Director may modify the monitoring program when the
permit is reissued and during the term of the permit on the basis of
changes in physical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the
CWIS.

(3)	Require Record Keeping and Reporting.  At a minimum, the permit must
require the facility to report and keep records specified in § 125.97.

(4)	Approve a Design and Construction Technology (as appropriate).  The
Director must conduct the following to approve a design and construction
technology:

(i)	For a facility that chooses 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 and
approve the information submitted in the Technology Installation and
Operation Plan in § 125.95(b)(4)(ii) and determine whether they meet
the criteria in § 125.99;

(ii)	If a person/facility requests approval of a technology under
§ 125.99(b), the Director must review and approve 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 may approve a technology only following public notice and
consideration of comment regarding such approval.

(5)	Bi-annual status report.  Facilities must specify monitoring data
and other information to be included in a status report every 2 years. 
The other information may include operation and maintenance records,
summaries of adaptive management activities, or any other information
that is relevant to determining compliance with the terms of the
facility’s Technology Operation and Installation Plan and/or
Restoration Plan.

5.	The Information Collected - Agency Activities, Collection,
Methodology and Information Management

 ADVANCE \d3 	The following sections describe EPA activities related to
analyzing, maintaining, and distributing the information collected.

5a.	Agency Activities

 ADVANCE \d0 	EPA is responsible for overseeing the implementation of
the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule.  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 typically reviews NPDES permits in the early stages of
implementation of new regulations. As such, EPA assumed that it would
perform a detailed review, make comments, and follow up on comments for
the 316(b) portions of State-issued NPDES permits, during the first 3
years after promulgation.  This ICR covers years 4, 5, and 6 after
promulgation; therefore, no burden for EPA review of State-issued NPDES
permits is anticipated to occur in this ICR period.

5b.	Collection Methodology and Information Management

 ADVANCE \d0 	The 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility 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 PCS
database—in the process of being replaced by the ICIS.  PCS and ICIS
are national computerized management information systems that provide
for entry, updating, and retrieval of NPDES data and track 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, and so on to verify the
accuracy of the data.  Permitting authorities are also responsible for
entering that data into PCS/ICIS. Authorities have differing approaches
for entering the data into PCS/ICIS and for checking data quality.  This
includes the use of coding forms, direct entry, batch uploads, and so
on.  Many States have developed State databases that are tailored to
their needs; interfaces are being developed for uploads directly to ICIS
from State systems.  Permit data can be accessed by the public in one of
three ways:

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

Via an online query using EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse and
Applications Web site at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html. 
Accessing data via Envirofacts provides a method to combine PCS/ICIS
data with other EPA databases and mapping tools.

Via some State Web sites.  

5c.	Small Entity Flexibility

 ADVANCE \d0 	The applicability requirements in § 125.94 exclude most
existing small entities from the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule.
 As a result, the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule affects 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 estimated that 25 in-scope
electric generators owned by small entities (out of a total of 543
estimated in-scope electric generators) are regulated by the 316(b)
Phase II Existing Facility rule.  Of the 25 generators, 16 are projected
to be owned by a municipality, 6 by a rural electric cooperative, 2 by a
municipal marketing authority, and 1 by a political subdivision.  In
addition, EPA estimated that only a small percentage of all small
entities in the electric power industry, approximately 1.3 percent, are
subject to the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule.

EPA considers the 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 the overall burden, but
doing so could have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of the 316(b)
Phase II Existing Facility rule.  Furthermore, because the reporting
requirements differ by source waterbody type and compliance alternative
selected, entities of all sizes have the flexibility to minimize the
total compliance costs including the costs and burden of information
collection requirements.

5d.	Collection Schedule

 ADVANCE \d0 	EPA anticipates that 508 Phase II existing facilities will
fall within the scope of the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule
during the 3 years covered by this ICR.  Because of the multiple years
of data that must be collected for the Impingement Mortality and/or
Entrainment Characterization Study, the permitting process is
anticipated to take up to 3 years to complete.  Of the 508 facilities
projected to fall within the scope of this ICR period, 455 will be
performing annual monitoring and reporting of operations by the end of
year 3 of this ICR. The other 53 facilities are operations with
recirculating cooling towers applying for a permit but not required to
perform annual monitoring and reporting of operations.  Table 2 provides
the estimated implementation schedule for the facilities during the ICR
approval period.

Table 2.	Number of Facilities Assumed to Comply with Information
Collection: Requirements During the ICR Period by Year

 ADVANCE \u3 Type of Activity	ICR Period

	3/2007–2/2008	3/2008–2/2009	3/2009–2/2010

Facilities performing annual monitoring and reporting of operations	277
378	455

Facilities with recirculating cooling towers applying for a permit but
not required to perform annual monitoring and reporting of operations	16
12	25



6.	Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection

 ADVANCE \d3 	The following sections present the proposed rationale and
assumptions made and results of EPA’s estimation of burden and costs
for the implementation of the Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility
rule.  Specific respondent activities were detailed in section 4b(ii). 
It is important to note that this ICR covers the last 2 years of the
permit approval period (i.e., years 4 and 5 after implementation) and
the first year of the renewal period (i.e., year 6 after
implementation).

6a.	Estimating Respondent Burden

 ADVANCE \d0 	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 5 years, while
ICRs must be renewed every 3 years.  Therefore, the application
activities occur only once per facility during an ICR 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 and bi-annual basis
respectively.  For estimates of re-permitting burdens, see Exhibits A.1
(renewal) and A.3 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 bi-annual 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
will be done on-site on a regular basis.  Therefore, the hourly burdens
associated with the 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.

Table 3 provides a summary of the hourly burden estimates for facilities
performing the NPDES permit application for the first time and for the
renewal period.  Table 4 provides the annual monitoring, and bi-annual
reporting activities associated with the 316(b) Phase II Existing
Facility rule.  For a more detailed presentation of hourly burdens for
facilities, see Exhibits A.1 (approval), A.1 (renewal), and A.2 in
Appendix A.

The activities listed in the first column of both Tables 3 and 4
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 3.  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 to which the facility is subject and the
type of waterbody from which it draws.  For a detailed presentation of
the number of facilities performing each activity, see Exhibits A.5 and
A.6 in Appendix A.

Start-Up Activities

 ADVANCE \u2 	In Table 3, 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 requirements; 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 (2007), facilities will perform permit application
activities for their permits that are reissued at the beginning of the
second year (2008).  It is also assumed that facilities required to
conduct Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Studies
will need to begin collecting monitoring data 2 to 3 years before permit
renewal.  Furthermore, all facilities will begin the other permit
application activities in the year just before receiving their reissued
permits.  These start-up activities, applicable to all facilities, are
assumed to be performed by facility management and junior technical
staff.

Table 3.	Average per Facility Burden for each NPDES Permit Application
Activity

 ADVANCE \u3 Activities	Burden (hrs) Approval Period

(Years 4 and 5)	Burden (hrs) Renewal Period (Year 6)

Start-up activities	43	13

Permit application activities	247	147

Proposal for collection of information for CDS	272	78

Source waterbody flow information	104	31

Design and construction technology plan	131	69

Freshwater impingement mortality and/or entrainment characterization
study	9,089	2,919

Marine impingement mortality and/or entrainment characterization study
16,783	5,401

Freshwater pilot study for impingement only technology

0

Freshwater pilot study for impingement & entrainment technology	1,556	0

Marine pilot study for impingement only technology	1,185	0

Marine pilot study for impingement & entrainment technology	1,859	0

Verification monitoring plan	128	0

Total*	31,397	8,658

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



Table 4.	Average Burden per Facility for Annual Monitoring and Reporting
Activities

 ADVANCE \u3 Activities	Burden (hrs)

Biological monitoring (impingement, freshwater)	379

Biological monitoring (impingement, marine)	482

Biological monitoring (entrainment, freshwater)	614

Biological monitoring (entrainment, marine)	776

Biannual status report activities	236

Verification study	122

Total*	2,609

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

Permit Application Activities

 ADVANCE \u2 	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, CWIS data, and
cooling water system data.  EPA anticipates that much of the data
required to characterize the waterbody and the CWIS 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 CAD operator to develop a description
of the physical configuration of the source waterbody 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 waterbody and prepare locational
maps of the waterbody.  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
waterbody.  Depending on the extent of existing information it might be
necessary for some facilities to conduct physical studies to determine
the intake’s area of influence within the waterbody.

CWIS 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 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 waterbody and CWIS documents.  Management will review and revise
these calculations.

In addition, Phase II existing facilities need to comply with CDS
requirements depending on the compliance alternative selected. 
Facilities that already have a closed-cycle recirculating system are not
required to submit a CDS 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 CDS to confirm that the technology(ies),
operational measures and restoration measures proposed and/or
implemented at the intake meet the applicable performance standards. 
For additional details, see section 4b(ii).

The CDS characterizes impingement mortality and/or entrainment, the
operation of the CWIS, and confirms that the technologies, operational
measures and/or restoration measures the facility has selected and/or
implemented at the CWIS meet the applicable requirements.  The CDS
entails a proposal for information collection, source waterbody flow
information, an Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment
Characterization Study, technology and compliance assessment
information, Restoration Plan, 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.

Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) Requirements

Proposal for Information Collection

 ADVANCE \u2 	As a first step in the CDS, the facility must develop and
submit a proposal for the collection of information to support the CDS. 
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 CDS.  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 CDS.  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 CDS will perform an Impingement Mortality
and/or 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 CWIS 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.

Source Waterbody Flow Information

 ADVANCE \u2 	As part of the CDS, facilities with intakes located on
freshwater rivers/streams must submit source waterbody 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 waterbody. 
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 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.

Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study

 ADVANCE \u2 	The required level of effort for the Impingement Mortality
and/or 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 CDS will also
perform the Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization
Study.  EPA assumes that the sampling required for the Impingement
Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study will take 2 years
for facilities drawing from freshwater bodies and 3 years for those
facilities drawing from marine waters.  Therefore, the entire
application process can take up to 3 years to complete.  The Impingement
Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study activities will be
performed in years before the reissuance of the NPDES permit.

Facilities that are subject to the rule for the first time must submit a
monitoring study.  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.  Because impingement more often impacts adult organisms,
while entrainment affects juvenile organisms, offshore samples must
include eggs, juvenile, and adult organisms.  Therefore, EPA assumes
that three types of sampling will occur, as presented in Table 5.

Table 5.	Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study
Sample Types

 ADVANCE \u3 Sample Type	Location of Sample

Impingement sample	At the intake structure

Entrainment sample	Behind the intake screens

Offshore sample	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 2 years for freshwater facilities
and 3 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.

Technology and Compliance Assessment Information

 ADVANCE \u2 	EPA assumes that the portion of the Design and
Construction Technology Plan (and Technology Installation and Operation
Plan, if applicable) associated with evaluation of potential CWIS
effects will be conducted during the year before the issuance of the
NPDES permit to allow the facility time to incorporate information from
the Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study
already underway.

Design and Construction Technology Plan

 ADVANCE \u2 	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 CDS.  EPA assumes that a CAD
operator will delineate the hydraulic zone of influence, 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
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.

As part of the Design and Construction Technology Plan, facilities must
include a site-specific evaluation of the technology(ies) and/or
operational measures.  This site-specific evaluation can be based on
representative studies (i.e., studies that have been conducted at CWISs
located in the same waterbody type with similar biological
characteristics) and/or site-specific technology prototype studies.  EPA
assumes that for the site-specific technology prototype studies, the
facilities will conduct an on-site pilot study for the technology or
operational measure.

In general, pilot study costs vary.  The variables that affect pilot
study costs are regulations, testing protocols, and testing duration. 
Pilot equipment is either rented or manufactured to suit specific site
conditions.  Generally, in either case, a typical ratio of total pilot
study costs to the actual technology costs is less than one to ten for
technologies that cost more than one million dollars.  Therefore, EPA
assumes that facilities will be willing to spend 10 percent of the
technology installation cost on a pilot study to determine if the
technology will function properly when installed and operated.

An important cost element in the pilot study is the cost of monitoring. 
EPA realizes that the amount of monitoring necessary will vary depending
on the technology and the biological characteristics of the source
water.  However, EPA assumes that a typical monitoring effort would
involve five samples being collected over a 24-hour period, every 2
weeks for 6 months.  Facilities will need to analyze the data, summarize
the results, and use this information as the basis for their
site-specific evaluation.  EPA estimates that the pilot study monitoring
and reporting costs will typically range between $50,000 and $110,000
for a facility, depending on the source water type and whether the
facility will need to monitor for both impingement and entrainment or
just impingement.

The installation costs for the range of proposed and/or implemented
technologies vary widely with the capital costs of the relatively
inexpensive technologies being less than $500,000.  EPA assumes that
when the capital cost for the proposed technology is less than $500,000,
the facility will not perform a pilot study.  EPA assumes that the
financial risk to facilities installing relatively low-cost technologies
(in comparison to a facility’s overall cost of operation, revenues, or
anticipated benefits) is not likely to warrant conducting a pilot study.
 In these cases, EPA believes that facilities with low-cost technology
options will forgo a pilot study and install the proposed technology on
the basis of existing performance information or the manufacturers’
guarantee to cover the cost of dismantling the equipment.  The facility
will then use the impingement and entrainment monitoring data from the
Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study to evaluate
how well the technology performs.  A pilot study might not be practical
for some of the proposed technologies, such as widening the opening of
the intake structure to reduce intake velocity.  For those facilities
anticipated to install technologies where a pilot study is impractical,
EPA assumes, for the purpose of estimating the regulatory economic
burden, that they will not perform pilot studies either.

To develop total pilot study cost estimates for facilities, EPA assumes
that facilities will spend approximately 10 percent of the capital costs
for installing the proposed technology on a cooling water intake.  This
cost covers the installation, operation, monitoring, and reporting costs
associated with the pilot study.  However, EPA assumes that the minimum
cost to perform an acceptable pilot study, including monitoring would be
$150,000.  Therefore, if 10 percent of a facility’s technology cost
was below $150,000, the facility was automatically assigned a cost of
$150,000.  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 waterbody flow information and the design and
construction technology plan.  It will be up to the Director’s
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.

Restoration Plan

 ADVANCE \u2 	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, 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 for facilities.

Information to Support Site-Specific Determination of BTA for Minimizing
Adverse Environmental Impact

 ADVANCE \u2 	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 of the criteria requires the facility
to demonstrate that its cost of compliance with the applicable
performance standards specified would be significantly greater than the
costs considered by the Administrator.  The second of the criteria
requires a facility to demonstrate that its costs would be significantly
greater than 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 for facilities.  However, for the original ICR
developed for the rule, EPA recognized that respondents choosing to
perform activities related to site-specific determination of BTA would
incur additional ICR costs.  It was estimated that facilities
implementing activities related to site-specific determination of BTA,
including the preparation of comprehensive, cost-evaluation study and
site-specific technology plan would incur an average burden of
approximately 700 hours at a cost of $37,000 per facility (2004
dollars).  EPA estimated that the average annual burden increases by
13,754 hours and the total average annual ICR costs might increase
between 1 and 1.25 million dollars (2004 dollars) if all facilities with
impingement and entrainment requirements choose to perform activities
related to site-specific determination of BTA and prepare the
comprehensive cost evaluation study and site-specific technology plan. 
Depending on the number of facilities with both impingement and
entrainment requirements choosing to pursue site-specific determination
of BTA, the above ICR burden and cost will be reduced accordingly.  In
addition, EPA believed that some of the above additional cost will be
offset by reductions in technology costs for these facilities because
these facilities may receive lowered performance requirements.

Though only a small percentage of the facilities are expected to perform
activities related to site-specific determination of BTA, EPA estimated
the Director burdens for reviewing site-specific studies for all
facilities with impingement and entrainment requirements.

Verification Monitoring Plan

 ADVANCE \u2 	As part of the CDS, facilities must include a plan to
conduct, at a minimum, 2 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 2 years of operation under their reissued NPDES permits,
Phase II 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 and/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 and
study analysis at the beginning of the third year.

Annual Facility Activities

 ADVANCE \u2 	The principal 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 bi-annual status report.  Those facilities that
submitted a verification monitoring plan as part of their permit
application will also use the first 2 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.

Director Burdens

 ADVANCE \u2 	The 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility rule will require
Directors to devote time and resources to review and respond to the
NPDES permit applications; proposal, study and sampling plans; and
bi-annual status reports submitted to them.

Director Permit Issuance Activities

 ADVANCE \u2 	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/ICIS database.  Table 6
provides a summary of the hourly burden estimates for state Directors
performing various activities associated with the 316(b) Phase II
Existing Facility rule.  For a more detailed presentation of State
Director hourly burdens, see Exhibit A.3 (state) in Appendix A.

Table 6.	Average State Director Burden for Activities

 ADVANCE \u3 Activities	Burden (hrs) Approval Period	Burden (hrs)
Renewal Period

Director permit issuance activities (per facility)	838	175

Verification study review (per Facility)*	21	21

Annual director activities (per facility)	41	41

Total**	900	237

*	Facilities must monitor for at least 2 years before submitting their
verification study for review.

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

Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements

 ADVANCE \u2 	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 Restoration Plan and determine whether the
proposed measures, alone or in combination with design and construction
technologies and/or operational measures, will meet the performance
standards.  For all facilities performing the CDS, 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 (b) and (c).  For a facility that requests requirements on
the basis of site-specific BTA 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 determining the
Director burden for review of site-specific determination, it is assumed
that all facilities with both impingement and entrainment requirements
will choose to pursue the site-specific alternative.  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 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 because 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 because of 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.

Monitoring Conditions

 ADVANCE \u2 	In determining the applicable monitoring requirements, the
Director must consider the facility’s verification monitoring plan and
modify the monitoring program on the basis of changes to the physical or
biological conditions in the vicinity of the CWIS.  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.

Record Keeping and Reporting

 ADVANCE \u2 	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.

Design and Construction Technology Approval

 ADVANCE \u2 	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 to 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
§ 125.99.  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 approve a technology only 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.

Annual Director Activities

 ADVANCE \u2 	Facilities required to perform annual biological
monitoring for impingement and entrainment are required to submit an
bi-annual report that details inspection and maintenance records for
impingement and technology controls and a detailed analysis of
monitoring results.  EPA assumes that directors will use these reports
to track facility compliance and to determine if a reduction in
monitoring frequency is appropriate.

6b.	Estimating Respondent Costs

 ADVANCE \d0 	This section describes cost estimates for facilities and
Directors, as well as the methods used to derive them.  Because of the
5-year permit cycle, facilities and Directors will incur initial
permitting costs, re-permitting costs, as well as annual costs.

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 2006–2007. 
These reported labor rates were based on data from the year 2004 and are
adjusted for inflation.  Inflation factor was derived from the BLS
Employment Cost Index and was used to adjust the Occupational Outlook
Handbook labor rates to reflect labor rates for June of 2006.

Compensatory loading factors ranging from 35 percent to 53 percent,
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 (EPA ICR 2060.02 citing
BLS Employment Cost Trends, March 2001).  EPA assumed an additional
loading factor of 15 percent 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 a fee to ensure profit for the
contracting company.  EPA assumes that the overhead for the contracted
employees will be 50 percent, and the fee will be 8 percent.

To represent the base labor rate for facility management, EPA used the
average national salary for an engineering manager of $97,630 per year. 
This figure was divided by 2,080 hours to derive the hourly managerial
wage rate of approximately $47 per hour.  After adjusting this rate for
inflation, compensation, and overhead, the rate is approximately $87 per
hour.  The median annual salary of $46,310 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 $41 per hour.  The
median annual salary for a drafter performing CAD work was reported to
be $19 per hour, and, after adjusting and loading the rate, it is
approximately $35.  The reported average annual salary for clerical
workers was $22,770, and the fully adjusted and loaded hourly rate is
approximately $18 per hour.

To represent the base labor rate for a contracted manager of monitoring
work done on-site, EPA used the average national salary for a natural
sciences manager of $88,660 per year with a fully loaded rate of $101
per hour.  The median annual salary for a statistician was $58,620 per
year with an adjusted hourly rate of approximately $65 per hour. 
Biologists and biological technicians had an average hourly pay of $24
and $16 and a fully loaded rate of $57 and $38, respectively.

Director Labor Costs

 ADVANCE \u2 	For Director costs, all 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
(EPA ICR 2060.02 citing BLS Employment Cost Trends, March 2001).  These
labor rates were adjusted to reflect labor rates for June of 2006 (BLS
Employment Cost Index).  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 $54 per hour.

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 $32 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 $25 afterward.

6b(ii).	Estimating Capital and Operating 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 operating 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).  Capital and O&M
costs were estimated for the active ICR (EPA ICR No.  2060.02) and were
simply inflated to June 2006 dollars using CPI.

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 Phase II 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 7a, 7b, and 8 provide a summary of facility-level average labor
costs, capital costs, and O&M costs over the 3-year ICR period.  For a
more detailed presentation of all compliance costs for facilities, see
Exhibits A.1 (approval), A.1 (renewal) and A.2 in Appendix A.

Table 7a.	Average per Facility Burden and Costs for each NPDES Permit
Application Activity

 ADVANCE \u3 Activities	Burden (hrs)	Labor Cost (2006$)	Capital (2006$)
O&M (2006$)

Start-up activities	43	$2,537	$0	$54

Permit application activities	247	$11,880	$0	$536

Proposal for collection of information for CDS	272	$14,644	$0	$803

Source waterbody flow information	104	$4,249	$0	$214

Design and construction technology plan	131	$5,786	$0	$428

Freshwater impingement mortality and/or entrainment characterization
study	9,089	$453,605	$0	$89,110

Marine impingement mortality and/or entrainment characterization study
16,783	$824,024	$0	$176,822

Freshwater pilot study for impingement only technologya	NA	NA	NA	NA

Freshwater pilot study for impingement and entrainment technology	1,556
$87,317	$176,494	$7,497

Marine pilot study for impingement only technology	1,185	$64,811
$259,798	$1,071

Marine pilot study for impingement and entrainment technology	1,859
$101,679	$502,316	$9,425

Verification monitoring plan	128	$7,058	$0	$428

Total*	31,397	1,577,590	938,608	286,388

a	During the ICR approval period, no facilities were identified which
required pilot study costs for freshwater impingement only, and these
activities were not costed.

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



Table 7b.	Average per Facility Burden and Costs for each NPDES Permit
Renewal Activity

 ADVANCE \u3 Activities	Burden (hrs)	Labor Cost (2006$)	Capital (2006$)
O&M (2006$)

Start-up activities	13	$814	$-	$54

Permit application activities	147	$7,454	$-	$268

Proposal for collection of information for CDS	78	$4,070	$-	$214

Source waterbody flow information	31	$1,257	$-	$107

Design and construction technology plan	69	$3,098	$-	$161

Freshwater impingement mortality and/or entrainment characterization
study	2,919	$145,760	$-	$33,415

Marine impingement mortality and/or entrainment characterization study
5,401	$265,741	$-	$65,160

Total*	8,658	428,193	0	99,379

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



Table 8.	Average Burden and Costs* per Facility for Annual Monitoring
and Reporting Activities

 ADVANCE \u3 Activities	Burden (hrs)	Labor Cost (2006$)	O&M (2006$)

Biological monitoring (impingement, freshwater)	379	$19,653	$536

Biological monitoring (impingement, marine)	482	$24,979	$696

Biological monitoring (entrainment, freshwater)	614	$32,250	$9,425

Biological monitoring (entrainment, marine)	776	$40,309	$12,092

Bi-Annual status report activities	236	$19,606	$803

Verification study	122	$7,756	$536

Total**	2,609	$144,553	$24,088

*	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 because not all facilities will need to perform every activity
listed.

Director O&M Costs

 ADVANCE \u2 	EPA does not anticipate any O&M costs other than ODCs for
state Directors as a result of the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility
rule.  Table 9 provides estimates of average state Director labor costs
and ODCs.  For a more detailed explanation of State Director costs, see
Exhibit A.3 (state) in Appendix A.

Table 9.	Average State Director Burden and Costs* for Activities

 ADVANCE \u3 Activities	Burden (hrs)	Labor Cost (2006$)	O&M (2006$)

Director Permit Issuance Activities (per Facility, approval period)	838
$40,109	$321

Director Permit Issuance Activities (per Facility, renewal period)	175
$8,189	$321

Verification study review (per facility)**	21	$800	$11

Annual director activities (per facility)	41	$1,930	$1,957

Total***	1,074	51,029	$2,610

*	There are no capital costs associated with the annual monitoring and
reporting activities.

**	Facilities must monitor for at least 2 years before submitting their
verification study for review.

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

6c.	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

 ADVANCE \d0 	As mentioned previously, 45 States and the Virgin Islands
are 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.

6d.	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

 ADVANCE \d0 	During the 3 years covered by this ICR (which correspond
to years 4–6 after rule promulgation), there are an estimated 483
facilities along with 41 States that the Section 316(b) Phase II
Existing Facility rule could affect.  The 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 period.  These estimates were
calculated by multiplying facility and state 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).

6e.	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables

 ADVANCE \d0 	This section provides a description of bottom line data
collection and record keeping burden and cost estimates for
implementation of the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility 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 period.  Table 10 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 10.	Summary of Average Annual Respondents, Burden, and Costs for
Facilities and State Directors for the ICR Period

 ADVANCE \u3 	Average Annual Respondents	Average Annual Responses
Average Annual Burden (hours)	Average Annual Labor Costs (2006$)	Average
Annual Capital and O&M Costs (2006$)	Total Annual Costs (2006$)

Facilities	388	2,242	1,157,216	$61,610,181 	$14,918,509 	$76,528,690 

State Directors	41	2,227	83,383	$3,982,108 	$45,336 	$4,027,444 

Totals	429	4,469	1,240,599	$65,592,289 	$14,963,845 	$80,556,134 

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 period.  Table 11 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.

Table 11.	Summary of Average Annual Agency Burden and Costs for the ICR
Period

 ADVANCE \u3 	Average Annual Burden (hours)	Average Annual Labor Costs
(2006$)	Average Annual O&M Costs (2006$)	Total Average Annual Costs
(2006$)

Agency Totals	4,403	$212,885 	$1,463 	$214,348 





Table 12.	Burden Comparison: 2004 vs. 2007 ICR for 316(b) Phase II
Existing Facilities 

 	2007	2004	%	Reason for Change

Facility Activities	Annual Average	Annual Average	Burden Change

	NPDES Permit Application Activities	 	 	 	 

Start-up Activities	2,139	6,636	-68%	adjustment

Permit Application Activities	22,988	27,746	-17%	adjustment

Proposal for Collection of Information for Comprehensive Demonstration
Study	8,346	33,003	-75%	adjustment

FW River/Stream Source Water Body Flow Information	2,773	4,400	-37%
adjustment

FW Lake/Reservoir Source Water Body Flow Information	1,684	1,792	-6%
adjustment

Design and Construction Technology Plan (Impingement Only)	5,016	5,226
-4%	adjustment

Design and Construction Technology Plan (Impingement & Entrainment)
4,055	5,408	-25%	adjustment

Freshwater Monitoring for Impingement Mortality & Entrainment
Characterization Study	246,543	535,060	-54%	adjustment

Marine Monitoring for Impingement Mortality & Entrainment
Characterization Study	290,853	707,334	-59%	adjustment

Impingement Mortality & Entrainment Characterization Study Initial
Analysis	11,795	45,257	-74%	adjustment

Impingement Mortality & Entrainment Characterization Study Final Report
25,079	31,654	-21%	adjustment

Pilot Study Impingement Monitoring Only (Freshwater) for Pilot Study	0	0
-	-

Pilot Study Impingement & Entrainment Monitoring (Freshwater) for Pilot
Study	2,075	10,373	-80%	adjustment

Pilot Study Impingement Monitoring Only (Marine) for Pilot Study	790	395
100%	adjustment

Pilot Study Impingement & Entrainment Monitoring (Marine) for Pilot
Study	13,633	22,308	-39%	adjustment

Verification Monitoring Plan	7,595	11,819	-36%	adjustment

NPDES Permit Application Activity Total	645,361	1,448,412	-55%
adjustment

Annual Activities	 	 	 	 

Biological Monitoring for Impingement (Freshwater)	89,949	22,614	298%
adjustment

Biological Monitoring for Impingement (Marine)	63,892	17,498	265%
adjustment

Biological Monitoring for Entrainment (Freshwater)	145,723	36,635	298%
adjustment

Biological Monitoring for Entrainment (Marine)	102,949	28,195	265%
adjustment

Bi-Annual Status Report Activities	87,320	31,104	181%	adjustment

Verification Study 	22,021	11,328	94%	adjustment

Annual Activity Yearly Labor Total	511,854	147,374	247%	adjustment

Facility Yearly Labor Total	1,157,216	1,595,786	-27%	adjustment

State Director Activities	 	 	 	 

Director Start-up Activities	0	1,533	-100%	adjustment

Director Permit Issuance Activities	65,764	97,633	-33%	adjustment

Verification Study Review 	2,968	0	-	-

Alternative Regulatory Requirements	0	640	-100%	adjustment

Annual Director Activities	14,651	4,800	205%	adjustment

 Yearly Total	83,383	104,606	-20%	adjustment

 



 

Respondents Total	1,240,599	1,700,392	-27%	adjustment

6f.	Reasons for Change in Burden

 ADVANCE \d0 	The current approved ICR for the 316(b) phase II existing
facilities was developed in 2004 and was part of the rulemaking
documents. As shown in Table 12, the 2004 ICR estimated an annual
average respondent burden of 1,700,392 hours. This ICR estimates an
annual average respondent burden of 1,240,599 hours, which represents a
27% decrease in burden.

The change in burden results mainly from the shift from the approval
period to the renewal period of the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities
rule.  This ICR covers the last 2 years of the permit approval period
(i.e., years 4 and 5 after implementation) and the first year of the
renewal period (i.e., year 6 after implementation).  Activities for
renewing an NPDES permit already issued under the 316(b) Phase II
Existing Facilities rule are less burdensome than those for issuing a
permit for the first time.

Additionally, for the approval period ICR (EPA ICR No. 2060.02), EPA
assumed that all facilities complying with the rule would be in
NPDES-authorized States.  EPA has moved away from this assumption, and,
for this ICR, all calculations are based on the estimated number and
type of facilities in authorized and non-authorized States.

6g.	Burden Statement

 ADVANCE \d0 	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 rule is estimated to be 2,983 hours
per respondent (i.e., an annual average of 1,157,216 hours of burden
divided among an anticipated annual average of 388 facilities).  The
state Director reporting and record keeping burden for the review,
oversight, and administration of the rule is estimated to average 2,034
hours per respondent (i.e., an annual average of 83,383 hours of burden
divided among an anticipated 41 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 use 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 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 at 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR
Chapter 15.

To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0142, which is available for public viewing at the
Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
202-566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available
through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
http://www.regulations.gov/. Use FDMS to submit or view public comments,
to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to
access documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, key in the docket ID number identified above. You
can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the
EPA Docket ID No. OW-2007-0142 and OMB control number 2040-0257 in any
correspondence. 

 PAGE   

 PAGE   47 

