### Information Collection Request **: Cooling Water Intak** **e Structures Phase II Existing Facilit**  **y (Renewal)**  OMB Control No . 2040

- 0257, EPA I CR No. 2060.06

November 2013

Prepared for U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP

- C

- 11

- 009 EPA Work Assignment Number 2

- 22

## Disclaimer

The 316(b) Phase II rule was signed on February 16, 2004. Industry and environmental groups, and a number of s tates filed legal challenges to the rule. Several issues were heard by the Second Circuit’s Court of Appeals, which issued a decision on January 25, 2007 remanding portions of the rule (see Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. EPA , No. 04

- 6692

- ag(L) [2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2007]). EPA subsequently suspended the Phase II rule on July 9, 2007 and directed permit writers to continue to issue permits with 316(b) requirements developed using the permit writer’s best professional judgment (BPJ). Industry groups petitioned and wer e granted certiorari from the Supreme Court, which issued a decision on April 1, 2009 (Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc ., No. 07

- 588). EPA is currently in the process of developing a revised rule for existing facilities and expects to publish the final ru le by January 1 4, 201 4

. EPA believes that the burden estimated in this ICR is likely to represent an upper bound on the burden that the public would incur in complying with BPJ

- based permitting requirements for cooling water intake structures at large exis ting power plants over the next three years. EPA will submit a revised ICR with the new rule that reflects its specific requirements. The revised ICR will replace this one when the new rule is promulgated.November 201 3 iii

**CONTENTS** 1. Id entification of the Information Collection

................................ ................................ ....... 1 1a. Title of the Information Collection

................................ ................................ .................. 1 1b. Short Charact erization/Abstract

................................ ................................ ................... 1 2. Need for and Use of the Collection

................................ ................................ ..................... 5 2a. Need/Authority

for the Collection

................................ ................................ .................... 5 2a(i). Need for the Collection

................................ ................................ ......................... 5 2a(ii). Authority

for the Collection

................................ ................................ .................. 5 2b. Practical Utili ty

/Users of the Data

................................ ................................ ................ 5 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

................................ ........... 7 3a. Nonduplication

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 7 3b. Public Notice Required Prior to I CR Submission to OMB

................................ .......... 7 3c. Consultations

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 7 3d

. Effects of Less Frequent Collection

................................ ................................ .............. 7 3e. General Guidelines

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7 3f. Confidentiality

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 8 3g. Sensitive Questions

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

................................ ............................... 8 4a. Respondents/SI C/NAI CS

................................ ................................ ................................ . 8 4b. In formation Requested

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9 4b(i). Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements

................................ .......... 9 4b(ii). Respondent Activities

................................ ................................ ......................... 11 5. The Information Collected C Agency Activities, Collection, Methodology and In formation Management

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 23 5a. Agency

Activities

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 23 5b. Collection Methodology and Information Management

................................ ............. 23 5c. Small Entity Flexibility

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24 5d. Collection Schedule

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 24 6. Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection

................................ ................... 25 6a. Estimating Respondent Burden

................................ ................................ ...................... 25 6b. Estimating Respondent Costs

................................ ................................ ..................... 34 6b(i). Estimating L abor Costs

................................ ................................ ....................... 34 6b(ii). Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs

................................ . 36 6c. Estimating Agency

Burden and Costs

................................ ................................ ............ 37 6d. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

............................ 37 6e. Bottom L ine Burden Hours and Costs Tables

................................ ................................ 38 6e(i). Respondent Tally

................................ ................................ ................................ . 38 6e(ii). Agency

Tally

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 38 6f. Reasons for Change in Bur den

................................ ................................ ....................... 40 6g. Burden Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 40 APPENDIX A Respondent Burden and Cost Analy sis for the Information Collection

Requirements of the Section 316(b) Existing Facili ty RuleNovember 201 3 iv

**TABLES** Table 1. In dustry

Categories and SI C Codes for 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility Rule

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

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

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

......... 27 Table 5. Impingement Mor tality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study Sample Ty

pes .. 30 Table 6. Average State Director Burden for Activities

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

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

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

................................ .......... 37 Table 10. Summary

of Average Annual Respondents, Burden, and Costs for Facilities and State Directors for the I CR Period

................................ ................................ ....... 38 Table 11. Summary

of Average Annual Agency Burden and Costs for the I CR Period

............ 38 Table 12. Burden Comparison: 2007 vs. 2010 I CR for 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facilities

....... 39November 201 3 1



### 1. **Identification of the Information Collection**

**1a. Title of the Information Collection**  TI TLE: Cooling Water In take Structure Phase I I Existing Facilities (Renewal) OMB Control No . 2040

- 0257, EPA I CR No. 2060.06 **1b. Short Characterization/Abstract**  The section 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule requires the collection of information from existing po int 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 (CWI S) 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 appli cable to a point source must require that the location, design, construction and capacity of CWI Ss at that facility

reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Such impact occurs as a result of impingement (wher e fish and other aquatic life are trapped on technologies at the entrance to CWI S) and entrainment (where aquatic organisms, eggs, and larvae are taken into the cooling sy stem, passed through the heat exchanger, and then pumped back out with the discharge from the facility

). The 316(b) Phase I I rule establishes requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of CWI Ss at Phase I I existing facilities. These requirements establish the BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impact associated with the use of CWI Ss. Existing electric power generating facilities that do not meet the threshold requirements in § 125.91 of the Phase I I rule are not covered by this Information Collection Request (I CR). All Phase I I existing facilities mu st reduce impingement mortality for all life stages of fish and shellfish by

80 to 95% from the calculation baseline. Some Phase I I existing facilities must also reduce entrainment for all life stages of fish and shellfish by 60 to 90% from the calculation baseline. A Phase I I 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 fl ow commensurate with a closed

cycle recirculating sy stem. 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 and/or operational measures meet the performance standards specified in § 125.94(b) ;November 201 3 2

3. Demonstrate that the facility has selected design and construction technologies and/or operational measures that will, in combination wi th any existing design and construction technologies and/or operational measures meet the performance standards specified in § 125.94(b) ; 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 technologi es and/or operational 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 I I Existing Facility rule requires several distinct ty pes of information collection as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem (NPDES) application. Ingeneral, 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 alternati ve selected are:

 Source water phy sical data that shows the phy sical 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;  CWI S data that shows the configuration and location of cooling water intake structures, provides details on the design operation of each CWI S, and diagrams flow distribution and water balance; and
 Cooling water sy stem data that characterizes the ope ration of the cooling water sy stem and its relationship to the CWI S Additionally , most Phase I I 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) and/or operational measures proposed and/or implemented at the CWI S meet the applicable national performance standards specified in § 125.94. The required components of the CDS that a Phase I I 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) ar e 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

r eductionNovember 201 3 3

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 implem ented technology (ies) and/or operational 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 desi gned 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 developme nt 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 include s 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 impin gement 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 CWI S have been selected to reflect BTA at the site;
 Verification mon itoring plan that describes the monitoring that will be used to verify the full

- scale performance of the proposed or implemented technologies and/or operational measures. Additional data requirements apply to facilities that choose to request a site

- speci fic 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 docum ents the cost of implementing the design and construction technologies and/or operational measures to meet the applicable performance standards and a demonstration that the cost is significantly greater than those costs considered by

the Administrator;
 Ben efits 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;November 201 3 4

 A n arrative 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 and/or operational measures that the facility has selected; demonstrates the efficacy of the technologies; and demonstrates that the design and construction technologies and/or operational 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.
Inaddition 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) and the Technology Installation and Operation Plan required by § 125.95(b)(4)(ii), 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 y ears. 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 I I Existing Facility

rule, and issue NPDES permits with appropriate conditions to minimize adverse environmental impact associated with the use of th e facilities’ CWI Ss. As suggested, the primary users of the data collected under the 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule are the States authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program, and EPA. Other government agencies, both at the State and Fed eral level, as well as public interest groups, private companies, and many individuals also use the data. The 316(b) Phase I I rule wa s signed on February 16, 2004. In dustry

and environmental groups, and a number of states filed legal challenges to the rul e. Several issues were heard by the Second Circuit’s Court of Appeals, which issued a decision on January 25, 2007 remanding portions of the rule (see Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. EPA , No. 04

- 6692

- ag(L) [2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2007]). EPA subsequently

suspended the Phase I I rule on July 9, 2007 and directed permit writers to continue to issue permits with 316(b) requirements developed using the permit writer’s best professional judgment (BPJ). In dustry groups petitioned and were granted certiorari from the Supreme C ourt, which issued a decision on April 1, 2009 ( Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. , No. 07

- 588)

. EPA is currently

in the process of developing a revised rule for existing facilities.November 201 3 5

EPA believes that the burden estimated in this I CR is likely to represe nt an upper bound on the burden that the public would incur in complying with BPJ

- based permitting requirements for cooling water intake structures at large existing power plants over the next three years. EPA will submit a revised I CR with the new rule th at reflects its specific requirements

. The revised I CR will replace this one when the new rule is promulgated. During the 3 y ears covered by this I CR (which correspond to years 10

– 12 after rule promulgation) the information collection required by the rule will involve responses from an estimated total of 506 facilities and 42 States and Territories and cost approximately $ 178 million (including operation and maintenance costs), with an annual average of 514 respondents, 1,0 10 , 021 burden hours, and a cost $ 59 million per y ear (for additional detail, see Section 6 and Exhibit A.11 in Appendix A). 

### 2. **Need for and Use of the Collection**

**2a. Need/Authority for the Collection**  The following sections describe the need for this information collection and the legal authority under which this information will be collected. **2a(i). Need for the Collection**  The information requirements of the 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule are necessary

to ensure that Phase I I 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 Co ntrol Act of 1972 for the express purpose of regulating thermal discharges and to address the environmental impact of CWI Ss. 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 CWI Ss reflect the BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” The re quirements 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**  The 316(b) Phase I I 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 I I existing facility

maintains facility

- level records of the characterization data, plans,November 201 3 6

measurements, diagrams, and calculations submitted to the Directors, as well as the analy tical results of monitoring actions. Facilities could use the data to:

 Characterize environmental conditions and monitor existing CWI S performance;
 Determine appropriate design and construction technologies or operational measures; and/or
 Monitor the performance of de sign and construction technologies or operational measures. Permit writers will also use these data to verify that the appropriate compliance actions are selected and implemented. Under the 316(b) Phase I I 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 I ntegrated Compliance Information Sy stem (I CI S

- NPDES). I CI S

- NPDES is used to track permit limits, per mit expiration dates, monitoring data, and other data, and provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of permit holders. EPA Headquarters uses the information contained in I CI S

- NPDES 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 consiste ncy

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 y ears. 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 I I 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 pote ntial 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 I I 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 co mmunity for assessing the impact of CWI Ss on recreational and commercial fisheries productivity and aquatic ecosy stem health.November 201 3 7



### 3. **Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria** The following sections verify and affirm that this I C R satisfies the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) data

- collection guidelines, has public support, and does not duplicate another collection. **3a. Nonduplication**  Given that the Phase I I 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 analy ses published by other Federal agencies; reports and analy ses published by industry ; and publi cly

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 I CR are not contained or duplicated in other routinely collected documents or reports. **3b. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB**  This I CR was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2013 (78 FR 57150) . The notice included a request for comments on the content and impact of these info rmation collection requirements on the regulated community . EPA received no comments on this I CR. **3c. Consultations**  EPA finalized the requirements addressed in this I CR after receiving comments from the public and the regulated community . No f ormal consultations with persons outside EPA have occurred since the original 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule and its corresponding I CR were published in 2004. However, the Agency does consider, and act on, the comments it receives in its daily deal ings 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 I CR. **3d. Effects of Less Frequent Collection**  EPA has concluded that less frequent data collection may fail to identify

in a timely

manner adverse environmental impact resulting from the operation of existing CWI Ss. 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**  The information collection requirements o f the 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule are in accordance with the PRA guidelines at Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)November 201 3 8

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**  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 I I Existing F acility rule to be ty

pical of confidential business or personal information. I f 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 h andled in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part I II, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. **3g. Sensitive Questions**  The Section 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule does not require respondents to divulge information per

taining 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 I I Existing Facility rule at § 125.91 define an existing facility

as a Phase I I existing facility subject to this regulation if it is a point source that uses or proposes to use a CWI S, both generates and transmits electric power or generates electric power but sells it to another entity for transmission, has at least one CWI S 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 mo re. Use of a CWI S 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 sy stem 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 t raditional steam electric utility

category are classified under Standard Industrial Classification (SI C) 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 SI C 49 if the primary purpose of the facility

is to generate electricity

). Nonutility

power producers affected by the Phase I I Existing Facility rule are anticipated to be classified under SI C 49 (i.e., their primary purpose is to generate electricity ); nonutility

power producers classified under other SI C codes (i.e., whose primary

purpose is not generating electricity ) are not 316(b) Phase I I existing facilities. SI C and NAI CS Codes are provided in Table 1.
**Table 1. Industry Cate**  **gories and SIC Codes for 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility Rule Respondent Industry Categories**  **SIC Codes NA**  **ICS Codes**November 201 3 9

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 I I Existing Facility rule requires respondents to provide in their application. The two principal respondent categories are Phase I I 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 Regiona l offices). There are currently 46 States and the Virgin I slands authorized under CWA Section 402(b) to implement the NPDES permit program. In formation requirements for Phase I I existing facilities will differ depending on the compliance alternative selec ted 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 I I 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 I I Existing Facility rule are gathered for either record keeping or reporting purposes. There are several data it ems that are collected only during the ye ar(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** The Sect ion 316(b) Phase I I 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 determinat ions on the basis of all documents and reports submitted to them by Phase I I existing facilities. Phase I I 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 I I existing facility submits its NPDES permit renewal application (approximately 180 day s 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 CWI S to minimize adverse environmental impact in compliance with Section 316(b) of the CWA. Three ty pes of information are required to be included in the NPDES permit applications for all Phase I I existing facilities: 1. Source water phy s ical 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. Ty

pically , 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 ty pe. In addition, theNovember 201 3 10

proximity of the intake structures to sensitive aquatic ecological areas might result in potential environmental impact. 2. CWI S 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. In formation 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, in termittent, or seasonal. The water balance diagram also would provide a picture of the total flow in and out of the facility

. 3. Cooling water sy stem data, per the requirements at § 122.21(r)(5). Facilities are required to submit cooling water sy stem data for the purpose of evaluating the relationship between the cooling water sy stem 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 alternat ive 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 co oling water intake, and confirm that the design and construction technology (ies) and/or operational 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

. In formation to support site

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

. A verification monitoring plan [§ 125.95 (b)(7)].
Inaccordance with § 125.95(a)(2), the facility must submit any

appl icable 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**November 201 3 11

Inaddition to the one

- time reporting r equirements, 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** All operators of Phase I I existin g 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 dat e 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 I I existing facilities and NPDES permit program Directors. Their information collection activities are descri bed below. **Permit Application Activities** 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 ru le. Activities performed during the permit application process are performed only once during each I CR period. However, these application activities are repeated again during the fifth ye ar of the permit cycle as part of the permit renewal process. **A. Gene ral Information**  Phase I I existing facilities must perform several data gathering activities as part of the permit application process. Under the 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule, all facilities are required to gather application informat ion 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 phy sical data, CWI S data, and cool ing water sy stem data. Activities related to source water physical data include: [40 CFR 122.21(r)(2)]

 Describing the phy sical configuration of the source waterbody where each CWI S is located, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity and temperature regimes and providing other documentation that supports the determination of waterbody ty pe;  Preparing scaled drawings showing the phy sical configuration of the source waterbody ;  Characterizing and documenting the hydrological and geomorphological features of the source waterbody ;November 201 3 12

 Conducting phy sical studies to determine the intake’s area of influence within the water

body and summarizing the results of such studies (including a description of methods used);
 Preparing locational maps; and
 Maintaining copie s of these documents as well as copies of any information used in their development for a period of 3 y ears after submittal. Activities related to the report on cooling water intake structure data include: [40 CFR 122.21(r)(3)]

 Preparing a narrative desc ription of the configuration of each CWI S and its location within the waterbody

and in the water column;
 Measuring and documenting the latitude and longitude of each CWI S in degrees, minutes, and seconds;
 Developing a narrative that describes the operation of each CWI S, including design flows, daily

hours of operation, number of day s of the y ear 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 CWI S descriptions mentioned; and
 Maintaining copies of these documents as well as copies of any information used in their development for a period of 3 y ears after submittal. Activities related to the report of the Phase I I existing facility cooling water sy stem data include: [40 CFR 122.21(r)(5)]

 Preparing a narrative description of the operation of each of the facility ’s cooling water sy s tems, relationship to the CWI S(s), proportion of design flow that is used in the sy stem, number of day s of the y ear 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 y ears after submittal. **B. Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) Requirements** As previously

discussed, depending on the compliance alter native 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** The facility

must develop and submit a prop osal for the collection of information to support the CDS. In accordance with § 125.95(b)(1), this activity includes:November 201 3 13

 Developing a description of the proposed and/or implemented technologies and/or operational 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 phy sical and biological conditions in the vicinity of the intakes and their relevance to the proposed CDS. I f the facility propose s 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 analy sis. The proposed sampling and data analy sis 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 CWI S), 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)];
 Ma intaining records of all materials used to develop the proposal for a period of 3 years after submittal. **Source Waterbody Flow Information** As part of the CDS, facilities with intakes located on freshwater rivers/streams or lakes/reservoirs mus t also submit source waterbody flow information as required under § 125.95(b)(2). This includes:

 If the CWI S is located in a freshwater river or stream, the facility must provide the annual mean flow of the waterbody and any supporting documentation and e ngineering calculations to support the analy sis 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 CWI S is located in a lake (other than one of the Great L akes) 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 therm al 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 mai ntain records of all pertinent documents for a period of 3 years after submittal.November 201 3 14

**Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study** As part of the CDS, the facility must also perform an Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Ch aracterization 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 ar e 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 fi sh 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 vicin ity 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)];
 Do cumentation 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 mortali ty 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 documen ted [§ 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** If the facility

chooses to use design and construction tec hnologies 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 requ ired 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

- ye ar period (if avail able) 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 n arrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies and/or operational measures (existing or proposed), including fish

- handling and return sy stems, that the facility has in place or will use to meet the requirements toNovember 201 3 15

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 susce ptible 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 fi sh 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 f low 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 ope rational measures and may be determined on the basis of representative studies (i.e., studies that have been conducted at CWI Ss located in the same waterbody ty pe with similar biological characteristics) and/or site

- specific technology prototy pe or pilot s tudies [§ 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 construc tion 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 In stallation and Operation Plan:

 A schedule for the installation and maintenance of any new des ign 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 o f 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);November 201 3 16

 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 manageme nt 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 requiremen ts 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). **Information to Support Site**
**- specific Determination of Best Technology Available for**  **Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact** If the facility

chooses to request a site

- specific determination of BTA, the facility must provide, as required under § 125.94(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 stud y that includes:

- Engineering cost estimates in sufficient detail to document the costs of implementing design and construction technologies and/or operational 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 i n sufficient detail to document the costs of implementing the design and construction technologies and/or operational 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 . I f 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 § 1 25.94(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 applicab le requirements of § 125.94. In addition to the valuation estimates, the benefit study must include the following:November 201 3 17

- A description of the methodology (ies) used to value commercial, recreational, and ecological benefits (including any non - use benefits, if app licable) [§ 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 analy sis 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 re viewers 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 CWI S. 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 ass essment 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 and/or operational measures th at 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. This estimate must include a s ite

- 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 b een conducted at CWI Ss located in the same waterbody ty pe with similar biological characteristics) and, if applicable, site

- specific technology prototy pe or pilot studies. [§ 125.95(b)(6)(iii)(B)];

- A demonstration that the proposed and/or implemented desi gn and construction technologies and/or operational 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 calculat ions, drawings, and estimates prepared by a qualified professional to support the descriptions required above [§ 125.95(b)(6)(iii)(D)].November 201 3 18

 Maintain all records and documentation of site specific studies conducted for a period of at least 3 y ears after submi ttal. **Verification Monitoring Plan** 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, o perational measures. As stipulated in § 125.95 (b)(7), the verification study must begin once the technologies and/or operational 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 fo r 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 T echnology Installation and Operation Plan [§ 125.95(b)(7)(i)];
 A proposal on how naturally moribund fish and shellfish that enter the CWI S would be identified and taken into account in determining compliance with the performance standards at § 125.94 [§ 12 5.95(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**  All Phase I I existing facilities, as appropriate to the compliance alternative selected, would need to perform monitoring in accordance with the Technology Installation and Operation Plan, the Ver ification 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 o n changes in phy sical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structures. **B. Bi**
**- Annual Status Report**  All Phase I I existing facilities subject to the 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule are required to prepare an d 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:November 201 3 19

 Compiling biological monitoring records for each CWI S and othe r 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.
 Maintaining a copy

of the report for a period of 3 years after its submission. **Director Activities** NPDES program Directors will act to ensure the implementation of the 316(b) Phase I I 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 conduc t the following activities as described in § 125.98(a) and (b) and below. **Application Activities** 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 CWI Ss and the source waterbody required to be submitted in its permit application (this request is n ot authorized in the first permit term after promulgation of this rule), the Director must approve the request within 60 day s if conditions at the facility and in the waterbody

remain unchanged since the facility ’s previous application. At each permit ren ewal, the Director must review the application materials and monitoring data to determine whether new or revised requirements for design and construction technologies or operational 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 phy sical 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** 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:November 201 3 20

(1) Develop Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements . Requirements that implement the applicable provisions of § 125.94 must be included in the permit condi tions. The Director must evaluate the performance of the design and construction technologies and/or operational measures proposed and implemented by the facility

and require additional or different design and construction technologies and/or operational m easure, if needed to meet the applicable impingement mortality and entrainment reduction, or production, requirements. Indetermining compliance with the performance standards for facilities proposing to increase withdrawals of cooling water from a lake (o ther 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 I I existing facility ’s CWI Ss 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 lay ers). The Director must coordinate w ith 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 mu st 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 CWI S(s), the Director must do the following: (i) Revi ew 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 alte rnative site

- specific requirements established pursuant to 125.94(a)(5). (ii) Ineach 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 and/or operational measures; (i ii ) 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 Ins tallation and Operation Plan to ensure it meets the requirements of § 125.95(b)(4)(ii). I f 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. In determining whether to approve a Technology In stallation and Operation Plan, the Director must evaluate whether the design and construction technologies and/or operational measures theNovember 201 3 21 facility has installed, or proposes to install, can reasonably be expected to meet the applicable performance stan dards in § 125.94(b) and/or alternative site

- specific requirements established pursuant to § 125.94(a)(5), and whether the Technology In stallation and Operation Plan complies with the applicable requirements of § 125.95(b). In reviewing the Technology Inst allation 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). I f the facility does not request that compliance with the requirements in § 125.94 be measured employing a Technology Installation and Operation Plan or the facility has not been in compliance with the terms of its current Technology

Installation and Operation Plan during the preceding pe rmit term, the Director must require the facility to comply

with the applicable performance standards in § 125.94(b) 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 and/or operational measures implemented and require additional or different design and construction technologies and/or operational measures , and/or improved operation and maintenance of ex isting technologies and measures, if needed to meet the applicable performance standards and/or alternative site

- specific requirements; ( i v) Review and approve the proposed Verification Monitoring Plan submitted under § 125.95(b)(7) (for design and constru ction technologies) and require that the monitoring continue for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate whether the design and construction technology and/or operational measures meet the applicable performance standards in § 125.94(band/or site

- specif ic requirements established pursuant to § 125.94(a)(5); (v) 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 suppo rt entrainment survival at the facility , the Director must review and approve the results of that study . I f 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

- sp ecific performance standard established on the basis of new and/or existing design and construction technologies and/or operational measures, must achieve an efficacy that is, in the Director’s judgment , as close as practicable to the applicable performanc e 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 (vi) Indeveloping performance requirements to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment for inclusion in a permit, the Director must review information onNovember 201 3 22 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 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 employ ing a Technology

Installation and Operation 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) and the Technology Installation and Operation Plan in § 125.95(b)(4)(ii). The Director must consider the facility ’s Verification Monitoring Plan and/or Technology

Insta llation and Operation 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 phy sical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the CWI S. (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 Constructio n 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/f

acility 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 y ears. The other information may include operation an d 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.November 201 3 23



### 5. **The Information Collected C**  **Agency Activit ies, Collection, Methodology**  **and Information Management** The following sections describe EPA activities related to analy zing, maintaining, and distributing the information collected. **5a. Agency Activities**  EPA is responsible for ove rseeing the implementation of the 316(b) Phase I I 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 ty pically 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 y ears a fter promulgation. This I CR covers y ears 10 , 11 , and 12 after promulgation; therefore, no burden for EPA review of State

- issued NPDES permits is anticipated to occur in this I CR period. **5b. Collection Methodology and Information Management**  The 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule provides minimum requirements regarding the ty pe of information collected. Directors of NPDES programs are primarily responsible for determining which collection method and information management strategy is most app ropriate. EPA will maintain some of the compliance data in I CI S

- NPDES. I CI S

- NPDES is a national computerized management information sy stems that provide s for entry , updating, and retrieval of NPDES data and track permit issuance, permit limits and monitori ng data, and other data pertaining to facilities regulated under NPDES. This technology reduces the burden to the permitting authority of gathering, analy

zing, and reporting national permit and water quality data. Permitting authorities are responsible fo r 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 I CI S. Authorities have differing approaches for entering the data into IC IS 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 I CI S

- NPDES fro m State sy stems. Permit data can be accessed by

the public in one of three way s:

 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 I CI S

- NPDES data with other EPA databases and mapping tools.
 Via some State Web sites.November 201 3 24

**5c. Small Entity Flexibility**  The applicability

requiremen ts in § 125.94 exclude most existing small entities from the 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule. As a result, the 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule affects only

a small absolute number of facilities owned by small entities, representing a very sma ll 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) Ph ase I I 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 per centage of all small entities in the electric power industry , approximately 1.3 percent, are subject to the 316(b) Phase I I 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 ind ustry 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 31 6(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule. Furthermore, because the reporting requirements differ by source waterbody

ty pe 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**  EPA anticipates that 506 Phase I I existing facilities will fall within the scope of the 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility

rule during the 3 years covered by this I CR. 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 506 facilities projected to fall within th e scope of this I CR period, 455 will be performing annual monitoring and reporting of operations by the end of y ear 3 of this I CR. The other 51 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 I CR approval period.
**Table 2. Number of Facilities A**  **ssumed to Comply with Information Collection: Requirements During the ICR**  **Period by Year Ty**  **pe of A ctivity**  **ICR Period 2013**  **2014 2015**  Facilities performing annual monitoring and reporting of operations 455 455 455 Facilities with recirculating cooling towers apply ing for a permit but not required to perform annua l m onitoring and reporting of operations 16 19 16November 201 3 25



### 6. **Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection** The following sections present the proposed rationale and assumptions made and results of EPA’s estimation of burden and costs for the i mplementation of the Section 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility

rule. Specific respondent activities were detailed in section 4b(ii). It is important to note that this I CR covers y ears 10

- 12 after promulgation of the rule. Therefore, all activities are related to permits renewals and not first

- time permit issuance. **6a. Estimating Respondent Burden**  This section describes the burden estimates for facilities and Directors, as well as the methods used and assumptions made to derive them. Respondent activities are separated into those activities associated with the NPDES permit application and those activities associated with monitoring and reporting after the permit is issued. The reason for this is that the permit cy cle is every 5 y ears, while I CRs must be renewed every 3 y ears. Therefore, the application activities occur only

once per facility

during an I CR period, and so they are considered one

- time burden for the purpose of this I CR. 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 and A.3 in Appendix A. **Facility Burdens** In formation 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

employ ees, including managers, en gineers, 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 employ ee’s re lative contribution, EPA assumed burden estimates that reflect the staffing and expertise ty

pically 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 analy zing data, ty ping 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 analy

zing 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 analy z ing data, as well as writing the documents, will be carried out by junior technical staff. Burdens associated with managerial and senior engineering staff includeNovember 201 3 26

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 NPDES permit renewal. Table 4 provides the annual monitoring, and bi

- annual reporting activities associated with the 316(b) Pha se I I Existing Facility rule. For a more detailed presentation of hourly burdens for facilities, see Exhibits A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A. The activities listed in the first column of both Tables 3 and 4 correspond to the facility respondent activities outl ined 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 f acility is estimated to perform is based on the rule requirements to which the facility is subject and the ty

pe 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**  InTable 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 suc cessfully

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 analy sis that facil ities will receive their reissued permits at the beginning of the year. Thus, during the first y ear (2010), facilities will perform permit application activities for their permits that are reissued at the beginning of the second y ear (2011). It is also ass umed that facilities required to conduct Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Studies will need to begin collecting monitoring data 2 to 3 y ears before permit renewal. Furthermore, all facilities will begin the other permit application ac tivities in the y ear 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.November 201 3 27

**Table 3. Av**  **erage per Facility Burden for each NPDES Permit A**  **pplication A ctivity**  **Ac tivities**  **Burden (hrs)** Start

- up activities 13 Permit application activities 147 Proposal for collection of information for CDS 78 Source waterbody

flow information 31 Design and construction technology plan 68 Freshwater impingement mortality and/or entrainment characterization study 2,919 Marine im pingem ent mortality and/or entrainment characterization study 5,401 Total* 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. Av**  **erage Burden per Facility for A nnual Monitoring and Reporting A** **ctivities Ac**  **tivities Burden (hrs)**  Biological m onitoring (impingement, freshwater) 379 Biological m onitorin g (impingement, marine) 482 Biological m onitoring (entrainment, freshwater) 614 Biological m onitoring (entrainment, marine) 776 Bi

- annual 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** Permit application activities refer to the development and submittal of the required elements of the application for reis suance of the NPDES permit. As part of the permit application process, all Phase I I existing facilities will gather source water phy sical data, CWI S data, and cooling water sy stem data. EPA anticipates that much of the data required to characterize the waterbody and the CWI S 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 phy sical data, EPA assumes that junior technical staff will w ork with a CAD operator to develop a description of the phy sical configuration of the source waterbody where the CWI S is located, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity and temperature regimes. The CAD operator will produce scaled drawings showing th e phy sical 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 phy sical studies to determine the intake’s area of influence within the waterbody

.November 201 3 28

CWI S data will be used to develop a r eport 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 CWI S and its location within the waterbody and in the water column, includin g measurements of the latitude and longitude of the CWI S. In addition, junior technical staff will develop a narrative that describes the operation of the CWI S, including design flows, daily hours of operation, number of day s of the y ear 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 sy stem, which includes a flow distribution and water balance diagram for the fac ility 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 CWI S documents. Management will review and revise these calculations.
Inaddition, Phase I I existing facilities need to comply with CDS requirements depending on the compliance alternative selected. Facilities that already have a closed

- cycle recirculating sy stem 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 f lows to levels commensurate with closed

- cycle recirculating sy stems are required to gather and submit additional information in the form of a CDS to confirm that the technology (ies) and operational measures proposed and/or implemented at the intake meet th e applicable performance standards. For additional details, see Section 4b(ii). The CDS characterizes impingement mortality and/or entrainment, the operation of the CWI S, and confirms that the technologies and/or operational measures the facility has sele cted and/or implemented at the CWI S 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 as sessment information, 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 develo ping and submitting narrative descriptions, supporting documentation, and engineering calculations. **Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) Requirements Proposal for Information Collection**  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 phy sical 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 sci entifically valid estimate of impingement and entrainment, and were collected using appropriate quality assurance/quality

control procedures. Junior technical staff are assumed to develop a descriptionNovember 201 3 29

of the proposed and/or implemented technologies and op erational 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 faciliti es performing a CDS will perform an Impingement Mortality

and/or Entrainment Characterization Study involving between two and three y ears 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 analy sis, as well as describes the study area (including the area of influence of the CWI S and at least 100 meters beyond). EPA assumes that the junior technical staff will review source w ater and CWI S 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** 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 CWI S 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 CWI S disrupts the thermal stratification of the waterbody

. EPA anticipates that most facilities will have ready access to existing flow and thermal stratification informati on. 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 str eam 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** 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 CWI S will b e located. For the purpose of developing the I CR 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 y ears for facilities drawing from freshwater bodies and 3 y ears for those facilities drawing from marine waters. Therefore, the entire application pro cess can take up to 3 y ears to complete. The Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study activities will be performed in years before the reissuance of the NPDES permit. 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 thatNovember 201 3 30

monitoring is performed simultaneously at the facility

fo r 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 organ isms. Therefore, EPA assumes that three ty pes of sampling will occur, as presented in Table 5.
**Table 5. Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study Sample Types**  **Sample Type Location of Sample**  Impingement sample At the int ake 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 CWI S, EPA assumes sampling is performed at the facility on a biweekly

basis over 2 y ears 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 th e study , other employees will also spend time contributing to the use of the monitoring data. **Technology and Compliance Assessment Information** EPA assumes that the portion of the Design and Construction Technology Plan (and Technology In stallation and Operation Plan, if applicable) associated with evaluation of potential CWI S 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** If the facility

chooses to use design and construction technologies or operational measures in whole or in part to meet the requirements of § 125.9 4, 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 rev iew 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 (exist ing 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

- s pecific 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 CWI Ss located in the same waterbody

ty pe with similar biological characte ristics) and/or site

- specific technology prototy pe studies. EPA assumes that for the site

- specific technology prototy pe studies, theNovember 201 3 31

facilities will conduct an on

- site pilot study for the technology

or operational measure. Pilot studies were all completed in the first issuance of the permit and therefore the costs are not re

calculated for the renewal phase of the regulation. **Information to Support Site**
**- Specific Determination of BTA for Minimizing Adverse**  **Environmental Impact** Facilities may

ch oose to request a site

- specific determination of BTA in lieu of meeting the performance standards of § 125.94(a). I f 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 crit eria. 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 r equires 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 I CR cost and burden estimates, EPA assumed that all res pondents 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 perfo rming 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 develo ping the I CR cost and burden estimates for facilities. However, for the original I CR developed for the rule, EPA recognized that respondents choosing to perform activities related to site

- specific determination of BTA would incur additional I CR costs. It w as 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 I CR costs might increase between 1 and 1.25 million dollars (2004 dollars) if all facilities with impinge ment 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 I CR burden and cost will be reduced accordingly

. Inaddition, 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 burd ens for reviewing site

specific studies for all facilities with impingement and entrainment requirements. **Verification Monitoring Plan** 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, orNovember 201 3 32

operational 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 bas is 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.
Inthe first 2 y ears of operation under their reissued NPDES permits, Phase I I existing facilities are required to use impingement and entrainment monitoring data to perfor m verification studies (as described in their verification monitoring plans) to verify the full

- scale performance of the proposed or implemented technologies and/or operational 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 analy sis at the beginning of the third year. **Annual Facility Activities** The principal annual activity for most facilities will be biological monitoring. B urden 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 analy zed and summarized in a bi

- annual status report. Those facilities that submitted a verification monitoring plan as part of their permit app lication 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** The 316(b) Phase I I 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** EPA expec ts 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 permi t 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 I CI S database. Table 6 provides a summary of the hourly

burden estimates for state Directors performing various acti vities associated with the 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule. For a more detailed presentation of State Director hourly burdens, see Exhibit A.3 (state) in Appendix A.November 201 3 33

**Table 6. Av**  **erage State Director Burden for A ctivities**  **Ac tivities**  **Burd en (hrs)**  **Renewal Period** Director permit issuance activities (per facility ) 24 6 Verification study

review (per Facility )* 21 Annual director activities (per facility ) 41 Total** 30 8

* 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** The Director must r eview 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. For all facilities performing the CDS, the Director must review and appro ve 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 and/or operational measures meet the requirements of § 125.94 (b). For a facili ty 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 requi rements 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 , eva luate 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. 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 s tudies is because the studies cover multiple y ears’ 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 cos t evaluation study or valuation of monetized benefits for reducing impingement and entrainment. **Monitoring Conditions** Indetermining 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 phy sical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the CWI S. The requirement for modifying the monitoring program may

be made during the term of the permit or when the permit is reissued.November 201 3 34

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 Reportin g**  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 Appro val**  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 Direct or 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 n otice 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 o f senior personnel in this regard and provide assistance in reviewing and compiling the public comments received. **Annual Director Activities** Facilities required to perform annual biological monitoring for impingement and entrainment are requir ed to submit an bi

- annual report that details inspection and maintenance records for impingement and technology controls and a detailed analy sis of monitoring results. EPA assumes that directors will use these reports to track facility compliance and to de termine if a reduction in monitoring frequency

is appropriate. **6b. Estimating Respondent Costs**  This section describes cost estimates for facilities and Directors, as well as the methods used to derive them. Because of the 5

- ye ar 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 I CR activities can be estimated by multiplying the time spe nt 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 Statistics (BL S) Occupational Outlook Handbook 2012

–2013 . These reported labor rates were ba sed on data from the y ear 2010 and are adjusted for inflation. Inflation factor was derived fromNovember 201 3 35

the BLS Employ

ment Cost Index and was used to adjust the Occupational Outlook Handbook labor rates to reflect labor rates for March of 2013. A compensatory

lo ading factor of 49 percent was used to account for any paid leave, supplemental pay , insurance, retirement and savings, and required and nonrequired benefits received by

employ ees (

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 6. Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: Private industry workers, by major industry group, December 2012 ). EPA assumed an additional loading factor of 15 percent to account for general overhead costs directly attribut able to facility employ ees performing work in support of the permit process. Expenses for contracted employees ty pically include higher overhead costs, as well as a fee to ensure profit for the contracting company . EPA assumes that the overhead for the contracted employ ees will be 64 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 $119,260 per year. This figure was divided by 2,080 hours to derive the hourly

managerial wage rate of approximately $57.34 per hour. After adjusting this rate for inflation, compensation, and overhead, the rate is approximately $99 per hour. The median annual salary

of $50,110 for a mechanical 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 $42 per hour. The median annual salary

for a drafter performing CAD work was reported to be $47,880, and, after adjusting and loading the rate, it is approximately $40 per hour. The reported average annual salary for clerical workers was $29,990, and the fully adjusted and loaded hourly rate is approximately

$25 per ho ur. 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 $116,020 per year with a fully loaded rate of $101 per hour. The median annual salary for a statistician was $72,830 per y ear with an adjusted hourly

rate of approximately

$60 per hour. Biologists and biological technicians had an average hourly

pay of $45.39 and $30.84 and a fully loaded rate of $48 and $32, respectively

. **Director Labor Costs** For Director costs, all the base labor rates and compensation factors were derived from published employ

ment cost trends for State and local government workers for the third quarter of 2009 ( BLS Employment Cost Trends , September 2009). These labor rates were adjusted to reflect labor rates for March of 2013 ( 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 manag e 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

$64 per hour. Similarly , EPA chose the BLS labor category of white

- collar professio nal technical to represent the junior technical staff that EPA expects to perform the majority of the actual NPDESNovember 201 3 36

permitting work. The reported base pay for this category

was approximately

$18 per hour, which becomes approximately

$38 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 $30 afterward. **6b(ii). Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs**  A facility incurs capital/start

- up costs when it purchases equipment or builds structures that are needed for compliance with the rule’s reporting and record keeping requirements and that the facility would not use otherwise. A facility incurs operation and maintenance (O&M ) costs when it uses services, materials, or supplies that are needed to comply with the rule’s reporting and record keeping requirements and that the facility would not use otherwise. Any costs for the operation and upkeep of capital equipment are conside red O&M costs. Another ty pe of O&M cost is for the purchase of contracted services, such as laboratory analy ses. The purchase of supplies such as filing cabinets and services such as photocopying or boat rental are also considered O&M costs and are referre d to as other direct costs (ODCs). Capital and O&M costs were estimated for the original IC R (EPA I CR No. 2060.02) and were simply inflated to March 20 13 dollars using CPI

. Ingeneral, the labor costs and O&M costs reported in this analy sis are assumed to represent ty pical average national cost estimates that are likely to be incurred by

Phase I I existing facilities and by permitting authorities. EPA attempted to take into account various factors such as decreases in labor efficiency that occur during extr eme climate conditions, equipment down time, and the occasional sample that might need to be replaced because it was lost or spoiled during transport. Tables 7, and 8 provide a summary of facility

- level average labor costs, capital costs, and O&M costs ove r the 3

- ye ar I CR period. For a more detailed presentation of all compliance costs for facilities, see Exhibits A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A.
**Table 7. Av**  **erage per Facility Burden and Costs for each NPDES Permit Renewal A ctivity**  **Ac tivities**  **Burden (hrs)**  **Labor Cost**

**( 2013**  **) Capital** 

**( 2013**  **) O&M** 

**( 2013**  **)** Start

- up activities 13 $888 $

- $61 Permit application activities 147 $8,014 $

- $307 Proposal for collection of information for CDS 78 $4,444 $

- $245 Source waterbody

flow information 31 $1,364 $

- $123 Design and construction technology plan 68 $3,299 $

- $184 Freshwater impingement mortality and/or entrainment characterization study 2,919 $127,297 $

- $38,282
Marine im pingem ent mortality and/or entrainment characterization study 5,401 $229,511 $

- $74,65 1
Total* 8,658 $374,817 $

- $113,853

* The totals do not reflect the average costs for every facility because not all facilities will need to perform every activity listed.November 201 3 37

**Table 8. Av**  **erage Burden and Costs* per Facility for A** **nnual Monitoring and Report ing A** **ctivities Ac**  **tivities Burden (hrs)**  **Labor Cost ( 2013**  **$) O&M (2**  **013 $)**  Biological m onitoring (impingement, freshwater) 379 $17,603 $614 Biological m onitoring (impingement, marine) 482 $22,226 $798 Biological m onitoring (entrainment, freshwat er) 614 $28,773 $1,227 Biological m onitoring (entrainment, marine) 776 $35,669 $1,411 Bi

- Annual status report activities 236 $15,361 $920 Verification study 122 $7,830 $614 Total** 2,609 $127,461 $5,584

* 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** EPA does not anticipate any O& M costs other than ODCs for state Directors as a result of the 316(b) Phase I I 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 (stat e) in Appendix A.
**Table 9. Av**  **erage State Director Burden and Costs* for A** **ctivities Ac**  **tivities Burden (hrs)**  **Labor Cost (20 13**  **$) O&M (20**  **13 $)**  Director Permit Issuance Activities (per Facility , renewal period) 246 $14,018 $368 Verification study review (per facility )** 21 $946 $12 Annual director activities (per facility ) 41 $2,282 $2,313 Total*** 308 $17,246 $2,693

* There are no capital costs associated with the annual monitoring and reporting activities.
** Facilities must monitor for at le ast 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 an**  **d Costs** As mentioned previously , 46 States and the Virgin I slands 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 co sts and burdens similar to those incurred by States with permitting authority

. **6d. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs**  During the 3 y ears covered by this I CR (which correspond to years 10

– 12 after rule promulgation), there are an estimated 506 facilities along with 42 States that the Section 316(b) Phase I I 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 a ssociated 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 I CR approval period. The annual estimates are based on the compliance sched ule used to estimate the cost of the final rule. In addition, Exhibits A.7 to A.10 provide a summary of the respondent burdens and costsNovember 201 3 38

for each y ear of the I CR period. These estimates were calculated by multiplying facility

and state Director level burde n 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**  This section provides a description of bottom line data collection an d record keeping burden and cost estimates for implementation of the 316(b) Phase I I 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

incur red for all activities during the I CR 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 A**  **verage A nnual Respond**  **ents, Burden, and Costs for Facilities and State Directors for the ICR Period** 

**Av erage A**  **nnual Respondents**  **Av erage A**  **nnual**

**Burden (hours) Av**  **erage A nnual** 

**Labor Costs (**  **2013 $)**  **Av erage A**  **nnual**

**Capital and O&M Costs (**  **2013 $)**  **Total A nnual** 

**Costs (2009$)** Facilities 472 965,509 $46,390,841 $10,535,205 $56,926,045 State Directors 42 44,513 $2,499,485 $52,869 $2,552,354

**Totals 514**  **1,010,02 1**  **$48,890,325 $10,588,074**  **$59,478,399 6e(ii).**  **Agency Tally** The bottom line burden hours and costs for the Fed eral agency are the total annual hours and costs collectively

incurred for all activities during the I CR 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 Append ix A.
**Table 11. Summary of A**  **verage A nnual A** **gency Burden and Costs for the ICR Period Av**  **erage A nnual**  **Burden (hours) Av**  **erage A nnual** 

**Labor Costs (**  **2013 $)**  **Av erage A**  **nnual**

**Capital and O&M Costs (**  **2013 $)**  **Total A nnual** 

**Costs ( 2013**  **$)** Agency Totals 1,82 9 $103,611 $1,609 $105,220November 201 3 39

**Table 12. Burden Comparison:**  **2010 vs.**  **2013 ICR for 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities**  **2013 2010**  **% Reason**  **for Change**  **Facility A ctivities**  **An nual**  **Av erage**  **An nual** 

**Av erage**  **Burden**

**Change NPDES Permit A**  **pplication A ctivities**  Start

- up Activities 1,421 1,421 0% Permit Application Activities 15,680 16,219

- 3% adjustment Proposal for Collection of Information for Comprehensive Demonstration Study 6,272 6,455

- 3% adjustment FW River/Stream Source W ater Body Flow Infor ma tion 1,110 1,300

- 15% adjustment FW Lake/Reservoir Source W ater Body Flow Information 616 571 8% adjustment Design and Construction Technology Plan (Impingement

Only ) 2,740 2,920

- 6% adjustment Design and Construction Technology Plan (Impingement & En trainment) 2,533 2,773

- 9% adjustment Freshwater Monitoring for Impingement Mortality & Entrainment Characterization Study 121,765 131,166

- 7% adjustment Marine Monitoring for Impingement Mortality & Entrainment Characterization Study 170,544 170,544 0% adjustment Impingement Mortality

& Entrainm ent Characterization

Study Initial Analysis 9,040 9,304

- 3% adjustment Impingement Mortality

& Entrainm ent Characterization

Study Final Report 9,280 10,000

- 7% adjustment Pilot Study

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

Impingement & Entrainment Monitoring

(Freshwater) for Pilot Study 0 0 0% Pilot Study

Impingement Monitoring Only (Marine) for Pilot

Study 0 0 0% Pilot Study

Impingement & Entrainment Monitoring

(Marin e) for Pilot Study 0 0 0% Verification Monitoring Plan 0 0 0% **NPDES Permit A pplication A** **ctivity Total** 341,002 352,674

- 3% adjustment **An nual A** **ctivities** Biological Monitoring for Impingement (Freshwater) 109,910 109,910 0% Biological Monitori ng for Impingement (Marine) 79,464 79,464 0% Biological Monitoring for Entrainment (Freshwater) 178,060 178,060 0% Biological Monitoring for Entrainment (Marine) 128,040 128,040 0%

Bi

- Annual Status Report Activities 107,380 107,380 0%

Verification Study 21,653 21,765

- 1% adjustment **An nual A** **ctivity Yearly Labor Total** 624,507 624,619 0% **Facility Yearly Labor Total** 965,509 977,293

- 1% adjustment **State Director A ctivities**  Director Start

- up Activities 0 0

- Director Permit Issuance Activ ities 24,583 26,319

- 7% adjustment Verification Study

Review 1,890 1,869 1% adjustment Alternative Regulatory

Requirements 0 0

- Annual Director Activities 18,040 18,040 0%

**Yearly Total** 44,513 46,228

- 4% adjustment **Respondents Total 1,010**  **,021 1,023,521**  **- 1%**  adjustmentNovember 201 3 40

**6f. Reasons for Change in Burden**  The current approved I CR for the 316(b) phase I I existing facilities was developed in 2010 . As shown in Table 12, the 2010 IC R estimated an annual average respondent burden of 1,0 23,521 hours. This I CR estimates an annual average respondent burden of 1,010,021 hours, which represents a 1 % decrease in burden. This marginal change is due to the variations of the compliance schedule from year to y ear. **6g. Burden Statement**  The annual average reporting and record keeping burden for the collection of information by facilities responding to the Section 316(b) Phase I I Existing Facility rule is estimated to be 2,0 46 hours per respondent (i.e., an annual average of 965,509 hours of burden divided among an anticipated annual average of 472 facilities). The state Director reporting and record keeping burden for the review, oversight, and administration of the rule is estimated to average 1, 060 hours per respondent (i.e., an annual average of 4 4 , 513 hours of burden divided among an anticipated 42 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 ag ency . This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology and sy stems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providin g information; adjust the existing way s 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; an d 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 display s a currently

valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA’s regulation s 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 techni ques, the Agency has established a public docket for this I CR under Docket I D No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0719 , which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), WJC 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 holiday s. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202

- 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202

- 566

- 2426. A n electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/. Use www.regulations.gov 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 sy stem, key in the docket I D number identified above. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov . Please inc lude the EPA Docket I D No. OW

- 2008

- 0719 and OMB control number 2040

- 0257 in any correspondence.