Information Collection Request for

Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities (Final

Rule)

OMB Control No. 2040-0257, EPA ICR No. 2060.07

August 2014

Prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science and Technology

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-009

EPA Work Assignment Number 3-19
August 2014 ii

CONTENTS

1. Identification of the Information Collection....................................................................... 1

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

1b. Short Characterization/Abstract ................................................................................... 1

2. Need for and Use of the Collection..................................................................................... 3

2a. Need/Authority for the Collection.................................................................................... 3

2a(i). Need for the Collection ......................................................................................... 3

2a(ii). Authority for the Collection .................................................................................. 3

2b. Practical Utility/Users of the Data................................................................................ 4

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

3a. Nonduplication................................................................................................................. 5

3b. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB.......................................... 5

3c. Consultations.................................................................................................................... 5

3d. Effects of Less Frequent Collection ............................................................................. 6

3e. General Guidelines........................................................................................................... 6

3f. Confidentiality.................................................................................................................. 6

3g. Sensitive Questions....................................................................................................... 6

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested .............................................................. 6

4a. Respondents/SIC/NAICS................................................................................................. 6

4b. Information Requested ................................................................................................. 8

4b(i). Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements.......................................... 8

4b(ii). Respondent Activities ......................................................................................... 17

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

Management.................................................................................................................................. 21

5a. Agency Activities........................................................................................................... 21

5b. Collection Methodology and Information Management ............................................ 21

5c. Small Entity Flexibility.................................................................................................. 22

5d. Collection Schedule.................................................................................................... 22

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

6a. Estimating Respondent Burden...................................................................................... 24

6b. Estimating Respondent Costs..................................................................................... 30

6b(i). Estimating Labor Costs....................................................................................... 30

6b(ii). Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs................................. 31

6c. Estimating Agency Burden and Costs............................................................................ 33

6d. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs............................ 33

6e. Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables................................................................ 33

6e(i). Respondent Tally................................................................................................. 33

6e(ii). Agency Tally....................................................................................................... 34

6f. Reasons for Change in Burden....................................................................................... 34

6g. Burden Statement ....................................................................................................... 35
August 2014 iii

TABLES

Table 1. Industry Sectors With Facilities Subject to the Final Rule........................................... 7

Table 2. Average per Facility Burden for each NPDES Permit Application Activity ............. 26

Table 3. Average State Director Burden for Activities ............................................................ 30

Table 4. Average per Facility Burden and Costs for each NPDES Permit Renewal Activity . 32

Table 5. Average State Director Burden and Costs for Activities............................................ 33

Table 6. Summary of Average Annual Respondents, Burden, and Costs for Facilities and State 

Directors for the ICR Period......................................................................................................... 34

Table 7. Summary of Average Annual Agency Burden and Costs for the ICR Period ........... 34

APPENDIX A Respondent Burden and Cost Analysis for the Information Collection 

Requirements of the Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities

(Final Rule)

APPENDIX B 20 Year Schedule for Facilities and Directors

APPENDIX C Compliance Schedule Summary and Other Assumptions
August 2014 1

1. Identification of the Information Collection

1a. Title of the Information Collection

TITLE: Information Collection Request for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing 

Facilities (Final Rule)

OMB Control Number: 2060-0257

EPA ICR Number: 2060.07

1b. Short Characterization/Abstract

The Section 316(b) Existing Facility Final Rule (rule) applies to existing facilities that use 

cooling water intake structures to withdraw water from waters of the United States and have or 

require an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit issued under 

section 402 of the CWA (Clean Water Act). See the preamble and rule at 79 FR 48300, August 

15, 2014. If a facility meets the conditions specified below (from § 125.91), it is subject to the 

rule. If a facility has or requires an NPDES permit but does not meet the 2 mgd intake flow 

threshold, it is subject to permit conditions implementing CWA section 316(b) developed by the 

NPDES permit director on a case-by-case basis using BPJ (best professional judgment). The rule 

applies to owners and operators of existing facilities that meet all of the following criteria:

 The facility is a point source;

 The facility uses or proposes to use one or more cooling water intake structures with a 

cumulative design intake flow (DIF) of greater than 2 million gallons per day (mgd) to 

withdraw water from waters of the United States; and

 Twenty-five percent or more of the water the facility withdraws on an actual intake flow 

basis is used exclusively for cooling purposes.

Generally, facilities that meet these criteria fall into two major groups: steam electric generating 

facilities and manufacturing facilities. The rule also makes limited corrections to the 

requirements for Phase I facilities (i.e., new facilities).1

The rule establishes national requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and 

capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that reflect the best technology

available for minimizing the adverse environmental impact – impingement and entrainment –

associated with the use of these structures. The rule requires several types of information 

collection as part of the NPDES permit application. In general, the information would be used to 

identify both how the facility plans to meet the rule requirements and if the facility is meeting the 

rule requirements. Specific data requirements that apply to all facilities are:

 Source water physical data which shows the physical configuration of all source 

waterbodies used by the facility, identifies and characterizes the source waterbody’s 

 

1 This ICR does not calculate the burden and costs associated with amendments related to the Phase I Rule, as the 

changes to the Phase I rule promulgated today do not materially affect the burden associated with compliance for 

Phase I facilities. See the preamble for a discussion of the amendments to the Phase I Rule. 
August 2014 2

hydrological and geomorphological features, and provides location through maps [§

122.21(r)(2)].

 Cooling water intake structure data which shows the configuration and location of 

cooling water intake structures, provides details on the design and operation of each 

cooling water intake structure, and diagrams showing flow distribution and water balance

[§ 122.21(r)(3)].

 Source water baseline biological characterization data that characterizes the biological 

community in the vicinity of the CWIS and characterizes the operation of the CWIS [§

122.21(r)(4)]. 

 Cooling water system data that describes the operation of the cooling water system, its 

relationship to the CWIS, the proportion of the design intake flow used in the system, the 

number of days the cooling water system is operational and seasonal changes in 

operation, as well as, design and engineering calculations to support these descriptions [§ 

122.21(r)(5)].

 Intended method of compliance information that describes how the facility will meet the 

impingement mortality standard; the specific requirements vary, depending on the 

compliance approach in § 125.94(c) chosen by the facility [122.21(r)(6)].

 Description of any biological survival studies conducted at the facility and a summary of 

any conclusions or results for entrainment related studies only [§ 122.21(r)(7)].

 Operational status data that describes the operational status of each generating, 

production, or process unit [§ 122.21(r)(8)].

In addition to the above requirements, existing facilities with actual intake flows in excess of 125 

mgd actual intake flow are required as part of the permit application process to submit an 

entrainment characterization study and related supporting information [(§ 122.21(r)(9)-(13)].

Facilities that withdraw less than 125 mgd actual intake flow do not have specific requirements 

for (§ 122.21(r)(9)-(13), but the Director may require additional information on a site-specific 

basis.2

Under the rule, a new unit at an existing facility that withdraws more than 2 mgd would have 

requirements similar to the requirements of a new facility in Phase I

3

. A new unit (as defined at § 

125.92(u)) is required to reduce flow commensurate with closed-cycle cooling. As with Track II 

of the Phase I rule, a facility could demonstrate compliance with entrainment control 

requirements by establishing reductions in entrainment mortality for the new unit that are 90 

percent of the reductions that would be achieved by closed-cycle cooling [§ 122.21(r)(14)].

Finally, facilities are required to maintain records of all submitted documents, supporting 

materials, and monitoring results for at least five years. Depending on the compliance method 

chosen, facilities may also be required to perform compliance monitoring to demonstrate that 

they are meeting the required level of impingement mortality.

 

2

For this ICR, no burden has been assigned for entrainment-related studies at § 122.21(r)(9)-(13) for facilities that 

withdraw less than 125 mgd actual intake flow, as it is not possible to project which facilities might be required to 

submit these studies.

3 The Clean Water Act section 316(b) rulemaking was divided into three phases to facilitate its development. Phase I 

refers to new facilities with one or more cooling water intake structures. This ICR is for the Existing Facilities rule, 

which responds to the remands of the Phase II and III rules. See Section II.C of the preamble for more information. 
August 2014 3

Authorized States would be required to update programs4to be consistent with the rule 

requirements, once they are published. State Directors would be required to also review all 

materials submitted to them by the facilities within the scope of the rule, confirm their 

compliance with the rule, and issue NPDES permits with appropriate conditions or establish 

more stringent requirements applicable with State or Federal law in order to minimize adverse 

environmental impact associated with the use of the facilities’ CWISs.

The primary users of the data collected would be States authorized to administer the NPDES 

permitting program, and the EPA. It is anticipated that other government agencies, both at the 

State and Federal level, as well as public interest groups, private companies, and many

individuals would also use the data.

The annual average reporting and record keeping burden for the collection of information by

facilities responding to the rule is estimated to be 588 hours per respondent (i.e., an annual 

average of 627,666 hours of burden divided among an anticipated annual average of 1,068

facilities). The state Director reporting and record keeping burden for the review, oversight, and 

administration of the rule is estimated to average 147 hours per respondent (i.e., an annual 

average of 6,930 hours of burden divided among an anticipated 47 States per year).

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 rule are necessary to ensure that existing facilities are 

complying with the rule’s provisions, and thereby minimizing adverse environmental impact 

resulting from impingement and entrainment losses due to the withdrawal of cooling water.

2a(ii). Authority for the Collection

Section 316 was included in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 for the express 

purpose of regulating thermal discharges and to address the environmental impact of CWISs. 

Moreover, Section 316(b) is the only provision in the CWA that focuses exclusively on water 

intake. Section 316(b) provides that, “[a]ny standard established pursuant to [CWA Section 301] 

or [CWA Section 306] and applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, 

construction, and capacity of CWISs reflect the BTA for minimizing adverse environmental 

impact.” The requirements of Section 316(b) are closely linked to several of the core elements 

(e.g., Sections 301, 304, 306 and 402) of the NPDES permit program established under the 

 

4 This ICR does not calculate the burden and costs associated with NPDES program modifications. Information 

requirements associated with NPDES program modifications are included in a separate ICR (OMB Control No. 

2040-0004, EPA ICR No. 0229.20).
August 2014 4

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 rule includes information that must be submitted to permitting authorities and data that must 

be collected and maintained on-site by the facility. Each existing facility maintains facility-level 

records of the characterization data, plans, measurements, diagrams, and calculations submitted 

to the Directors, as well as the analytical results of monitoring actions. Facilities could use the 

data to:

 Characterize environmental conditions and monitor existing CWIS performance;

 Determine appropriate design and construction technologies or operational measures; 

and/or 

 Monitor the performance of design 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 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 Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES). 

ICIS-NPDES is used to track permit limits, permit expiration dates, monitoring data, and other 

data, and provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of permit holders. 

EPA Headquarters uses the information contained in ICIS-NPDES database to develop reports 

on permit issuance, backlog, and compliance rates. The Agency also uses the information to 

respond to public and congressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, formulate its 

budgets, assist States in acquiring authority for permitting programs, and manage the NPDES 

program to ensure national consistency in permitting. States can use this initial permit 

information along with the additional documentation to track facility monitoring, compliance 

violations, and enforcement activities.

Permittees must reapply for NPDES permits every 5 years. The re-application process is the 

primary mechanism for obtaining up-to-date and new information concerning on-site conditions. 

Although under the rule, existing facilities provide data from self-monitoring activities in reports

(frequency varies from monthly, quarterly, or annually) to the permitting authority, these reports 

are a less comprehensive information-gathering process than the permit application process. EPA 

and States will use re-application data to identify new species at risk or other potential concerns 

that could lead the permit writers to take the following actions:

 Specify additional permit limitations;

 Assess compliance with applicable standard requirements; or

 Place appropriate special conditions in permits.

Environmental and citizen groups are expected to use the data collected under the rule to 

independently assess impingement and entrainment rates for affected waterbodies in their 
August 2014 5

location. In addition, the data will be useful for the scientific community for assessing the impact 

of CWISs on recreational and commercial fisheries productivity and aquatic ecosystem health.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The following sections verify and affirm that this ICR satisfies the Office of Management and 

Budget’s (OMB) data-collection guidelines, has public support, and does not duplicate another 

collection.

3a. Nonduplication

Given that the rule applies to existing facilities, current data sources may already exist for the 

information required under the rule. Therefore, it was important that EPA review existing data 

sources to identify currently available information on entities subject to Section 316(b) 

regulation and to ensure that the data requested by the rule are not otherwise accessible. Data 

sources reviewed included data collected by offices within EPA; data, reports, and analyses 

published by other Federal agencies; reports and analyses published by industry; and publicly 

available financial information compiled by government and private organizations. From this 

effort, EPA has determined that the information collection and reporting requirements considered 

in this ICR are not contained or duplicated in other routinely collected documents or reports.

3b. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

EPA proposed rule revisions in the Federal Register on April 20, 2011 (76 FR 22263) for a 90 

day comment period, and extended the comment period by 30 days (76 FR 43230). In addition, 

EPA issued two supplemental notices of data availability each with a 30 day comment period on 

June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34315) and June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34927). The public was thus afforded 

multiple opportunities to comment on the proposed rule requirements and the related ICR. This 

ICR was revised and published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2014 (79 FR 30605). The 

notice included a request for comments on the content and impact of these information collection 

requirements on the regulated community. EPA received six comments on this ICR and has 

responded to these in a separate Response to Comments document. 

3c. Consultations

The preamble to the rule describes how EPA actively involved interested parties in the 

development of the rule. EPA headquarters staff has worked extensively with its regional offices 

and numerous States to develop the requirements and related burden/cost assumptions described 

in this ICR. 

EPA consulted with State governments and representatives of local governments in developing 

the rule. The outreach activities are discussed in section III.A.3 of the preamble to the proposed 

rule (see 76 FR 22268, April 20, 2011) and Chapter 2 of the TDD. EPA has also conducted 

additional outreach since the proposed rule, including several conference calls with the 

Association of Clean Water Administrators (including numerous states) and small business 

representatives (including some local government officials). EPA also combined its efforts and 

collected input from state and local government entities during development of the proposed 
August 2014 6

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point 

Source Category, which shares many of the same affected facilities as today’s final rule; see 78 

FR 34530 (June 7, 2013) for more information. State and local officials attended numerous site 

visits with EPA’s staff, enabling EPA to gather their input; see DCNs 10-6510, 10-6518, 10-

6520, 10-6521, 10-6523 and 10-6524. EPA also responded to requests for information from 

multiple state and local governments. EPA also attended conferences and participated in 

workgroups (such as NARUC’s 2013 Winter Committee Meetings) where additional information 

about state and local government interests were presented. Historically, EPA has also conducted 

a great deal of outreach in developing the previous 316(b) regulations over the past decade; for 

example, see the Phase I final preamble (66 FR 65331, December 18, 2001), the Phase II final 

preamble (69 FR 41677, July 9, 2004), and the Phase III final preamble (71 FR 35037, June 16, 

2006).

3d. Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA has concluded that less frequent data collection may fail to identify in a timely manner 

adverse environmental impact resulting from the operation of existing CWISs. In addition, less 

frequent collection would also hinder the ability of EPA, States, and facility operators to take 

advantage of technological improvements in impingement and entrainment technologies as they 

become available, or to track long-term trends.

3e. General Guidelines

The information collection requirements of the rule are in accordance with the PRA guidelines at 

Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1320.5(d)(2). Requests for supplemental 

information for the purposes of emergency response or enforcement activities are exempt from 

the PRA requirements.

3f. Confidentiality

Applications for an NPDES permit may contain confidential business information. However, 

EPA does not consider the specific information being requested by the rule to be typical of 

confidential business or personal information. If a respondent does consider this information to 

be of a confidential nature, the respondent may request that such information be treated as such. 

All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and 

EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976.

3g. Sensitive Questions

The rule does not require respondents to divulge information pertaining to private or personal

information, such as sexual behavior or religious beliefs. Therefore, this section is not applicable.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4a. Respondents/SIC/NAICS

The rule includes all existing facilities that were previously subject to the 2004 Phase II rule, but 

also expands the scope of the rule to include other groups of facilities that were previously
August 2014 7

addressed under the 316(b) Phase III rule, including existing small power producers and existing 

manufacturers of all sizes. The rule also clarifies the applicability of the rule to new units at 

existing facilities.

The rule would apply to owners and operators of existing facilities that meet all of the following 

criteria:

 The facility is a point source;

 The facility uses or proposes to use one or more cooling water intake structures with a 

cumulative design intake flow (DIF) of greater than 2 million gallons per day (mgd) to 

withdraw water from waters of the United States; and

 Twenty-five percent or more of the water the facility withdraws on an actual intake flow 

basis is used exclusively for cooling purposes.

As a result, the rule would apply to all existing power plants and all existing manufacturing 

facilities that meet the above criteria.

Respondents include existing electric power generating facilities, including traditional steam 

electric utilities and nonutility power producers. The rule also applies to existing manufacturing 

and industrial facilities. EPA’s anticipates that the regulated manufacturing facilities will be 

largely concentrated in five industrial sectors: chemicals and allied products; primary metals 

industries; paper and allied products; petroleum and coal products; and food and kindred 

products. The first four sectors use a significant portion of the cooling water withdrawn among 

all manufacturing industries, but EPA also anticipates respondents in other industries provided in 

Table 1 below, which lists industry sectors of facilities subject to this final rule. This table is not 

intended to be exhaustive; facilities in other industries not listed in Table 1 could also be 

regulated. Any facility that meets the criteria at § 125.91 is subject to the final rule, regardless of 

the industry sector. The 4-digit NAICS industry sectors may include 6-digit NAICS industry subsectors with operations not dependent on cooling water.

Table 1. Industry Sectors With Facilities Subject to the Final Rule

4-Digit NAICS Industry Sectors NAICS Definition

Electric Power Industry

2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission and 

Distribution

Primary Manufacturing Industries

3112 Grain and Oilseed Milling

3113 Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing

3121 Beverage Manufacturing

3221 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills

3222 Converted Paper Product Manufacturing

3241 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing

3251 Basic Chemical Manufacturing

3252 Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic 

Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing

3253 Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural 
August 2014 8

4-Digit NAICS Industry Sectors NAICS Definition

Chemical Manufacturing

3254 Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing

3256 Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation 

Manufacturing

3259 Other Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing

3311 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing

3312 Steel Product Manufacturing from Purchased Steel

3313 Alumina and Aluminum Production and Processing

Other Industries

1119 Other Crop Farming

2122 Metal Ore Mining

3133 Textile and Fabric Finishing and Fabric Coating 

Mills

3211 Sawmills and Wood Preservation

3314 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production 

and Processing

3322 Cutlery and Handtool Manufacturing

3329 Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing

3364 Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing

3391 Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing

4b. Information Requested

The following sections provide details on data items requested and associated activities that are 

required under the rule. The two principal respondent categories are existing facilities subject to 

the rule and NPDES program Directors (i.e., States and Territories authorized under CWA 

Section 402(b) to administer the NPDES permit program, and EPA Regional offices). There are 

currently 46 States and the Virgin Islands authorized under CWA Section 402(b) to implement 

the NPDES permit program.

Information requirements for existing facilities will differ depending on the compliance 

alternative selected by the applicant. As discussed in Section VI of the final rule preamble, seven

compliance alternatives are available to an existing facility. Facilities with pre-approved 

technologies or adopting the streamlined compliance alternatives have different or fewer 

information requirements. Certain information requirements are applicable to all existing 

permitted facilities; other information requirements apply on the basis of the volume of water 

that the facility withdraws. With the exception of reading the rule, all of the information 

collection requirements discussed in this section are explicitly required by the rule.

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

Data items required by the rule are gathered for either record keeping or reporting purposes. 

There are several data items that are collected before permit application, other that are required 

during the permit application process and others that are required to be collected on an annual 

basis. 
August 2014 9

The rule requires Directors to prepare or submit only one additional report (see § 125.98(k)) 

beyond what is currently required of them under the NPDES program. This report is an 

aggregation of any monitoring required of facilities for measures to protect threatened and 

endangered species. However, Directors need to review, maintain records of, and make 

permitting determinations on the basis of all documents and reports submitted to them by

existing facilities.

Application Requirements

At the time a facility submits its NPDES application (as specified in the regulations), the rule 

requires all existing facilities to submit information demonstrating that it is or will be employing 

the best technology available for its cooling water intake structure to minimize adverse 

environmental impact in compliance with section 316(b) of the CWA. The information is used to 

identify which of the requirements in the rule apply to the facility, how the facility is meeting 

these requirements, and whether the facility is meeting the goal of minimizing adverse 

environmental impact. Seven types of information under § 122.21(r) are required to be included 

in the NPDES permit applications for all existing facilities: (1) § 122.21(r)(2), source water 

physical data; (2) § 122.21(r)(3), cooling water intake structure data; (3) § 122.21(r)(4), source 

water baseline biological characterization data; (4) § 122.21(r)(5), cooling water system data; (5) 

§ 122.21(r)(6), intended method of compliance; (6) § 122.21(r)(7) performance studies; and (7) § 

122.21(r)(8), operational status.

5

Source Water Physical Data § 122.21(r)(2)

Existing facilities are required to submit the following information to evaluate potential impact 

to the waterbody in which the intake structure is placed:

 A narrative description and scaled drawings showing the physical configuration of all 

source waterbodies used by your facility, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity and 

temperature regimes, and other documentation that supports your determination of the 

waterbody type where each cooling water intake structure is located;

 Identification and characterization of the source waterbody’s hydrological and 

geomorphological features, as well as the methods you used to conduct any physical 

studies to determine your intake’s area of influence within the waterbody and the results 

of such studies; and 

 Locational maps.

Cooling Water Intake Structure Data § 122.21(r)(3),

The facility must submit the following information for each cooling water intake structure used:

 

5

For this ICR, the number of respondents for each application requirement varies. For requirements (r)(2)-(5), (7) 

and (8), the numbers of respondents is based on the total number of facilities covered by the final rule. For (r)(9)-

(13), the number of respondents is based on the total number of facilities that withdraw more than 125 mgd AIF. For 

(r)(6), the number of respondents is apportioned at the intake level based on the estimated compliance approach for 

each model facility’s intake structures. As a result, a given facility could have more than one submittal under (r)(6), 

if it chooses a different compliance option for each intake.
August 2014 10

 A narrative description of the configuration of each of your cooling water intake 

structures and where it is located in the waterbody and in the water column;

 Latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds for each of your cooling water 

intake structures;

 A narrative description of the operation of each of your cooling water intake structures, 

including design intake flows, daily hours of operation, number of days of the year in 

operation and seasonal changes, if applicable;

 A flow distribution and water balance diagram that includes all sources of water to the 

facility, recirculating flows, and discharges; and

 Engineering drawings of the cooling water intake structure.

Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data § 122.21(r)(4)

Each facility must submit information in accordance with § 122.21(r)(4) in order to characterize 

the biological community in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure and to characterize 

the operation of the cooling water intake structures. This supporting information must include 

any available existing data but can be supplemented using newly conducted field studies. The 

information the facility is required to submit must include:

 A list of the data in paragraphs § 122.21(r)(4)(ii) through (vi) that are not available and 

efforts made to identify sources of the data;

 A list of species (or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the 

vicinity of each cooling water intake structure;

 Identification of the species and life stages that would be most susceptible to 

impingement and entrainment. Species evaluated must include the forage base as well as 

those most important in terms of significance to commercial and recreational fisheries;

 Identification and evaluation of the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment, 

and period of peak abundance for relevant taxa;

 Data representative of the seasonal and daily activities (e.g., feeding and water column 

migration) of biological organisms in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure;

 Identification of all threatened, endangered, and other protected species that might be 

susceptible to impingement or entrainment at the cooling water intake structures;

 Documentation of any public participation or consultation with Federal or State agencies 

undertaken in development of the plan in the case of a new facility or source water 

biological characterization for an existing facility; and

 If the information requested in paragraph § 122.21(r)(4)(i) is supplemented with data 

collected using field studies, supporting documentation for the Source Water Baseline 

Biological Characterization must include a description of all methods and quality

assurance procedures for sampling and monitoring, and/or data analysis including a 

description of the study area; taxonomic identification of sampled and evaluated 

biological assemblages (including all life stages of fish and shellfish); and sampling and 

data analysis methods. The sampling, and/or data analysis methods you use must be 

appropriate for a quantitative survey and based on consideration of methods used in other 

biological studies performed within the same source waterbody. The study area should 

include, at a minimum, the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure.

 For the owner or operator of an existing facility, identification of protective measures and 

stabilization activities that have been implemented, and a description of how these 
August 2014 11

measures and activities affected the baseline water condition in the vicinity of the intake.

 For the owner or operator of an existing facility, a list of fragile species, as defined at 40 

CFR 125.92(m), at your facility. You need only identify those species not already 

identified as fragile at 40 CFR 125.92(m). New units at an existing facility are not 

required to resubmit this information if the cooling water withdrawn for the operation of 

the new unit is from an existing intake.

 For the owner or operator of an existing facility that has obtained incidental take 

exemption or authorization for its cooling water intake structure(s) from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, any information submitted 

in order to obtain that exemption or authorization may be used to satisfy the permit 

application information requirement of paragraph 40 CFR 125.95(f) if included in the 

application.

Cooling Water System Data § 122.21(r)(5)

The existing facility must submit the following information for the cooling water system:

 A narrative description of the operation of the cooling water system and its relationship to 

cooling water intake structures; the proportion of the design intake flow that is used in the 

system; the number of days of the year the cooling water system is in operation and 

seasonal changes in the operation of the system, if applicable; at existing facilities, the 

proportion of design intake flow for contact cooling, non-contact cooling, and process 

uses; for existing facilities, a distribution of water reuse to include cooling water reused 

as process water, process water reused for cooling, and the use of gray water for cooling; 

for existing facilities, a description of reductions in total water withdrawals including 

cooling water intake flow reductions already achieved through minimized process water 

withdrawals; for existing facilities, a description of any cooling water that is used in a 

manufacturing process either before or after it is used for cooling, including other 

recycled process water flows; for existing facilities, the proportion of the source 

waterbody withdrawn (on a monthly basis);

 Design and engineering calculations prepared by a qualified professional and supporting 

data to support the description required by paragraph (r)(5)(i) of this section; and

 Description of existing impingement and entrainment technologies or operational 

measures and a summary of their performance, including but not limited to reductions in 

impingement mortality and entrainment due to intake location and reductions in total 

water withdrawals and usage.

Intended Method of Compliance with Impingement Mortality Standard § 122.21(r)(6)

The existing facility must identify the chosen compliance method under § 125.94(c) for the

entire facility (or each cooling water intake structure).

If the facility chooses to comply via § 125.94(c)(5) or (6), it must also submit an impingement 

technology performance optimization study.

For facilities that choose to comply with § 125.94(c)(5), the impingement technology

performance optimization study must include two years of biological monitoring measuring the 

reduction in impingement mortality achieved by the modified traveling screens as defined at 40 
August 2014 12

CFR 125.92(s) and demonstrating that its operation has been optimized to minimize 

impingement mortality. If the applicant intends to return organisms to a different waterbody from 

which they are withdrawn, the applicant must request that the Director consider this in the 

permit. The facility must include a complete description of its traveling screens and associated 

equipment. The facility must also provide a description of any monitoring and monitoring 

approach used in measuring impingement mortality, including:

 For this demonstration, the facility must sample no less frequently than monthly. The 

Director may establish more frequent monitoring;

 Biological monitoring must be representative of the impingement and the impingement 

mortality at the intakes subject to this provision;

 A taxonomic identification to the lowest taxon possible of all organisms monitored;

 The method in which naturally moribund organisms are identified and taken into account;

 The method in which mortality due to holding times is taken into account;

 If the facility entraps fish or shellfish, the facility must count the entrapment of organisms 

as impingement mortality;

 The percent impingement mortality reflecting optimized operation of the facility’s 

modified traveling screen and all supporting calculations.

For facilities that choose to comply with § 125.94(c)(6), the impingement technology

performance optimization study must include biological monitoring measuring the reduction in 

impingement mortality achieved by operation of the system of technologies, operational 

measures and best management practices and demonstrating that operation of the system has 

been optimized to minimize impingement mortality. This system of technologies, operational 

measures and best management practices may include flow reductions, seasonal operation, unit 

closure, credit for intake location, and behavioral deterrent systems. The facility must document 

how each system element contributes to the system’s performance. The facility must include a 

minimum of two years of biological monitoring measuring the reduction in impingement 

mortality achieved by its system. The facility must also include a description of any sampling or 

monitoring approach used in measuring the rate of impingement, impingement mortality, or flow 

reductions. The study must also incorporate the following elements, as described at §

125.94(c)(6)(ii) and only summarized here:

 If the facility’s demonstration relies in part on a credit for reductions in the rate of 

impingement in your system, it must provide an estimate of those reductions to be used as 

credit towards reducing impingement mortality, and any relevant supporting 

documentation, including previously conducted performance studies not already

submitted to the Director as part of (r)(7). 

 If the facility’s demonstration relies in part on a credit for reductions in impingement 

mortality already obtained at the facility, it must include two years of biological 

monitoring demonstrating the level of impingement mortality your system is capable of 

achieving.

 If the facility’s demonstration relies in part on flow reduction to reduce impingement, it

must include two years of intake flows, measured daily, as part of your demonstration, 

and describe the extent to which flow reductions are seasonal or intermittent.

 The facility must document the percent impingement mortality reflecting optimized 
August 2014 13

operation of its total system of technologies, operational measures, and best management 

practices and all supporting calculations.

Entrainment Performance Studies § 122.21(r)(7)

Existing facilities must submit a description of any biological survival studies conducted at the 

facility and a summary of any conclusions or results, including the following: site-specific 

studies addressing technology efficacy, through-facility entrainment survival, and entrainment 

mortality studies, as well as studies conducted at other locations including a justification as to 

why the data are relevant and representative of conditions at the facility. Because of changes in 

the waterbody over time, studies older than 10 years must include an explanation of why the data 

are still relevant and representative of conditions at the facility. If the data are no longer relevant 

and representative, the Director may reject the data. The Director uses such studies when 

establishing technology-based requirements for entrainment. Permit applicants are not required 

to conduct new studies to fulfill this requirement; this requirement is intended to obtain results 

for relevant studies that have already been conducted as part of past permit proceedings or for 

other purposes even if those studies were not completed or conducted entirely as planned.

Operational Status § 122.21(r)(8)

The existing facility must submit a description of the operational status of each generating, 

production, or process unit, including but not limited to:

 For power production or steam generation, descriptions of individual unit operating status 

including age of each unit, capacity utilization (or equivalent) for the previous 5 years

(including any extended or unusual outages that significantly affect current data for flow, 

impingement, entrainment, or other factors, including identification of any operating unit 

with a capacity utilization of less than 8 percent for each of the previous 5 years and 

maintained solely to generate power for emergency purposes), and any major upgrades 

completed within the last 15 years, including but not limited to boiler replacement, 

condenser replacement, turbine replacement, or changes to fuel type;

 Descriptions of completed, approved, or scheduled uprates and Nuclear Regulatory

Commission relicensing status of each unit at nuclear facilities;

 For processes other than power or steam generation, descriptions of individual production 

processes and product lines, operating status including age of each line, seasonal 

operation, including any extended or unusual outages that significantly affect current data 

for flow, impingement, entrainment, or other factors, any major upgrades completed 

within the last 15 years, and plans or schedules for decommissioning or replacement of 

process units or production processes and product lines;

 For all manufacturing facilities, descriptions of current and future production schedules; 

and

 Descriptions of plans or schedules for any new units planned within the next 5 years.

Additional Application Requirements for Entrainment

The rule requires existing facilities that withdraw more than 125 mgd AIF of water for cooling 

purposes to prepare several studies that would fully characterize the extent of entrainment at the 

facility These facilities are required to submit to the Director additional application studies 
August 2014 14

including entrainment characterization study § 122.21(r)(9); comprehensive technical feasibility

and cost evaluation study § 122.21(r)(10); benefits valuation study § 122.21(r)(11); and a nonwater quality environmental and other impacts study § 122.21(r)(12); and peer review of 

applicable studies § 122.21(r)(13).

Entrainment Characterization Study § 122.21(r)(9)

The Entrainment Characterization Study provides data necessary to evaluate entrainment for that 

facility. The study will include a minimum of two years of entrainment monitoring. The study 

will include an entrainment mortality data collection plan that will indicate, at a minimum, the 

specific entrainment monitoring methods, a characterization of all life stages of fish, shellfish, 

and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal Law (including threatened or 

endangered species), and documentation of the current entrainment of all those life stages of fish, 

shellfish, and any protected species.

Comprehensive Technical Feasibility and Cost Evaluation Study § 122.21(r)(10)

The facility must perform and submit, in accordance with § 122.21(r)(10), the results of a 

comprehensive technical feasibility and cost evaluation study that includes:

 An evaluation of technical feasibility of closed-cycle cooling and fine-mesh screens with 

a mesh size of 2mm or smaller, reuse of water or alternate sources of cooling water, and 

any other entrainment reduction [§ 122(r)(10)(i)(A)-(D)]; and any other entrainment 

reduction technologies identified by the facility or requested by the Director [§ 

122(r)(10)(ii)]; and

 Engineering cost estimates for all technologies in § 122(r)(10)(i) and (ii). These costs 

must be presented as both the facility’s compliance costs and the social costs, and in net 

present value (NPV) terms and the corresponding annual value.

Benefits Valuation Study § 122.21(r)(11)

The facility must submit a detailed discussion of the magnitude of water quality benefits, both 

monetized and non-monetized, of the candidate entrainment mortality reduction technologies 

evaluated in § 122.21(r)(10) and using the Entrainment Characterization Study completed in § 

122.21(r)(9), including incremental changes in the impingement mortality and entrainment 

mortality of fish and shellfish, and monetization of these changes to the extent appropriate and 

feasible using the best available scientific, engineering, and economic information. This 

information must include but is not limited to:

 Incremental changes in the numbers of fish and shellfish, for all life stages, lost due to 

impingement mortality and entrainment as defined in § 125.92;

 Description of basis for any estimates of changes in the stock sizes or harvest levels of 

commercial and recreational fish or shellfish species or forage fish species;

 Identification of basis for any monetized or qualitatively assessed values assigned to 

changes in commercial and recreational species, forage fish, and shellfish, and to any 

other ecosystem or non-use benefits;

 A discussion of mitigation efforts completed prior to the effective date of the final rule 

including how long they have been in effect and how effective they have been;
August 2014 15

 Identification of other benefits to the environment and local communities, including but 

not limited to improvements for mammals, birds, and other organisms and aquatic 

habitats and

 Estimates of benefits resulting from any reductions in thermal discharges from 

entrainment technologies.

Non-Water Quality Environmental and Other Impacts Study § 122.21(r)(12)

The facility must submit a detailed site-specific discussion of the changes in non-water quality

factors and other environmental impacts attributed to each technology and operational measure 

considered in § 122.21(r)(10), including but not limited to both increases and decreases of each 

factor. The study must include the following:

 Estimates of changes to energy consumption, including but not limited to turbine 

backpressure energy penalties;

 Estimates of air pollutant emissions and of the human health and environmental impacts 

associated with such emissions;

 Estimates of changes in noise;

 A discussion of impacts to safety, including documentation of the potential for plumes, 

icing, and availability of emergency cooling water;

 A discussion of facility reliability, including but not limited to facility availability, 

production of steam, impacts to production based on process unit heating or cooling, and

reliability due to cooling water availability;

 Significant changes in consumption of water, including a facility-specific comparison of 

the evaporative losses of both once-through cooling and closed-cycle recirculating 

systems, and documentation of impacts attributable to changes in water consumption; and

 A discussion of all reasonable attempts to mitigate each of these factors;

Peer Review § 122.21(r)(13)

Existing facilities must provide for peer review of the permit application studies required at §

122.21(r)(10) comprehensive technical feasibility and cost evaluation study, § 122.21(r)(11) 

benefits valuation study, and § 122.21(r)(12) non-water quality environmental and other impacts 

study. While facilities that withdraw more than 125 mgd AIF must conduct these studies and 

therefore must provide for peer review, facilities that withdraw equal to or less than 125 mgd

AIF may have study requirements including peer review as determined by the Director.

Application Requirements for New Units

New Units at Existing Facilities § 122.21(r)(14)

The rule establishes requirements for a new unit constructed at an existing facility that are 

different than the requirements that otherwise apply at an existing facility. New units at existing 

facilities choosing to comply with § 125.94(e)(1) must provide an update to the facility’s 

previously submitted information that describes the changes to these documents as a result of the 

addition of the new unit as described above for parts § 122.21(r)(2)-(5) and applicable provisions 

of (r)(6) and (r)(8). 
August 2014 16

New units at existing facilities will, in most cases, employ closed-cycle cooling and application 

materials required under § 122.21(r)(9)-(13) may not be necessary. However, if the facility

chooses to comply with § 125.94(e)(2) then the facility would be required to submit the materials 

required under § 122.21(r)(9)-(13).6

Annual Reporting Requirements

The rule requires a facility to submit an annual certification statement signed by the responsible 

corporate officer [§ 125.97(c)]. This statement will indicate that each technology is being 

maintained and operated as set forth in its permit, or a justification to allow modification of the 

practices listed in the facility’s most recent annual certification. If the Director has approved 

impingement mortality or entrainment mortality compliance alternatives, the statement must 

specify whether information submitted in the most recent annual certification is still valid and 

appropriate, and it must provide a justification for allowing any modification of the practices 

listed in the most recent annual certification. If the Director has approved the impingement 

mortality maximum intake velocity compliance alternative and the facility cannot document a 

design intake velocity for the intake equal to or less than 0.5 fps, the statement would include 

data and information documenting compliance with the maximum allowable intake velocity.

If the information in the previous year’s annual certification is still applicable, the statement 

would simply state as such and, along with any applicable data submission requirements 

specified in this section, could constitute the annual certification. However, if the organism 

density has changed significantly or the facility has substantially modified its operation of any

unit that affects cooling water withdrawals or operation of cooling water intake structures, it 

would submit revisions to the information required in the permit application.

Furthermore, existing facilities would be required to prepare and submit an annual report that 

details compliance with requirements set by the rule and with any additional provisions specified 

within the permit.

Other Reporting Requirements

Existing facilities that establish a compliance schedule under § 125.94(b) must submit status 

reports as to the progress of the facility toward meeting the schedule established by the Director. 

These reports may include updates on biological monitoring, technology testing results, 

construction schedules, or other appropriate topics and serve as milestones for the facility and the 

Director to evaluate the progress of the facility in meeting BTA.

Facilities must also report any monitoring, demonstration, and other information required by the 

permit sufficient to determine compliance with the permit requirements established under § 

125.94, as well as any other monitoring requirements specified in the permit.

 

6 The estimated number of new units is based on the analysis shown in Chapter 8 of the Technical Development 

Document. This analysis estimates the amount of electricity that will be brought online each year, including the 

amount that will result from the construction of a new unit. EPA then used a generic assumption as to the size of a 

new unit to calculate the estimated number of new units that would come online each year. The number of new 

manufacturing units was assumed to be the same number, but was adjusted slightly downward to account for the 

smaller proportion of manufacturing facilities (46.8% of the total universe).
August 2014 17

Record Keeping Requirements

All operators of existing facilities are required to keep records of the information and data 

submitted to the Director. Records are required to be maintained for a period of 5 years from the 

date of permit issuance. 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; and

 Any compliance monitoring data submitted under § 125.96.

4b(ii). Respondent Activities 

As mentioned above, respondents include existing facilities, new units at existing facilities and 

NPDES permit program Directors. Their information collection activities are described below.

Start-Up Activities

All existing facilities subject to the rule will need to perform start-up activities such as reading 

the rule, planning for the implementation of the rule, option selection and facility classification 

analysis. As noted above, all existing facilities are required to submit application materials to the 

Director as required by the rule.

Permit Application Activities

Activities performed during the permit application process are performed only once during each 

ICR period. However, these application activities, if applicable, are repeated again during the 

fifth year of the permit cycle as part of the permit renewal process.

As noted above, all existing facilities, including facilities that already employ closed-cycle 

cooling, are required to complete and submit information for their permit application: source 

water physical data § 122.21(r)(2), cooling water intake structure data § 122.21(r)(3), source 

water baseline biological characterization data § 122.21(r)(4), cooling water system data § 

122.21(r)(5), intended method of compliance § 122.21(r)(6), entrainment performance studies § 

122.21(r)(7); and operational status § 122.21(r)(8).

All existing facilities that withdraw more than 125 mgd AIF of water for cooling purposes must 

also submit additional permit application information to fully characterize the extent of 

entrainment at the facility. The rule adds the permit application requirements at § 122.21(r)(9)-

(13) to require the facility to prepare several studies, including an Entrainment Characterization 

Study. In addition, under the rule, the facility would provide detailed information on the other 

factors relevant to the Director’s site-specific BTA determination. These would include 

information concerning the technologies available for control of such entrainment, the costs of 

controls, the non-water quality impacts of such controls, the monetized and non-monetized 

benefits of such controls, and the presence of any threatened and endangered species.

This ICR explains these activities, in terms of the type of information submission they require, in 

detail in Section 4(b)(i)(1) above. However, any respondent can engage in preparing basic 

information. This includes reading and reviewing instructions and regulatory requirements, 
August 2014 18

gathering general information, consulting technical and legal officials, reviewing guidance 

materials, typing or filling out forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other materials, 

maintaining records, and mailing completed submissions. Each of these requirements is 

described in more detail in Section 6 of this ICR.

Recurring Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Activities

Monitoring for Impingement Mortality Requirements

Existing facilities subject to the rule may be required to conduct impingement monitoring and 

submit the results of the monitoring. There are several types of monitoring: biological, flow, and 

velocity. In general, biological monitoring involves collecting data on aquatic organisms trapped 

on the outer part of an intake structure or against screening devices during periods of cooling 

water withdrawal, to determine the taxa and abundance of impinged organisms. Additionally, 

specific monitoring activities may include:

 Collecting samples to monitor impingement rates for each species over a 24-hour period, 

no less than once per month when the cooling water intake structure is in operation;

 Enumerating impinged organisms;

 Performing statistical analyses to summarize rates; and

 Maintaining records of impingement monitoring results for at least three years.

Flow monitoring consists of collecting data on the facility’s cooling water withdrawals, typically 

on a daily basis. Similarly, velocity monitoring consists of collecting data on a facility’s intake 

velocity, typically on a continuous basis to ensure that the velocity does not exceed the 0.5 fps 

threshold.

The specific impingement monitoring provisions for existing facilities subject to § 125.94(b) 

vary depending on the compliance approach selected by the facility. These specific monitoring 

provisions include the following under each compliance approach:

Closed-cycle Cooling

Facilities using a fully closed-cycle cooling system must monitor the intake flow (including 

makeup and blowdown, as applicable) daily to verify that the technology is being properly 

operated. The facility must also submit a monthly calculation of flow (based on daily flows) 

verifying that its withdrawals are commensurate with those of a closed-cycle system.

Additionally, for a new unit at an existing facility, the facility must submit a monthly calculation 

of flow (based on daily flows) verifying that its withdrawals for the new unit are commensurate 

with those of a closed-cycle system.

Velocity – Design Intake Flow (DIF) 

Velocity monitoring is not required under this approach if the facility has documented to the 

satisfaction of the Director that that its design through-screen intake velocity cannot exceed 0.5 

feet per second.

Velocity – Actual Intake Flow (AIF)
August 2014 19

Facilities must monitor the intake velocity daily to demonstrate the intake velocity is consistent 

with the requirements of § 125.94(c)(3). The facility must submit monthly reports documenting 

the actual intake velocity, based on the daily measurements of flow or velocity at the facility.

Velocity Cap

Facilities using an existing offshore velocity cap must monitor the intake flow daily to verify that 

the technology is being properly operated; flows must be commensurate with the design of the 

velocity cap to ensure that adequate horizontal flows are being generated to generate a flight 

response in nearby fish. The facility must submit a monthly calculation of flow (based on daily

flows) verifying that its withdrawals are consistent with the expected operating parameters for 

the velocity cap.

Modified Traveling Screens and Systems of Technologies

If your facility chooses to comply under § 125.94(c)(5) or (6), there are no monitoring 

requirements for impingement mortality once the impingement technology performance 

optimization study has been completed and the Director has reviewed and approved of the study

and the permit conditions it creates. There may be monitoring requirements associated with the 

permit conditions developed by the Director. However, any potential monitoring activities are 

unknown and are not included in this ICR.

Impingement Mortality Performance Standard

Existing facilities complying with this compliance approach would need to perform biological 

monitoring and any additional monitoring specified by the Director. The facility must follow the 

monitoring frequencies identified in the permit after the initial permit issuance. After that time, 

the Director may modify the program based on changes in physical or biological conditions in 

the vicinity of the cooling water intake structures. The facility must also submit monthly reports 

documenting intake impingement mortality biological measurements and compliance monitoring 

data that documents compliance with the requirements of § 125.94(c)(7).

Monitoring for Entrainment Requirements

Entrainment requirements for existing facilities will be established by the Director on a sitespecific basis. As such, any potential entrainment monitoring activities are unknown and are not 

included in this ICR.

Under § 125.96(c), new units at existing facilities will be required to conduct compliance 

monitoring to demonstrate flow reductions consistent with the requirements of § 125.94(e), or 

equivalent impingement and entrainment reductions. In general, the facility must conduct 

entrainment monitoring, which involves the collection of data on eggs, larvae, and other plankton 

incorporated with cooling water flow (entering and passing through a cooling water intake 

structure and into a cooling water system), to determine the taxa and abundance of entrained 

organisms.

Visual or Remote Inspections

All existing facilities must conduct visual inspections or employ remote monitoring devices 

during the period the cooling water intake structure is in operation. Visual inspections must be 

conducted at least weekly to ensure that any design and construction technologies required in § 
August 2014 20

125.94 are maintained and operated to ensure that they will continue to function as designed. 

Alternatively, the facility must inspect via remote monitoring devices to ensure that the 

impingement and entrainment technologies are functioning as designed. Specific activities may

include:

 Visually inspecting all installed technologies or, alternatively, inspecting via remote 

monitoring devices to confirm that the impingement and entrainment technologies are 

functioning as designed; and

 Maintaining records of operational monitoring results for at least three years.

Annual Certification and Report

Additionally, all facilities subject to the rule are required submit an annual certification statement 

and prepare and submit an annual report that details compliance with requirements set by the rule

and with any additional provisions specified within the permit. Reporting and recordkeeping 

require:

 Draft the certification statement or letter; 

 Compiling biological monitoring records for each cooling water intake structure;

 Compiling velocity and head loss monitoring records for each cooling water intake 

structure;

 Compiling records of visual or remote inspections; and

 Maintaining a copy of the report for a period of five years after its submission.

Director Activities

NPDES program Directors ensure the implementation of the rule. The Director should review 

materials submitted by the applicant during the initial permit application process and prior to 

each renewal period thereafter to determine if there have been any changes in facility operations 

or physical and biological attributes of the source waterbody. Any changes should be evaluated 

to determine the need for additional or more stringent conditions in the permit.

Section 316(b) requirements are imposed on a facility through an NPDES permit. The Director 

must determine, based on the information submitted by the facility in its permit application, the 

appropriate requirements and conditions to include in the permit. Specific activities include:

 Analyzing and reviewing facility data;

 Making determinations concerning facilities such as reviewing, approving, and 

developing: 

o Permit application materials, including waivers of some materials [§ 125.98(a)];

o Permit conditions that implement impingement mortality and entrainment 

requirements, including establishing a timeline for compliance and any interim 

compliance requirements [§ 125.98(b)];

o Compliance schedules, as appropriate [§ 125.98(c)];

o Supplemental technologies, as appropriate [§ 125.98(d)];

o Determination of whether a facility’s impingement technology performance 

optimization study demonstrates optimized performance [§125.98(e)];

o Site-specific entrainment requirements, as appropriate [§ 125.98(f)];
August 2014 21

o Documentation indicating that equivalent information to that to be collected under § 

122.21(r) has already been collected [§ 125.98(g)];

o Public noticed of the draft permit [§ 125.98(h)];

o Inspections of the facility, as appropriate [§ 125.98(i)]; and

o Results of monitoring required of facilities for measures to protect threatened and 

endangered species [§ 125.98(k)]

 Facility compliance tracking; and

 Record keeping for all reports, documents, and supporting materials submitted by

facilities in fulfillment of their cooling water intake requirements of their NPDES permit.

Once the permit has been issued, the Director would be required to ensure facilities submit their 

annual certification statement and required monitoring data and maintain all additional required 

paperwork and information. In addition, the Director may at any time inspect the facility for 

compliance with any of these requirements.

5. The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection, Methodology 

and Information Management

The following sections describe EPA activities related to analyzing, maintaining, and distributing 

the information collected.

5a. Agency Activities

EPA is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the rule. Implementation of reporting 

and monitoring requirements would rely extensively on State governments in those States that 

have authorization under CWA Section 402(b) to implement the NPDES permit program. In 

States that do not have NPDES permitting authority, EPA is responsible for administering the

program. Under these circumstances, EPA performs the same activities as those outlined for 

Directors in Section 4.

EPA typically reviews NPDES permits in the early stages of implementation of new regulations. 

As such, EPA assumed that it would perform a detailed review, make comments, and follow up 

on comments for the 316(b) portions of State-issued NPDES permits, during the three years 

covered by this ICR. 

5b. Collection Methodology and Information Management

The rule provides minimum requirements regarding the type of information collected. Directors 

of NPDES programs are primarily responsible for determining which collection method and 

information management strategy is most appropriate. EPA will maintain some of the 

compliance data in its ICIS-NPDES database. ICIS-NPDES is a national computerized 

management information system that provides for entry, updating, and retrieval of NPDES data 

and tracks permit issuance, permit limits and monitoring data, and other data pertaining to 

facilities regulated under NPDES. This technology reduces the burden to the permitting authority

of gathering, analyzing, and reporting national permit and water quality data.
August 2014 22

Permitting authorities are responsible for reviewing permit applications, permits, monitoring 

reports, and so on to verify the accuracy of the data. Permitting authorities are also responsible 

for entering that data into ICIS-NPDES. Authorities have differing approaches for entering the 

data into ICIS-NPDES and for checking data quality. This includes the use of coding forms, 

direct entry; batch uploads, and so on. Many States have developed State databases that are 

tailored to their needs; interfaces are being developed for uploads directly to ICIS-NPDES from 

State systems. Permit data can be accessed by the public in one of three ways:

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

 Via an online query using EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse and Applications Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html. Accessing data via Envirofacts provides a 

method to combine PCS/ICIS-NPDES data with other EPA databases and mapping tools.

 Via some State Web sites. 

5c. Small Entity Flexibility

The applicability requirements in § 125.91 exclude most existing small entities from the rule. As 

a result, the rule affects only a small absolute number of facilities owned by small entities, 

representing a very small percentage of all facilities owned by small entities in the electric power 

industry. EPA estimates that between 37 and 91 small entities own complying facilities in the 

electric power industry and six primary manufacturing industries together. In addition, EPA 

estimates that 5 small entities own complying facilities in other industries.

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 and manufacturing 

sectors 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 rule. Furthermore, because the 

reporting requirements differ by 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.

For the rule, EPA conducted analyses required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 

as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

See the preamble in the final rule for a summary of these analyses.

5d. Collection Schedule

Federal regulations require permittees to reapply for permits at least every five years, although 

the regulations also grant permit writers the authority to impose more frequent reissuance. Most 

respondents submit applications every five years. When calculating burden, this ICR assumes 

that all permit applicants subject to this rule follow this schedule.

The owner or operator of a facility applying for reissuance of a permit must submit the 

information required at § 122.21(r) to the Director no later than 180 days before the current 
August 2014 23

permit expires. Those facilities that were subject to the section 2004 316(b) Phase II rule were 

already collecting some information required at § 122.21(r). EPA expects that those data will be 

useful to meet some of the permit application requirements under today’s rule. 

In some cases, required permit application information might have been collected, but reports 

might not have been generated or finalized prior to the 2004 Phase II rule’s suspension in 2007. 

Further, facilities not subject to Phase II might not have collected this information, e.g., existing 

power plants below 50 mgd DIF and existing manufacturers, or might not have collected 

information to identify permit operating conditions. In those cases, facilities would have to 

initiate new data collection efforts including the two years of biological monitoring. EPA expects 

associated studies and reports will take several additional months to complete. For this reason, 

EPA has established a provision for application submittal for a permit expiring prior to 45 

months after the effective date of the rule, allowing the Director flexibility to waive application 

requirements based on a showing by the owner or operator that it could not develop the 

information by the time required for submission of the permit application.7The Director would 

then establish a schedule for submission of the waived permit application requirements. EPA 

notes that the Director has the discretion to require additional studies, monitoring, or an on-site 

inspection as part of the permit process. 

New units at existing facilities must submit the information required at § 122.21(r) to the 

Director no later than 180 days before the planned commencement of cooling water withdrawals 

for the operation of the new unit. Because these units are being constructed at a facility that is 

already operating, the facility will have already submitted many of the application materials. The 

addition of a new unit would require an update of or supplement to application materials that 

have already been submitted. New units take significant time and resources to plan, design, and 

construct, therefore the rule does not have a provision to waive application requirements based 

on a showing by the owner or operator that it could not develop the information by the time 

required for submission of the permit application. For subsequent permit renewals, the new unit 

would be included in the renewal application for the entire facility and would no longer require a 

separate permit application of its own.

EPA is aware that some intake structures withdraw from a manmade lake or reservoir that is

stocked and managed by a State or Federal natural resources agency. In some cases, the 

biological characterization of the source water is heavily influenced by the actions of the natural 

resources agency. Further, the results of biological monitoring and studies may be made 

irrelevant by such actions. Today’s rule gives the Director discretion to waive some or all of the 

permit application requirements of § 122.21(r).

In subsequent permit terms, the facility will re-submit the § 122.21(r) application studies 

including the two years of biological monitoring. In this manner, the biological characterization 

 

7

For this ICR, EPA has assumed that all facilities will begin implementing impingement mortality requirements at 

their next permit renewal. This assumption results in 20% of facilities (one-fifth of the universe per year, given a 

five year NPDES permit term) will begin to collect information in a given year. This assumption is slightly at odds 

with the regulation (which links implementation of impingement mortality requirements for some facilities to the 

first permit term that includes entrainment requirements), but EPA is unable to develop a schedule for such a set of 

tasks. As a result, the ICR assumes administrative costs will be borne by facilities earlier than they will likely be 

realized.
August 2014 24

over time is routinely evaluated, i.e., every 5 years under a standard permit cycle. To reduce the 

burden of such monitoring and data collection, the rule provides that the owner or operator of a 

facility may submit a request to the Director to reduce the information required. The request for 

reduced information requirements must be submitted to the Director at least one year before the 

expiration of the facility’s NPDES permit. In most cases, EPA anticipates the facility would 

make any such request prior to conducting their two years of biological monitoring. The Director 

may approve such a request if conditions at the facility and in the waterbody remain substantially

unchanged since the previous application. EPA expects the Director would assess the relevant 

previously submitted information and determine if it remains representative of current source 

water, intake structure, cooling water system, and operating conditions. Accordingly, the 

Director may accept or reject any part of the request.

EPA anticipates that 1,068 existing facilities will fall within the scope of the rule during the three

years covered by this ICR. For a detailed presentation of the number of facilities assumed to 

comply with the information collection requirements during the three year ICR period, see 

Exhibits A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A.

6. Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection

The following sections present the rationale and assumptions made and results of EPA’s 

estimation of burden and costs for the implementation of the rule. Specific data items and 

respondent activities were detailed in Section 4b. This ICR covers the first three years after 

promulgation of the rule. Additional information collection requirements will occur after this 

initial three-year period as (1) existing facilities will continue to submit required application 

materials and (2) new units at existing facilities commence operations and are issued permits; 

this burden will be counted in a subsequent information collection request. The breakdown of 

cost and burden by labor category is provided in Section 6(b). The cost and burden estimates 

here are the same estimates as were included in the “Economic Analysis for the Final 316(b) 

Existing Facilities Rule.” See sections 3.1.1 and 3.4 for the discussions of administrative costs 

for firms, and state and federal governments, respectively.

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. 

Facility Burdens

Information collection would require regulated facilities to devote time (i.e., as measured in staff 

hours) and resources (e.g., copies of documents and report mailings) to produce the necessary

information. EPA expects that facility employees, including managers, engineers, engineering 

technicians, statisticians, economists, biologists, biological technicians, draftsmen, and clerical 

staff, will devote time toward gathering, preparing, reviewing and submitting the various 

documents. To develop representative profiles of each employee’s relative contribution, EPA 

assumed burden estimates that reflect the staffing and expertise typically found in manufacturing 

facilities and power generating plants. In doing this, EPA considered the time and qualifications 

necessary to complete a variety of tasks: reviewing instructions, planning responses, researching 
August 2014 25

data sources, gathering and analyzing data, typing or writing the information requested, 

reviewing results, conferring with permitting authorities and expert consultants, and sending 

documents.

For each activity burden assumption, EPA selected time estimates to reflect the expected effort 

necessary to carry out these activities under normal conditions and reasonable labor efficiency 

rates. EPA assumed that the majority of the actual work performed by facility staff, such as 

researching, collecting, and analyzing data, as well as writing the documents, will be carried out 

by junior technical staff. Burdens associated with managerial and senior engineering staff 

include time for actions such as occasional or seasonal visits to supervise sampling efforts, as 

well as periodic review of lab results and documentation. EPA assumed that the facilities will 

employ a drafter to perform computer aided drafting (CAD) operations. For contracted 

employees, EPA assumed that the majority of the work would be carried out by the biologists 

and the biological technicians.

Table 2 provides a summary of the hourly burden estimates for facilities performing initial 

activities associated with the rule. For a more detailed presentation of hourly burdens for 

facilities, see Exhibit A.1 in Appendix A.

The activities listed in the first column of Table 2 correspond to the facility respondent activities 

outlined earlier in Sections 4b(i) and (ii). All facilities will be subject to the start-up and permit 

application activities listed in Table 2. However, the permit application activities may vary for 

some facilities depending on the compliance approach taken. For the other listed activities such 

as monitoring, only a subset of facilities is expected to perform them. The set of activities 

estimated for each facility is based on EPA’s estimation of compliance costs, as described in the 

preamble and Technical Development Document. As part of this process, EPA assigned a 

projected compliance approach for each model facility and these projections have been 

incorporated into this ICR. For a detailed presentation of the number of facilities performing 

each activity, see Exhibits A.5 and A.6 in Appendix A.
August 2014 26

Table 2. Average per Facility Burden for each NPDES Permit Application Activity

Activities

Burden 

(hrs)

Start-up Activities 33

Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF≥50 MG w/ AIF<125 MGD 365

Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF≥50 MGD w/ AIF>125 MGD 759

Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF> 2 MGD and ≤ 50 MGD and 

manufacturers > 2 MGD w/ AIF<125 MGD

254

Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF> 2 MGD and ≤ 50 MGD and 

manufacturers > 2 MGD w/ AIF>125 MGD

872

Permit Application Activities for New Generating Units 260

Permit Application Activities for New Manufacturing Units 260

Biological Compliance Monitoring - All Existing Facilities (power plants and manufacturing) 0

Recurring Reporting and Recordkeeping - Existing Facilities (power plants and 

manufacturing)

4

Biological Compliance Monitoring - New Generating Units 90

Recurring Reporting and Recordkeeping - New Generating Units 20

Biological Compliance Monitoring - New Manufacturing Units 90

Recurring Reporting and Recordkeeping - New Manufacturing Units 20

Start-Up Activities

The start-up burdens account for reading the published regulations, and any guidance materials 

associated with the rule, determining the required staff and resources necessary to successfully

complete the requirements, identifying the facility’s classification, and selecting a compliance 

option. In year 1 following rule promulgation, EPA assumes that all facilities will begin start-up 

activities. These start-up activities are assumed to be mostly performed by facility management 

and junior technical staff.

Permit Application Activities

Permit application activities refer to the development, submittal and recordkeeping of the 

required elements of the application for reissuance of the NPDES permit.

As part of the permit application process, all existing facilities would gather source water 

physical data, cooling water intake structure data, cooling water system data, source water 

baseline biological characterization data, intended method of compliance, and operational status 

data. EPA anticipates that much of the data required to characterize the waterbody and the 

cooling water intake structure has already been gathered by some facilities (i.e., those that were 

subject to the 2004 Phase II rule), and that much of the actual facility burden is from deriving the 

requested information from this data.

To derive the source water physical data, EPA assumes that junior technical staff would work 

with a Computer-Aided Drafting (CAD) operator to develop a description of the physical 

configuration of the source waterbody where the CWIS is located, including areal dimensions, 

depths, and salinity and temperature regimes. The CAD operator would produce scaled drawings 

showing the physical configuration of the source waterbody and prepare locational maps of the 
August 2014 27

waterbody. The junior technical staff would 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 may be necessary for some 

facilities to conduct physical studies to determine the intake’s area of influence within the 

waterbody.

Cooling water intake structure data would be used to develop a report on the operation of the 

intake structure. EPA assumes that a CAD operator would assist junior technical staff in 

preparing a narrative description of the configuration of the CWIS and its location within the 

waterbody and in the water column, including measurements of the latitude and longitude of the 

CWIS. In addition, junior technical staff would develop a narrative that describes the operation 

of the CWIS, including design flows, daily hours of operation, number of days of the year in 

operation, and seasonal changes, if applicable. Management would review and revise this data. 

As part of the permit application process, facilities would collect source water baseline biological 

characterization data to evaluate the condition of the biological community prior to operation of 

the new facility and prior to each permit renewal application. The level of effort needed for the 

study may vary considerably from one facility to another, depending on the availability of 

existing background information and the characteristics of the waterbody where the CWIS is or 

will be located. For the purpose of developing the ICR cost and burden estimates, it is assumed 

that facilities will collect two years of data to develop a baseline characterization of the 

contributing waterbody’s biological community.

Junior technical staff would also develop a narrative characterizing the facility’s cooling water 

system, which includes a flow distribution and water balance diagram for the facility depicting 

all sources of water to the facility, recirculating flows, and discharges. Management would 

review and revise this characterization. EPA also anticipates that the junior technical staff would 

perform engineering calculations for the source waterbody and CWIS documents. Management 

would review and revise these calculations.

The submittal of information on the facility’s intended method of compliance for impingement 

mortality would be prepared by junior technical staff and reviewed by management. For facilities 

choosing to comply with either § 125.94(c)(5) or (6), additional technical staff would contribute 

to developing the impingement technology performance optimization study.

Junior technical staff would also prepare a narrative that includes the following operational status 

information: (1) each individual unit’s operating status including age of the unit, capacity 

utilization for the previous 5 years and any major upgrades completed in the past 15 years; (2) a 

description of completed, approved, or scheduled uprates and NRC (Nuclear Regulatory

Commission) relicensing status for nuclear facilities; (3) a description of plans or schedules for 

decommissioning or replacement of units; and (4) a description of current and future production 

schedules for manufacturing facilities. Management would review and revise these calculations.

In addition, existing facilities with more than 125 mgd actual intake flow or existing facilities 

with new units and a cumulative actual intake flow above 125 mgd would be required as part of 

the permit application process to submit additional information to characterize entrainment and 
August 2014 28

assess the costs and benefits of installing various potential technological and operational controls 

[(§ 122.21(r)(9)-(12)]. In the ICR, the burden for peer review activities (under § 122.21(r)(13))

for studies required under § 122.21(r)(10-12) is included in the estimates of burden for those 

studies, as opposed to a separate line item.

As noted above, the set of activities estimated for each facility is based on EPA’s estimation of 

compliance costs, as described in the preamble and Technical Development Document. As part 

of this process, EPA assigned a projected compliance approach for each model facility and these 

projections have been incorporated into the hourly burdens for facilities, see Exhibit A.1 in 

Appendix A.

Recurring Facility Activities

The recurring activities for most facilities are biological monitoring, flow monitoring, velocity

monitoring, conducting visual or remote inspections and reporting and recordkeeping of this 

information. As noted in section 4(b)(ii) above, the monitoring provisions for existing facilities 

subject to § 125.94(b) or new units at existing facilities varies depending on the compliance 

approach selected by the facility. Biological monitoring is assumed to be performed at one 

location on a monthly basis for impingement. Flow must be monitored daily. Velocity must be 

monitored daily or at the frequency specified in the NPDES permit. Furthermore, facilities must 

conduct visual inspections or employ remote monitoring devices. The facility must conduct 

inspections at least weekly or inspect via remote monitoring devices to ensure that impingement 

technologies are functioning as designed. Regular visual inspections or monitoring with remote 

devices is part of the normal O&M and good housekeeping activities for any facility and EPA 

does not anticipating additional burden resulting from them. The monitoring results are analyzed 

and summarized in monthly and annual reports pursuant to § 125.97. EPA assumes that clerical 

and junior technical staff would maintain the monitoring data and reports for the facility record 

keeping requirements. For a more detailed presentation of hourly burdens for facilities, see 

Exhibit A.2 in Appendix A.

Annual Facility Activities

All facilities would be required to submit an annual certification statement which indicates that 

its technology is being maintained and operated as set forth in its original certification or a 

justification to allow modification of the practices listed in its initial certification. Along with the 

certification statement, all facilities are required to submit an annual report which includes 

detailed monitoring information and other information as detailed in their NPDES permit. For a 

more detailed presentation of hourly burdens for facilities, see Exhibit A.2 in Appendix A.

Director’s Burden

The rule will require Directors to devote time and resources to review and respond to the NPDES 

permit applications; proposal, study and sampling plans; and monitoring and status reports 

submitted to them. EPA assumed that all Directors would also undergo start-up activities in 

preparation for administering the provisions of the rule. As part of these start-up activities, 

Directors are expected to train junior technical staff on how to review materials submitted by

facilities, and then use these materials to determine the specific conditions of each facility’s 
August 2014 29

NPDES permit with regard to its CWIS. In addition, EPA assumes that senior and junior 

technical staff would spend time to study and understand the rule and in planning activities.

Director’s Permit Issuance Activities

EPA expects that State senior technical, junior technical and clerical staff will devote time 

toward gathering, preparing, and submitting the various documents. EPA assumed burden 

estimates that reflect the staffing and expertise used by States for the NPDES permit 

administration process. In doing this, EPA considered the time and qualifications necessary to 

complete various tasks such as reviewing submitted documents and supporting materials, 

verifying data sources, planning responses, determining specific permit requirements, writing the 

actual permit, conferring with facilities and the interested public, and entering the permit 

information into the PCS/ICIS database. 

Monitoring Conditions

In determining the applicable monitoring requirements, the Director would be required to

consider the facility’s monitoring plan and modify the monitoring program based on changes to 

the physical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure. The 

requirement for modifying the monitoring program may be made during the term of the permit or 

when the permit is reissued. EPA assumes that junior technical staff would review the facility’s 

monitoring plan and make recommendations for modifying the monitoring program. Senior 

technical staff would review and implement the recommendations.

Record Keeping and Reporting 

EPA assumed 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.

Annual Director Activities

All existing facilities are required to submit an annual report and certification statement to the 

Director. EPA assumes that Directors would use these reports to track facility compliance, to 

determine compliance with § 125.94 and to comply with § 125.98(k).

Table 3 provides a summary of the hourly burden estimates for state Directors performing 

various activities associated with the rule during the first three years of this ICR. For a more 

detailed presentation of State Director hourly burdens, see Exhibit A.3 (state) in Appendix A.
August 2014 30

Table 3. Average State Director Burden for Activities

Activities

Burden 

(hrs)

Director Start-up Activities 100

Director Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF≥50 MG w/ AIF<125 MGD 0

Director Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF≥50 MGD w/ AIF>125 MGD 0

Director Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF> 2 MGD and ≤ 50 MGD and 

manufacturers > 2 MGD w/ AIF<125 MGD

0

Director Permit Application Activities for manufacturers with DIF > 2 MGD w/ AIF>125 MGD 0

Director Permit Application Activities for New Generating Units 11

Director Permit Application Activities for New Manufacturing Units 11

Director Annual Activities 3

Some of the activities above occur after the 3-year period covered by this ICR.

6b. Estimating Respondent Costs

This section describes cost estimates for facilities and Directors, as well as the methods used to 

derive them. 

6b(i). Estimating Labor Costs

The costs to the respondent facilities associated with the ICR activities can be estimated by

multiplying the time spent in each labor category by an appropriately loaded hourly wage rate. 

All base wage rates used for facility labor categories were derived from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) Occupational Outlook Handbook 2012–2013. These reported labor rates were 

based on data from the year 2010 and are adjusted for inflation. Inflation factor was derived from 

the BLS Employment Cost Index and was used to adjust the Occupational Outlook Handbook

labor rates to reflect labor rates for May of 2011.

A compensatory loading 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 employees (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 attributable to facility 

employees performing work in support of the permit process. Expenses for contracted employees 

typically include higher overhead costs, as well as a fee to ensure profit for the contracting 

company. EPA assumes that the overhead for the contracted employees will be 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 $96 per hour. The 

median annual salary of $50,110 for a mechanical engineering technician was used to represent 
August 2014 31

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 $40 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 $38 per hour. The reported average annual 

salary for clerical workers was $29,990, and the fully adjusted and loaded hourly rate is 

approximately $24 per hour. For economist, the mean hourly rate reported was $43 for a fully

adjusted and loaded hourly rate of approximately $72 per hour.

To represent the base labor rate for a contracted manager of monitoring work done on-site, EPA 

used the average national salary for a natural sciences manager of $116,020 per year with a fully 

loaded rate of $98 per hour. The median annual salary for a statistician was $72,830 per year 

with an adjusted hourly rate of approximately $59 per hour. Biologists and biological technicians 

had an average hourly pay of $45.39 and $30.84 and a fully loaded rate of $46 and $31, 

respectively.

Director’s Labor Costs

For Director costs, all the base labor rates and compensation factors were derived from published 

employment cost trends for State and local government workers for the third quarter of 2009

(BLS Employment Cost Trends, September 2009). These labor rates were adjusted to reflect labor 

rates for May of 2011 (BLS Employment Cost Index). EPA chose the BLS labor category of 

white-collar professional specialist to represent the senior administrative and technical staff that 

will oversee and manage the NPDES permit program. The base hourly rate for this category was 

approximately $29 per hour, and, after adjusting for compensation and inflation, it is 

approximately $64 per hour.

Similarly, EPA chose the BLS labor category of white-collar professional technical to represent 

the junior technical staff that EPA expects to perform the majority of the actual NPDES 

permitting work. The reported base pay for this category was approximately $18 per hour, which 

becomes approximately $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 considered O&M costs. Another type of O&M 

cost is for the purchase of contracted services, such as laboratory analyses. The purchase of 

supplies such as filing cabinets and services such as photocopying or boat rental are also 

considered O&M costs and are referred to as other direct costs (ODCs). 

In general, the labor costs and O&M costs reported in this analysis are assumed to represent 

typical average national cost estimates that are likely to be incurred by existing facilities and by

permitting authorities. EPA attempted to take into account various factors such as decreases in 
August 2014 32

labor efficiency that occur during extreme climate conditions, equipment down time, and the 

occasional sample that might need to be replaced because it was lost or spoiled during transport. 

Table 4 provides a summary of facility-level average labor costs, capital costs, and O&M costs 

over the 3-year ICR period. For a more detailed presentation of all compliance costs for 

facilities, see Exhibits A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A.

Table 4. Average per Facility Burden and Costs for each NPDES Permit Renewal Activity

Activities Burden 

(hrs)

Labor Cost 

(2011$)

Capital 

(2011$)

O&M (2011$)

Start-up Activities 33 $2,424 $0 $100 

Permit Application Activities for power 

plants with DIF≥50 MG w/ AIF<125 

MGD

365 $16,596 $0 $2,399 

Permit Application Activities for power 

plants with DIF≥50 MGD w/ AIF>125 

MGD

759 $33,535 $0 $12,985 

Permit Application Activities for power 

plants with DIF> 2 MGD and ≤ 50 MGD 

and manufacturers > 2 MGD w/ 

AIF<125 MGD

254 $12,093 $0 $1,373 

Permit Application Activities for power 

plants with DIF> 2 MGD and ≤ 50 MGD 

and manufacturers > 2 MGD w/ 

AIF>125 MGD

872 $38,508 $0 $14,865 

Permit Application Activities for New 

Generating Units

260 $14,244 $0 $500 

Permit Application Activities for New 

Manufacturing Units

260 $14,244 $0 $500 

Compliance Monitoring - All Existing 

Facilities (power plants and 

manufacturing)

0 $0 $0 $0 

Recurring Reporting and Recordkeeping 

- Existing Facilities (power plants and 

manufacturing)

4 $240 $0 $2,240 

Compliance Monitoring - New 

Generating Units

90 $4,080 $0 $5,080 

Recurring Reporting and Recordkeeping 

- New Generating Units

20 $1,456 $0 $3,456 

Compliance Monitoring - New 

Manufacturing Units

90 $4,080 $0 $5,080 

Recurring Reporting and Recordkeeping 

- New Manufacturing Units

20 $1,456 $0 $3,456 

Director’s O&M Costs

EPA does not anticipate any O&M costs other than ODCs for state Directors as a result of the

rule. Table 5 provides estimates of average state Director Labor costs and ODCs. For a more 

detailed explanation of State Director costs, see Exhibit A.3 in Appendix A.
August 2014 33

Table 5. Average State Director Burden and Costs for Activities

Activities Burden 

(hrs)

Labor 

Cost 

(2011$)

O&M

(2011$)

Director Start-up Activities 100 $4,840 $200 

Director Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF≥50 

MG w/ AIF<125 MGD

0 $0 $500 

Director Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF≥50 

MGD w/ AIF>125 MGD 

0 $0 $500 

Director Permit Application Activities for power plants with DIF> 2 

MGD and ≤ 50 MGD and manufacturers > 2 MGD w/ AIF<125 MGD

0 $0 $500 

Director Permit Application Activities for manufacturers with DIF > 2 

MGD w/ AIF>125 MGD

0 $0 $500 

Director Permit Application Activities for New Generating Units 11 $457 $500 

Director Permit Application Activities for New Manufacturing Units 11 $457 $500 

Director Annual Activities 3 $104 $500 

Some of the activities above occur after the 3-year period covered by this ICR.

6c. Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

As mentioned previously, 46 States and the Virgin Islands are authorized to administer the 

NPDES permitting program. For in-scope facilities applying for reissued permits in the 10 

unauthorized States and Territories, EPA will incur costs and burdens similar to those incurred 

by States with permitting authority.

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

During the 3 years covered by this ICR (which correspond to years 1–3 after rule promulgation), 

there are an estimated 1,068 facilities along with 47 States that the rule could affect. The rule 

would require each respondent to comply with one or more provisions. In turn, each provision 

has numerous activities associated with it. Exhibits A.5 and A.6 in Appendix A provide an 

estimate of the number of respondents and responses expected for each provision of the rule 

during each year of the ICR approval period. The annual estimates are based on the compliance 

schedule used to estimate the cost of the final rule. In addition, Exhibits A.7 to A.10 provide a 

summary of the respondent burdens and costs for each year of the ICR period. These estimates 

were calculated by multiplying facility and state Director level burden and cost estimates in 

Exhibits A.1-A.3 by the number of respondents performing each activity in Exhibit A.5 (see 

Appendix A).

6e. Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables

This section provides a description of bottom line data collection and record keeping burden and 

cost estimates for implementation of the rule.

6e(i). Respondent Tally

The bottom line burden hours and costs for facilities and Directors are the total annual hours and 

costs collectively incurred for all activities during the ICR period. Table 6 provides a summary
August 2014 34

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 6. Summary of Average Annual Respondents, Burden, and Costs for Facilities and State 

Directors for the ICR Period

Average 

Annual 

Respondents

Average 

Annual 

Burden 

(hours)

Average 

Annual 

Labor Costs 

(2011$)

Average 

Annual 

Capital and 

O&M Costs 

(2011$)

Total Annual 

Costs 

(2011$)

Facilities 1068 627,666 $28,900,240 $8,004,274 $36,904,514 

State Directors 47 6,930 $299,247 $521,633 $820,880 

Totals 1115 634,596 $29,199,487 $8,525,907 $37,725,394 

6e(ii). Agency Tally

The bottom line burden hours and costs for the Federal agency are the total annual hours and 

costs collectively incurred for all activities during the ICR period. Table 7 provides a summary

of the average annual agency burden hours and costs. A more detailed summary can be found in 

Exhibit A.11 in Appendix A.

Table 7. Summary of Average Annual Agency Burden and Costs for the ICR Period

Average 

Annual 

Burden 

(hours)

Average 

Annual 

Labor 

Costs 

(2011$)

Average 

Annual 

Capital 

and O&M 

Costs 

(2011$)

Total 

Annual 

Costs 

(2011$)

Agency Totals 178 $7,645 $14,567 $22,212 

6f. Reasons for Change in Burden

The current burden approved by OMB for the existing ICR is 1,023,521. That is 388,925 (38%) 

more hours than are being requested in this draft ICR. This decrease is due to changes in 

program requirements. The currently approved ICR is for electric generators with a DIF of at 

least 50 mgd and that were subject to the 2004 Phase II rule. Many of these facilities have 

already met most of the new data collection requirements of the revised rule. Newly affected 

facilities have significantly fewer comprehensive requirements for data collection than was 

required under the Phase II rule, such as less frequent biological data collection. More 

specifically, the proposed rule and the Phase II rule both would have required all facilities to 

conduct biological monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the required reductions in 

impingement. Under the revised rule, the roughly 40% of facilities using one of EPA’s preapproved technologies (pre-approved technologies have well documented performance and wellunderstood operating parameters that consistently achieve the reductions required by the revised 

rule), there are no biological monitoring requirements. EPA further expects an additional 59% of 

facilities will select a technology under one of the streamlined compliance alternatives; these 

facilities would have a two year technology performance optimization study in lieu of biological 
August 2014 35

compliance monitoring in perpetuity. Thus under the revised rule, less than 1% of affected 

facilities would need to conduct routine biological monitoring to demonstrate compliance. Other 

flexibilities of the final rule further reduce burden such as: reduced application requirements for 

facilities with closed-cycle; facilities that withdraw cooling water from a lake with a fishery

managed by the State; and permit application renewals where no changes have occurred in the 

waterbody or facility operations since the previous 5 year permit cycle. Further, while the overall 

universe of affected facilities has increased, more facilities in the affected universe already meet 

the requirements of the revised rule. EPA notes that the reduced burden of information 

collection and record keeping activities will continue well beyond the first three years of 

implementation covered by this ICR. 

6g. Burden Statement

The annual average reporting and record keeping burden for the collection of information by

facilities responding to the rule is estimated to be 588 hours per respondent (i.e., an annual 

average of 627,666 hours of burden divided among an anticipated annual average of 1,068

facilities). The state Director reporting and record keeping burden for the review, oversight, and 

administration of the rule is estimated to average 147 hours per respondent (i.e., an annual 

average of 6,930 hours of burden divided among an anticipated 47 States per year).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the 

purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 

a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise disclose information. An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 

a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA’s regulations are 

listed at 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, 

and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated 

collection techniques, the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the 

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading 

Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. An 

electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov/. Use FDMS to submit or view public comments, 

to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access documents in the 

public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the docket ID number 

identified above. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, 
August 2014 36

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0667 and OMB control number 2040-0257 in any correspondence.