ICR Supporting Statement 

 Information Collection Request: 

Cooling Water Intake Structures New 

Facility Final Rule (Renewal) 

 

OMB Control No. 2040-0241, EPA ICR No. 1973.06 

December 2015

Prepared for

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-009

EPA Work Assignment Number 4-22
December 2015 ii

Contents

ICR Supporting Statement .............................................................................................. 1

A. Justification ................................................................................................................. 1

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and explain the legal or 

administrative requirements relevant to the collection and attach a copy of the statute or 

regulation authorizing the collection....................................................................................1

2. Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to be used...............................1

3. Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use of automated processes or 

information technology to aid with the collection ................................................................3

4. Describe the efforts to identify duplication ...................................................................................3

5. Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities........................................................3

6. Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is not conducted or is conducted 

less frequently .....................................................................................................................3

7. Explain any special circumstances associated with “extraordinary burden” placed on 

respondents ........................................................................................................................4

8. Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice in the Federal Register....4

9. Explain any decision to provide compensation to respondents...................................................5

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents..........................................5

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature......................................5

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.......................................5

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents.........................................6

14. Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the federal government.....................................6

15. Explain the reasons for an adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB Form 83-I ............6

16. Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the information ...........................................7

17. Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB approval ................................8

18. Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 1320.9, “Agency Certifications for 

Proposed Collections of Information.”.................................................................................8

B. Statistical Methods (used for collection of information employing statistical methods) 8

Appendix A – Detailed Results of Respondent Burden and Cost Analysis for the 

Information Collection Requirements of the Section 316(b) New Facility Rule ..... 9

Appendix B – Description of the Information Collected and Methodology for Estimating 

Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection........................................................ 10

B.1 Estimating Respondent Burden ........................................................................................10

B.2 Estimating Respondent Costs...........................................................................................13

B.2.1 Estimating Labor Costs........................................................................................13

B.2.2 Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs .................................14

Appendix B – References ..............................................................................................................17

Appendix C – Copy of Regulations Authorizing Data Collection and Federal Register 

Notice ................................................................................................................. 18

C.1 Authorizing Regulations ..........................................................................................................18

C.2 Federal Register Notice...........................................................................................................18

 

 

 
December 2015 1

 

A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and 

explain the legal or administrative requirements relevant to the

collection and attach a copy of the statute or regulation authorizing 

the collection

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that “[a]ny standard established pursuant 

to [CWA section 301] or [CWA section 306] and applicable to a point source shall require that 

the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best 

technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” The section 316(b) New 

Facility Rule (66 FR 65256; December 18, 2001) and minor amendments (68 FR 36749; June 

19, 2003) implement section 316(b) of the CWA as it applies to new facilities that use cooling 

water intake structures (CWISs).1 The rule requires new facilities to submit several distinct types 

of information as part of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

application. In addition, the rule requires new facilities to maintain monitoring and reporting data 

as outlined by the Director2in their NPDES permits. The information requirements in this 

Information Collection Request (ICR) are necessary to ensure that new 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.

The first ICR approval period covering years 1 through 3 after promulgation expired in February 

2005. The first ICR renewal period covering years 4 through 6 after promulgation expired in 

June 2008. The second ICR renewal period covering years 7 through 9 after promulgation 

expired in December 2011. The third ICR renewal period covering years 10 through 12 after 

promulgation will expire in December 2015. This Supporting Statement is for the fourth renewal 

ICR, covering years 13 through 15 after promulgation.

2. Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to 

be used

This ICR covers information that must be submitted to NPDES permitting authorities (i.e.,

Directors) and data that must be collected and maintained on-site by new facilities as defined in 

40 CFR 125.83. NPDES permits are issued for no more than five years. NPDES application 

information for new or reissued permit must be submitted in accordance with the timelines 

outlined in 40 CFR 122.21. 

 

1 See Appendix C for a copy of the Federal Register notices for these regulations authorizing the information 

collection.

2 Director means the Regional Administrator or the State Director, as the context requires, or an authorized 

representative. When there is no “approved State program,” and there is an EPA administered program, “Director” 

means the Regional Administrator. When there is an approved State program, “Director” normally means the State 

Director. In some circumstances, however, EPA retains the authority to take certain actions even when there is an 

approved State program. (For example, when EPA has issued an NPDES permit prior to the approval of a State 

program, EPA may retain jurisdiction over that permit after program approval.) In such cases, the term “Director” 

means the Regional Administrator and not the State Director.
December 2015 2

New facilities are required to submit information outlined in 40 CFR 125.86 when applying for 

their new or reissued NPDES permit. New facilities are also required to maintain their 

monitoring and reporting data as outlined in their NPDES permit. Each new facility maintains 

facility-level records of the measurements, diagrams, and calculations submitted to the Director, 

as well as the analytical results of monitoring activities. There are multiple options for new 

facilities to submit the information outlined in 40 CFR 125.86. There are no forms for collecting 

the information. Directors are primarily responsible for determining how new facilities submit 

the required information.

While respondents for this ICR would include any new facilities that meet the applicable 

requirements of the rule, EPA estimates that there are six primary industrial sectors that account 

for more than 99 percent of all cooling water used in the United States: 1) traditional steam 

electric utilities, 2) nonutility power producers, 3) manufacturers in SIC Major Group 26 (paper 

and allied products), 4) manufacturers in SIC Major Group 28 (chemicals and allied products), 5) 

manufacturers in SIC Major Group 29 (petroleum and coal products, and 6) manufacturers in 

SIC Major Group 33 (primary metals). A detailed description of the SIC (and NAICS) codes can 

be found at 66 FR 65257.

Information collected will be used by new facilities, Directors, EPA, and other stakeholders. 

New facilities may use it to monitor their CWIS performance and monitor the performance of 

design and construction technologies. The primary users of this information will be Directors, 

states authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program and EPA Regions. Since section 

316(b) standards are implemented through NPDES permits, the rule affects Directors in a 

manner similar to other changes to NPDES program requirements. There are currently 46 States 

and one territory authorized under CWA Section 402(b) to implement the NPDES permit 

program. In non-authorized states, EPA assumes the role of the Director.

The Director will use the information to verify that the NPDES permit application is complete, 

assess whether the compliance alternative selected by the facility is appropriate, and to evaluate 

monitoring data, annual reports, and other information to confirm that the facility remains in 

compliance throughout its permit term. The Director may also use the information to develop 

special permit conditions, such as additional protections for endangered species.

Much of the basic information obtained from a facility’s NPDES permit application is stored in 

EPA’s Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), the Agency’s modernized NPDES 

program database. ICIS 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 the ICIS 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.

It is also anticipated that other government agencies, both at the state and federal level, as well as 

public interest groups, private companies, and individuals will also use the data. Environmental 
December 2015 3

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

assess impingement and entrainment rates for affected water bodies. In 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. Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use 

of automated processes or information technology to aid with the 

collection

The Agency does not currently require the use of information technology for collection of 

information from new facilities. Directors are primarily responsible for determining which 

collection method and information management strategy is most appropriate. 

On July 30, 2013, EPA proposed the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting Rule, which will require electronic reporting of NPDES 

information rather than the currently-required paper-based reports. On December 1, 2014, EPA 

published a Supplemental Notice to the 2013 proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule to 

provide an opportunity for EPA to receive additional comment regarding issues raised by 

commenters during the public comment period for the proposed rule and discuss possibilities for 

how EPA might modify the rule to address issues raised by stakeholders. Once the final rule is 

issued, implementation is expected to be phased in over a period of several years. EPA does not 

anticipate that the Electronic Reporting Rule will be finalized and implemented within the three 

year timeframe of this ICR. However, EPA does anticipate that the implementation of the 

Electronic Reporting Rule in future years will reduce reporting burdens for all entities involved.

4. Describe the efforts to identify duplication

There is no duplication, as there are no other sources available to collect this information. 

5. Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities

This information collection will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The term “new facility” is subject to the rule if it meets the applicability requirements in 

40 CFR125.81. The rule’s minimum intake flow requirements would exclude most new small 

entities from the compliance requirements. As a result, the rule is expected to affect only a small 

absolute number of facilities owned by small entities. In 2001, EPA estimated that over the next 

20 years eleven facilities owned by small entities are projected to be subject to the final 316(b) 

regulation. The exact number of facilities owned by small entities that would be subject to the 

rule annually is difficult to quantify. If any small entities would be affected, it is estimated one to 

two new respondents that are small entities will be added for this three year ICR renewal period

resulting in an estimated total of nine respondents that are small entities.

6. Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is not 
December 2015 4

conducted or is conducted less frequently

Permitted facilities must reapply for NPDES permits before their existing permits expire, 

typically once every five years. The CWA prohibits NPDES permits from having terms longer 

than five years. Less frequent permit applications would not provide the permitting authority 

with sufficiently current data to establish effective limitations or conditions when reissuing 

permits and to identify, in a timely manner, adverse environmental impact resulting from the 

operation of new CWISs. In addition, less frequent collection would also hinder the ability of 

EPA, States, and facility operators to take advantage of technological improvements in 

impingement and entrainment technologies as they occur, or to track long-term trends.

The data collection is mandatory and the consequences of not collecting the information would 

result in a failure of the regulated facilities and/or control authorities to comply with the 

authorizing NPDES regulations. Failure to comply could result in enforcement actions including 

civil or criminal penalties.

7. Explain any special circumstances associated with “extraordinary 

burden” placed on respondents

There are no special circumstances where “extraordinary burden” is placed on respondents. The 

collection of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act 

guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). Requests for supplemental information for the purposes of 

emergency response or enforcement activities are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act 

requirements.

8. Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice 

in the Federal Register

This renewal ICR was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60142). The 

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

requirements on the regulated community. EPA did not receive any comments on this ICR.A 

copy of the Federal Register Notice can be found in Appendix C. 

Minimum data collection requirements are mandated and specifically defined by the regulations 

authorizing collection are not subject to change through consultation. These requirements are 

often incorporated into the NPDES permit. The Directors of NPDES programs are primarily 

responsible for determining which collection method and information management strategy is 

most appropriate. During the initial NPDES permit development and during permit reissuance

which occurs every five years a consultation occurs between the Director and permittee. During 

this consultation, the permittee has the opportunity to request clarification of instructions, 

recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format and to request changes to the data requirements

and the frequency of collection and reporting that may be warranted by changing circumstances. 

Specific changes can then be incorporated in the renewed permit. This consultation occurs on an 

individual basis with each respondent. The permit renewal five year frequency is mandated by 

the regulation. However, during the interim period the permittee may consult with the Director if 

significant changes to circumstances of the permittee occur, and, if warranted, the director may 

enact modifications to the permit.
December 2015 5

Additionally, in 2001 EPA finalized the section 316(b) New Facility Rule after conducting 

outreach activities and considering comments from the public and the regulated community. (See 

66 FR 65256, December 18, 2001.) EPA Headquarters staff responsible for program oversight 

were contacted to provide revised information and data for this ICR.

9. Explain any decision to provide compensation to respondents

No payments or gifts are provided to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents

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

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

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

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

confidential. 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.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive 

nature

Questions of a sensitive nature are not found in this information collection.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of 

information

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

facilities responding to the section 316(b) New Facility Rule is estimated to be an annual average 

of 144,570 hours of burden which is equal to 1,475 hours per private respondent when divided 

among an anticipated annual average of 98 facilities. The Director reporting and record keeping 

burden for the review, oversight, and administration of the rule is estimated to be an annual 

average of 7,219 hours which is equal to an average 154 hours per respondent when among an 

anticipated 47 States. The total annual average burden for respondents and States combined is 

151,789 hours. The frequency of responses varies between activities; some activities are 

conducted weekly, while others are conducted annually. Appendix A provides a more detailed 

presentation of the calculations for deriving estimated hourly burden and its components.

Appendix B provides a description of the information collected and methodology for estimating 

respondent burden and costs. Table 12.1 summarizes the labor burden and associated costs.

Table 12.1 Summary of Labor Burden and Costs

Average Annual 

Respondents

Average Annual 

Total Burden 

(hours) 

Average Annual 

Total Labor Costs 

(2014$)

Facilities 98 144,570 $9,183,766 

State Directors 47 7,219 $365,966 

Totals 145 151,789 $9,549,732 
December 2015 6

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to 

respondents

The non-labor costs for facilities and Directors are the total annual hours and costs collectively 

incurred for all activities during the 3-year period covered by this ICR. Table 13.1 provides a 

summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, and costs. A more detailed 

summary of the calculations can be found in Appendix A Exhibit A.11 and the methodology 

used to derive costs can be found in Appendix B.

Table 13.1. Summary of Average Non-labor Costs for Facilities and Directors for the 3-Year Period 

Covered by this ICR

Average 

Annual 

Respondents

Average 

Annual 

Capital 

Costs 

(2014$)

Average 

Annual 

O&M 

Costs 

(2014$)

Total 

Average 

Annual 

Costs 

(2014$)

Facilities 98 $605,827 $1,654,813 $2,260,640 

State Directors 47 $0 $7,088 $7,088 

Totals 145 $605,827 $1,661,901 $2,267,728 

14. Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the federal 

government

There are 47 States and Territories authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program. For 

new in-scope facilities applying for permits in the 10 unauthorized States and Territories, EPA 

will incur the costs and burdens similar to those incurred by States with permitting authority. 

This analysis, however, assumes that facilities complying with the rule during the ICR period 

will be in NPDES authorized States. 

EPA also periodically reviews NPDES permits as part of ongoing permit program oversight. 

Based on historical reports submitted for 316(b) demonstrations, EPA assumes that it will take 

approximately 30 hours to perform a detailed review, make comments, and follow up on 

comments for the 316(b) portions of a State-issued NPDES permit. Table 14.1 summarizes 

federal burden and cost estimates. Further detail is provided in Exhibit A.4.

Table 14.1 Summary of Average Annual Respondents, Responses, Burden, and Costs for Federal 

Agency for the 3-Year Period Covered by this ICR

Average Annual 

Burden (hours) 

Average Annual 

Labor Costs 

(2014$)

Average Annual 

O&M Costs 

(2014$)

Total Average 

Annual Costs 

(2014$)

Agency Totals 177 $8,143 $312 $8,455

15. Explain the reasons for an adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 

of OMB Form 83-I

The respondent average annual burden increased by 13,368 hours which represents a 10%

increase. The total average annual number of respondents increased by 17 respondents, a 13% 

increase. The total average cost burden decreased by 10%. Table 15.1 presents a summary of the 
December 2015 7

adjustments in burden estimates from the previously approved ICR. The net adjustments are due 

to several changes:

 Addition of the newly built facilities: for this 3-year period, 17 new facilities are 

anticipated to file initial permit application compared to 21 new facilities in the previous

ICR, resulting in a reduction in burden. Differences in activities related to these initial 

permit applications result in a reduction of 7,561 hours for facilities and a reduction of 

854 hours for Directors over the previous ICR estimate for this component. The reduction 

in newly built facilities resulted in a reduction in the cost estimate.

 Continued performance of annual activities by facilities that received their permit during 

previous ICR periods: As facilities are constructed and permitted, these facilities add to 

the universe of respondents that are required to perform annual activities under the New 

Facility Rule. Activities related to these recurring activities account for an increase of 

19,420 hours for facilities and 933 hours for Directors over the previous ICR estimate.

 Re-permitting burdens: more facilities are entering the renewal phase of their permits 

(i.e., 5 years after the last permit was issued). Activities related to these re-permitting 

activities account for 1,522 hours for facilities over the previous ICR estimate.

Table 15.1 Summary of Adjustments in Burden Estimate

Providers of 

Information

Reason Previous 

Burden

New 

Burden

Difference Percent 

Difference

Type of 

Change

Facilities Change in the 

number of 

respondents

138,421 

hours

151,789 

hours

13,368

hours 10%

R

Facilities Change in the 

number of 

respondents

128 145 17

13%

R

Facilities Change in the 

number of new 

respondents

$2,520,6

68

$2,267,7

28

-$252,940

-10%

R

PC = Program Change

R = Revised Estimate

16. Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the information

EPA maintains the compliance data in ICIS, the national computerized management information 

system that automates entry, updates, and facilitates retrieval of NPDES data and tracks permit 

issuance, permit limits and monitoring data, and other data pertaining to facilities regulated 

under NPDES. Permit data can be accessed by the public in one of two ways:

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

 via an on-line query using EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse and Applications website at 

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

combine ICIS data with other EPA databases and mapping tools.
December 2015 8

17. Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB 

approval

EPA has not made a request regarding display of the expiration date. 

18. Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 

1320.9, “Agency Certifications for Proposed Collections of 

Information.”

The agency is able to certify compliance with all provisions under Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I.

B. Statistical Methods (used for collection of information 

employing statistical methods)

Statistical methods are not used with this collection.
December 2015 9

Appendix A – Detailed Results of Respondent Burden and 

Cost Analysis for the Information Collection Requirements of 

the Section 316(b) New Facility Rule

(See attached PDF document)
December 2015 10

Appendix B – Description of the Information Collected and 

Methodology for Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of 

Collection

The following sections present rationale and results of EPA’s estimation of burden and costs for 

the implementation of the section 316(b) New Facility Rule. The burden hours and cost in this 

section are calculated by first estimating the annual burden, labor cost, and other direct cost 

(ODC) per facility or Director for each activity. (See Tables B-1 through B-4.) The number of 

facilities or Directors required to conduct each of the activities per year are then estimated and 

used to calculate the yearly burden hours and costs. Not all facilities are required to conduct all 

the activities, and not all activities occur during all years of the ICR. The total yearly burden 

hours and costs are then summed and averaged to compute the bottom line average annual 

burden hours and costs. See Appendix A.

B.1 Estimating Respondent Burden

This section describes the burden estimates for facilities and Directors, as well as the methods 

used to derive them. Respondent activities are separated into those activities associated with the 

NPDES permit application and those activities associated with monitoring and reporting after the 

permit is issued. The reason for this is that the permit cycle is every five years while ICRs must 

be renewed every three years. Therefore, the application activities occur only once per facility 

during an ICR period, and so they are considered one-time burden for the purpose of this ICR. 

By contrast, the monitoring and reporting activities that occur after issuance of the permit occur

on an annual basis.

Facility Burdens

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

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

NPDES permit applications, implementation plans, and annual status reports. EPA expects that 

facility employees, including managers, engineers, engineering technicians, statisticians,

draftsmen, and clerical staff, will devote time toward gathering, preparing, and submitting the 

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

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

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

qualifications necessary to complete a variety of tasks: reviewing instructions, planning 

responses, researching data sources, gathering and analyzing data, typing or writing the 

information requested, reviewing results, conferring with permitting authorities and expert 

consultants, and sending documents.

EPA anticipates that facilities will use the contracted services to perform many of their required 

sampling and analysis tasks. The contracted staff is likely to include project managers, biologists, 

statisticians, and biological technicians. The work done by these contracted employees will be 

done on-site on a regular basis. Therefore, the hourly burdens associated with their work are 

included in the overall burden estimates for each facility.

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

necessary to carry out these activities under normal conditions and reasonable labor efficiency 
December 2015 11

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 assumes that the majority of the work will be carried out by the biologists and 

the biological technicians.

Tables B-1 and B-2 provide a summary of the hourly burden estimates for facilities performing 

the NPDES permit application, annual monitoring, and annual reporting activities associated 

with the final rule. For a more detailed presentation of hourly burdens for facilities, see Exhibits 

A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A.

The activities listed in the first column of both Tables B-1 and B-2 correspond to the facility 

respondent activities. Start-up burden includes reading the published regulations, sample permits, 

and any guidance materials associated with the rule; determining the required staff and resources 

necessary to successfully complete the application process and meet all annual monitoring and 

reporting requirements; and training staff to perform tasks that they would not be required to 

conduct if the rule were not implemented. General information activities refer to the 

development and submittal of documentation on source waterbody characteristics and CWIS 

location and design.

As part of the permit application process, facilities will demonstrate compliance with the 

proportional flow (i.e., intake flow may not exceed a certain proportion of source water body 

flow) requirements. Facilities will also 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 that the CWIS will be 

located in. For the purpose of developing the ICR cost and burden estimates, it is assumed that 

there is sufficient existing data for facilities to develop a baseline characterization of the 

contributing waterbody’s biological community.

If a facility chooses Track I for meeting its permit obligations, the facility also needs to comply 

with flow reduction, velocity and technology requirements. Under the final rule, new facilities 

choosing Track I must provide information to the permitting authority demonstrating that they 

are in compliance with the flow reduction, velocity and technology requirements that are 

applicable to their CWISs. The facility hourly burdens for demonstrating compliance with these 

requirements include developing and submitting narrative descriptions, supporting 

documentation, and engineering calculations. Facility burden for Design and Construction 

Technology Plans is comparable to the burden for demonstrating compliance with one of the 

CWIS requirements.

Under Track II, the Comprehensive Demonstration Study evaluates the condition of the 

biological community prior to operation of the new facility and prior to each permit renewal 
December 2015 12

application. The study entails plan development, a source water biological study, projections of 

anticipated impacts, and verification monitoring. As with the source water baseline biological 

characterization, the required effort level for the Track II source water biological study is likely 

to vary considerably depending on the availability of existing data and the complexity of the 

habitat that the CWIS will be located in.

For the purpose of developing the ICR cost and burden estimates, it is assumed that each Track II 

facility will perform sampling to develop the Source Water Biological Study for the 

Comprehensive Demonstration Study. The sampling required for the study is expected to take 

two years for facilities with intakes drawing from freshwater sources, and three years for 

facilities drawing from marine sources. Therefore, the entire application process can take up to 

three years to complete. EPA assumes that start-up activities and general information activities 

are accomplished during the first year of the permitting process. The Source Water Biological 

Study activities will be performed over the three years prior to the issuance of the NPDES permit 

to Track II facilities. The study to evaluate CWIS impacts will be conducted the year just prior to 

operation of the CWIS to allow the facility time to incorporate information from the Source 

Water Biological Study already underway. For those Track II facilities beginning operation 

during the first year of the ICR period, EPA assumes that they do not actually begin operating 

the CWIS until the end of the year, allowing them enough time to conduct the pilot study.

EPA anticipates that start-up, general information, and the Track I activities will be performed by 

facility staff. For those facilities taking Track II, EPA assumes that the sampling and statistical 

analyses will be conducted by contracted employees, although some of the taxonomic 

identification, enumeration, and characterization will be performed by a sub-contracted 

laboratory.

After both Track I and II facilities receive their NPDES permits and commence operations, they 

have annual monitoring and reporting requirements as well. Velocity monitoring and the 

inspection of installed technology will be carried out by facility staff. For impingement and 

entrainment monitoring, EPA assumes that the actual monitoring will be conducted by the 

contracted employees, while the facility manager and junior technical staff will spend some time 

reviewing the results in preparation for the yearly status report.

In the first year of permitted operation, Track II facilities are required to use impingement and 

entrainment monitoring data to perform a verification study, confirming that the CWIS 

technology is achieving impingement and entrainment rates commensurate to that obtained 

through closed-cycle recirculation technology. EPA assumes that each year approximately 25% 

of the Verification Studies will show that the facilities have not achieved the required 

impingement and entrainment level that they predicted in their Comprehensive Demonstration 

Studies. As a result, EPA assumes that these facilities will take measures to improve their 

impingement and entrainment rates and submit another Verification Study the following year.

EPA assumes that for Track I facilities, all of the activities performed during the initial 

permitting process would be repeated for the permit renewal. Track II facilities will need to 

revise their Comprehensive Demonstration Study and repeat the Source Water Baseline 

Characterization Study. They do not have to perform another Evaluation of Cooling Water Intake 
December 2015 13

Structure Effects or Verification Monitoring Plan. EPA anticipates that the level of effort 

required to repeat many of these tasks will be considerably less than what was initially required. 

Facilities will be able to rely on much of the information gathered during the first permitting 

process. As a result, the hourly burden estimates for activities are assumed to be 50% to 70 % 

less than those for the initial permitting process.

Table B-3 provides a summary of the hourly burden estimates for facilities performing the 

NPDES permit renewal activities associated with the rule. For a more detailed presentation of 

hourly burdens for facilities see Exhibit A.12 in Appendix A.

Director Burdens

Each Director’s actual burden associated with reviewing submitted materials, writing permits, 

and tracking compliance will depend on the number of new in-scope facilities that will be built in 

the Director’s State during the ICR period. 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 ICIS databases. Table B-4 provides a summary of the 

hourly burden estimates for Directors performing various activities associated with the final rule. 

EPA assumes that the directors will spend a significant amount of time reviewing the Source 

Water Biological Characterization Data. The additional effort devoted to reviewing the study is 

due to the fact that the studies cover three years of data collected at the site. For a more detailed 

presentation of Director hourly burdens see Exhibits A.3 and A.13 in Appendix A.

B.2 Estimating Respondent Costs

This section describes the cost estimates for facilities and Directors, as well as the methods used 

to derive them.

B.2.1 Estimating Labor Costs

The costs to the respondent facilities associated with these time commitments 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 Employment and Wages, 2013.

3 These reported labor rates were 

based upon data from May 2013, and were adjusted for inflation to September 2014. Inflation 

factors ranging from 2.4% to 3.3%, depending on the labor category, were derived from the BLS 

Employment Cost Index4for adjusting the Occupational Employment and Wages, 2013 labor 

rates to reflect labor rates as of September of 2014. Compensatory loading factors ranging from 

43% to 68%, depending on the labor category, were used to account for any paid leave, 

 

3 BLS Occupational Employment and Wages, 2013, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf

4 BLS Employment Cost Index, http://www.bls.gov/web/echistrynaics.pdf - Tables 5 and 7
December 2015 14

supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, and required and non-required benefits 

received by employees.

5 EPA assumed an additional loading factor of 15% to account for 

general overhead costs directly attributable to facility employees performing work in support of 

the permit process. Expenses for contracted employees, typically include higher overhead costs, 

as well as fees to ensure profit for the contracting company. EPA assumes that the overhead for 

the contracted employees will be 50% and the fee will be 8%.

To represent the base labor rate for facility management, EPA used the median engineering 

manager category for management occupations of $61.62 per hour. After adjusting this rate for 

inflation, compensation, and overhead the rate is $109.80 per hour. The median wage of $25.19

per hour for an engineering technician was used to represent the base labor rate junior technical 

staff. After adjusting for inflation and other factors this labor rate was $44.90 per hour. The 

median annual salary for a drafter performing CAD work was reported to be $23.46 per hour, 

and after adjusting and loading the rate it is $41.80. The reported median wage for clerical 

workers was $14.45 per hour and the fully adjusted and loaded hourly rate is $26.70 per hour.

The base labor rate for a contracted manager for monitoring work conducted on-site is assumed 

to be for the median natural science manager in management occupations, with a fully loaded 

rate of $134.40 per hour. The median wage for a statistician was $38.12 per hour, with an 

adjusted hourly rate of $90.40 per hour. Biologists and biological technicians have an average 

hourly pay of $29.26 and $20.05, and a fully loaded rate of $69.40 and $47.60, respectively.

Director Labor Costs

To calculate the Director’s costs, all of the base labor rates and compensation factors were 

derived from published employment cost trends for State and local government workers for the 

second quarter of 2013.

6 These labor rates were adjusted to reflect labor rates for September

2014.

7 EPA chose the BLS labor category of white-collar General Operations Manager 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 $42.14 per hour, and 

after adjusting for compensation and inflation it is $74.70 per hour. Similarly, EPA chose the 

BLS labor category of mechanical engineering technician 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 $19.72 per hour, which becomes $34.70 per hour 

after being adjusted for compensation, overhead, and inflation. The hourly wage for State 

government clerical workers was $14.50 per hour before adjustment, and $28.90 afterward.

B.2.2 Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs

Facility O&M 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 that the facility 

 

5 Compensation factors are from the BLS Employment Cost Trends Tables 4 and 9 as of September 2014. 

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/news.release/ecec.t04.htm and http://data.bls.gov/cgibin/print.pl/news.release/ecec.t10.htm

6 May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_999000.htm

7 BLS Employment Cost Index, http://www.bls.gov/web/echistrynaics.pdf
December 2015 15

will not use otherwise. EPA assumed that some facilities would incur capital/startup costs as a 

result of this rule.

A facility incurs operation and maintenance (O&M) costs when it uses services, materials, or 

supplies needed to comply with the rule’s reporting and record keeping requirements that the 

facility will not use otherwise. Any cost for the operation and upkeep of capital equipment is 

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 ODCs.

EPA assumes that samples taken for the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization 

Study will be analyzed by a contracted laboratory. The outside laboratories will perform 

taxonomic classification, data tabulation, and then deliver the data back to the facility. For the 

two to three years of monitoring required by the Source Water Baseline Biological 

Characterization Study, this service is estimated to cost $89,600 for facilities located adjacent to 

freshwater waterbodies and $174,800 for facilities drawing from either estuaries, oceans, or the 

Great Lakes.

For the evaluation of CWIS effects, EPA anticipates that facilities will perform pilot studies to 

determine the effectiveness of the technology they will be using to minimize impingement and 

entrainment. EPA assumes that the facility will be willing to spend approximately 10% of the 

anticipated costs of installing and operating the proposed technology. For costing purposes, EPA 

is assuming that a pilot study will be performed using a Gunderboom system. The range of costs 

for a floating Gunderboom system for a 150 MGD intake structure is $1.8 to $2.5 million in 

capital costs, and $150,000 to $300,000 in annual O&M costs (Phase I Technical Development 

Document). Using 10% of the high end of this range, and adjusting for inflation to September 

2014, EPA estimates the Track II facility spends $303,000 to purchase and install a pilot 

Gunderboom system, and $34,500 to operate and maintain it for the study. Gunderboom 

technology was selected as an example technology that is potentially capable of meeting Track II 

requirements at a facility using a once-through cooling system. EPA assumes the pilot study 

impingement samples will be analyzed on-site by the biologists due to the difficulty of 

preserving impingement samples for shipment to an outside laboratory. Entrainment analysis of 

pilot study monitoring samples will be performed by an outside laboratory, at a cost of $6,900

for facilities drawing from freshwater, and $9,000 for facilities drawing from estuaries and the 

Great Lakes.

For visual inspections, EPA assumes that the Track I facilities will employ remote monitoring 

devices to monitor the equipment performance. The cost for the remote monitoring device 

includes $33,250 (Haught and Panguluri 1998) for purchase of equipment and $16,750 for 

installation and testing of equipment, for an adjusted total of $62,000.

For annual O&M costs, EPA assumes again that the analysis of impingement monitoring 

samples will be done on-site, while entrainment monitoring samples will be performed by an 

outside laboratory. Entrainment samples are estimated to cost $9,000 per year for freshwater 

facilities, and an estimated $11,700 per year for facilities drawing from estuaries or the Great 

Lakes.
December 2015 16

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 new facilities and by 

permitting authorities. EPA attempted to take into account various factors such as decreases in 

labor efficiency that occur during extreme climate conditions, equipment down time, and the 

occasional sample that might need to be replaced because it was lost or spoiled during transport.

The Tables B-1 and B-2 provide a summary of both the estimated labor costs and ODCs per 

facility. For a more detailed presentation of all compliance costs for facilities see Exhibits A.1 

and A.2 in Appendix A.

Table B-1. Burden and Costs per Facility for NPDES Permit Application Activities

Activities Burden 

(hrs)

Labor 

Cost ($)

ODC ($)

Start-up Activities 43 $3,044 $55 

General Information Activities 146 $7,744 $575 

CWIS Flow Requirement 104 $4,752 $115 

Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization 265 $16,163 $860 

CWIS Velocity Requirement (Track I) 138 $7,706 $1,150 

CWIS Flow Reduction Requirement (Track I) 108 $5,357 $460 

Design and Construction Technology Plan (Track I) 108 $6,229 $55 

Comprehensive Study Plan (Track II) 271 $17,446 $860 

Source Water Biological Characterization-Freshwater (Track 

II)*

5,196 $326,127 $6,000 

Source Water Biological Characterization-Estuary & Great 

Lake (Track II)*

9,368 $573,308 $14,900 

Evaluation of Potential CWIS Effects - Freshwater (Track II)* 1,626 $113,215 $1,100 

Evaluation of Potential CWIS Effects - Estuary & Great Lake 

(Track II)*

1,950 $132,120 $1,100 

Verification Monitoring Plan 128 $8,433 $460 

*This activity also has contracted service costs associated with it

Table B-2. Burden and Costs per Facility for Annual Monitoring and Reporting Activities

Activities Burden 

(hrs)

Labor 

Cost ($)

ODC ($)

Verification Monitoring- Freshwater (Track II) 92 $7,380 $575 

Verification Monitoring- Estuary (Track II) 122 $9,849 $575 

Initial Biological Monitoring (impingement) Freshwater 379 $24,802 $575 

Reduced Biological Monitoring (impingement) Freshwater 191 12535.9 287.5

Initial Biological Monitoring (entrainment)Freshwater* 482 $31,520 $745 

Reduced Biological Monitoring (entrainment)Freshwater* 244 $16,035 $373

Initial Biological Monitoring (impingement) Estuary 614 $40,766 $1,150

Reduced Biological Monitoring (impingement) Estuary 308 $20,473 $575

Initial Biological Monitoring (entrainment) Estuary* 776 $50,903 $1,320

Reduced Biological Monitoring (entrainment) Estuary* 392 $25,749 $660

Velocity Monitoring 163 $7,627 $115 

Visual Inspection of CWIS Technology 253 $13,076 $115 

Yearly Status Report Activities 348 $25,563 $860 

*This activity also has contracted service costs associated with it.
December 2015 17

Table B-3. Burden and Costs per Facility for NPDES Permit Renewal Activities

Activities Burden 

(hrs)

Labor 

Cost ($)

ODC ($)

Start-up Activities 13 $973 $55

General Information Activities 72 $4,087 $575

CWIS Flow Requirement 31 $1,394 $115

Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization 79 $4,894 $860

CWIS Velocity Requirement (Track I) 75 $4,123 $1,150

CWIS Flow Reduction Requirement (Track I) 108 $5,357 $460

Design and Construction Technology Plan (Track I) 43 $2,464 $55

Comprehensive Study Plan (Track II) 80 $5,088 $860

Source Water Biological Characterization - Freshwater (Track 

II)*

2,808 $171,092 $3,600

Source Water Biological Characterization - Estuary & Great 

Lake (Track II)*

5,268 $315,934 $9,000

*This activity also has contracted service costs associated with it.

Director O&M Costs

EPA does not anticipate any operation and maintenance costs for Directors under this rule. Table 

B-4 provides estimates of Director ODCs and labor costs. For a more detailed explanation of 

Director costs see Exhibit A.3.

Table B-4. Estimating Director Burden and Costs for Activities

Activities Burden 

(hrs)

Labor 

Cost ($)

ODC ($)

Director Permit Issuance Activities for Track I Facility 188 $9,866 $345

Director Permit Issuance Activities for Track II Facility 646 $41,679 $345

Verification Study Review (per Facility) 21 $963 $55

Annual Director Activities (per Facility) 50 $2,329 $55

Director Repermitting Activities for Track I Facility 55 $2,960 $345

Director Repermitting Activities for Track II Facility 143 $8,991 $345

Appendix B – References

Haught, R., and S. Panguluri, 1998. Selection and management of remote telemetry systems for 

monitoring and operation of small drinking water treatment plants. In proceedings of the First 

International Symposium on Safe Drinking Water in Small Systems, Washington, DC.
December 2015 18

Appendix C – Copy of Regulations Authorizing Data 

Collection and Federal Register Notice

C.1 Authorizing Regulations

(See attached PDF document)

C.2 Federal Register Notice

(See attached PDF document)