Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II ExistingFacilities; Proposed Rule.  Part 1.
Posted Date: 2002-04-09T04:00Z

Tuesday,

April
9,
2002
Part
II
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Parts
9,
et
al.
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
 
Proposed
Regulations
to
Establish
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17122
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
9,
122,
123,
124,
and
125
[
FRL
 
7154
 
7]

RIN
2040
 
AD62
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
 
Proposed
Regulations
to
Establish
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
Today's
proposed
rule
would
implement
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
for
certain
existing
power
producing
facilities
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
that
withdraw
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
more
of
water
from
rivers,
streams,
lakes,
reservoirs,
estuaries,
oceans,
or
other
waters
of
the
U.
S.
for
cooling
purposes.
The
proposed
rule
constitutes
Phase
II
in
EPA's
development
of
section
316(
b)
regulations
and
would
establish
national
requirements
applicable
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
these
facilities.
The
proposed
national
requirements,
which
would
be
implemented
through
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits,
would
minimize
the
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
these
structures.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
establish
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
requirements
that
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
from
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
based
on
water
body
type,
and
the
amount
of
water
withdrawn
by
a
facility.
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
proposes
to
group
surface
water
into
five
categories
 
freshwater
rivers
and
streams,
lakes
and
reservoirs,
Great
Lakes,
estuaries
and
tidal
rivers,
and
oceans
 
and
establish
requirements
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
distinct
water
body
types.
In
general,
the
more
sensitive
or
biologically
productive
the
waterbody,
the
more
stringent
the
requirements
proposed
as
reflecting
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Proposed
requirements
also
vary
according
to
the
percentage
of
the
source
waterbody
withdrawn,
and
facility
utilization
rate.
A
facility
may
choose
one
of
three
options
for
meeting
best
technology
available
requirements
under
this
proposed
rule.
These
options
include
demonstrating
that
the
facility
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
currently
meet
specified
performance
standards;
selecting
and
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures
that
meet
specified
performance
standards;
or
demonstrating
that
the
facility
qualifies
for
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
because
its
costs
of
compliance
are
either
significantly
greater
than
those
considered
by
the
Agency
during
the
development
of
this
proposed
rule,
or
the
facility's
costs
of
compliance
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
environmental
benefits
of
compliance
with
the
proposed
performance
standards.
The
proposed
rule
also
provides
that
facilities
may
use
restoration
measures
in
addition
to
or
in
lieu
of
technology
measures
to
meet
performance
standards
or
in
establishing
best
technology
available
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
EPA
expects
that
this
proposed
regulation
would
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact,
including
substantially
reducing
the
harmful
effects
of
impingement
and
entrainment,
at
existing
facilities
over
the
next
20
years.
As
a
result,
the
Agency
anticipates
that
this
proposed
rule
would
help
protect
ecosystems
in
proximity
to
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Today's
proposal
would
help
preserve
aquatic
organisms,
including
threatened
and
endangered
species,
and
the
ecosystems
they
inhabit
in
waters
used
by
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
existing
facilities.
EPA
has
considered
the
potential
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule
and
in
the
preamble
discusses
these
benefits
in
both
quantitative
and
nonquantitative
terms.
Benefits,
among
other
factors,
are
based
on
a
decrease
in
expected
mortality
or
injury
to
aquatic
organisms
that
would
otherwise
be
subject
to
entrainment
into
cooling
water
systems
or
impingement
against
screens
or
other
devices
at
the
entrance
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Benefits
may
also
accrue
at
population,
community,
or
ecosystem
levels
of
ecological
structures.
DATES:
Comments
on
this
proposed
rule
and
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
must
be
received
or
postmarked
on
or
before
midnight
July
8,
2002.
ADDRESSES:
Public
comments
regarding
this
proposed
rule
should
be
submitted
by
mail
to:
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
(
Existing
Facilities:
Phase
II)
Proposed
Rule
Comment
Clerk
 
W
 
00
 
32,
Water
Docket,
Mail
Code
4101,
EPA,
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Comments
delivered
in
person
(
including
overnight
mail)
should
be
submitted
to
the
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
(
Existing
Facilities:
Phase
II)
Proposed
Rule
Comment
Clerk
 
W
 
00
 
32,
Water
Docket,
Room
EB
57,
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
You
also
may
submit
comments
electronically
to
ow­
docket@
epa.
gov.
Please
submit
any
references
cited
in
your
comments.
Please
submit
an
original
and
three
copies
of
your
written
comments
and
enclosures.
For
additional
information
on
how
to
submit
comments,
see
``
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION,
How
May
I
Submit
Comments?''
EPA
has
prepared
an
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
for
this
proposed
rule
(
EPA
ICR
number
2060.01).
For
further
information
or
a
copy
of
the
ICR
contact
Susan
Auby
by
phone
at
(
202)
260
 
4901,
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epamail.
epa.
gov
or
download
off
the
internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden
(
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques)
to
the
following
addresses.
Please
refer
to
EPA
ICR
Number
2060.01
in
any
correspondence.
Ms.
Susan
Auby,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
OP
Regulatory
Information
Division
(
2137),
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
and
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
additional
technical
information
contact
Deborah
G.
Nagle
at
(
202)
566
 
1063.
For
additional
economic
information
contact
Lynne
Tudor,
Ph.
D.
at
(
202)
566
 
1043.
For
additional
biological
information
contact
Dana
A.
Thomas,
Ph.
D.
at
(
202)
566
 
1046.
The
e­
mail
address
for
the
above
contacts
is
``
rule.
316b@
epa.
gov.''

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

What
Entities
Are
Potentially
Regulated
by
This
Action?

This
proposed
rule
would
apply
to
``
Phase
II
existing
facilities,''
i.
e.,
existing
facilities
that
both
generate
and
transmit
electric
power
or
that
generate
electric
power
for
sale
to
another
entity
for
transmission;
use
one
or
more
cooling
water
intake
structures
to
withdraw
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.;

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17123
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
1
Proposed
§
125.93
defines
``
existing
facility''
as
any
facility
that
commenced
construction
before
January
17,
2002
and
certain
modifications
and
additions
to
such
facilities.
have
or
require
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
issued
under
section
402
of
the
CWA;
and
meet
proposed
flow
thresholds.
1
Existing
electric
power
generating
facilities
subject
to
this
proposal
would
include
those
that
use
cooling
water
intake
structures
to
withdraw
fifty
(
50)
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
more
and
that
use
at
least
twenty­
five
(
25)
percent
of
water
withdrawn
solely
for
cooling
purposes.
If
a
facility
that
otherwise
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
does
not
meet
the
fifty
(
50)
MGD
design
intake
flow
or
twenty­
five
(
25)
percent
cooling
water
threshold,
the
permit
authority
would
implement
section
316(
b)
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
using
best
professional
judgment.
EPA
intends
to
address
such
facilities
in
a
future
rulemaking
effort.
This
proposal
defines
the
term
``
cooling
water
intake
structure''
to
mean
the
total
physical
structure
and
any
associated
constructed
waterways
used
to
withdraw
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
extends
from
the
point
at
which
water
is
withdrawn
from
the
surface
water
source
up
to,
and
including,
the
intake
pumps.
The
category
of
facilities
that
would
meet
the
proposed
cooling
water
intake
structure
criteria
for
existing
facilities
are
electric
power
generation
utilities
and
nonutility
power
producers.
The
following
exhibit
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
now
aware
potentially
could
be
subject
to
this
proposed
rule.
This
exhibit
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
Types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
exhibit
could
also
be
regulated.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
would
be
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria
proposed
at
§
125.91
of
the
proposed
rule.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
one
of
the
persons
listed
for
technical
information
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

Category
Examples
of
regulated
entitles
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
Federal,
State,
and
Local
Government
Operators
of
steam
electric
generating
point
source
dischargers
that
employ
cooling
water
intake
structures
4911
and
493
...........
221112,
221113,
221119,
221121,
221122.

Industry
.........................................
Steam
electric
generating
(
this
includes
utilities
and
nonutilities).
4911
and
493
...........
221112,
221113,
221119,
221121,
221122.

Supporting
Documentation
The
proposed
Phase
II
regulation
is
supported
by
three
major
documents:
1.
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule
(
EPA
 
821
 
R
 
02
 
001),
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
EBA.
This
document
presents
the
analysis
of
compliance
costs,
closures,
energy
supply
effects
and
benefits
associated
with
the
proposed
rule.
2.
Case
Study
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule
(
EPA
 
821
 
R
 
02
 
002),
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
Case
Study
Document.
This
document
presents
the
information
gathered
from
the
watershed
and
facility
level
case
studies
and
methodology
used
to
determine
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses.
3.
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule
(
EPA
 
821
 
R
 
02
 
003),
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
Technical
Development
Document.
This
document
presents
detailed
information
on
the
methods
used
to
develop
unit
costs
and
describes
the
set
of
technologies
that
may
be
used
to
meet
the
proposed
rule's
requirements.

How
May
I
Review
the
Public
Record?

The
record
(
including
supporting
documentation)
for
this
proposed
rule
is
filed
under
docket
number
W
 
00
 
32
(
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
proposed
rule).
The
record
is
available
for
inspection
from
9
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.
on
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays,
at
the
Water
Docket,
Room
EB
57,
USEPA
Headquarters,
401
M
Street,
SW,
Washington,
DC
20460.
For
access
to
docket
materials,
please
call
(
202)
260
 
3027
to
schedule
an
appointment
during
the
hours
of
operation
stated
above.

How
May
I
Submit
Comments?

To
ensure
that
EPA
can
read,
understand,
and
therefore
properly
respond
to
comments,
the
Agency
requests
that
you
cite,
where
possible,
the
paragraph(
s)
or
sections
in
the
preamble,
rule,
or
supporting
documents
to
which
each
comment
refers.
You
should
use
a
separate
paragraph
for
each
issue
you
discuss.
If
you
want
EPA
to
acknowledge
receipt
of
your
comments,
enclose
a
self­
addressed,
stamped
envelope.
No
faxes
will
be
accepted.
Electronic
comments
must
be
submitted
as
a
WordPerfect
5.1,
6.1,
8,
or
9
format,
or
an
ASCII
file
or
file
avoiding
the
use
of
special
characters
and
forms
of
encryption.
Electronic
comments
must
be
identified
by
the
docket
number
W
 
00
 
32.
EPA
will
accept
comments
and
data
on
disks
in
WordPerfect
5.1,
6.1,
8
or
9
format
or
in
ASCII
file
format.
Electronic
comments
on
this
notice
may
be
filed
on­
line
at
many
Federal
depository
libraries.

Organization
of
This
Document
I.
Legal
Authority,
Purpose
of
Today's
Proposal,
and
Background
A.
Legal
Authority
B.
Purpose
of
Today's
Proposal
C.
Background
II.
Scope
and
Applicability
of
the
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
Is
an
``
Existing
Facility''
for
Purposes
of
the
Section
316(
b)
Proposed
Phase
II
Rule?
B.
What
Is
a
``
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure''?
C.
Is
My
Facility
Covered
If
It
Withdraws
From
Waters
of
the
U.
S.?
D.
Is
My
Facility
Covered
If
It
Is
a
Point
Source
Discharger
Subject
to
an
NPDES
Permit?
E.
Who
Is
Covered
Under
the
Thresholds
Included
in
This
Proposed
Rule?
F.
When
Must
a
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Comply
With
the
Proposed
Requirements?
G.
What
Special
Definitions
Apply
to
This
Proposal
III.
Summary
of
Data
Collection
Activities
A.
Existing
Data
Sources
B.
Survey
Questionnaires
C.
Site
Visits
D.
Data
Provided
to
EPA
by
Industrial,
Trade,
Consulting,
Scientific
or
Environmental
Organizations
or
by
the
General
Public
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17124
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
IV.
Overview
of
Facility
Characteristics
(
Cooling
Water
Systems
&
Intakes)
for
Industries
Potentially
Subject
to
Proposed
Rule
V.
Environmental
Impacts
Associated
With
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
VI.
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
at
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
A.
What
Is
the
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
at
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities?
B.
Other
Technology
Based
Options
Under
Consideration
C.
Site­
Specific
Based
Options
Under
Consideration
D.
Why
EPA
Is
Not
Considering
Dry
Cooling
Anywhere?
E.
What
is
the
Role
of
Restoration
and
Trading?
VII.
Implementation
A.
When
Does
the
Proposed
Rule
Become
Effective?
B.
What
Information
Must
I
Submit
to
the
Director
When
I
Apply
for
My
Reissued
NPDES
Permit?
C.
How
Would
the
Director
Determine
the
Appropriate
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Requirements?
D.
What
Would
I
Be
Required
To
Monitor?
E.
How
Would
Compliance
Be
Determined?
F.
What
Are
the
Respective
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
Roles?
G.
Are
Permits
for
Existing
Facilities
Subject
to
Requirements
Under
Other
Federal
Statutes?
H.
Alternative
Site­
Specific
Requirements
VIII.
Economic
Analysis
A.
Proposed
Rule
B.
Alternative
Regulatory
Options
IX.
Benefit
Analysis
A.
Overview
of
Benefits
Discussion
B.
The
Physical
Impacts
of
Impingement
and
Entrainment
C.
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Impacts
and
Regulatory
Benefits
Are
Site­
Specific
D.
Data
and
Methods
Used
to
Estimate
Benefits
E.
Summary
of
Benefits
Findings:
Case
Studies
F.
Estimates
of
National
Benefits
X.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
E.
O.
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
D.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
as
Amended
by
SBREFA
(
1996)
E.
E.
O.
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
F.
E.
O.
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
G.
E.
O.
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
H.
E.
O.
13158:
Marine
Protected
Areas
I.
E.
O.
13211:
Energy
Effects
J.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
K.
Plain
Language
Directive
I.
Legal
Authority,
Purpose
of
Today's
Proposal,
and
Background
A.
Legal
Authority
Today's
proposed
rule
is
issued
under
the
authority
of
sections
101,
301,
304,
306,
308,
316,
401,
402,
501,
and
510
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
33
U.
S.
C.
1251,
1311,
1314,
1316,
1318,
1326,
1341,
1342,
1361,
and
1370.
This
proposal
partially
fulfills
the
obligations
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
under
a
consent
decree
in
Riverkeeper
Inc.,
et
al.
v.
Whitman,
United
States
District
Court,
Southern
District
of
New
York,
No.
93
Civ.
0314
(
AGS).

B.
Purpose
of
Today's
Proposal
Section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
provides
that
any
standard
established
pursuant
to
section
301
or
306
of
the
CWA
and
applicable
to
a
point
source
must
require
that
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
reflect
the
best
technology
available
(
BTA)
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
establish
requirements,
reflecting
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
applicable
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
II
existing
power
generating
facilities
that
withdraw
at
least
fifty
(
50)
MGD
of
cooling
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
Today's
proposal
would
define
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
as
the
total
physical
structure,
including
the
pumps,
and
any
associated
constructed
waterways
used
to
withdraw
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
Cooling
water
absorbs
waste
heat
rejected
from
processes
employed
or
from
auxiliary
operations
on
a
facility's
premises.
Single
cooling
water
intake
structures
might
have
multiple
intake
bays.
In
1977
EPA
issued
draft
guidance
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
from
cooling
water
intake
structures.
In
the
absence
of
section
316(
b)
regulations
or
final
guidance,
the
1977
draft
guidance
has
served
as
applicable
guidance
for
section
316(
b)
determinations.
See
Draft
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Adverse
Impact
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
on
the
Aquatic
Environment:
Section
316(
b)
Pub.
L.
92
 
500
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1977).
Administrative
determinations
in
several
permit
proceedings
also
have
served
as
de
facto
guidance.
Today,
EPA
proposes
a
national
framework
that
would
establish
certain
minimum
requirements
for
the
location,
design,
capacity,
and
construction
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
for
large
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
In
doing
so,
the
Agency
is
proposing
to
revise
the
approach
adopted
in
the
1977
draft
guidance
which
was
based
on
the
judgment
that
``[
t]
he
decision
as
to
best
technology
available
for
intake
design
location,
construction,
and
capacity
must
be
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.''
Other
important
differences
from
the
1977
draft
guidance
include
today's
proposed
definition
of
a
``
cooling
water
intake
structure.''
Today's
proposal
also
would
establish
a
cost­
benefit
test
that
is
different
from
the
``
wholly
disproportionate''
cost­
benefit
test
that
has
been
in
use
since
the
1970s.
Although
EPA's
judgment
is
that
the
requirements
proposed
today
would
best
implement
section
316(
b)
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
the
Agency
is
also
inviting
comment
on
a
broad
array
of
other
alternatives,
including,
for
example,
more
stringent
technologybased
requirements
and
a
framework
under
which
Directors
would
continue
to
evaluate
adverse
environmental
impact
and
determine
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
such
impact
on
a
wholly
site­
specific
basis.
Because
the
Agency
is
inviting
comment
on
a
broad
range
of
alternatives
for
potential
promulgation,
today's
proposal
is
not
intended
as
guidance
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
to
minimize
the
adverse
environmental
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
potentially
regulated
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
Until
the
Agency
promulgates
final
regulations
based
on
today's
proposal,
Directors
should
continue
to
make
section
316(
b)
determinations
with
respect
to
existing
facilities,
which
may
be
more
or
less
stringent
than
today's
proposal,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
applying
best
professional
judgment.
Today's
proposal
would
not
apply
to
existing
manufacturing
facilities
or
to
power
generating
facilities
that
withdraw
less
than
fifty
(
50)
MGD
of
cooling
water.
These
facilities
will
be
addressed
in
a
separate
rulemaking,
referred
to
as
the
Phase
III
rule
(
see
section
I.
C.
2.,
below).
In
the
interim,
these
facilities
are
subject
to
section
316(
b)
requirements
established
by
permitting
authorities
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
using
best
professional
judgment.
Upon
promulgation
of
final
regulations
based
on
today's
proposal,
the
Agency
will
address
the
extent
to
which
the
final
regulations
and
preamble
should
serve
as
guidance
for
developing
section
316(
b)
requirements
for
Phase
III
facilities
prior
to
the
promulgation
of
the
Phase
III
regulations.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17125
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
EPA
and
State
permitting
authorities
should
use
existing
guidance
and
information
to
form
their
best
professional
judgment
in
issuing
permits
to
existing
facilities.
EPA's
draft
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Adverse
Impact
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
on
the
Aquatic
Environment:
Section
316(
b)
(
May
1,
1977),
continues
to
be
applicable
for
existing
facilities
pending
EPA's
issuance
of
final
regulations
under
section
316(
b).
Two
background
papers
that
EPA
prepared
in
1994
and
1996
to
describe
cooling
water
intake
technologies
being
used
or
tested
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
also
contain
information
that
could
be
useful
to
permit
writers.
(
Preliminary
Regulatory
Development,
Section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
Background
Paper
Number
3:
Cooling
Water
Intake
Technologies
(
1994)
and
Draft
Supplement
to
Background
Paper
Number
3:
Cooling
Water
Intake
Technologies.)
Fact
sheets
from
recent
316(
b)
State
and
Regional
permits
are
another
source
of
potentially
relevant
information.
The
evaluations
of
the
costs
and
efficacies
of
technologies
presented
in
the
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
Final
Regulations
Addressing
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
for
New
Facilities,
EPA
 
821
 
R
 
01
 
036,
November
2001
may
also
be
relevant
on
some
cases,
although
costs
for
some
technologies
will
differ
between
new
and
existing
facilities.
EPA
and
State
decision­
makers
retain
the
discretion
to
adopt
approaches
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
that
differ
from
applicable
guidance
where
appropriate.
Any
decisions
on
a
particular
facility
should
be
based
on
the
requirements
of
section
316(
b).

C.
Background
1.
The
Clean
Water
Act
The
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act,
also
known
as
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.,
seeks
to
``
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
nation's
waters.''
33
U.
S.
C.
1251(
a).
The
CWA
establishes
a
comprehensive
regulatory
program,
key
elements
of
which
are
(
1)
a
prohibition
on
the
discharge
of
pollutants
from
point
sources
to
waters
of
the
U.
S.,
except
as
authorized
by
the
statute;
(
2)
authority
for
EPA
or
authorized
States
or
Tribes
to
issue
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits
that
regulate
the
discharge
of
pollutants;
and
(
3)
requirements
for
EPA
to
develop
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
and
for
States
to
develop
water
quality
standards
that
are
the
basis
for
the
limitations
required
in
NPDES
permits.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
implement
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
as
it
applies
to
``
Phase
II
existing
facilities''
as
defined
in
this
proposal.
Section
316(
b)
addresses
the
adverse
environmental
impact
caused
by
the
intake
of
cooling
water,
not
discharges
into
water.
Despite
this
special
focus,
the
requirements
of
section
316(
b)
are
closely
linked
to
several
of
the
core
elements
of
the
NPDES
permit
program
established
under
section
402
of
the
CWA
to
control
discharges
of
pollutants
into
navigable
waters.
For
example,
section
316(
b)
applies
to
facilities
that
withdraw
water
from
the
waters
of
the
United
States
for
cooling
through
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
are
point
sources
subject
to
an
NPDES
permit.
Conditions
implementing
section
316(
b)
are
included
in
NPDES
permits
and
would
continue
to
be
included
in
such
permits
under
this
proposed
rule.
Section
301
of
the
CWA
prohibits
the
discharge
of
any
pollutant
by
any
person,
except
in
compliance
with
specified
statutory
requirements.
These
requirements
include
compliance
with
technology­
based
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
new
source
performance
standards,
water
quality
standards,
NPDES
permit
requirements,
and
certain
other
requirements.
Section
402
of
the
CWA
provides
authority
for
EPA
or
an
authorized
State
or
Tribe
to
issue
an
NPDES
permit
to
any
person
discharging
any
pollutant
or
combination
of
pollutants
from
a
point
source
into
waters
of
the
U.
S.
Forty­
four
States
and
one
U.
S.
territory
are
authorized
under
section
402(
b)
to
administer
the
NPDES
permitting
program.
NPDES
permits
restrict
the
types
and
amounts
of
pollutants,
including
heat,
that
may
be
discharged
from
various
industrial,
commercial,
and
other
sources
of
wastewater.
These
permits
control
the
discharge
of
pollutants
primarily
by
requiring
dischargers
to
meet
effluent
limitations
and
other
permit
conditions.
Effluent
limitations
may
be
based
on
promulgated
federal
effluent
limitations
guidelines,
new
source
performance
standards,
or
the
best
professional
judgment
of
the
permit
writer.
Limitations
based
on
these
guidelines,
standards,
or
best
professional
judgment
are
known
as
technology­
based
effluent
limits.
Where
technology­
based
effluent
limits
are
inadequate
to
ensure
compliance
with
water
quality
standards
applicable
to
the
receiving
water,
more
stringent
effluent
limits
based
on
applicable
water
quality
standards
are
required.
NPDES
permits
also
routinely
include
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements,
standard
conditions,
and
special
conditions.
Sections
301,
304,
and
306
of
the
CWA
require
that
EPA
develop
technology­
based
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
new
source
performance
standards
that
are
used
as
the
basis
for
technology­
based
minimum
discharge
requirements
in
wastewater
discharge
permits.
EPA
issues
these
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
categories
of
industrial
dischargers
based
on
the
pollutants
of
concern
discharged
by
the
industry,
the
degree
of
control
that
can
be
attained
using
various
levels
of
pollution
control
technology,
consideration
of
various
economic
tests
appropriate
to
each
level
of
control,
and
other
factors
identified
in
sections
304
and
306
of
the
CWA
(
such
as
non­
water
quality
environmental
impacts
including
energy
impacts).
EPA
has
promulgated
regulations
setting
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
under
sections
301,
304,
and
306
of
the
CWA
for
more
than
50
industries.
See
40
CFR
parts
405
through
471.
Among
these,
EPA
has
established
effluent
limitations
guidelines
that
apply
to
most
of
the
industry
categories
that
use
cooling
water
intake
structures
(
e.
g.,
steam
electric
power
generation,
iron
and
steel
manufacturing,
pulp
and
paper
manufacturing,
petroleum
refining,
chemical
manufacturing).
Section
306
of
the
CWA
requires
that
EPA
establish
discharge
standards
for
new
sources.
For
purposes
of
section
306,
new
sources
include
any
source
that
commenced
construction
after
the
promulgation
of
applicable
new
source
performance
standards,
or
after
proposal
of
applicable
standards
of
performance
if
the
standards
are
promulgated
in
accordance
with
section
306
within
120
days
of
proposal.
CWA
section
306;
40
CFR
122.2.
New
source
performance
standards
are
similar
to
the
technologybased
limitations
established
for
Phase
II
existing
sources,
except
that
new
source
performance
standards
are
based
on
the
best
available
demonstrated
technology
instead
of
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable.
New
facilities
have
the
opportunity
to
install
the
best
and
most
efficient
production
processes
and
wastewater
treatment
technologies.
Therefore,
Congress
directed
EPA
to
consider
the
best
demonstrated
process
changes,
inplant
controls,
and
end­
of­
process
control
and
treatment
technologies
that
reduce
pollution
to
the
maximum
extent
feasible.
In
addition,
in
establishing
new
source
performance
standards,
EPA
is
required
to
take
into
consideration
the
cost
of
achieving
the
effluent
reduction
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17126
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
2
Under
the
Amended
Consent
Decree,
EPA
is
to
propose
reuglations
in
Phase
II
that
are
``
applicable
to,
at
a
minimum:
(
i)
Existing
utilities
(
i.
e.,
facilities
that
both
generate
and
transmit
electric
power)
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
whose
intake
flow
levels
exceed
a
minimum
threshold
to
be
determined
by
EPA
during
the
Phase
II
rulemaking
process;
and
(
ii)
existing
non­
utility
power
producers
(
i.
e.,
facilities
that
generate
electric
power
but
sell
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission)
that
employa
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
whose
intakeflow
levels
exceed
a
minimum
threshold
to
be
determined
by
EPA
during
the
Phase
II
rulemaking
process.''
and
any
non­
water
quality
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements.

2.
Consent
Decree
Today's
proposed
rule
partially
fulfills
EPA's
obligation
to
comply
with
an
Amended
Consent
Decree.
The
Amended
Consent
Decree
was
filed
on
November
22,
2000,
in
the
United
States
District
Court,
Southern
District
of
New
York,
in
Riverkeeper
Inc.,
et
al.
v.
Whitman,
No.
93
Civ
0314
(
AGS),
a
case
brought
against
EPA
by
a
coalition
of
individuals
and
environmental
groups.
The
original
Consent
Decree,
filed
on
October
10,
1995,
provided
that
EPA
was
to
propose
regulations
implementing
section
316(
b)
by
July
2,
1999,
and
take
final
action
with
respect
to
those
regulations
by
August
13,
2001.
Under
subsequent
interim
orders
and
the
Amended
Consent
Decree,
EPA
has
divided
the
rulemaking
into
three
phases
and
is
working
under
new
deadlines.
As
required
by
the
Amended
Consent
Decree,
on
November
9,
2001,
EPA
took
final
action
on
a
rule
governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
used
by
new
facilities
(
Phase
I).
66
FR
65255
(
December
18,
2001).
The
Amended
Consent
Decree
also
requires
that
EPA
issue
this
proposal
by
February
28,
2002,
and
take
final
action
by
August
28,
2003
(
Phase
II).
2
The
decree
requires
further
that
EPA
propose
regulations
governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
used,
at
a
minimum,
by
smaller­
flow
power
plants
and
factories
in
four
industrial
sectors
(
pulp
and
paper
making,
petroleum
and
coal
products
manufacturing,
chemical
and
allied
manufacturing,
and
primary
metal
manufacturing)
by
June
15,
2003,
and
take
final
action
by
December
15,
2004
(
Phase
III).

3.
What
Other
EPA
Rulemakings
and
Guidance
Have
Addressed
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures?
In
April
1976
EPA
published
a
rule
under
section
316(
b)
that
addressed
cooling
water
intake
structures.
41
FR
17387
(
April
26,
1976),
proposed
at
38
FR
34410
(
December
13,
1973).
The
rule
added
a
new
§
401.14
to
40
CFR
Chapter
I
that
reiterated
the
requirements
of
CWA
section
316(
b).
It
also
added
a
new
part
402,
which
included
three
sections:
(
1)
§
402.10
(
Applicability),
(
2)
§
402.11
(
Specialized
definitions),
and
(
3)
§
402.12
(
Best
technology
available
for
cooling
water
intake
structures).
Section
402.10
stated
that
the
provisions
of
part
402
applied
to
``
cooling
water
intake
structures
for
point
sources
for
which
effluent
limitations
are
established
pursuant
to
section
301
or
standards
of
performance
are
established
pursuant
to
section
306
of
the
Act.''
Section
402.11
defined
the
terms
``
cooling
water
intake
structure,''
``
location,''
``
design,''
``
construction,''
``
capacity,''
and
``
Development
Document.''
Section
402.12
included
the
following
language:

The
information
contained
in
the
Development
Document
shall
be
considered
in
determining
whether
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
of
a
point
source
subject
to
standards
established
under
section
301
or
306
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.

In
1977,
fifty­
eight
electric
utility
companies
challenged
these
regulations,
arguing
that
EPA
had
failed
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
(
APA)
in
promulgating
the
rule.
Specifically,
the
utilities
argued
that
EPA
had
neither
published
the
Development
Document
in
the
Federal
Register
nor
properly
incorporated
the
document
into
the
rule
by
reference.
The
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fourth
Circuit
agreed
and,
without
reaching
the
merits
of
the
regulations
themselves,
remanded
the
rule.
Appalachian
Power
Co.
v.
Train,
566
F.
2d
451
(
4th
Cir.
1977).
EPA
later
withdrew
part
402.
44
FR
32956
(
June
7,
1979).
40
CFR
401.14
remains
in
effect.
Since
the
Fourth
Circuit
remanded
EPA's
section
316(
b)
regulations
in
1977,
NPDES
permit
authorities
have
made
decisions
implementing
section
316(
b)
on
a
case­
by­
case,
site­
specific
basis.
EPA
published
draft
guidance
addressing
section
316(
b)
implementation
in
1977.
See
Draft
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Adverse
Impact
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
on
the
Aquatic
Environment:
Section
316(
b)
P.
L.
92
 
500
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1977).
This
draft
guidance
describes
the
studies
recommended
for
evaluating
the
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
on
the
aquatic
environment
and
recommends
a
basis
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
1977
section
316(
b)
draft
guidance
states,
``
The
environmentalintake
interactions
in
question
are
highly
site­
specific
and
the
decision
as
to
best
technology
available
for
intake
design,
location,
construction,
and
capacity
must
be
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.''
(
Section
316(
b)
Draft
Guidance,
U.
S.
EPA,
1977,
p.
4).
This
case­
by­
case
approach
also
is
consistent
with
the
approach
described
in
the
1976
Development
Document
referenced
in
the
remanded
regulation.
The
1977
section
316(
b)
draft
guidance
suggests
a
general
process
for
developing
information
needed
to
support
section
316(
b)
decisions
and
presenting
that
information
to
the
permitting
authority.
The
process
involves
the
development
of
a
sitespecific
study
of
the
environmental
effects
associated
with
each
facility
that
uses
one
or
more
cooling
water
intake
structures,
as
well
as
consideration
of
that
study
by
the
permitting
authority
in
determining
whether
the
facility
must
make
any
changes
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Where
adverse
environmental
impact
is
present,
the
1977
draft
guidance
suggests
a
stepwise
approach
that
considers
screening
systems,
size,
location,
capacity,
and
other
factors.
Although
the
draft
guidance
describes
the
information
that
should
be
developed,
key
factors
that
should
be
considered,
and
a
process
for
supporting
section
316(
b)
determinations,
it
does
not
establish
uniform
technology­
based
national
standards
for
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Rather,
the
guidance
leaves
the
decisions
on
the
appropriate
location,
design,
capacity,
and
construction
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
to
the
permitting
authority.
Under
this
framework,
the
Director
determines
whether
appropriate
studies
have
been
performed
and
whether
a
given
facility
has
minimized
adverse
environmental
impact.

4.
New
Facility
Rule
On
November
9,
2001,
EPA
took
final
action
on
regulations
governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
new
facilities.
66
FR
65255
(
December
18,
2001).
The
final
new
facility
rule
(
Phase
I)
established
requirements
applicable
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
new
facilities
that
withdraw
at
least
two
(
2)
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
and
use
at
least
twentyfive
(
25)
percent
of
the
water
they
withdraw
solely
for
cooling
purposes.
EPA
adopted
a
two­
track
approach.
Under
Track
I,
for
facilities
with
a
design
intake
flow
more
than
10
MGD,
the
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
restricted,
at
a
minimum,
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
could
be
attained
by
use
of
a
closedcycle
recirculating
system.
For
facilities
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17127
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
3
U.
S.
EPA,
Information
Collection
Request,
Detailed
Industry
Questionnaires:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
&
Watershed
Case
Study
Short
Questionnaires,
Section
3,
1999.
with
a
design
intake
flow
more
than
2
MGD,
the
design
through­
screen
intake
velocity
is
restricted
to
0.5
ft/
s
and
the
total
quantity
of
intake
is
restricted
to
a
proportion
of
the
mean
annual
flow
of
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
or
to
maintain
the
natural
thermal
stratification
or
turnover
patterns
(
where
present)
of
a
lake
or
reservoir
except
in
cases
where
the
disruption
is
determined
to
be
beneficial
to
the
management
of
fisheries
for
fish
and
shellfish
by
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies),
or
to
a
percentage
of
the
tidal
excursions
of
a
tidal
river
or
estuary.
In
addition,
an
applicant
with
intake
capacity
greater
than
10
MGD
must
select
and
implement
an
appropriate
design
and
construction
technology
for
minimizing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
if
certain
environmental
conditions
exist.
(
Applicants
with
2
 
10
MGD
flows
are
not
required
to
reduce
capacity
but
must
install
technologies
for
reducing
entrainment
at
all
locations.)
Under
Track
II,
the
applicant
has
the
opportunity
to
demonstrate
that
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish,
including
important
forage
and
predator
species,
within
the
watershed
will
be
comparable
to
these
which
it
would
achieve
were
it
to
implement
the
Track
I
requirements
for
capacity
and
design
velocity.
This
demonstration
can
include
the
use
of
restoration
measures
such
as
habitat
enhancement
or
fish
restocking
programs.
Proportional
flow
requirements
also
apply
under
Track
II.
With
the
new
facility
rule,
EPA
promulgated
a
national
framework
that
establishes
minimum
requirements
for
the
design,
capacity,
and
construction
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
for
new
facilities.
EPA
believes
that
the
final
new
facility
rule
establishes
a
reasonable
framework
that
creates
certainty
for
permitting
of
new
facilities,
while
providing
some
flexibility
to
take
site­
specific
factors
into
account.

5.
Public
Participation
EPA
has
worked
extensively
with
stakeholders
from
the
industry,
public
interest
groups,
state
agencies,
and
other
federal
agencies
in
the
development
of
this
proposed
rule.
These
public
participation
activities
have
focused
on
various
section
316(
b)
issues,
including
general
issues,
as
well
as
issues
relevant
to
development
of
the
Phase
I
rule
and
issues
relevant
to
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule.
In
addition
to
outreach
to
industry
groups,
environmental
groups,
and
other
government
entities
in
the
development,
testing,
refinement,
and
completion
of
the
316(
b)
survey,
3
which
has
been
used
as
a
source
of
data
for
the
Phase
II
proposal,
EPA
conducted
two
public
meetings
on
316(
b)
issues.
In
June
1998,
in
Arlington,
Virginia
(
63
FR
27958)
EPA
conducted
a
public
meeting
focused
on
a
draft
regulatory
framework
for
assessing
potential
adverse
environmental
impacts
from
impingement
and
entrainment.
In
September,
1998,
in
Alexandria,
Virginia
(
63
FR
40683)
EPA
conducted
a
public
meeting
focused
on
technology,
cost,
and
mitigation
issues.
In
addition,
in
September
1998
and
April
1999,
EPA
staff
participated
in
technical
workshops
sponsored
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
on
issues
relating
to
the
definition
and
assessment
of
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
staff
have
participated
in
other
industry
conferences,
met
upon
request
on
numerous
occasions
with
industry
representatives,
and
met
on
a
number
of
occasions
with
representatives
of
environmental
groups.
In
the
months
leading
up
to
publication
of
the
proposed
Phase
I
rule,
EPA
conducted
a
series
of
stakeholder
meetings
to
review
the
draft
regulatory
framework
for
the
proposed
rule
and
invited
stakeholders
to
provide
their
recommendations
for
the
Agency's
consideration.
EPA
managers
have
met
with
the
Utility
Water
Act
Group,
Edison
Electric
Institute,
representatives
from
an
individual
utility,
and
with
representatives
from
the
petroleum
refining,
pulp
and
paper,
and
iron
and
steel
industries.
EPA
conducted
several
meetings
with
environmental
groups
attended
by
representatives
from
15
organizations.
EPA
also
met
with
the
Association
of
State
and
Interstate
Water
Pollution
Control
Administrators
(
ASIWPCA)
and,
with
the
assistance
of
ASIWPCA,
conducted
a
conference
call
in
which
representatives
from
17
states
or
interstate
organizations
participated.
After
publication
of
the
proposed
Phase
I
rule,
EPA
continued
to
meet
with
stakeholders
at
their
request.
These
meetings
are
summarized
in
the
record.
EPA
received
many
comments
from
industry
stakeholders,
government
agencies
and
private
citizens
on
the
Phase
I
proposed
rule
65
FR
49059
(
August
10,
2000).
EPA
received
additional
comments
on
the
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
66
FR
28853
(
May
25,
2001).
These
comments
have
informed
the
development
of
the
Phase
II
proposal.
In
January,
2001,
EPA
also
attended
technical
workshops
organized
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
and
the
Utilities
Water
Act
Group.
These
workshops
focused
on
the
presentation
of
key
issues
associated
with
different
regulatory
approaches
considered
under
the
Phase
I
proposed
rule
and
alternatives
for
addressing
316(
b)
requirements.
On
May
23,
2001,
EPA
held
a
daylong
forum
to
discuss
specific
issues
associated
with
the
development
of
regulations
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
66
FR
20658.
At
the
meeting,
17
experts
from
industry,
public
interest
groups,
States,
and
academia
reviewed
and
discussed
the
Agency's
preliminary
data
on
cooling
water
intake
structure
technologies
that
are
in
place
at
existing
facilities
and
the
costs
associated
with
the
use
of
available
technologies
for
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment.
Over
120
people
attended
the
meeting.
In
August
21,
2001,
EPA
staff
participated
in
a
technical
symposium
sponsored
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
in
association
with
the
American
Fisheries
Society
on
issues
relating
to
the
definition
and
assessment
of
adverse
environmental
impact
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA.
Finally,
EPA
has
coordinated
with
the
staff
from
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
(
NRC)
in
the
development
of
this
proposed
rule
to
ensure
that
the
proposal
does
not
conflict
with
NRC
safety
requirements.
NRC
staff
have
reviewed
the
proposed
316(
b)
rule
and
did
not
identify
any
apparent
conflict
with
nuclear
plant
safety.
NRC
licensees
would
continue
to
be
obligated
to
meet
NRC
requirements
for
design
and
reliable
operation
of
cooling
systems.
NRC
staff
recommended
that
EPA
consider
adding
language
which
states
that
in
cases
of
conflict
between
an
EPA
requirement
under
this
proposed
rule
and
an
NRC
safety
requirement,
the
NRC
safety
requirement
take
precedence.
EPA
has
added
language
to
address
this
concern
to
the
proposed
rule.
These
coordination
efforts
and
all
of
the
meetings
described
above
are
documented
or
summarized
in
the
record.

II.
Scope
and
Applicability
of
the
Proposed
Rule
This
proposed
rule
would
apply
to
existing
facilities
as
defined
below,
that
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
to
withdraw
water
for
cooling
purposes
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
and
that
have
or
are
required
to
have
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
issued
under
section
402
of
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17128
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
CWA.
Specifically,
the
rule
applies
to
you
if
you
are
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility
that
meets
all
of
the
following
criteria:
 
Your
facility
both
generates
and
transmits
electric
power
or
generates
electric
power
but
sells
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission;
 
Your
facility
is
a
point
source
and
uses
or
proposes
to
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
or
structures,
or
your
facility
obtains
cooling
water
by
any
sort
of
contract
or
arrangement
with
an
independent
supplier
who
has
a
cooling
water
intake
structure;
 
Your
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
withdraw(
s)
cooling
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
and
at
least
twenty­
five
(
25)
percent
of
the
water
withdrawn
is
used
solely
for
contact
or
non­
contact
cooling
purposes;
 
Your
facility
has
an
NPDES
permit
or
is
required
to
obtain
one;
and
 
Your
facility
has
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
greater;
 
In
the
case
of
a
cogeneration
facility
that
shares
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
with
another
facility,
only
that
portion
of
the
cooling
water
flow
that
is
used
in
the
cogeneration
process
shall
be
considered
when
determining
whether
the
50
MGD
and
25
percent
criteria
are
met.
Facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
are
referred
to
as
``
Phase
II
existing
facilities.''
Existing
facilities
with
design
flows
below
the
50
MGD
threshold,
as
well
as
certain
existing
manufacturing
facilities,
and
offshore
and
coastal
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
would
not
be
subject
to
this
proposed
rule,
but
will
be
addressed
in
Phase
III.
If
an
existing
facility
that
would
otherwise
be
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
has
or
requires
an
NPDES
permit
but
does
not
meet
the
twenty­
five
percent
cooling
water
use
threshold,
it
would
not
be
subject
to
permit
conditions
based
on
today's
proposed
rule;
rather,
it
would
be
subject
to
permit
conditions
implementing
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
set
by
the
permit
director
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
using
best
professional
judgment.

A.
What
Is
an
``
Existing
Facility''
for
Purposes
of
the
Section
316(
b)
Proposed
Phase
II
Rule?
EPA
is
proposing
to
define
the
term
``
existing
facility''
as
any
facility
that
commenced
construction
before
January
17,
2002
and
(
1)
any
modification
of
such
a
facility;
(
2)
any
addition
of
a
unit
at
such
a
facility
for
purposes
of
the
same
industrial
operation;
(
3)
any
addition
of
a
unit
at
such
a
facility
for
purposes
of
a
different
industrial
operation,
if
the
additional
unit
uses
an
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
the
design
capacity
of
intake
structure
is
not
increased;
or
(
4)
any
facility
constructed
in
place
of
such
a
facility
if
the
newly
constructed
facility
uses
an
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
whose
design
intake
flow
is
not
increased
to
accommodate
the
intake
of
additional
cooling
water.
The
term
commence
construction
is
defined
in
40
CFR
122.29(
b)(
4)
and
January
17,
2002
is
the
effective
date
of
the
new
facility
rule.
EPA
has
specified
that
any
modification
of
a
facility
that
commenced
construction
before
January
17,
2002
remains
an
existing
facility
for
purposes
of
this
rule
to
clarify
that
significant
changes
to
such
a
facility
would
not,
absent
other
conditions,
cause
the
facility
to
be
a
``
new
facility''
subject
to
the
Phase
I
rule.
In
addition,
the
proposed
definition
specifies
that
any
addition
of
a
unit
at
a
facility
that
commenced
construction
before
January
17,
2002
for
purposes
of
the
same
industrial
operation
as
the
existing
facility
would
continue
to
be
defined
as
an
existing
facility.
Further,
any
addition
of
a
unit
at
a
facility
that
commenced
construction
before
January
17,
2002
for
purposes
of
a
different
industrial
operation
would
remain
an
existing
facility
provided
the
additional
unit
uses
an
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
the
design
capacity
of
intake
structure
is
not
increased.
Finally,
under
the
proposed
definition,
any
facility
constructed
in
place
of
a
facility
that
commenced
construction
before
January
17,
2002,
would
remain
defined
as
an
existing
facility
if
the
newly
constructed
facility
uses
an
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
whose
design
intake
flow
is
not
increased
to
accommodate
the
intake
of
additional
cooling
water.
Under
this
proposed
rule
certain
forms
of
repowering
could
be
undertaken
by
an
existing
power
generating
facility
that
uses
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
it
would
remain
subject
to
regulation
as
a
Phase
II
existing
facility.
For
example,
the
following
scenarios
would
be
existing
facilities
under
the
proposed
rule:
 
An
existing
power
generating
facility
undergoes
a
modification
of
its
process
short
of
total
replacement
of
the
process
and
concurrently
increases
the
design
capacity
of
its
existing
cooling
water
intake
structures;
 
An
existing
power
generating
facility
builds
a
new
process
for
purposes
of
the
same
industrial
operation
and
concurrently
increases
the
design
capacity
of
its
existing
cooling
water
intake
structures;
 
An
existing
power
generating
facility
completely
rebuilds
its
process
but
uses
the
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
with
no
increase
in
design
capacity.
Thus,
in
most
situations,
repowering
an
existing
power
generating
facility
would
be
addressed
under
this
proposed
rule.
The
proposed
definition
of
``
existing
facility''
is
sufficiently
broad
that
it
covers
facilities
that
will
be
addressed
under
the
Phase
III
rule
(
e.
g.,
existing
power
generating
facilities
with
design
flows
below
the
50
MGD
threshold,
certain
existing
manufacturing
facilities,
and
offshore
and
coastal
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities).
These
facilities
are
not
covered
under
this
proposal
because
they
do
not
meet
the
requirements
of
proposed
§
125.91.

B.
What
Is
a
``
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure?''
Today's
proposal
would
adopt
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
the
same
definition
of
a
``
cooling
water
intake
structure''
that
is
part
of
the
new
facility
rule,
i.
e.,
40
CFR
125.83,
the
total
physical
structure
and
any
associated
constructed
waterways
used
to
withdraw
cooling
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
extends
from
the
point
at
which
water
is
withdrawn
from
the
surface
water
source
up
to,
and
including,
the
intake
pumps.
Today's
proposal
also
would
adopt
the
new
facility
rule's
definition
of
``
cooling
water,''
i.
e.,
water
used
for
contact
or
noncontact
cooling,
including
water
used
for
equipment
cooling,
evaporative
cooling
tower
makeup,
and
dilution
of
effluent
heat
content.
The
definition
specifies
that
the
intended
use
of
cooling
water
is
to
absorb
waste
heat
from
production
processes
or
auxiliary
operations.
The
definition
also
specifies
that
water
used
for
both
cooling
and
non­
cooling
purposes
would
not
be
considered
cooling
water
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
25%
or
more
of
the
flow
is
cooling
water.
This
definition
differs
from
the
definition
of
``
cooling
water
intake
structure''
that
is
included
in
the
1977
Draft
Guidance.
The
proposed
definition
clarifies
that
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
includes
the
physical
structure
and
technologies
that
extend
up
to
and
include
the
intake
pumps.
Inclusion
of
the
term
``
associated
constructed
waterways''
is
intended
to
clarify
that
the
definition
includes
those
canals,
channels,
connecting
waterways,
and
similar
structures
that
may
be
built
or
modified
to
facilitate
the
withdrawal
of
cooling
water.
The
explicit
inclusion
of
the
intake
pumps
in
the
definition
reflects
the
key
role
pumps
play
in
determining
the
capacity
(
i.
e.,
dynamic
capacity)
of
the
intake.
These
pumps,

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17129
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
which
bring
in
water,
are
an
essential
component
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
since
without
them
the
intake
could
not
work
as
designed.
In
addition,
the
definition
would
apply
to
structures
that
bring
water
in
for
both
contact
and
noncontact
cooling
purposes.
This
clarification
is
necessary
because
cooling
water
intake
structures
typically
bring
water
into
a
facility
for
numerous
purposes,
including
industrial
processes;
use
as
circulating
water,
service
water,
or
evaporative
cooling
tower
makeup
water;
dilution
of
effluent
heat
content;
equipment
cooling;
and
air
conditioning.
Finally,
at
§
125.91(
b),
consistent
with
the
new
facility
rule,
this
proposed
rule
provides
that
use
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
includes
obtaining
cooling
water
by
any
sort
of
contract
or
arrangement
with
an
independent
supplier
(
or
multiple
suppliers)
of
cooling
water
if
the
supplier
or
suppliers
withdraw(
s)
water
from
waters
of
the
United
States.
This
provision
is
intended
to
prevent
circumvention
of
these
requirements
by
creating
arrangements
to
receive
cooling
water
from
an
entity
that
is
not
itself
a
point
source.
It
also
provides
that
use
of
cooling
water
does
not
include
obtaining
cooling
water
from
a
public
water
system
or
the
use
of
treated
effluent
that
otherwise
would
be
discharged
to
a
water
of
the
U.
S.

C.
Is
My
Facility
Covered
If
It
Withdraws
From
Waters
of
the
U.
S.?
The
requirements
proposed
today
would
apply
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
that
withdraw
amounts
of
water
greater
than
the
proposed
flow
threshold
from
``
waters
of
the
U.
S.''
Waters
of
the
U.
S.
include
the
broad
range
of
surface
waters
that
meet
the
regulatory
definition
at
40
CFR
122.2,
which
includes
lakes,
ponds,
reservoirs,
nontidal
rivers
or
streams,
tidal
rivers,
estuaries,
fjords,
oceans,
bays,
and
coves.
These
potential
sources
of
cooling
water
may
be
adversely
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment.
Some
facilities
discharge
heated
water
to
cooling
ponds,
then
withdraw
water
from
the
ponds
for
cooling
purposes.
EPA
does
not
intend
this
proposal
to
change
the
regulatory
status
of
cooling
ponds.
Cooling
ponds
are
neither
categorically
included
nor
categorically
excluded
from
the
definition
of
``
waters
of
the
United
States''
at
40
CFR
122.2.
EPA
interprets
40
CFR
122.2
to
give
permit
writers
discretion
to
regulate
cooling
ponds
as
``
waters
of
the
United
States''
where
cooling
ponds
meet
the
definition
of
``
waters
of
the
United
States.''
The
determination
whether
a
particular
cooling
pond
is
or
is
not
``
waters
of
the
United
States''
is
to
be
made
by
the
permit
writer
on
a
case­
bycase
basis,
informed
by
the
principles
enunciated
in
Solid
Waste
Agency
of
Northern
Cook
County
v.
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
531
U.
S.
159
(
2001).
Therefore,
facilities
that
withdraw
cooling
water
from
cooling
ponds
that
are
``
waters
of
the
U.
S.''
and
that
meet
today's
other
proposed
criteria
for
coverage
(
including
the
requirement
that
the
facility
have
or
be
required
to
obtain
an
NPDES
permit)
would
be
subject
to
today's
proposed
rule.

D.
Is
My
Facility
Covered
If
It
Is
a
Point
Source
Discharger
Subject
to
an
NPDES
Permit?
Today's
proposed
rule
would
apply
only
to
facilities
that
have
an
NPDES
permit
or
are
required
to
obtain
one
because
they
discharge
or
might
discharge
pollutants,
including
storm
water,
from
a
point
source
to
waters
of
the
U.
S.
This
is
the
same
requirement
EPA
included
in
the
new
facility
rule.
40
CFR
125.81(
a)(
1).
Requirements
for
minimizing
the
adverse
environmental
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
would
continue
to
be
applied
through
NPDES
permits.
Based
on
the
Agency's
review
of
potential
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
employ
cooling
water
intake
structures,
the
Agency
anticipates
that
most
existing
power
generating
facilities
that
would
be
subject
to
this
rule
will
control
the
intake
structure
that
supplies
them
with
cooling
water,
and
discharge
some
combination
of
their
cooling
water,
wastewater,
and
storm
water
to
a
water
of
the
U.
S.
through
a
point
source
regulated
by
an
NPDES
permit.
In
this
scenario,
the
requirements
for
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
be
specified
in
the
facility's
NPDES
permit.
In
the
event
that
a
Phase
II
existing
facility's
only
NPDES
permit
is
a
general
permit
for
storm
water
discharges,
the
Agency
anticipates
that
the
Director
would
write
an
individual
NPDES
permit
containing
requirements
for
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
Agency
invites
comment
on
this
approach
for
applying
cooling
water
intake
structure
requirements
to
the
facility.
Alternatively,
requirements
applicable
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
could
be
incorporated
into
general
permits.
The
Agency
also
invites
comment
on
this
approach.
The
Agency
also
recognizes
that
some
facilities
that
have
or
are
required
to
have
an
NPDES
permit
might
not
directly
control
the
intake
structure
that
supplies
their
facility
with
cooling
water.
For
example,
facilities
operated
by
separate
entities
might
be
located
on
the
same,
adjacent,
or
nearby
property;
one
of
these
facilities
might
take
in
cooling
water
and
then
transfer
it
to
other
facilities
prior
to
discharge
of
the
cooling
water
to
a
water
of
the
U.
S.
Proposed
§
125.91(
c)
addresses
such
a
situation.
It
provides
that
use
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
includes
obtaining
cooling
water
by
any
sort
of
contract
or
arrangement
with
an
independent
supplier
(
or
multiple
suppliers)
of
cooling
water
if
the
supplier
or
suppliers
withdraw(
s)
water
from
waters
of
the
United
States.
This
provision
is
intended
to
prevent
circumvention
of
the
proposed
requirements
by
creating
arrangements
to
receive
cooling
water
from
an
entity
that
is
not
itself
a
point
source
discharger.
It
is
the
same
as
in
the
final
new
facility
rule.
40
CFR
125.81(
b).
Proposed
§
125.91(
c)
also
provides,
as
in
the
new
facility
rule,
that
facilities
that
obtain
cooling
water
from
a
public
water
system
or
use
treated
effluent
that
otherwise
would
be
discharged
to
a
water
of
the
U.
S.
would
not
be
subject
to
this
proposed
rule.
In
addition,
as
EPA
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
new
facility
rule,
the
Agency
would
encourage
the
Director
to
closely
examine
scenarios
in
which
a
potential
Phase
II
existing
facility
withdraws
significant
amounts
of
cooling
water
but
does
not
have
an
NPDES
permit.
As
appropriate,
the
Director
should
apply
other
legal
requirements,
such
as
section
404
or
401
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
the
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act,
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act,
or
similar
State
authorities
to
address
adverse
environmental
impact
caused
by
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
those
existing
facilities.

E.
Who
Is
Covered
Under
the
Thresholds
Included
in
This
Proposed
Rule?
This
proposed
rule
applies
to
facilities
that
(
1)
withdraw
cooling
water
from
water
of
the
U.
S.
and
use
at
least
twenty­
five
(
25)
percent
of
the
water
withdrawn
for
cooling
purposes
and
(
2)
have
at
least
one
cooling
water
intake
structure
with
a
design
intake
capacity
of
50
MGD
or
more.
Proposed
§
125.91.
EPA
is
proposing
to
include
a
provision,
like
that
specified
in
the
new
facility
rule,
that
facilities
that
use
less
than
twenty­
five
(
25)
percent
of
the
water
withdrawn
for
cooling
purposes
are
not
subject
to
this
rule.
This
threshold
ensures
that
nearly
all
cooling
water
and
the
most
significant
facilities
using
cooling
water
intake
structures
are
addressed
by
these
requirements
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
(
see
66
FR
65338).
Phase
II
existing
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17130
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
4
Source:
Initial
SBREFA
Analysis,
6/
01.
facilities
typically
use
far
more
than
25
percent
of
the
water
they
withdraw
for
cooling.
As
in
the
new
facility
rule,
water
used
for
both
cooling
and
noncooling
purposes
would
not
count
towards
the
25
percent
threshold.
In
addition,
at
§
125.91,
EPA
is
proposing
that
this
rule
would
apply
to
facilities
that
have
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
with
a
design
intake
capacity
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
greater
of
source
water.
EPA
chose
the
50
MGD
threshold
to
focus
the
proposed
rule
on
the
largest
existing
power
generating
facilities.
Existing
power
generating
facilities
with
design
flows
below
this
threshold,
as
well
as
certain
existing
manufacturing
facilities,
and
offshore
and
coastal
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
would
not
be
subject
to
this
proposed
rule
but
will
be
addressed
under
the
Phase
III
rule.
To
clarify
that
manufacturing
and
commercial
facilities
are
not
subject
to
the
Phase
II
rule
as
a
result
of
their
relationship
as
a
host
plant
to
a
cogeneration
facility,
only
that
portion
of
the
cooling
water
intake
flow
that
is
used
in
the
cogeneration
process
would
be
considered
in
determining
whether
the
50
MGD
and
25
percent
criteria
are
met.
EPA
estimates
that
the
50
MGD
threshold
would
subject
approximately
539
of
942
(
57
percent)
of
existing
power
generating
facilities
to
the
proposal
and
would
address
99.04
percent
of
the
total
flow
withdrawn
by
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities.
4
EPA
believes
the
regulation
of
existing
facilities
with
flows
of
50
MGD
or
greater
in
Phase
II
will
address
those
existing
power
generating
facilities
with
the
greatest
potential
to
cause
or
contribute
to
adverse
environmental
impact.
In
addition,
EPA
has
limited
data
on
impacts
at
facilities
withdrawing
less
than
50
MGD.
Deferring
regulation
of
such
facilities
to
Phase
III
provides
additional
opportunity
for
the
Agency
to
collect
impingement
and
entrainment
data
for
these
smaller
facilities.
EPA
requests
comment
on
both
the
50
MGD
and
25
percent
cooling
water
thresholds.

F.
When
Must
a
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Comply
With
the
Proposed
Requirements?

If
your
facility
is
subject
to
the
rule,
proposed
§
125.92
would
require
that
you
must
comply
when
an
NPDES
permit
containing
requirements
consistent
with
this
subpart
is
issued
to
you.
G.
What
Special
Definitions
Apply
to
This
Proposal?

Definitions
specific
to
this
proposal
are
set
forth
in
proposed
§
125.93.
Except
for
the
definitions
of
``
cooling
water''
and
``
existing
facility,''
which
are
separately
defined
for
Phase
II
facilities
in
proposed
§
125.93,
the
definitions
in
the
new
facility
rule,
40
CFR
125.83,
also
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.
The
definitions
in
the
new
facility
rule
that
would
apply
to
Phase
II
existing
facilities
are
as
follows:
Annual
mean
flow
means
the
average
of
daily
flows
over
a
calendar
year.
Historical
data
(
up
to
10
years)
must
be
used
where
available.
Closed­
cycle
recirculating
system
means
a
system
designed,
using
minimized
makeup
and
blowdown
flows,
to
withdraw
water
from
a
natural
or
other
water
source
to
support
contact
and/
or
noncontact
cooling
uses
within
a
facility.
The
water
is
usually
sent
to
a
cooling
canal
or
channel,
lake,
pond,
or
tower
to
allow
waste
heat
to
be
dissipated
to
the
atmosphere
and
then
is
returned
to
the
system.
(
Some
facilities
divert
the
waste
heat
to
other
process
operations.)
New
source
water
(
make­
up
water)
is
added
to
the
system
to
replenish
losses
that
have
occurred
due
to
blowdown,
drift,
and
evaporation.
Cooling
water
intake
structure
means
the
total
physical
structure
and
any
associated
constructed
waterways
used
to
withdraw
cooling
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
extends
from
the
point
at
which
water
is
withdrawn
from
the
surface
water
source
up
to,
and
including,
the
intake
pumps.
Design
intake
flow
means
the
value
assigned
(
during
the
facility's
design)
to
the
total
volume
of
water
withdrawn
from
a
source
waterbody
over
a
specific
time
period.
Design
intake
velocity
means
the
value
assigned
(
during
the
design
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure)
to
the
average
speed
at
which
intake
water
passes
through
the
open
area
of
the
intake
screen
(
or
other
device)
against
which
organisms
might
be
impinged
or
through
which
they
might
be
entrained.
Entrainment
means
the
incorporation
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
with
intake
water
flow
entering
and
passing
through
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
into
a
cooling
water
system.
Estuary
means
a
semi­
enclosed
body
of
water
that
has
a
free
connection
with
open
seas
and
within
which
the
seawater
is
measurably
diluted
with
fresh
water
derived
from
land
drainage.
The
salinity
of
an
estuary
exceeds
0.5
parts
per
thousand
(
by
mass)
but
is
typically
less
than
30
parts
per
thousand
(
by
mass).
Freshwater
river
or
stream
means
a
lotic
(
free­
flowing)
system
that
does
not
receive
significant
inflows
of
water
from
oceans
or
bays
due
to
tidal
action.
For
the
purposes
of
this
rule,
a
flow­
through
reservoir
with
a
retention
time
of
7
days
or
less
will
be
considered
a
freshwater
river
or
stream.
Hydraulic
zone
of
influence
means
that
portion
of
the
source
waterbody
hydraulically
affected
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
withdrawal
of
water.
Impingement
means
the
entrapment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
on
the
outer
part
of
an
intake
structure
or
against
a
screening
device
during
periods
of
intake
water
withdrawal.
Lake
or
reservoir
means
any
inland
body
of
open
water
with
some
minimum
surface
area
free
of
rooted
vegetation
and
with
an
average
hydraulic
retention
time
of
more
than
7
days.
Lakes
or
reservoirs
might
be
natural
water
bodies
or
impounded
streams,
usually
fresh,
surrounded
by
land
or
by
land
and
a
man­
made
retainer
(
e.
g.,
a
dam).
Lakes
or
reservoirs
might
be
fed
by
rivers,
streams,
springs,
and/
or
local
precipitation.
Flow­
through
reservoirs
with
an
average
hydraulic
retention
time
of
7
days
or
less
should
be
considered
a
freshwater
river
or
stream.
Maximize
means
to
increase
to
the
greatest
amount,
extent,
or
degree
reasonably
possible.
Minimum
ambient
source
water
surface
elevation
means
the
elevation
of
the
7Q10
flow
for
freshwater
streams
or
rivers;
the
conservation
pool
level
for
lakes
or
reservoirs;
or
the
mean
low
tidal
water
level
for
estuaries
or
oceans.
The
7Q10
flow
is
the
lowest
average
7
consecutive
day
low
flow
with
an
average
frequency
of
one
in
10
years
determined
hydrologically.
The
conservation
pool
is
the
minimum
depth
of
water
needed
in
a
reservoir
to
ensure
proper
performance
of
the
system
relying
upon
the
reservoir.
The
mean
low
tidal
water
level
is
the
average
height
of
the
low
water
over
at
least
19
years.
Minimize
means
to
reduce
to
the
smallest
amount,
extent,
or
degree
reasonably
possible.
Natural
thermal
stratification
means
the
naturally­
occurring
division
of
a
waterbody
into
horizontal
layers
of
differing
densities
as
a
result
of
variations
in
temperature
at
different
depths.
New
facility
means
any
building,
structure,
facility,
or
installation
that
meets
the
definition
of
a
``
new
source''
or
``
new
discharger''
in
40
CFR
122.2
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17131
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
and
122.29(
b)(
1),
(
2),
and
(
4)
and
is
a
greenfield
or
stand­
alone
facility;
commences
construction
after
January
17,
2002;
and
uses
either
a
newly
constructed
cooling
water
intake
structure,
or
an
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
whose
design
capacity
is
increased
to
accommodate
the
intake
of
additional
cooling
water.
New
facilities
include
only
``
greenfield''
and
``
stand­
alone''
facilities.
A
greenfield
facility
is
a
facility
that
is
constructed
at
a
site
at
which
no
other
source
is
located,
or
that
totally
replaces
the
process
or
production
equipment
at
an
existing
facility
(
see
40
CFR
122.29(
b)(
1)(
i)
and
(
ii)).
A
stand­
alone
facility
is
a
new,
separate
facility
that
is
constructed
on
property
where
an
existing
facility
is
located
and
whose
processes
are
substantially
independent
of
the
existing
facility
at
the
same
site
(
see
40
CFR
122.29(
b)(
1)(
iii)).
New
facility
does
not
include
new
units
that
are
added
to
a
facility
for
purposes
of
the
same
general
industrial
operation
(
for
example,
a
new
peaking
unit
at
an
electrical
generating
station).
(
1)
Examples
of
``
new
facilities''
include,
but
are
not
limited
to
the
following
scenarios:
(
i)
A
new
facility
is
constructed
on
a
site
that
has
never
been
used
for
industrial
or
commercial
activity.
It
has
a
new
cooling
water
intake
structure
for
its
own
use.
(
ii)
A
facility
is
demolished
and
another
facility
is
constructed
in
its
place.
The
newly­
constructed
facility
uses
the
original
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure,
but
modifies
it
to
increase
the
design
capacity
to
accommodate
the
intake
of
additional
cooling
water.
(
iii)
A
facility
is
constructed
on
the
same
property
as
an
existing
facility,
but
is
a
separate
and
independent
industrial
operation.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
used
by
the
original
facility
is
modified
by
constructing
a
new
intake
bay
for
the
use
of
the
newly
constructed
facility
or
is
otherwise
modified
to
increase
the
intake
capacity
for
the
new
facility.
(
2)
Examples
of
facilities
that
would
NOT
be
considered
a
``
new
facility''
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following
scenarios:
(
i)
A
facility
in
commercial
or
industrial
operation
is
modified
and
either
continues
to
use
its
original
cooling
water
intake
structure
or
uses
a
new
or
modified
cooling
water
intake
structure.
(
ii)
A
facility
has
an
existing
intake
structure.
Another
facility
(
a
separate
and
independent
industrial
operation),
is
constructed
on
the
same
property
and
connects
to
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
behind
the
intake
pumps,
and
the
design
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
has
not
been
increased.
This
facility
would
not
be
considered
a
``
new
facility''
even
if
routine
maintenance
or
repairs
that
do
not
increase
the
design
capacity
were
performed
on
the
intake
structure.
Ocean
means
marine
open
coastal
waters
with
a
salinity
greater
than
or
equal
to
30
parts
per
thousand
(
by
mass).
Source
water
means
the
waterbody
(
waters
of
the
U.
S.)
from
which
the
cooling
water
is
withdrawn.
Thermocline
means
the
middle
layer
of
a
thermally
stratified
lake
or
reservoir.
In
this
layer,
there
is
a
rapid
decrease
in
temperatures.
Tidal
excursion
means
the
horizontal
distance
along
the
estuary
or
tidal
river
that
a
particle
moves
during
one
tidal
cycle
of
ebb
and
flow.
Tidal
river
means
the
most
seaward
reach
of
a
river
or
stream
where
the
salinity
is
typically
less
than
or
equal
to
0.5
parts
per
thousand
(
by
mass)
at
a
time
of
annual
low
flow
and
whose
surface
elevation
responds
to
the
effects
of
coastal
lunar
tides.

III
Summary
of
Data
Collection
Activities
EPA
focused
its
data
collection
activities
on
traditional
utilities
and
nonutility
power
producers.
Based
on
the
1982
Census
of
Manufacturers,
these
industries
account
for
more
than
90
percent
of
cooling
water
use
in
the
United
States.
Traditional
utilities
and
nonutility
power
producers
that
use
cooling
water
were
further
limited
to
those
plants
that
generate
electricity
by
means
of
steam
as
the
thermodynamic
medium
(
steam
electric)
because
they
are
associated
with
large
cooling
water
needs.
Other
power
producers
generate
electricity
by
means
other
than
steam
(
e.
g.,
gas
turbines)
and
typically
require
only
small
amounts
of
cooling
water,
if
any.
Facilities
in
the
traditional
steam
electric
utility
category
are
classified
under
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes
4911
and
493,
while
nonutility
power
producers
are
classified
under
the
major
code
that
corresponds
to
the
primary
purpose
of
the
facility.
Nonutility
facilities
are
classified
under
SIC
codes
4911
and
493
if
the
primary
purpose
of
the
facility
is
to
generate
electricity,
and
it
is
these
nonutility
facilities
that
are
potentially
subject
to
this
rule.

A.
Existing
Data
Sources
EPA
collected
data
from
multiple
sources,
both
public
and
proprietary,
in
order
to
compile
an
accurate
profile
of
the
potentially
regulated
community.
EPA
reviewed
information
collected
by
other
Federal
agencies,
as
well
as
data
compiled
by
private
companies.
In
those
instances
where
databases
are
considered
confidential,
or
where
raw
data
was
unavailable
for
review,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
information.
Summaries
of
the
reviewed
data
sources
are
listed
below.

1.
Traditional
Steam
Electric
Utilities
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission
Data
Sources.
The
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission
(
FERC)
is
an
independent
agency
that
oversees
America's
natural
gas
industry,
electric
utilities,
nonfederal
hydroelectric
projects,
and
oil
pipeline
transportation
system.
FERC
requires
that
utilities,
companies,
or
individuals
subject
to
its
regulations
periodically
file
data
or
information
relating
to
such
matters
as
financial
operations,
energy
production
or
supply,
and
compliance
with
applicable
regulations.
Following
are
brief
descriptions
of
the
relevant
FERC
data
collection
forms
associated
with
traditional
steam
electric
utilities:
 
FERC
Form
1,
the
Annual
Report
for
Major
Electric
Utilities,
Licensees
and
Others,
collects
extensive
accounting,
financial,
and
operating
data
from
major
privately­
owned
electric
utilities.
A
privately­
owned
electric
utility
is
considered
``
major''
if
its
sales
and
transmission
services,
in
each
of
the
three
previous
calendar
years,
exceeded
one
of
the
following:
(
1)
One
million
megawatt
hours
of
total
annual
sales;
(
2)
100
megawatt
hours
of
annual
sales
for
resale;
(
3)
500
megawatt
hours
of
annual
power
exchanges
delivered;
or
(
4)
500
megawatt
hours
of
annual
wheeling
for
others.
Utility­
level
information
(
e.
g.,
number
of
employees,
detailed
revenue
and
expense
information,
balance
sheet
information,
and
electricity
generation
information)
and
plant­
level
information
(
e.
g.,
production
expenses,
balance
sheet
information,
and
electricity
generation
information)
was
used
in
the
economic
analysis
of
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
used
FERC
Form
1
data
as
compiled
and
distributed
by
other
organizations
than
FERC
(
see
below).
(
Note
that
FERC
Form
1
applies
only
to
privately­
owned
utilities.
Publicly­
owned
utilities
and
rural
electric
cooperatives
are
discussed
below.)
 
FERC
Form
1
 
F,
the
Annual
Report
of
Nonmajor
Public
Utilities
and
Licensees,
collects
accounting,
financial,
and
operating
data
from
nonmajor
privately­
owned
electric
utilities.
A
privately­
owned
electric
utility
is
considered
``
nonmajor''
if
it
had
total
annual
sales
of
10,000
megawatt
hours
or
more
in
the
previous
calendar
year
but
is
not
classified
as
``
major''
under
the
FERC
Form
1
definition.
FERC
Form
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17132
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
7
Note
that
this
data
collection
form
only
applies
to
rural
electric
cooperatives.
Corresponding
data
collection
forms
for
privately­
owned
and
publiclyowned
utilities
are
discussed
in
other
parts
of
this
section.
1
 
F
collects
utility­
and
plant­
level
data
similar
to
that
on
FERC
Form
1,
albeit
less
detailed.
Energy
Information
Administration
Data
Sources.
The
Energy
Information
Administration
(
EIA)
is
an
independent
statistical
and
analytical
agency
within
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE).
In
support
of
its
analytic
activities,
the
EIA
administers
a
series
of
data
collection
efforts
including
extensive
surveys
of
electric
utilities'
financial
operations,
and
their
production
and
disposition
of
electricity.
Following
are
brief
descriptions
of
the
EIA
data
collection
forms
associated
with
traditional
steam
electric
utilities
that
EPA
has
used
as
data
sources:
 
Form
EIA
 
412,
the
Annual
Report
of
Public
Electric
Utilities,
collects
accounting,
financial,
and
operating
data
from
publicly­
owned
electric
utilities.
The
information
collected
in
Form
EIA
 
412
is
similar
to,
but
less
detailed
than
data
collected
from
major
privately­
owned
electric
utilities
in
FERC
Form
1.
EPA
use
of
Form
EIA
 
412
data
included
both
utility­
level
information
(
e.
g.,
number
of
employees,
detailed
revenue
and
expense
information,
balance
sheet
information,
and
electricity
generation
information)
and
plant­
level
information
(
e.
g.,
production
expenses,
balance
sheet
information,
and
electricity
generation
information).
 
Form
EIA
 
767,
the
Steam­
Electric
Plant
Operation
and
Design
Report,
collects
data
on
air
and
water
quality
from
steam­
electric
power
plants
with
generating
capacity
of
100
megawatts
or
greater.
A
subset
of
these
data
are
provided
for
steam­
electric
power
plants
with
generating
capacity
between
10
and
100
megawatts.
EPA
use
of
Form
EIA
 
767
data
included
unit­
level
information
on
net
electricity
generation,
hours
in
operation,
and
the
quantity
of
fuel
burned.
Form
EIA
 
860,
the
Annual
Electric
Generator
Report,
collects
data
on
the
status
of
electric
generating
plants
and
associated
equipment
in
operation
and
those
scheduled
to
be
in
operation
within
the
next
10
years
of
filing
the
report.
Each
utility
that
operates
or
plans
to
operate
a
power
plant
in
the
United
States
is
required
to
file
Form
EIA
 
860.
EPA
use
of
Form
EIA
 
860
data
included
unit­
level
information
on
operating
status,
nameplate
capacity,
and
ownership
percentage.
Form
EIA
 
861,
the
Annual
Electric
Utility
Report,
collects
data
on
generation,
wholesale
purchases,
and
sales
and
revenue
by
class
of
consumer
and
State.
Respondents
include
each
electric
utility
that
is
engaged
in
the
generation,
transmission,
distribution,
or
sale
of
electric
energy
primarily
for
use
by
the
public.
Data
used
from
Form
EIA
 
861
included
sales
and
revenue
by
consumer
class,
the
utility's
NERC
region,
and
address
information.
In
addition,
EPA
used
data
on
utility
ownership
to
classify
each
utility
as
either
a
privately­
owned
utility,
a
publicly­
owned
utility,
or
a
rural
electric
cooperative.
In
addition
to
data
from
the
EIA
data
collection
forms
outlined
above,
EPA
used
EIA's
database
of
FERC
Form
1
data,
containing
the
majority
of
utilitylevel
financial
and
operating
data
submitted
on
the
FERC
Form
1.
While
these
data
are
directly
available
from
FERC,
the
EIA
database
is
published
in
an
electronic
format
that
is
more
convenient
to
use
than
the
FERC
data.
Because
EIA
conducts
basic
quality
assurance
activities,
EPA
expects
that
the
EIA
data
is
more
reliable
than
the
FERC
data.
Rural
Utility
Service
Data
Sources.
The
Rural
Utility
Service
(
RUS)
is
a
Federal
agency
that
provides
rural
infrastructure
assistance
in
electricity,
water
and
telecommunications.
As
a
Federal
credit
agency
in
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
RUS
plays
a
leadership
role
in
financial
lending
and
technical
guidance
for
the
rural
utilities
industries.
Rural
utilities
that
borrow
from
RUS
are
subject
to
annual
reporting
requirements
administered
by
RUS.
Following
are
brief
descriptions
of
the
relevant
RUS
data
collection
forms
associated
with
traditional
steam
electric
utilities:
 
RUS
Form
12,
the
Electric
Operating
Report,
collects
accounting,
financial,
and
operating
data
from
rural
electric
cooperatives
7.
The
information
collected
in
RUS
Form
12
is
similar
to
data
collected
from
major
privatelyowned
electric
utilities
in
FERC
Form
1.
EPA
use
of
RUS
Form
12
data
included
utility­
level
information
(
e.
g.,
number
of
employees,
detailed
revenue
and
expense
information,
balance
sheet
information,
and
electricity
generation
information),
plant­
level
information
(
e.
g.,
production
expenses,
balance
sheet
information,
and
electricity
generation
information),
as
well
as
unitlevel
information
(
e.
g.,
fuel
consumption,
operating
hours,
and
electricity
generation).
U.
S.
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
Data
Sources.
The
U.
S.
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
(
NRC)
is
an
independent
agency
established
to
ensure
the
protection
of
the
public
health
and
safety,
the
common
defense
and
security,
and
the
environment
in
the
use
of
nuclear
materials
in
the
United
States.
In
carrying
out
its
responsibilities
of
regulating
commercial
nuclear
power
reactors,
the
NRC
compiles
and
publishes
data
and
reports
regarding
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
commercial
nuclear
power
plants
around
the
country.
EPA
collected
information
from
the
NRC
regarding
the
configuration
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
to
assist
in
estimating
the
capacities
of
condenser
flows.
Opri
Data
Sources.
Opri
is
a
private
firm
located
in
Boulder,
Colorado,
that
has
compiled
extensive
databases
related
to
the
traditional
steam
electric
utility
industry.
Opri's
Electric
Generating
Plant
Database
includes
plant­
level
data
for
privately­
owned
utilities,
publicly­
owned
utilities,
and
cooperatives
for
1988
 
1997.
While
these
data
are
available
from
FERC,
EIA,
and
RUS,
these
agencies
do
not
make
the
information
available
in
an
easily
accessible
electronic
format.
As
a
consequence,
EPA
purchased
plantlevel
data
from
Opri
to
support
its
economic
analyses.
Because
the
compilation
of
data
in
the
Electric
Generating
Plant
Database
is
proprietary,
EPA
has
included
a
summary
of
the
data
utilized
in
its
analyses
in
the
public
record.

2.
Steam
Electric
Nonutility
Power
Producers
Energy
Information
Administration
Data
Sources.
Form
EIA
 
867,
the
Annual
Nonutility
Power
Producer
Report,
collects
data
on
electricity
generation,
installed
capacity,
and
energy
consumption
from
nonutility
power
producers
that
own
or
plan
on
installing
electric
generation
equipment
with
a
total
capacity
of
one
megawatt
or
more.
The
form
does
not
collect
any
economic
or
financial
data.
EPA
did
not
utilize
company­
level
data
from
the
Form
EIA
 
867
because
the
confidential
nature
of
this
data
prevented
EIA
from
releasing
it.
EPA
did
use
Form
EIA
 
867
to
assess
the
population
of
potentially
affected
facilities
and
to
identify
survey
recipients.
Utility
Data
Institute
Data
Sources.
The
UDI
Directory
of
U.
S.
Cogeneration,
Small
Power,
and
Industrial
Power
Plants
contains
data
for
more
than
4,300
nonutility
power
producer
plants.
The
database,
however,
is
not
exclusive
to
facilities
that
have
steam
electric
generators.
The
database
also
contains
nonutility
power
producers
with
turbines
that
do
not
use
cooling
water
such
as
gas
turbines,
geothermal
units,
wind
and
solar
installations,
and
a
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17133
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
variety
of
other
plant
types.
The
primary
focus
of
the
UDI
nonutility
database
is
on
facilities
that
provide
at
least
some
electricity
for
sale
to
utilities.
EPA
used
the
UDI
database
to
compare
the
names
and
addresses
of
steam
electric
plants
with
those
in
the
Form
EIA
 
867
database
to
ensure
comprehensive
coverage
of
nonutility
power
producers.
Edison
Electric
Institute
Data
Sources.
EEI
conducts
an
annual
survey
and
presents
statistics
on
nonutility
power
producers
in
a
document
entitled,
Capacity
and
Generation
of
Nonutility
Sources
of
Energy.
However,
the
data
are
considered
confidential
and
EEI
will
only
disseminate
data
in
an
aggregated
form.
Because
EPA
must
have
the
raw
data
on
a
facility­
specific
basis
for
this
rulemaking,
EPA
was
unable
to
use
this
database.

3.
Repowering
of
Steam
Electric
Power
Generating
Facilities
(
Utility
and
Nonutility)

As
discussed
in
part
B
of
this
Section,
the
section
316(
b)
Survey
acquired
technological
and
economic
information
from
facilities
for
the
years
1998
and
1999.
With
this
information,
the
Agency
established
a
subset
of
facilities
potentially
subject
to
this
rule.
Since
1999,
some
existing
facilities
have
proposed
and/
or
enacted
changes
to
their
facilities
in
the
form
of
repowering
that
could
potentially
affect
the
applicability
of
today's
proposal
or
a
facility's
compliance
costs.
The
Agency
therefore
conducted
research
into
repowering
facilities
for
the
section
316(
b)
existing
facility
rule
and
any
information
available
on
proposed
changes
to
their
cooling
water
intake
structures.
The
Agency
defines
repowering
as
existing
facilities
either
undertaking
replacement
of
existing
generating
capacity
or
making
additions
to
existing
capacity.
The
Agency
used
two
separate
databases
to
assemble
available
information
for
the
repowering
facilities:
RDI's
NEWGen
Database,
November
2001
version
and
the
Section
316(
b)
Survey.
In
January
2000,
EPA
conducted
a
survey
of
the
technological
and
economic
characteristics
of
961
steamelectric
generating
plants.
Only
the
detailed
questionnaire,
filled
out
by
283
utility
plants
and
50
nonutility
plants,
contains
information
on
planned
changes
to
the
facilities'
cooling
systems
(
Part
2,
Section
E).
Of
the
respondents
to
the
detailed
questionnaire,
only
six
facilities
(
three
utility
plants
and
three
nonutility
plants)
indicated
that
their
future
plans
would
lead
to
changes
in
the
operation
of
their
cooling
water
intake
structures.
The
NEWGen
database
is
a
compilation
of
detailed
information
on
new
electric
generating
capacity
proposed
over
the
next
several
years.
The
database
differentiates
between
proposed
capacity
at
new
(
greenfield)
facilities
and
additions/
modifications
to
existing
facilities.
To
identify
repowering
facilities
of
interest,
the
Agency
screened
the
1,530
facilities
in
the
NEWGen
database
with
respect
to
the
following
criteria:
Facility
status,
country,
and
steam
electric
additions.
The
Agency
then
identified
124
NEWGen
facilities
as
potential
repowering
facilities.
Because
the
NEWGen
database
provides
more
information
on
repowering
than
the
section
316(
b)
survey,
the
Agency
used
it
as
the
starting
point
for
the
analysis
of
repowering
facilities.
Of
the
124
NEWGen
facilities
identified
as
repowering
facilities,
85
responded
to
the
section
316(
b)
survey.
Of
these
85
facilities,
65
are
in­
scope
and
20
are
out
of
scope
of
this
proposal.
For
each
of
the
65
in
scope
facilities,
the
NEWGen
database
provided
an
estimation
of
the
type
and
extent
of
the
capacity
additions.
The
Agency
found
that
36
of
the
65
facilities
would
be
combinedcycle
facilities
after
the
repowering
changes.
Of
these,
34
facilities
are
projected
to
decrease
their
cooling
water
intake
after
repowering
(
through
the
conversion
from
a
simple
steam
cycle
to
a
combined­
cycle
plant).
The
other
31
facilities
within
the
scope
of
the
rule
would
increase
their
cooling
water
intake.
The
Agency
examined
the
characteristics
of
these
facilities
projected
to
undergo
repowering
and
determined
the
waterbody
type
from
which
they
withdraw
cooling
water.
The
results
of
this
analysis
are
presented
in
Exhibit
1.

EXHIBIT
1.
 
IN­
SCOPE
EXISTING
FACILITIES
PROJECTED
TO
ENACT
REPOWERING
CHANGES
Waterbody
type
Number
of
plants
projected
to
increase
cooling
water
withdrawal
Number
of
plants
projected
to
decrease
or
maintain
cooling
water
withdrawal
Ocean
...............
N/
A
N/
A
Estuary/
Tidal
River
..............
3
17
Freshwater
River/
Stream
14
10
Freshwater
Lake/
Reservoir
.............
10
1
Great
Lake
........
0
1
Of
the
65
in­
scope
facilities
identified
as
repowering
facilities
in
the
NEWGen
database,
24
received
the
detailed
questionnaire,
which
requested
information
about
planned
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
changes
to
capacity.
Nineteen
of
these
24
facilities
are
utilities
and
the
remaining
five
are
nonutilities.
The
Agency
analyzed
the
section
316(
b)
detailed
questionnaire
data
for
these
24
facilities
to
identify
facilities
that
indicated
planned
modifications
to
their
cooling
systems
which
will
change
the
capacity
of
intake
water
collected
for
the
plant
and
the
estimated
cost
to
comply
with
today's
proposal.
Four
such
facilities
were
identified,
two
utilities
and
two
nonutilities.
Both
utilities
responded
that
the
planned
modifications
will
decrease
their
cooling
water
intake
capacity
and
that
they
do
not
have
any
planned
cooling
water
intake
structures
that
will
directly
withdraw
cooling
water
from
surface
water.
The
two
nonutilities,
on
the
other
hand,
indicated
that
the
planned
modifications
will
increase
their
cooling
water
intake
capacity
and
that
they
do
have
planned
cooling
water
intake
structures
that
will
directly
withdraw
cooling
water
from
surface
water.
Using
the
NEWGen
and
section
316(
b)
detailed
questionnaire
information
on
repowering
facilities,
the
Agency
examined
the
extent
to
which
planned
and/
or
enacted
repowering
changes
would
effect
cooling
water
withdrawals
and,
therefore,
the
potential
costs
of
compliance
with
this
proposal.
Because
the
Agency
developed
a
cost
estimating
methodology
that
primarily
utilizes
design
intake
flow
as
the
independent
variable,
the
Agency
examined
the
extent
to
which
compliance
costs
would
change
if
the
repowering
data
summarized
above
were
incorporated
into
the
cost
analysis
of
this
rule.
The
Agency
determined
that
projected
compliance
costs
for
facilities
withdrawing
from
estuaries
could
be
lower
after
incorporating
the
repowering
changes.
The
primary
reason
for
this
is
the
fact
that
the
majority
of
estuary
repowering
facilities
would
change
from
a
full­
steam
cycle
to
a
combined­
cycle,
thereby
maintaining
or
decreasing
their
cooling
water
withdrawals
(
note
that
a
combined­
cycle
facility
generally
will
withdraw
one­
third
of
the
cooling
water
of
a
comparably
sized
full­
steam
facility).
Therefore,
the
portion
of
compliance
costs
for
regulatory
options
that
included
flow
reduction
requirements
or
technologies
would
significantly
decrease
if
the
Agency
incorporated
repowering
changes
into
the
analysis.
As
shown
in
Exhibit
1
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17134
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
majority
of
facilities
projected
to
increase
cooling
water
withdrawals
due
to
the
repowering
changes
use
freshwater
sources.
In
turn,
the
compliance
costs
for
these
facilities
would
increase
if
the
Agency
incorporated
repowering
for
this
proposal.
For
the
final
rule,
the
Agency
intends
to
continue
its
research
into
repowering
at
existing
facilities.
The
Agency
will
consider
the
results
of
its
repowering
research
and
any
comments
provided
on
this
subject
for
the
final
rule.
The
Agency
therefore
requests
comment
on
planned
and
enacted
repowering
activities
and
the
above
summary
of
its
repowering
research
to
date.
The
Agency
is
especially
interested
in
information
from
facilities
that
have
enacted
repowering
changes
and
the
degree
to
which
these
changes
have
changed
their
design
intake
flow.

B.
Survey
Questionnaires
EPA's
industry
survey
effort
consists
of
a
two­
phase
process.
EPA
administered
a
screener
questionnaire
focused
on
nonutility
and
manufacturing
facilities
as
the
first
phase
of
this
data
collection
process.
The
screener
questionnaire
provides
information
on
cooling­
water
intake
capacity,
sources
of
the
water,
intake
structure
types,
and
technologies
used
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impacts.
It
also
provides
data
on
facility
and
parent­
firm
employee
numbers
and
revenues.
This
information
was
used
to
design
a
sampling
plan
for
the
subsequent
detailed
questionnaire.
Following
the
screener
survey,
the
Agency
sent
out
and
collected
either
a
short
technical
or
a
detailed
questionnaire
to
utility,
nonutility,
and
manufacturing
facilities,
as
described
below.
The
two­
phase
survey
was
designed
to
collect
representative
data
from
a
sample
group
of
those
categories
of
facilities
potentially
subject
to
section
316(
b)
regulation
for
use
in
rule
development.
In
1997,
EPA
estimated
that
over
400,000
facilities
could
potentially
be
subject
to
a
cooling
water
intake
regulation.
Given
the
large
number
of
facilities
potentially
subject
to
regulation,
EPA
decided
to
focus
its
data
collection
efforts
on
six
industrial
categories
that,
as
a
whole,
are
estimated
to
account
for
over
99
percent
of
all
cooling
water
withdrawals.
These
six
sectors
are:
Utility
Steam
Electric,
Nonutility
Steam
Electric,
Chemicals
&
Allied
Products,
Primary
Metals
Industries,
Petroleum
&
Coal
Products,
and
Paper
&
Allied
Products.
There
are
about
48,500
facilities
in
these
six
categories.
EPA
believes
that
this
approach
provides
a
sound
basis
for
assessing
best
technologies
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impacts.
The
screener
survey
focused
on
nonutility
and
manufacturing
facilities.
EPA
developed
the
sample
frame
(
list
of
facilities)
for
the
screener
questionnaire
using
public
data
sources
as
described
in
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
DCN
3
 
3084
 
R2
in
Docket
W
 
00
 
03).
Facilities
chosen
for
the
screener
questionnaire
represented
a
statistical
sample
of
the
entire
universe
of
nonutility
and
manufacturing
facilities
potentially
subject
to
cooling
water
intake
regulations.
EPA
did
not
conduct
a
census
of
all
facilities
(
i.
e.
send
a
survey
to
all
facilities)
for
the
screener
questionnaire
because
of
the
burden
associated
with
surveying
a
large
number
of
facilities.
Rather,
EPA
refined
the
industry
data
using
industry­
specific
sources
to
develop
sample
frames
and
mailing
lists.
EPA
believes
the
sample
frame
was
sufficient
to
characterize
the
operations
of
each
industrial
category.
EPA
sent
the
screener
questionnaire
to
2600
facilities
identified
in
the
sample
frame
as
follows:
(
1)
All
identified
steam
electric
nonutility
power
producers,
both
industrial
selfgenerators
and
nonindustrial
generators
(
1050
facilities,
of
which
853
responded);
(
2)
and
a
sample
of
manufacturers
that
fell
under
four
other
industrial
categories:
Paper
and
allied
products,
chemical
and
allied
products,
petroleum
and
coal
products,
and
primary
metals
(
1550
facilities,
of
which
1217
responded).
EPA
adjusted
the
sample
frame
for
the
screener
questionnaire
to
account
for
several
categories
of
non­
respondents,
including
facilities
with
incorrect
address
information,
facilities
no
longer
in
operation,
and
duplicate
mailings.
Through
follow­
up
phone
calls
and
mailings,
EPA
increased
the
response
rate
for
the
screener
questionnaire
to
95
percent.
The
screener
questionnaire
was
not
sent
to
utilities,
all
of
which
were
believed
to
be
identified
accurately
using
the
publically­
available
data
described
above.
A
sample
of
manufacturing
and
nonutility
facilities
identified
as
inscope
(
subject
to
regulation)
with
the
screener
questionnaire,
and
all
utilities
then
were
sent
either
a
short
technical
or
a
detailed
questionnaire.
A
total
of
878
utility
facilities,
343
nonutility
facilities
and
191
manufacturing
facilities
received
one
of
the
two
questionnaires
(
short
technical
or
detailed)
during
the
second
phase
of
the
survey.
For
utilities,
nonutilities,
and
other
manufacturing
facilities,
EPA
selected
a
random
sample
of
these
eligible
facilities
to
receive
a
detailed
questionnaire.
The
sample
included
282
utility
facilities
and
181
nonutility
facilities.
All
191
manufacturing
facilities
received
a
detailed
questionnaire.
For
nonutilities
and
utilities,
those
facilities
not
selected
to
receive
a
detailed
questionnaire
were
sent
a
Short
Technical
Questionnaire.
EPA's
approach
in
selecting
a
sample
involved
the
identification
of
population
strata,
the
calculation
of
sample
sizes
based
on
desired
levels
of
precision,
and
the
random
selection
of
sites
given
the
sample
size
calculations
within
each
stratum.
More
detail
is
provided
in
a
report,
Statistical
Summary
for
Cooling
Water
Intakes
Structures
Surveys
(
See
DCN
3
 
3077
in
Docket
W
 
00
 
03).
Five
questionnaires
were
distributed
to
different
industrial
groups.
They
were:
(
1)
Detailed
Industry
Questionnaire:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
 
Traditional
Steam
Electric
Utilities,
(
2)
Short
Technical
Industry
Questionnaire:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
 
Traditional
Steam
Electric
Utilities,
(
3)
Detailed
Industry
Questionnaire:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
 
Steam
Electric
Nonutility
Power
Producers,
(
4)
Detailed
Industry
Questionnaire:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
 
Manufacturers,
(
5)
Watershed
Case
Study
Short
Questionnaire.
The
questionnaires
provided
EPA
with
technical
and
financial
data
necessary
for
developing
this
proposed
regulation.
Specific
details
about
the
questions
may
be
found
in
EPA's
Information
Collection
Request
(
DCN
3
 
3084­
R2
in
Docket
W
 
00
 
03)
and
in
the
questionnaires
(
see
DCN
3
 
0030
and
3
 
0031
in
Docket
W
 
00
 
03
and
Docket
for
today's
proposal);
these
documents
are
also
available
on
EPA's
web
site
(
http:/
/
www.
epa.
gov/
waterscience/
316b/
question/).

C.
Site
Visits
From
1993
to
the
present,
EPA
has
conducted
site
visits
to
numerous
power
generating
stations
around
the
country
to
observe
cooling
water
intake
structure
design
and
operations
and
document
examples
of
different
cooling
water
intake
structure
configurations.
EPA
has
visited
the
plants
(
each
with
either
a
once­
through
or
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system,
except
as
noted)
listed
below:
 
California:
Moss
Landing
Power
Plant
and
Pittsburg
Power
Plant
 
Florida:
Big
Bend
Power
Station,
St.
Lucie
Plant,
Martin
Plant,
and
Riviera
Beach
Power
Plant
 
Illinois:
Will
County
Station
and
Zion
Nuclear
Power
Station
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17135
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
 
Indiana:
Clifty
Creek
Station
and
Tanners
Creek
Plant
 
Maryland:
Calvert
Cliffs
Nuclear
Power
Plant
and
Chalk
Point
Generating
Station
 
Massachusetts:
Pilgrim
Nuclear
Power
Station
 
Nevada:
El
Dorado
Energy
Power
Plant
(
dry
cooling)
 
New
York:
Indian
Point
Nuclear
Power
Plant
and
Lovett
Generating
Station
 
New
Jersey:
Salem
Generating
Station
 
Ohio:
Cardinal
Plant,
W.
H.
Zimmer
Plant,
and
W.
C.
Beckjord
Station
 
Wisconsin:
Valley
Power
Plant
and
Pleasant
Prairie
Power
Plant
D.
Data
Provided
to
EPA
by
Industrial,
Trade,
Consulting,
Scientific
or
Environmental
Organizations
or
by
the
General
Public
1.
Public
Participation
EPA
has
worked
extensively
with
stakeholders
from
industry,
public
interest
groups,
state
agencies,
and
other
Federal
agencies
in
the
development
of
this
proposed
rule.
These
public
participation
activities
have
focused
on
various
section
316(
b)
issues,
including
general
issues,
as
well
as
issues
relevant
to
development
of
the
Phase
I
rule
and
issues
relevant
to
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule.
See
section
I.
C.
5
of
this
preamble
for
a
discussion
of
key
public
participation
activities.

2.
Data
and
Documents
Collected
by
EPA
Since
1993,
EPA
has
developed
cooling
water
regulations
as
part
of
a
collaborative
effort
with
industry
and
environmental
stakeholders,
other
Federal
agencies,
the
academic
and
scientific
communities
as
well
as
the
general
public.
As
such,
EPA
has
reviewed
and
considered
the
many
documents,
demonstration
studies,
scientific
analyses
and
historical
perspectives
offered
in
support
of
each
phase
of
the
regulatory
process.
For
example,
during
the
early
stages
of
data
gathering
EPA
created
an
internal
library
of
reference
documents
addressing
cooling
water
intake
structure
issues.
This
library
currently
holds
over
2,800
documents,
many
of
which
were
referenced
in
the
rulemaking
process
and
are
contained
in
the
record
(
see
below
for
further
information
on
the
record).
The
library
contains
a
thorough
collection
of
a
wide
variety
of
documents,
including
over
80
316(
b)
demonstration
documents,
over
300
impingement
and
entrainment
studies,
over
100
population
modeling
studies,
over
500
fish
biology
and
stock
assessment
documents,
over
350
biological
studies
commissioned
by
power
generators,
over
80
NPDES
decisions
and
NPDES
or
SPDES­
related
documents,
over
120
intake
technology
reports,
over
10
databases
on
the
electric
power
industry,
and
documents
from
interagency
committees
such
as
the
Ohio
River
Valley
Water
Sanitation
Commission
(
ORSANCO).
The
record
for
the
new
facility
rule
contains
nearly
1,000
documents
(
research
articles,
databases,
legal
references,
memorandums,
meeting
notes,
and
other
documents),
consisting
of
approximately
47,000
pages
of
supporting
material
available
for
public
review.
The
record
for
this
proposed
rule
contains
over
40
additional
documents.
For
a
more
complete
list
of
reference
and
technical
documents,
see
the
record
for
this
proposed
rule.

IV.
Overview
of
Facility
Characteristics
(
Cooling
Water
Systems
&
Intakes)
for
Industries
Potentially
Subject
to
Proposed
Rule
As
discussed
above,
today's
proposed
rule
would
apply
to
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
which
include
any
existing
facility
that
both
generates
and
transmits
electric
power,
or
generates
electric
power
but
sells
it
to
another
entity
existing
for
transmission
and
that
meets
the
other
applicability
criteria
in
§
125.91:
(
1)
They
are
a
point
source
that
uses
or
proposes
to
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure;
(
2)
they
have
at
least
one
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
it
withdraws
for
cooling
purposes;
(
3)
they
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
greater;
and
(
4)
they
have
an
NPDES
permit
or
are
required
to
obtain
one.
Today's
rule
does
not
apply
to
facilities
whose
primary
business
activity
is
not
power
generation,
such
as
manufacturing
facilities
that
produce
electricity
by
cogeneration
Based
on
data
collected
from
the
Short
Technical
Industry
Questionnaire
and
Detailed
Questionnaire,
and
compliance
requirements
in
today's
proposed
rule,
EPA
has
identified
539
facilities
to
which
today's
rule
will
apply,
and
estimates
that
the
total
number
could
be
549.
The
Agency
has
identified
420
plants
owned
by
utilities
that
are
potentially
subject
to
proposed
rule.
The
Agency
estimates
that
129
nonutilities
may
potentially
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
This
number,
however,
is
subject
to
some
uncertainty.
The
Agency
has
identified
119
plants
owned
by
nonutilities
that
are
potentially
subject
to
the
proposed
rule,
and
after
taking
into
account
a
small
non­
response
rate
to
the
survey
among
nonutilities,
the
Agency's
best
estimate
of
the
total
number
is
129.
Sources
of
Surface
Water.
The
source
of
surface
water
withdrawn
for
cooling
is
an
important
factor
in
determining
potential
environmental
impacts.
An
estimated
8
nonutility
facilities
and
15
utility
facilities
withdraw
all
cooling
water
from
an
ocean.
An
estimated
55
nonutility
facilities
and
50
utility
facilities
withdraw
all
cooling
water
from
an
estuary
or
tidal
river.
An
estimated
50
nonutility
facilities
and
203
utility
facilities
withdraw
all
cooling
water
from
a
freshwater
stream
or
river.
An
estimated
12
or
13
nonutility
facilities
and
136
utility
facilities
withdraw
all
cooling
water
from
a
lake
or
reservoir,
including
15
utilities
on
the
Great
Lakes.
Fewer
than
20
plants
withdraw
cooling
water
from
a
combination
of
these
sources.
Average
Daily
Cooling
Water
Intake
in
1998.
Of
the
estimated
129
nonutility
plants
that
are
potentially
subject
to
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
estimates
that
in
1998,
4
plants
had
an
average
intake
of
not
more
than
10
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD),
12
had
an
average
intake
more
than
10
MGD
and
not
over
50
MGD,
20
had
an
average
intake
more
than
50
MGD
but
not
over
100
MGD,
and
90
had
an
average
intake
over
100
MGD
(
three
had
zero
or
unreported
intake).
Note
that
coverage
under
the
rule
is
based
on
design
intake,
not
average
intake
flow.
Of
the
420
utility
plants
that
are
potentially
subject
to
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
found
that
in
1998,
8
plants
had
an
average
intake
of
not
more
than
10
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD),
59
had
an
average
intake
more
than
10
MGD
and
not
over
50
MGD,
58
had
an
average
intake
more
than
50
MGD
but
not
over
100
MGD,
and
288
had
an
average
intake
over
100
MGD
(
seven
had
zero
or
unreported
intake).
Cooling
Water
Systems.
Facilities
may
have
more
than
one
cooling
water
system.
Therefore,
in
providing
the
information
on
cooling
water
systems,
a
plant
may
be
counted
multiple
times
(
as
many
times
as
it
has
distinct
cooling
water
systems).
Thus,
of
the
plants
that
are
potentially
subject
to
this
proposed
rule,
the
129
nonutility
plants
are
counted
165
times;
the
420
utility
plants
are
counted
599
times.
As
a
consequence,
the
percentages
reported
sum
to
more
than
100
percent.
Among
nonutility
plants,
110
plants
(
85
percent)
use
once­
through
cooling
systems,
16
plants
(
12
percent)
use
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems,
and
an
estimated
6
plants
(
5
percent)
use
another
type
of
system.
Of
the
estimated
599
utility
plants,
314
plants
(
75
percent)
use
once­
through
cooling
systems,
65
plants
(
15
percent)

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17136
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
8
EPA
2000.
Detailed
Industry
Questionnaire:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Wastewater
Management,
Washington,
DC.
OMB
Control
No.
2040
 
0213.
9
Refers
to
bottom
dwellers
that
are
generally
small
and
sessile
(
attached)
such
as
mussels
and
anemones,
but
can
include
certain
large
motile
(
able
to
move)
species
such
as
crabs
and
shrimp.
These
species
can
be
important
members
of
the
food
chain.
10
Refers
to
free­
floating
microscopic
plants
and
animals,
including
the
egg
and
larval
stages
of
fish
and
invertebrates
that
have
limited
swimming
abilities.
Plankton
are
also
an
important
source
of
food
for
other
aquatic
organisms
and
an
essential
component
of
the
food
chain
in
aquatic
ecosystems.
11
Refers
to
free­
swimming
organisms
(
e.
g.,
fish,
turtles,
marine
mammals)
that
move
actively
through
the
water
column
and
against
currents.
12
Mayhew,
D.
A.,
L.
D.
Jensen,
D.
F.
Hanson,
and
P.
H.
Muessig.
2000.
A
comparative
review
of
entrainment
survival
studies
at
power
plants
in
estuarine
environments.
Environmental
Science
and
Policy
3:
S295
 
S301.
13
EPRI.
2000.
Review
of
entrainment
survival
studies:
1970
 
2000.
Prepared
by
EA
Engineering
Science
and
Technology
for
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute,
Palo
Alto,
CA.
14
Ibid.
15
Mayhew,
D.
A.,
L.
D.
Jensen,
D.
F.
Hanson,
and
P.
H.
Muessig.
2000.
A
comparative
review
of
entrainment
survival
studies
at
power
plants
in
estuarine
environments.
Environmental
Science
and
Policy
3:
S295
 
S301.
16
EPRI.
2000.
Review
of
entrainment
survival
studies:
1970
 
2000.
Prepared
by
EA
Engineering
Science
and
Technology
for
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute,
Palo
Alto,
CA.
use
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems,
and
49
plants
(
12
percent)
use
another
type
of
system.
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Configurations.
Facilities
may
have
more
than
one
cooling
water
intake
structure
configuration.
Therefore,
in
providing
the
information
on
cooling
water
systems,
a
plant
may
be
counted
multiple
times
(
as
many
times
as
it
has
distinct
cooling
water
intake
structure
configurations).
Thus,
of
the
plants
that
are
potentially
subject
to
this
proposed
rule,
the
129
nonutility
plants
are
counted
194
times
and
the
420
utility
plants
are
counted
690
times.
As
a
consequence,
the
percentages
reported
sum
to
more
than
100
percent.
Of
the
estimated
129
nonutility
plants
that
are
potentially
subject
to
this
proposed
rule,
30
(
23
percent)
withdraw
cooling
water
through
a
canal
or
channel,
13
(
10
percent)
have
an
intake
structure
situated
in
a
natural
or
constructed
bay
or
cove,
96
(
74
percent)
have
an
intake
structure
(
surface
or
submerged)
that
is
flush
with
the
shoreline,
and
16
(
12
percent)
have
a
submerged
offshore
intake
structure.
Of
the
420
utility
plants
that
are
potentially
subject
to
this
proposed
rule,
142
(
34
percent)
withdraw
cooling
water
through
a
canal
or
channel,
41
(
10
percent)
have
an
intake
situated
in
a
bay
or
cove,
251
(
60
percent)
have
a
shoreline
intake,
59
(
14
percent)
have
a
submerged
offshore
intake,
and
6
(
1
percent)
have
another
type
of
configuration
or
reported
no
information.

V.
Environmental
Impacts
Associated
With
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
The
majority
of
environmental
impacts
associated
with
intake
structures
are
caused
by
water
withdrawals
that
ultimately
result
in
aquatic
organism
losses.
This
section
describes
the
general
nature
of
these
biological
impacts;
discusses
specific
types
of
impacts
that
are
of
concern
to
the
Agency;
and
presents
examples
of
documented
impacts
from
a
broad
range
of
facilities.
EPA
believes
that
in
light
of
the
national
scope
of
today's
proposed
rule,
it
is
important
to
present
the
variety
of
impacts
observed
for
facilities
located
on
different
waterbody
types,
under
high
and
low
flow
withdrawal
regimes,
and
operating
with
and
without
technologies
designed
to
reduce
environmental
impacts.
Based
on
preliminary
estimates
from
the
questionnaire
sent
to
more
than
1,200
existing
power
plants
and
factories,
industrial
facilities
in
the
United
States
withdraw
more
than
279
billion
gallons
of
cooling
water
a
day
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
8
The
withdrawal
of
such
large
quantities
of
cooling
water
affects
large
quantities
of
aquatic
organisms
annually,
including
phytoplankton
(
tiny,
free­
floating
photosynthetic
organisms
suspended
in
the
water
column),
zooplankton
(
small
aquatic
animals,
including
fish
eggs
and
larvae,
that
consume
phytoplankton
and
other
zooplankton),
fish,
crustaceans,
shellfish,
and
many
other
forms
of
aquatic
life.
Aquatic
organisms
drawn
into
cooling
water
intake
structures
are
either
impinged
on
components
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
or
entrained
in
the
cooling
water
system
itself.
Impingement
takes
place
when
organisms
are
trapped
against
intake
screens
by
the
force
of
the
water
passing
through
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
Impingement
can
result
in
starvation
and
exhaustion
(
organisms
are
trapped
against
an
intake
screen
or
other
barrier
at
the
entrance
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure),
asphyxiation
(
organisms
are
pressed
against
an
intake
screen
or
other
barrier
at
the
entrance
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
by
velocity
forces
that
prevent
proper
gill
movement,
or
organisms
are
removed
from
the
water
for
prolonged
periods
of
time),
and
descaling
(
fish
lose
scales
when
removed
from
an
intake
screen
by
a
wash
system)
as
well
as
other
physical
harms.
Entrainment
occurs
when
organisms
are
drawn
through
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
into
the
cooling
system.
Organisms
that
become
entrained
are
normally
relatively
small
benthic,
9
planktonic,
10
and
nektonic
11
organisms,
including
early
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
Many
of
these
small
organisms
serve
as
prey
for
larger
organisms
that
are
found
higher
on
the
food
chain.
As
entrained
organisms
pass
through
a
plant's
cooling
system
they
are
subject
to
mechanical,
thermal,
and/
or
toxic
stress.
Sources
of
such
stress
include
physical
impacts
in
the
pumps
and
condenser
tubing,
pressure
changes
caused
by
diversion
of
the
cooling
water
into
the
plant
or
by
the
hydraulic
effects
of
the
condensers,
sheer
stress,
thermal
shock
in
the
condenser
and
discharge
tunnel,
and
chemical
toxemia
induced
by
antifouling
agents
such
as
chlorine.
The
mortality
rate
of
entrained
organisms
varies
by
species;
mortality
rates
for
fish
can
vary
from
2
to
97
percent
depending
on
the
species
and
life
stage
entrained.
12,
13
Naked
goby
larvae
demonstrated
mortality
rates
as
low
as
2
percent
whereas
bay
anchovy
larvae
mortality
rates
were
as
high
as
97
percent.
14
Macroinvertebrate
mortality
ranged
from
0
to
84
percent
for
several
species
evaluated,
but
rates
were
usually
less
than
29
percent.
15,
16
In
addition
to
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
associated
with
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
EPA
is
concerned
about
the
cumulative
overall
degradation
of
the
aquatic
environment
as
a
consequence
of
(
1)
multiple
intake
structures
operating
in
the
same
watershed
or
in
the
same
or
nearby
reaches
and
(
2)
intakes
located
within
or
adjacent
to
an
impaired
waterbody.
Historically,
impacts
related
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
have
been
evaluated
on
a
facility­
by­
facility
basis.
The
potential
cumulative
effects
of
multiple
intakes
located
within
a
specific
waterbody
or
along
a
coastal
segment
were
not
typically
assessed
and
thus
are
largely
unknown.
(
One
relevant
example
is
provided
for
the
Hudson
River;
see
discussion
below.
Also
see
recently
completed
case
studies
for
the
Delaware
Estuary
and
Ohio
River
in
the
Case
Study
Document).
There
is
concern,
however,
about
the
effects
of
multiple
intakes
on
fishery
stocks.
As
an
example,
the
Atlantic
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission
has
been
requested
by
its
member
States
to
investigate
the
cumulative
impacts
on
commercial
fishery
stocks,
particularly
overutilized
stocks,
attributable
to
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17137
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
17
Personal
communication,
D.
Hart
(
EPA)
and
L.
Kline
(
ASMFC),
2001.
18
Food
webs
are
modified
by
cooling
water
intake
structure
impacts
because
(
1)
some
species
within
the
ecosystem
suffer
heavier
mortality
impacts
than
others,
and
(
2)
cooling
water
intake
structures
convert
living
organisms
to
various
forms
of
organic
matter,
thereby
removing
food
resources
from
consumers
of
living
organisms,
and
increasing
food
resources
for
scavengers
and
decomposers.
19
Cooling
water
intake
structures
can
transfer
large
amounts
of
nutrients,
carbon,
and
energy
from
living
organisms
(
in
some
cases
highly
mobile
or
migratory
organisms)
to
the
physical
environment.
Nutrients,
carbon,
and
energy
may
re­
enter
the
biological
compartment,
but
they
will
do
so
via
different
pathways
than
those
used
prior
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
operation
(
see
alteration
of
food
webs).
20
In
addition
to
altering
the
physical
nature
of
aquatic
habitat
directly
(
e.
g.,
current
modification
and
water
withdrawal),
cooling
water
intake
structure
may
modify
habitat
by
reducing
numbers
of
habitat­
modifying
organisms
(
e.
g.,
Pacific
salmon).
21
Species
may
disappear
from
a
site
in
response
to
cooling
water
intake
structure
impacts.
Threatened
and
endangered
or
otherwise
rare
or
sensitive
species
may
be
at
greater
risk.
New
species
(
including
invasive
species),
may
establish
themselves
within
the
disrupted
area
if
they
are
able
to
withstand
cooling
water
intake
structure
impacts.
22
Florida
Power
and
Light
Company.
1995.
Assessment
of
the
impacts
at
the
St.
Lucie
Nuclear
Generating
Plant
on
sea
turtle
species
found
in
the
inshore
waters
of
Florida.
23
Ibid.
cooling
water
intakes
located
in
coastal
regions
of
the
Atlantic.
17
Specifically,
the
study
will
focus
on
revising
existing
fishery
management
models
so
that
they
accurately
consider
and
account
for
fish
losses
from
multiple
intake
structures.
Further,
the
Agency
believes
that
cooling
water
intakes
potentially
contribute
additional
stress
to
waters
already
showing
aquatic
life
impairment
from
other
sources
such
as
industrial
discharges
and
urban
stormwater.
EPA
notes
that
the
top
four
leading
causes
of
waterbody
impairment
(
siltation,
nutrients,
bacteria,
and
metals)
affect
the
aquatic
life
uses
of
a
waterbody.
Thus,
the
Agency
is
concerned
that
many
of
the
aquatic
organisms
subject
to
the
effects
of
cooling
water
withdrawals
reside
in
impaired
waterbodies
and
are
therefore
potentially
more
vulnerable
to
cumulative
impacts
from
an
array
of
physical
and
chemical
anthropogenic
stressors.
When
enough
individual
aquatic
organisms
are
subject
to
lethal
or
function­
impairing
stressors,
whether
from
cooling
water
intake
structures
or
water
pollutants,
the
structure
of
their
ecosystem
can
change
significantly
in
response.
Changes
in
ecosystem
structure
can
then
affect
all
organisms
within
the
ecosystem,
including
those
organisms
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
does
not
directly
impact.
Decreased
numbers
of
aquatic
organisms
can
have
any
or
several
of
the
following
ecosystem­
level
effects:
(
1)
Disruption
of
food
webs,
18
(
2)
disruption
of
nutrient,
carbon,
and
energy
transfers
among
the
physical
and
biological
ecosystem
compartments,
19
(
3)
alteration
of
overall
aquatic
habitat,
20
and
(
4)
alteration
of
species
composition
and
overall
levels
of
biodiversity.
21
The
nature
and
extent
of
the
ecosystem­
level
effect
depends
on
the
characteristics
of
the
aquatic
organism
and
its
interactions
with
other
members
of
the
ecosystem.
Some
species,
known
as
``
keystone
species,''
have
a
larger
impact
on
ecosystem
structure
and
function
than
other
species.
Examples
of
keystone
species
from
cooling
water
intake
structure­
impacted
water
bodies
include
menhaden,
Pacific
salmon,
and
Eastern
oysters.
As
discussed
above,
structural
changes
at
the
ecosystem
level
are
influenced
by
a
large
number
of
forces
at
work
within
the
ecosystem.
Because
of
the
large
number
of
these
forces
and
the
complexity
of
their
interactions,
ecologists
can
find
it
difficult
to
determine
the
contribution
of
any
one
stressor
to
a
structural
change
in
an
ecosystem.
Much
work
remains
to
be
done
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
cooling
water
intake
structures
induce
structural
change
in
their
host
ecosystems
through
impingement
and
entrainment
of
aquatic
organisms.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
many
cooling
water
intake
structures
clearly
have
a
significant
negative
impact
on
aquatic
organisms
at
the
individual
level.
The
studies
discussed
below
suggest
that
these
individual­
level
impacts
can
lead
to
negative
impacts
at
higher
organizational
levels.
In
addition
to
ecosystem­
level
impacts,
EPA
is
concerned
about
the
potential
impacts
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
or
near
habitat
areas
that
support
threatened,
endangered,
or
other
protected
species.
Although
limited
information
is
available
on
locations
of
threatened
or
endangered
species
that
are
vulnerable
to
impingement
or
entrainment,
such
impacts
do
occur.
For
example,
EPA
is
aware
that
from
1976
to
1994,
approximately
3,200
threatened
or
endangered
sea
turtles
entered
enclosed
cooling
water
intake
canals
at
the
St.
Lucie
Nuclear
Generating
Plant
in
Florida.
22
The
plant
developed
a
capture­
and­
release
program
in
response
to
these
events.
Most
of
the
entrapped
turtles
were
captured
and
released
alive;
however,
approximately
160
turtles
did
not
survive.
More
recently,
the
number
of
sea
turtles
being
drawn
into
the
intake
canal
increased
to
approximately
600
per
year.
Elevated
numbers
of
sea
turtles
found
within
nearshore
waters
are
thought
to
be
part
of
the
reason
for
the
rising
numbers
of
turtles
entering
facility
waters.
In
response
to
this
increase,
Florida
Power
and
Light
Co.
proposed
installation
of
nets
with
smaller
size
mesh
(
5­
inch
square
mesh
rather
than
8­
inch
square
mesh)
at
the
St.
Lucie
facility
to
minimize
entrapment.
23
Finally,
EPA
is
concerned
about
environmental
impacts
associated
with
re­
siting
or
modification
of
existing
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Three
main
factors
contribute
to
the
environmental
impacts:
Displacement
of
biota
and
habitat
resulting
from
the
physical
siting
or
modification
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
in
an
aquatic
environment,
increased
levels
of
turbidity
in
the
aquatic
environment,
and
effects
on
biota
and
habitat
associated
with
aquatic
disposal
of
materials
excavated
during
re­
siting
or
modification
activities.
Existing
programs,
such
as
the
CWA
section
404
program,
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
(
NEPA)
program,
and
programs
under
State/
Tribal
law,
include
requirements
that
address
many
of
the
environmental
impact
concerns
associated
with
the
intake
modifications
(
see
Section
X
for
applicable
Federal
statutes).

A.
Facility
Examples
The
following
discussion
provides
a
number
of
examples
of
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
that
can
be
associated
with
existing
facilities.
It
is
important
to
note
that
these
examples
are
meant
to
illustrate
the
range
of
impacts
that
can
occur
nationally
at
facilities
sited
at
diverse
geographic
locations,
differing
waterbody
types,
and
with
a
variety
of
control
technologies
in
place.
In
some
cases,
the
number
of
organisms
impinged
and
entrained
by
a
facility
can
be
substantial
and
in
other
examples
impingement
and
entrainment
may
be
minimal
due
to
historical
impacts
from
anthropogenic
activities
such
as
stream
or
river
channelization.
EPA
notes
that
these
examples
are
not
representative
of
all
sites
whose
facilities
use
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
that
these
examples
may
not
always
reflect
subsequent
action
that
may
have
been
taken
to
address
these
impacts
on
a
sitespecific
basis.
(
Facility
reports
documenting
the
efficacy
of
more
recently
installed
control
technologies
are
not
always
available
to
the
Agency.)
With
this
background,
EPA
provides
the
following
examples,
illustrating
that
the
impacts
attributable
to
impingement
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17138
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
24
EPA
Region
IV.
1979.
Brunswick
Nuclear
Steam
Electric
Generating
Plant
of
Carolina
Power
and
Light
Company,
historical
summary
and
review
of
section
316(
b)
issues.
25
EPA
Region
IV.
1986.
Findings
and
determination
under
33
U.
S.
C.
1326,
In
the
Matter
of
Florida
Power
Corporation
Crystal
River
Power
Plant
Units
1,
2,
and
3,
NPDES
permit
no.
FL0000159.
26
Thurber,
N.
J.
and
D.
J.
Jude.
1985.
Impingement
losses
at
the
D.
C.
Cook
Nuclear
Power
Plant
during
1975
 
1982
with
a
discussion
of
factors
responsible
and
possible
impact
on
local
populations.
Special
report
no.
115
of
the
Great
Lakes
Research
Division,
Great
Lakes
and
Marine
Waters
Center,
University
of
Michigan.
27
EPA
Region
IV.
1979.
Brunswick
Nuclear
Steam
Electric
Generating
Plant
of
Carolina
Power
and
Light
Company,
historical
summary
and
review
of
section
316(
b)
issues.
28
Watson,
R.
and
D.
Pauly.
2001.
Systematic
distortions
in
world
fisheries
catch
trends.
Nature
414
 
534
 
536.
29
Jackson
J.
B.
C.,
M.
X.
Kirby,
W.
H.
Berger,
K.
A.
Bjorndal,
L.
W.
Botsford,
B.
J.
Bourque,
R.
H.
Bradbury,
R.
Cooke,
J.
Erlandson,
J.
A.
Estes,
T.
P.
Hughes,
S.
Kidwell,
C.
B.
Lange,
H.
S.
Lenihan,
J.
M.
Pandolfi,
C.
H.
Peterson,
R.
S.
Steneck,
M.
J.
Tegner,
and
R.
R.
Warner,
2001.
Historical
overfishing
and
the
recent
collapse
of
coastal
ecosystems.
Science
293(
5530):
629
 
638.
30
Boreman
J.
and
P.
Goodyear.
1988.
Estimates
of
entrainment
mortality
for
striped
bass
and
other
fish
species
inhabiting
the
Hudson
River
Estuary.
American
Fisheries
Society
Monograph
4:
152
 
160.
31
Consolidated
Edison
Company
of
New
York.
2000.
Draft
environmental
impact
statement
for
the
state
pollutant
discharge
elimination
system
permits
for
Bowline
Point,
Indian
Point
2
&
3,
and
Roseton
steam
electric
generating
stations.
32
New
York
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
NYDEC).
2000.
Internal
memorandum
provided
to
the
USEPA
on
NYDEC's
position
on
SPDES
permit
renewals
for
Roseton,
Bowline
Point
1
&
2,
and
Indian
Point
2
&
3
generating
stations.
33
Morningside
College.
1982.
Missouri
River
aquatic
ecology
studies.
Prepared
for
Iowa
Public
Service
Company,
Sioux
City,
Iowa.
34
Metcalf
&
Eddy.
1992.
Brayton
Point
station
monitoring
program
technical
review.
Prepared
for
USEPA.
35
Gibson,
M.
1995
(
revised
1996).
Comparison
of
trends
in
the
finfish
assemblages
of
Mt.
Hope
Bay
and
Narragansett
Bay
in
relation
to
operations
of
the
New
England
Power
Brayton
Point
station.
Rhode
Island
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Marine
Fisheries
Office.
36
Southern
California
Edison.
1988.
Report
on
1987
data:
marine
environmental
analysis
and
interpretation,
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station.
37
Ibid.
and
entrainment
at
individual
facilities
may
result
in
appreciable
losses
of
early
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
(
e.
g.,
three
to
four
billion
individuals
annually
24),
serious
reductions
in
forage
species
and
recreational
and
commercial
landings
(
e.
g.,
23
tons
lost
per
year
25),
and
extensive
losses
over
relatively
short
intervals
of
time
(
e.
g.,
one
million
fish
lost
during
a
threeweek
study
period).
26
In
addition,
some
studies
estimating
the
impact
of
impingement
and
entrainment
on
populations
of
key
commercial
or
recreational
fish
have
predicted
substantial
declines
in
population
size.
This
has
led
to
concerns
that
some
populations
may
be
altered
beyond
recovery.
For
example,
a
modeling
effort
evaluating
the
impact
of
entrainment
mortality
on
a
representative
fish
species
in
the
Cape
Fear
estuarine
system
predicted
a
15
to
35
percent
reduction
in
the
species
population.
27
More
recent
modeling
studies
of
Mount
Hope
Bay,
Massachusetts,
predicted
87
percent
reductions
in
overall
finfish
abundance
(
see
Brayton
Point
Generating
Station
discussion
below
for
additional
detail.)
EPA
acknowledges
that
existing
fishery
resource
baselines
may
be
inaccurate.
28
Further,
according
to
one
article,
``[
e]
ven
seemingly
gloomy
estimates
of
the
global
percentage
of
fish
stocks
that
are
overfished
are
almost
certainly
far
too
low.''
29
Thus,
EPA
is
concerned
that
historical
overfishing
may
have
increased
the
sensitivity
of
aquatic
ecosystems
to
subsequent
disturbance,
making
them
more
vulnerable
to
human
impact
and
potential
collapse.
Further,
studies
of
entrainment
at
five
Hudson
River
power
plants
during
the
1980s
predicted
year­
class
reductions
ranging
from
six
percent
to
79
percent,
depending
on
the
fish
species.
30
An
updated
analysis
completed
in
2000
of
entrainment
at
three
of
these
power
plants
predicted
year­
class
reductions
of
up
to
20
percent
for
striped
bass,
25
percent
for
bay
anchovy,
and
43
percent
for
Atlantic
tom
cod,
even
without
assuming
100
percent
mortality
of
entrained
organisms.
31
The
New
York
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
concluded
that
these
reductions
in
year­
class
strength
were
``
wholly
unacceptable''
and
that
any
``
compensatory
responses
to
this
level
of
power
plant
mortality
could
seriously
deplete
any
resilience
or
compensatory
capacity
of
the
species
needed
to
survive
unfavorable
environmental
conditions.''
32
In
contrast,
facilities
sited
on
waterbodies
previously
impaired
by
anthropogenic
activities
such
as
channelization
may
demonstrate
limited
entrainment
and
impingement
losses.
The
Neal
Generating
Complex
facility,
located
near
Sioux
City,
Iowa,
on
the
Missouri
River
is
coal­
fired
and
utilizes
once­
through
cooling
systems.
According
to
a
ten­
year
study
conducted
from
1972
 
82,
the
Missouri
River
aquatic
environment
near
the
Neal
complex
was
previously
heavily
impacted
by
channelization
and
very
high
flow
rates
meant
to
enhance
barge
traffic
and
navigation.
33
These
anthropogenic
changes
to
the
natural
river
system
resulted
in
significant
losses
of
habitat
necessary
for
spawning,
nursery,
and
feeding.
At
this
facility,
fish
impingement
and
entrainment
by
cooling
water
intakes
were
found
to
be
minimal.
The
following
are
summaries
of
other,
documented
examples
of
impacts
occurring
at
existing
facilities
sited
on
a
range
of
waterbody
types.
Also,
see
the
Case
Study
Document
and
the
benefits
discussion
in
Section
IX
of
this
notice.
Brayton
Point
Generating
Station.
The
Brayton
Point
Generating
Station
is
located
on
Mt.
Hope
Bay,
in
Somerset,
Massachusetts,
within
the
northeastern
reach
of
Narragansett
Bay.
Because
of
problems
with
electric
arcing
caused
by
salt
drift
from
an
open
spray
pod
design
located
near
transmission
wires,
and
lack
of
fresh
water
to
replace
the
salt
water
used
for
the
closed­
cycle
recirculating
spray
pod
cooling
water
system,
the
company
converted
Unit
4
from
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
system
to
a
once­
through
cooling
water
system
in
July
1984.
The
modification
of
Unit
4
resulted
in
a
41
percent
increase
in
coolant
flow,
amounting
to
a
maximum
average
intake
flow
of
approximately
1.3
billion
gallons
per
day
and
increased
thermal
discharge
to
the
bay.
34
An
analysis
of
fisheries
data
by
the
Rhode
Island
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
using
a
time
seriesintervention
model
showed
an
87
percent
reduction
in
finfish
abundance
in
Mt.
Hope
Bay
coincident
with
the
Unit
4
modification.
35
The
analysis
also
indicated
that,
in
contrast,
finfish
abundance
trends
have
been
relatively
stable
in
adjacent
coastal
areas
and
portions
of
Narragansett
Bay
that
are
not
influenced
by
the
operation
of
Brayton
Point
station.
Thus,
overall
finfish
biomass
and
finfish
species
diversity
declined
in
Mount
Hope
Bay
but
not
in
Narragansett
Bay.
There
appear
to
be
multiple,
interacting
factors
that
influence
these
declines
including
overfishing
and
climate
change
as
well
as
temperature
increases
from
thermal
discharges
and
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
associated
with
the
Brayton
Point
facility.
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station.
The
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station
(
SONGS)
is
located
on
the
coastline
of
the
Southern
California
Bight,
approximately
2.5
miles
southeast
of
San
Clemente,
California.
36
The
marine
portions
of
Units
2
and
3,
which
are
once­
through,
open­
cycle
cooling
systems,
began
commercial
operation
in
August
1983
and
April
1984,
respectively.
37
Since
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17139
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
38
Swarbrick,
S.
and
R.
F.
Ambrose.
1989.
Technical
report
C:
entrapment
of
juvenile
and
adult
fish
at
SONGS.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.
39
Kastendiek,
J.
and
K.
Parker.
1988.
Interim
technical
report:
midwater
and
benthic
fish.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.
40
Swarbrick,
S.
and
R.
F.
Ambrose.
1989.
Technical
report
C:
entrapment
of
juvenile
and
adult
fish
at
SONGS.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.
41
Kastendiek,
J.
and
K.
Parker.
1988.
Interim
technical
report:
midwater
and
benthic
fish.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.
42
Impingement
and
entrainment
data
were
obtained
from
the
2000
Draft
Habitat
Conservation
Plan
for
the
Pittsburg
and
Contra
Costa
facilities.
Please
see
EPA's
Case
Study
Document
for
detailed
information
on
EPA's
evaluation
of
impingement
and
entrainment
at
these
facilities.
43
Lawler,
Matusky
&
Skelly
Engineers.
1998.
Lovett
Generating
Station
Gunderboom
system
evaluation
program
1998.
44
Please
see
EPA's
Case
Study
Document
for
more
detailed
information
on
these
facilities
and
the
data
and
methods
used
by
EPA
to
calculate
age
1
equivalent
losses.
45
Ibid.
46
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy.
1999.
Form
EIA
 
767
(
1999).
Steam­
electric
plant
operation
and
design
report.
Edison
Electric
Institute.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Consumers
Power
Company.
1984,
1988,
and
1992
reports
of
deterrent
net
performance,
J.
R.
Whiting
Plant.
Prepared
for
the
Michigan
Water
Resources
Commission.
then,
many
studies
evaluated
the
impact
of
the
SONGS
facility
on
the
marine
environment.
In
a
normal
(
non­
El
Nin
~
o)
year,
an
estimated
121
tons
of
midwater
fish
(
primarily
northern
anchovy,
queenfish,
and
white
croaker)
may
be
entrained
at
SONGS.
38
The
fish
lost
include
approximately
350,000
juveniles
of
white
croaker,
a
popular
sport
fish;
this
number
represents
33,000
adult
individuals
or
3.5
tons
of
adult
fish.
Within
3
kilometers
of
SONGS,
the
density
of
queenfish
and
white
croaker
in
shallow­
water
samples
decreased
by
34
and
36
percent,
respectively.
Queenfish
declined
by
50
to
70
percent
in
deepwater
samples.
39
In
contrast,
relative
abundances
of
bottom­
dwelling
adult
queenfish
and
white
croaker
increased
in
the
vicinity
of
SONGS.
40
Increased
numbers
of
these
and
other
bottom­
dwelling
species
were
believed
to
be
related
to
the
enriching
nature
of
SONGS
discharges,
which
in
turn
support
elevated
numbers
of
prey
items
for
bottom
fish.
41
Pittsburg
and
Contra
Costa
Power
Plants.
The
Pittsburg
and
Contra
Costa
Power
Plants
are
located
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay­
Delta
Estuary,
California.
Several
local
fish
species
(
e.
g.,
Delta
smelt,
Sacramento
splittail,
chinook
salmon,
and
steelhead)
found
in
the
vicinity
of
the
facilities
are
now
considered
threatened
or
endangered
by
Sate
and/
or
Federal
authorities.
EPA
evaluated
facility
data
on
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
for
these
species
and
estimated
that
potential
losses
of
special
status
fish
species
at
the
two
facilities
may
reach
145,003
age
1
equivalents
per
year
resulting
from
impingement
and
269,334
age
1
equivalents
per
year
due
to
entrainment
42
Based
on
restoration
costs
for
these
species,
EPA
estimates
that
the
value
of
the
potential
impingement
losses
of
these
species
is
$
12.8
to
43.2
million
per
year
and
the
value
of
potential
entrainment
is
$
25.6
million
to
$
83.2
million
per
year
(
all
in
$
2001).
Lovett
Generating
Station.
The
Lovett
Generating
Station
is
located
in
Tompkins
Cove,
New
York,
on
the
western
shore
of
the
Hudson
River.
As
a
method
of
reducing
ichthyoplankton
(
free
floating
fish
eggs
and
larvae)
entrainment
at
the
Lovett
station,
the
Gunderboom
Marine
Life
Exclusion
System
was
installed
in
1995
at
the
Unit
3
intake
structure.
Gunderboom
is
a
woven
mesh
material
initially
designed
to
prevent
waterborne
pollutants
from
entering
shoreline
environments
during
construction
or
dredging
activities.
Since
its
initial
installation,
the
Gunderboom
system
has
undergone
a
series
of
tests
and
modifications
to
resolve
problems
with
fabric
clogging,
anchoring,
and
the
boom
system.
Data
from
testing
in
1998
demonstrated
that
with
the
Gunderboom
system
in
place,
entrainment
of
eggs,
larvae,
and
juveniles
was
reduced
by
80
percent.
43
Ohio
River.
EPA
evaluated
entrainment
and
impingement
impacts
at
nine
in­
scope
facilities
along
a
500­
mile
stretch
of
the
Ohio
River
as
one
of
its
case
studies.
Results
from
these
nine
facilities
were
extrapolated
to
20
additional
in­
scope
facilities.
All
inscope
facilities
spanned
a
stretch
of
the
Ohio
River
that
extended
from
the
western
portion
of
Pennsylvania,
along
the
southern
border
of
Ohio,
and
into
eastern
Indiana.
Impingement
losses
for
all
in­
scope
facilities
were
approximately
11.3
million
fish
(
age
1
equivalents)
annually;
entrainment
losses
totaled
approximately
23.0
million
fish
(
age
1
equivalents)
annually.
44
EPA
believes
that
the
results
from
this
case
study
may
not
be
representative
of
entrainment
and
impingement
losses
along
major
U.
S.
rivers
because
they
are
based
on
limited
data
collected
nearly
25
years
ago.
In
addition,
due
to
improvements
in
water
quality
and
implementation
of
fishery
management
plans,
fish
populations
near
these
facilities
may
have
increased
and
therefore
these
results
may
underestimate
current
entrainment
and
impingement
at
Ohio
River
facilities.
Power
Plants
with
Flows
Less
Than
500
MGD.
The
following
results
from
the
case
studies
conducted
by
EPA
under
this
rulemaking
effort
provide
an
indication
of
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
for
facilities
with
lower
flows
than
the
previous
examples.
Impingement
and
entrainment
rates
are
expressed
as
numbers
of
age
1
equivalents,
calculated
by
EPA
from
the
impingement
and
entrainment
data
provided
in
facility
monitoring
reports.
45
 
The
Pilgrim
Nuclear
Power
Station,
located
on
Cape
Cod
Bay,
Massachusetts,
has
an
intake
flow
of
446
MGD.
46
The
average
annual
number
of
age
1
equivalents
impinged
at
Pilgrim
from
1974
 
1999
was
52,800
fish.
The
average
annual
number
entrained
was
14.4
million
fish.
 
The
Miami
Fort
Power
Plant,
located
on
the
Ohio
River
about
20
miles
downstream
of
Cincinnati,
has
an
intake
flow
of
about
98.7
MGD
47
and
combined
average
impingement
and
entrainment
of
about
1.8
million
age
1
equivalent
fish
per
year
(
298,027
impinged
and
1,519,679
entrained).
 
The
JR
Whiting
Plant,
located
in
Michigan
on
Lake
Erie
has
an
intake
flow
of
308
MGD.
48
The
average
annual
number
of
age
1
equivalent
fish
entrained
was
1.8
million.
Before
installation
of
a
deterrent
net
in
1980
to
reduce
impingement,
some
21.5
million
age
1
equivalents
were
lost
to
impingement
at
the
facility
each
year.
These
losses
were
reduced
by
nearly
90
percent
with
application
of
the
deterrent
net.
49
Studies
like
those
described
in
this
section
may
provide
only
a
partial
picture
of
the
severity
of
environmental
impact
associated
with
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Most
important,
the
methods
for
evaluating
adverse
environmental
impact
used
in
the
1970s
and
1980s,
when
most
section
316(
b)
evaluations
were
performed,
were
often
inconsistent
and
incomplete,
making
detection
and
consideration
of
all
impacts
difficult
in
some
cases,
and
making
cross­
facility
comparison
difficult
for
developing
a
national
rule.
For
example,
some
studies
reported
only
gross
fish
losses;
others
reported
fish
losses
on
the
basis
of
species
and
life
stage;
still
others
reported
percent
losses
of
the
associated
population
or
subpopulation
(
e.
g.,
young­
of­
year
fish).
Recent
advances
in
environmental
assessment
techniques
provide
new
and
in
some
cases
better
tools
for
monitoring
impingement
and
entrainment
and
detecting
impacts
associated
with
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17140
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
50
Schmitt,
R.
J.
and
C.
W.
Osenberg.
1996.
Detecting
ecological
impacts.
Academic
Press,
San
Diego,
CA.
51
EPRI.
1999.
Catalog
of
assessment
methods
for
evaluating
the
effects
of
power
plant
operations
on
aquatic
communities.
TR
 
112013,
EPRI,
Palo
Alto,
CA.
operation
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
50
51
VI.
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
at
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
A.
What
Is
the
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
at
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities?

1.
How
Will
Requirements
Reflecting
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
Be
Established
for
My
Phase
II
Existing
Facility?
Today's
proposed
rule
would
establish
national
minimum
performance
requirements
for
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
These
requirements
would
represent
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
based
on
the
type
of
waterbody
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
located,
the
volume
of
water
withdrawn
by
a
facility,
and
the
facility's
capacity
utilization
rate.
Under
this
proposal,
EPA
would
set
technology­
based
performance
requirements,
but
the
Agency
would
not
mandate
the
use
of
any
specific
technology.
A
facility
may
use
one
of
three
different
methods
for
establishing
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Under
the
first
method,
a
facility
would
demonstrate
to
the
Director
issuing
the
permit
that
the
facility's
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
already
meet
the
national
minimum
performance
requirements
that
EPA
is
proposing.
Under
the
second
method,
a
facility
would
select
design
and
construction
technology,
operational
measures,
restoration
measures
or
some
combination
thereof.
The
facility
would
then
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
its
selected
approach
would
meet
the
performance
requirements
EPA
is
proposing.
Under
the
third
method,
a
facility
would
calculate
its
cost
of
complying
with
the
presumptive
performance
requirements
and
compare
those
costs
either
to
the
compliance
costs
EPA
estimated
in
the
analysis
for
this
proposed
rule
or
to
a
site­
specific
determination
of
the
benefits
of
meeting
the
presumptive
performance
requirements.
If
the
facility's
costs
are
significantly
greater
than
EPA's
estimated
costs
or
site­
specific
benefits,
the
facility
would
qualify
for
a
sitespecific
determination
of
best
technology
available.
The
Agency
discusses
each
of
these
three
methods
for
compliance
and
the
proposed
presumptive
minimum
performance
requirements
in
greater
detail
below.
EPA
invites
comments
on
all
aspects
of
this
proposed
regulatory
framework
as
well
as
the
alternative
regulatory
approaches
discussed
later
in
this
section.

a.
What
Are
the
Performance
Standards
for
the
Location,
Design,
Construction,
and
Capacity
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
To
Reflect
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact?
EPA
is
proposing
four
performance
standards
at
§
125.94(
b),
all
of
which
reflect
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
from
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Under
proposed
§
125.94(
b)(
1),
any
owner
or
operator
able
to
demonstrate
that
a
facility
employs
technology
that
reduces
intake
capacity
to
a
level
commensurate
with
the
use
of
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system
would
meet
the
performance
requirements
proposed
in
today's
rule.
Use
of
this
type
of
technology
satisfies
both
impingement
and
entrainment
performance
requirements
for
all
waterbodies.
The
performance
standards
at
proposed
§
125.94(
b)(
2),(
3),
and
(
4)
are
based
on
the
type
of
waterbody
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
located,
the
volume
of
water
withdrawn
by
a
facility,
the
facility
capacity
utilization
rate,
and
the
location
of
a
facility's
intake
structure
in
relation
to
fishery
resources
of
concern
to
permit
authorities
or
fishery
managers.
Under
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
would
group
waterbodies
into
five
categories:
(
1)
Freshwater
rivers
or
streams,
(
2)
lakes
or
reservoirs,
(
3)
Great
Lakes,
(
4)
tidal
rivers
and
estuaries,
and
(
5)
oceans.
The
Agency
considers
location
to
be
an
important
factor
in
addressing
adverse
environmental
impact
caused
by
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Because
different
waterbody
types
have
different
potential
for
adverse
environmental
impact,
the
requirements
proposed
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
would
vary
by
waterbody
type.
For
example,
estuaries
and
tidal
rivers
have
a
higher
potential
for
adverse
impact
because
they
contain
essential
habitat
and
nursery
areas
for
the
vast
majority
of
commercial
and
recreational
important
species
of
shell
and
fin
fish,
including
many
species
that
are
subject
to
intensive
fishing
pressures.
Therefore,
these
areas
require
a
higher
level
of
control
that
includes
both
impingement
and
entrainment
controls.
Organisms
entrained
may
include
small
species
of
fish
and
immature
life
stages
(
eggs
and
larvae)
of
many
species
that
lack
sufficient
mobility
to
move
away
from
the
area
of
the
intake
structure.
The
reproductive
strategies
of
many
estuarine
species
include
pelagic
or
planktonic
larvae,
which
are
very
susceptible
to
entrainment.
EPA
discussed
these
concepts
in
a
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
for
the
new
facility
rule
(
66
FR
28853,
May
25,
2001)
and
invited
comment
on
a
number
of
documents
which
may
support
a
judgment
that
the
reproductive
strategies
of
tidal
river
and
estuarine
species,
together
with
other
physical
and
biological
characteristics
of
those
waters,
which
make
them
more
susceptible
than
other
waterbodies
to
impacts
from
cooling
water
intake
structures.
In
addition
to
these
documents,
the
NODA
presented
information
regarding
the
low
entrainment
susceptibility
of
non­
tidal
freshwater
rivers
and
streams
to
cooling
water
intake
structure
impacts.
This
information
also
may
be
relevant
in
determining
whether
tidal
rivers
and
estuaries
are
more
sensitive
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
than
some
parts
of
other
waterbodies.
In
general,
commenters
on
the
NODA
agreed
that
location
is
an
important
factor
in
assessing
the
impacts
of
cooling
water
intake
structure,
but
that
creating
a
regulatory
framework
to
specifically
address
locational
issues
would
be
extremely
difficult.
In
the
end,
EPA
elected
not
to
vary
requirements
for
new
facilities
on
the
basis
of
whether
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
one
or
another
broad
category
of
waterbody
type.
Instead,
EPA
promulgated
the
same
technology­
based
performance
requirements
for
all
new
facilities,
regardless
of
the
waterbody
type
after
finding
this
approach
to
be
economically
practicable.
For
the
Phase
II
existing
facility
rule,
which
would
establish
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
in
all
waterbody
types,
EPA
is
again
proposing
an
approach
that
it
believes
is
economically
practicable,
but
is
proposing
to
require
the
most
control
in
areas
where
such
controls
would
yield
the
greatest
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment.
EPA
believes
that
section
316(
b)
affords
EPA
such
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17141
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
discretion
because
unlike
the
sections
authorizing
technology­
based
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
new
source
performance
standards
for
the
discharge
of
pollutants,
section
316(
b)
expressly
states
that
its
objective
is
to
require
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
believes
this
language
affords
the
Agency
discretion
to
consider
the
environmental
effects
of
various
technology
options.
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
vary
technology­
based
performance
requirements
by
waterbody
type,
requiring
more
effective
controls
in
waterbodies
with
higher
overall
productivity
or
greater
sensitivity
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
(
Appendix
1
to
the
preamble
presents
the
proposed
regulatory
framework
in
a
flow
chart).
Under
this
approach,
facilities
that
operate
at
less
than
15
percent
capacity
utilization
would
be
required
to
have
only
impingement
control
technology.
This
level
of
control
was
found
to
be
the
most
economically
practicable
given
these
facilities'
reduced
operating
levels.
In
addition,
these
facilities
tend
to
operate
most
often
in
mid­
winter
or
late
summer,
times
of
peak
energy
demand
but
periods
of
generally
low
abundance
of
entrainable
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
The
flow
or
capacity
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
also
a
primary
factor
affecting
the
entrainment
of
organisms.
The
lower
the
intake
flow
at
a
site,
the
lesser
the
potential
for
entrained
organisms.
As
in
the
Phase
I
(
new
facility)
rule,
EPA
is
proposing
to
set
performance
standards
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
based
on
a
relatively
easy
to
measure
and
certain
metric­
reduction
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
EPA
is
choosing
this
approach
to
provide
certainty
about
permitting
requirements
and
to
streamline
and
speed
the
issuance
of
permits.
Facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream
would
have
different
requirements
depending
on
the
proportion
of
the
source
waterbody
that
is
withdrawn.
If
the
intake
flow
is
5
percent
or
less
of
the
source
water
annual
mean
flow,
then
the
facility
would
be
required
to
reduce
fish
and
shellfish
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent.
If
the
intake
flow
is
5
percent
or
more
of
the
source
water
annual
mean
flow,
then
the
facility
would
be
required
to
reduce
fish
and
shellfish
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
and
reduce
entrainment
by
60
to
90
percent.
As
described
in
the
new
facility
proposed
rule
(
65
FR
49060)
and
NODA
(
66
FR
28853),
EPA
believes
that,
absent
entrainment
control
technologies
entrainment,
at
a
particular
site
is
proportional
to
intake
flow
at
that
site.
As
we
discuss
above,
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
vary
the
suite
of
technologies
by
the
potential
for
adverse
environmental
impact
in
a
waterbody
type.
EPA
is
therefore
proposing
to
limit
the
requirement
for
entrainment
control
in
fresh
waters
to
those
facilities
that
withdraw
the
largest
proportion
of
water
from
freshwater
rivers
or
streams.
Facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
a
lake
or
reservoir
would
have
to
implement
impingement
control
technology
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
for
fish
and
shellfish,
and,
if
they
expand
their
design
intake
capacity,
the
increase
in
intake
flow
must
not
disrupt
the
natural
thermal
stratification
or
turnover
pattern
of
the
source
water.
Cooling
water
intake
structures
withdrawing
from
the
Great
Lakes
would
be
required
to
reduce
fish
and
shellfish
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
and
to
reduce
entrainment
by
60
to
90
percent.
As
described
in
the
new
facility
proposed
rule
(
65
FR
49060)
and
NODA
(
66
FR
28853),
EPA
believes
that
the
Great
Lakes
are
a
unique
system
that
should
be
protected
to
a
greater
extent
than
other
lakes
and
reservoirs.
The
Agency
is
therefore
proposing
to
specify
entrainment
controls
as
well
as
impingement
controls
for
the
Great
Lakes.
Facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
a
tidal
river
or
estuary
would
need
to
implement
impingement
control
technology
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
and
entrainment
by
60
to
90
percent
for
fish
and
shellfish.
As
discussed
above,
estuaries
and
tidal
rivers
are
more
susceptible
than
other
water
bodies
to
adverse
impacts
from
impingement
and
entrainment.
Facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
an
ocean
would
have
to
implement
impingement
control
technology
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
and
entrainment
by
60
to
90
percent
for
fish
and
shellfish.
EPA
is
establishing
requirements
for
facilities
withdrawing
from
oceans
that
are
similar
to
those
proposed
for
tidal
rivers
and
estuaries
because
the
coastal
zone
of
oceans
(
where
cooling
water
intakes
withdraw)
are
highly
productive
areas.
(
See
the
new
facility
proposed
rule
(
65
FR
45060)
and
documents
in
the
record
(
Docket
#
W
 
00
 
03)
such
as
2
 
013A
through
O,
2
 
019A
 
R11,
2
 
019A
 
R12,
2
 
019A
 
R33,
2
 
019A
 
R44,
2
 
020A,
3
 
0059.)
EPA
is
also
concerned
about
the
extent
to
which
fishery
stocks
that
rely
upon
tidal
rivers,
estuaries
and
oceans
for
habitat
are
overutilized
and
seeks
to
minimize
the
impact
that
cooling
water
intake
structures
may
have
on
these
species
or
forage
species
on
which
these
fishery
stocks
may
depend.
(
See
documents
2
 
019A
 
R11,
2
 
019A
 
R12,
2
 
019A
 
R33,
2
 
019A
 
R44,
2
 
020A,
2
 
024A
through
O,
and
3
 
0059
through
3
 
0063
in
the
record
of
the
Final
New
Facility
Rule
(
66
FR
65256),
Docket
#
W
 
00
 
03).
EPA
is
proposing
a
range
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction
in
its
requirements
for
facilities
that
are
required
to
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
or
restoration
measures
to
minimize
potential
impact
from
their
cooling
water
intake
structures.
The
calculation
baseline
against
which
compliance
with
the
performance
standards
should
be
assessed
is
a
shoreline
intake
with
the
capacity
to
support
once­
through
cooling
and
no
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment
controls.
In
many
cases
existing
technologies
at
the
site
achieve
some
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
when
compared
to
this
baseline.
In
such
cases,
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reductions
(
relative
to
the
calculated
baseline)
achieved
by
these
existing
technologies
should
be
counted
toward
compliance
with
the
performance
standards.
EPA
is
proposing
performance
ranges
rather
than
a
single
performance
benchmark
because
of
the
uncertainty
inherent
in
predicting
the
efficacy
of
a
technology
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
The
lower
end
of
the
range
is
being
proposed
as
the
percent
reduction
that
EPA,
based
on
the
available
efficacy
data,
has
determined
that
all
facilities
could
achieve
if
they
were
to
implement
available
technologies
and
operational
measures
on
which
the
performance
standards
are
based.
(
See
Chapter
5,
``
Efficacy
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Technologies,''
of
the
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
Final
Rule
for
New
Facilities,
EPA
 
821
 
R
 
01
 
036,
November
2001).
The
baseline
for
assessing
performance
is
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
with
a
shoreline
intake
with
the
capacity
to
support
once­
through
cooling
and
no
impingement
or
entrainment
controls.
The
lower
end
of
the
range
would
take
into
account
sites
where
there
may
be
more
fragile
species
that
may
not
have
a
high
survival
rate
after
coming
in
contact
with
fish
protection
technologies
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
(
i.
e.,
fine
mesh
screens).
The
higher
end
of
the
range
is
being
proposed
as
a
percent
reduction
that
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17142
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
available
data
show
many
facilities
can
and
have
achieved
with
the
available
technologies
on
which
the
performance
standards
are
based.
Some
facilities
may
be
able
to
exceed
the
high
end
of
the
performance
range,
though
they
would
not
be
required
to
do
so
by
today's
proposed
rule.
In
specifying
a
range,
EPA
anticipates
that
facilities
will
select
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
achieve
the
greatest
cost­
effective
reduction
possible
(
within
today's
proposed
performance
range)
based
on
conditions
found
at
their
site,
and
that
Directors
will
review
the
facility's
application
to
ensure
that
appropriate
alternatives
were
considered.
EPA
also
expects
that
some
facilities
may
be
able
to
meet
these
performance
requirements
by
selecting
and
implementing
a
suite
(
i.
e.,
more
than
one)
of
technologies
and
operational
measures
and/
or,
as
discussed
below,
by
undertaking
restoration
measures.
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
the
Agency
should
establish
regulatory
requirements
to
ensure
that
facilities
achieve
the
greatest
possible
reduction
(
within
the
proposed
ranges)
that
can
be
achieved
at
their
site
using
the
technologies
on
which
the
performance
standards
are
based.
EPA
also
invites
comment
on
whether
EPA
should
leave
decisions
about
appropriate
performance
levels
for
a
facility
to
the
Director,
provided
that
the
facility
will
achieve
performance
that
is
no
lower
than
the
bottom
of
the
performance
ranges
in
today's
proposal.
EPA
based
the
presumptive
performance
standards
specified
at
125.94(
b),
(
c),
and
(
d)
for
impingement
mortality
reduction,
compared
with
conventional
once­
through
systems,
on
the
following
technologies:
(
1)
Design
and
construction
technologies
such
as
fine
and
wide­
mesh
wedgewire
screens,
as
well
as
aquatic
filter
barrier
systems,
that
can
reduce
mortality
from
impingement
by
up
to
99
percent
or
greater
compared
with
conventional
once­
through
systems;
(
2)
barrier
nets
that
may
achieve
reductions
of
80
to
90
percent;
and
(
3)
modified
screens
and
fish
return
systems,
fish
diversion
systems,
and
fine
mesh
traveling
screens
and
fish
return
systems
that
have
achieved
reductions
in
impingement
mortality
ranging
from
60
to
90
percent
as
compared
to
conventional
oncethrough
systems.
(
See
Chapter
5
of
the
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
Final
Rule
for
New
Facilities.)
Less
full­
scale
performance
data
are
available
for
entrainment
reduction.
Aquatic
filter
barrier
systems,
fine
mesh
wedgewire
screens,
and
fine
mesh
traveling
screens
with
fish
return
systems
achieve
80
to
90
percent
greater
reduction
in
entrainment
compared
with
conventional
once­
through
systems.
EPA
notes
that
screening
to
prevent
organism
entrainment
may
cause
impingement
of
those
organisms
instead.
Questions
regarding
impingement
survival
of
relatively
delicate
fish,
larvae,
and
eggs
would
need
to
be
considered
by
the
Director
and
the
facility
in
evaluating
the
efficacy
of
the
technology.
In
addition,
all
of
these
screening­
and­
return
technologies
would
need
to
be
evaluated
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
determine
if
they
are
capable
of
screening
and
protecting
the
specific
species
of
fish,
larvae
and
eggs
that
are
of
concern
at
a
particular
facility.
Several
additional
factors
suggest
that
the
performance
levels
discussed
above
and
described
in
more
detail
in
Chapter
5
of
the
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
Final
New
Facility
Rule
can
be
improved.
First,
some
of
the
performance
data
reviewed
is
from
the
1970'
s
and
1980'
s
and
does
not
reflect
recent
developments
and
innovations
(
e.
g.,
aquatic
filter
barrier
systems,
sound
barriers).
Second,
these
conventional
barrier
and
return
system
technologies
have
not
been
optimized
on
a
widespread
level
to
date,
as
would
be
encouraged
by
this
rule.
Third,
EPA
believes
that
many
facilities
could
achieve
further
reductions
(
estimated
at
15
 
30
percent)
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
by
providing
for
seasonal
flow
restrictions,
variable
speed
pumps,
and
other
operational
measures
and
innovative
flow
reduction
alternatives.
For
additional
discussion,
see
section
5.5.11
in
the
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
new
facility
rule.
EPA
notes
that
available
data
described
in
Chapter
5
of
the
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
Final
Rule
for
New
Facilities
suggest
that
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems
(
e.
g.,
cooling
towers
or
ponds)
can
reduce
mortality
from
impingement
by
up
to
98
percent
and
entrainment
by
up
to
98
percent
when
compared
with
conventional
once­
through
systems.
Therefore,
although
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
is
not
one
of
the
technologies
on
which
the
presumptive
standards
are
base,
use
of
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system
would
achieve
the
presumptive
standards.
The
proposed
rule,
at
§
124.94(
b)(
1)
would
thus
establish
the
use
of
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system
as
one
method
for
meeting
the
presumptive
standards.
Based
on
an
analysis
of
data
collected
through
the
detailed
industry
questionnaire
and
the
short
technical
questionnaire,
EPA
believes
that
today's
proposed
rule
would
apply
to
539
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities.
Of
these,
53
facilities
that
operate
at
less
than
15
percent
capacity
utilization
would
potentially
require
only
impingement
controls,
with
34
of
these
estimated
to
actually
require
such
controls.
(
The
remaining
19
facilities
have
existing
impingement
controls).
Of
the
remaining
486
facilities,
the
proposed
rule
would
not
require
any
changes
at
approximately
69
large
existing
facilities
with
recirculating
wet
cooling
systems
(
e.
g.,
wet
cooling
towers
or
ponds).
Of
the
remaining
417
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities
(
i.
e.,
those
that
exceed
15
percent
capacity
utilization
and
have
non­
recirculating
systems),
EPA
estimates
that
94
are
located
on
freshwater
lakes
or
reservoirs,
13
are
located
on
the
Great
Lakes,
109
are
located
on
oceans,
estuaries,
or
tidal
rivers,
and
201
are
located
on
freshwater
rivers
or
streams.
Of
the
94
Phase
II
existing
facilities
located
on
freshwater
lakes
or
reservoirs,
EPA
estimates
that
67
of
these
facilities
would
have
to
install
impingement
controls
and
that
27
facilities
already
have
impingement
controls
that
meet
the
proposed
rule
requirements.
As
for
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities
located
on
the
Great
Lakes,
EPA
estimates
that
the
proposed
rule
would
require
all
13
such
facilities
to
install
impingement
and
entrainment
controls.
Of
the
109
facilities
located
on
estuaries,
tidal
rivers,
or
oceans,
EPA
estimates
that
15
facilities
would
already
meet
today's
proposed
impingement
and
entrainment
controls.
The
remaining
94
facilities
would
need
to
install
additional
technologies
to
reduce
impingement,
entrainment,
or
both.
For
Phase
II
existing
facilities
located
on
freshwater
river
or
streams,
the
proposed
rule
would
establish
an
intake
flow
threshold
of
five
(
5)
percent
of
the
mean
annual
flow.
Facilities
withdrawing
more
than
this
threshold
would
have
to
meet
performance
standards
for
reducing
both
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
Facilities
withdrawing
less
than
the
threshold
would
only
have
to
meet
performance
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality.
EPA
estimates
that
of
201
facilities
located
on
freshwater
river
or
streams,
94
are
at
or
below
the
flow
threshold,
and
that
only
53
of
these
facilities
would
have
to
install
additional
impingement
controls
(
the
remaining
facilities
have
controls
in
place
to
meet
the
proposed
rule
requirements).
EPA
estimates
that
107
facilities
exceed
the
flow
threshold.
Twenty
one
(
21)
of
these
facilities
have
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17143
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
sufficient
controls
in
place;
86
would
require
entrainment
or
impingement
and
entrainment
controls.

b.
How
Could
a
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Use
Existing
Design
and
Construction
Technologies,
Operational
Measures,
and/
or
Restoration
Measures
To
Establish
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact?

Under
the
first
option
for
determination
of
best
technology
available,
as
specified
in
proposed
§
125.94(
a)(
1),
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
may
demonstrate
to
the
permit­
issuing
Director
that
it
already
employs
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures
that
meet
the
performance
requirements
proposed
today.
To
do
this
the
owner
or
operator
would
calculate
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reductions
of
existing
technologies
and
measures
relative
to
the
calculation
baseline
and
compare
these
reductions
to
those
specified
in
the
applicable
performance
standards.
EPA
expects
that
owners
and
operators
of
some
facilities
may
be
able
to
demonstrate
compliance
through
a
suite
of
(
i.
e.,
multiple)
existing
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures.
To
adequately
demonstrate
the
efficacy
of
existing
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
a
facility
owner
or
operator
must
conduct
and
submit
for
the
Director's
review
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
as
specified
in
proposed
§
125.95(
b)
and
described
in
section
VII
of
today's
preamble.
In
this
Study,
the
owner
or
operator
would
characterize
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
due
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
describe
the
nature
and
operation
of
the
intake
structure,
and
describe
the
nature
and
performance
levels
of
the
existing
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
for
mitigating
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts.
Owners
and
operators
may
use
existing
data
for
the
Study
as
long
as
it
adequately
reflects
current
conditions
at
the
facility
and
in
the
waterbody
from
which
the
facility
withdraws
cooling
water.
c.
How
Could
a
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Use
Newly
Selected
Design
and
Construction
Technologies,
Operational
Measures,
and/
or
Restoration
Measures
To
Establish
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact?

Under
the
second
option
for
determination
of
best
technology
available
specified
in
proposed
§
125.94(
a)(
2),
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
that
does
not
already
employ
sufficient
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures
to
meet
the
proposed
performance
standards
must
select
additional
technologies
and
operational
or
restoration
measures.
The
owner
or
operator
must
demonstrate
to
the
permit­
issuing
Director
that
these
additions
will,
in
conjunction
with
any
existing
technologies
and
measures
at
the
site,
meet
today's
proposed
performance
standards.
EPA
expects
that
some
facilities
may
be
able
to
meet
their
performance
requirements
by
selecting
and
implementing
a
suite
(
i.
e.,
more
than
one)
of
technologies,
operational,
or
restoration
measures.
To
adequately
demonstrate
the
efficacy
of
the
selected
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
a
facility
must
conduct
and
submit
for
the
Director's
review
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
as
specified
in
proposed
§
125.95(
b)
and
described
in
section
VII
of
today's
preamble.
In
this
Study,
the
owner
or
operator
would
characterize
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
due
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
describe
the
nature
and
operation
of
the
intake
structure,
and
describe
the
nature
and
performance
levels
of
both
the
existing
and
proposed
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
for
mitigating
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts.
Owners
and
operators
may
use
existing
data
for
the
Study
as
long
as
it
adequately
reflects
current
conditions
at
the
facility
and
in
the
waterbody
from
which
the
facility
withdraws
cooling
water.
If
compliance
monitoring
determines
that
the
design
and
construction,
operating
measures,
or
restoration
measures
prescribed
by
the
permit
have
been
properly
installed
and
were
properly
operated
and
maintained,
but
were
not
achieving
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards,
the
Director
could
modify
permit
requirements
consistent
with
existing
NPDES
program
regulations
(
e.
g.,
40
CFR
122.62,
122.63,
and
122.41)
and
the
provisions
of
this
proposal.
In
the
meantime,
the
facility
would
be
considered
in
compliance
with
its
permit
as
long
as
it
was
satisfying
all
permit
conditions.
EPA
solicits
comment
on
whether
the
proposed
regulation
should
specify
that
proper
design,
installation,
operation
and
maintenance
would
satisfy
the
terms
of
the
permit
until
the
permit
is
reissued
pursuant
to
a
revised
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan.
If
EPA
were
to
adopt
this
approach,
EPA
would
specify
in
the
regulations
that
the
Director
should
require
as
a
permit
condition
the
proper
design,
installation,
operation
and
maintenance
of
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures
rather
than
compliance
with
performance
standards.

d.
How
Could
a
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Qualify
for
a
Site­
Specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact?
Under
the
third
option
for
determination
of
best
technology
available,
specified
in
proposed
§
125.94(
a)(
3),
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
may
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
a
sitespecific
determination
of
best
technology
available
is
appropriate
for
the
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
at
that
facility
if
the
owner
or
operator
can
meet
one
of
the
two
cost
tests
specified
in
proposed
§
125.94(
c)(
1).
To
be
eligible
to
pursue
this
approach,
the
facility
must
first
demonstrate
to
the
Director
either:
(
1)
that
its
costs
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
specified
in
§
125.94(
b)
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
considered
by
the
Administrator
in
establishing
such
performance
standards;
or
(
2)
that
the
facility's
costs
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
performance
standards
at
the
facility's
site.
A
discussion
of
applying
the
cost
test
is
provided
in
section
VI.
A.
12
of
this
proposed
rule.
A
discussion
of
applying
the
test
in
which
costs
are
compared
to
benefits
is
provided
in
Section
VI.
A.
8.
To
adequately
demonstrate
the
efficacy
of
the
selected
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
considered
in
the
site­
specific
cost
tests,
a
facility
must
conduct
and
submit
for
the
Director's
review
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
as
specified
in
proposed
§
125.95(
b)
and
described
in
section
VII
of
today's
preamble.
In
this
Study,
the
owner
or
operator
would
characterize
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
due
to
the
cooling
water
intake
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17144
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
structure,
describe
the
nature
and
operation
of
the
intake
structure,
and
describe
the
nature
and
performance
levels
of
the
existing
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
for
mitigating
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts.
Owners
or
operators
would
also
need
to
document
the
costs
to
the
facility
of
any
additional
technologies
or
measures
that
would
be
needed
to
meet
the
performance
standards
and
in
the
case
of
the
sitespecific
cost
to
benefits
test,
the
monetized
benefits
of
meeting
the
standards.
Owners
and
operators
may
use
existing
data
for
the
Study
as
long
as
it
adequately
reflects
current
conditions
at
the
facility
and
in
the
waterbody
from
which
the
facility
withdraws
cooling
water.
Where
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
demonstrates
that
it
meets
either
of
the
cost
tests,
the
Director
is
to
make
a
sitespecific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
This
determination
would
be
based
on
less
costly
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
proposed
by
the
facility
and
approved
by
the
Director.
The
Director
would
approve
less
costly
technologies
to
the
extent
justified
by
the
significantly
greater
cost.
Phase
II
Existing
facilities
that
pursue
this
option
would
have
to
assess
the
nature
and
degree
of
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
their
cooling
water
intake
structures,
and
then
identify
the
best
technology
available
to
minimize
such
impact.
Owners
and
operators
would
be
required
to
submit
to
the
Director
for
approval
a
Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan.
This
plan
would
be
based
on
a
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
and
a
Valuation
of
Monetized
Benefits
of
Reducing
Impingement
and
Entrainment,
as
required
by
proposed
§
125.95(
b)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii).
(
See
section
VII).
The
Plan
would
describe
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
selected,
and
provide
information
that
demonstrates
the
effectiveness
of
the
selected
technologies
or
measures
for
reducing
the
impacts
on
the
species
of
concern.
To
document
that
its
site­
specific
costs
would
be
significantly
greater
than
those
EPA
considered,
the
facility
would
need
to
develop
engineering
cost
estimates
as
part
of
its
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study.
The
facility
would
then
consider
the
model
plants
presented
in
EPA's
Technical
Development
Document,
determine
which
model
plant
most
closely
matches
its
fuel
source,
mode
of
electricity
generation,
existing
intake
technologies,
waterbody
type,
geographic
location,
and
intake
flow
and
compare
its
engineering
estimates
to
EPA's
estimated
cost
for
this
model
plant
.

2.
What
Available
Technologies
Are
Proposed
as
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact?
Currently,
14
percent
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
potentially
subject
to
this
proposal
already
have
a
closedcycle
recirculating
cooling
water
system
(
69
facilities
operating
at
15
percent
capacity
utilization
or
more
and
4
facilities
operating
at
less
than
15
percent
capacity
utilization).
In
addition,
50
percent
of
the
remaining
potentially
regulated
facilities
have
some
other
technology
in
place
that
reduces
impingement
or
entrainment.
Thirty­
three
percent
of
these
facilities
have
fish
handling
or
return
systems
that
reduce
the
mortality
of
impinged
organisms.
EPA
finds
that
the
design
and
construction
technologies
necessary
to
meet
the
proposed
requirements
are
commercially
available
and
economically
practicable,
because
facilities
can
and
have
installed
many
of
these
technologies
years
after
a
facility
began
operation.
Typically,
additional
design
and
construction
technologies
such
as
fine
mesh
screens,
wedgewire
screens,
fish
handling
and
return
systems,
and
aquatic
fabric
barrier
systems
can
be
installed
during
a
scheduled
outage
(
operational
shutdown).
Referenced
below
are
examples
of
facilities
that
installed
these
technologies
after
they
initially
started
operating.
Lovett
Generating
Station.
A
495
MW
facility
(
nameplate,
gas­
fired
steam),
Lovett
is
located
in
Tomkins
Cove,
New
York,
along
the
Hudson
River.
The
facility
first
began
operations
in
1949
and
has
3
generating
units
with
oncethrough
cooling
systems.
In
1994,
Lovett
began
the
testing
of
an
aquatic
filter
fabric
barrier
system
to
reduce
entrainment,
with
a
permanent
system
being
installed
the
following
year.
Improvements
and
additions
were
made
to
the
system
in
1997,
1998,
and
1999,
with
some
adjustments
being
accepted
as
universal
improvements
for
all
subsequent
installations
of
this
vendor's
technology
at
other
locations.
Big
Bend
Power
Station.
Situated
on
Tampa
Bay,
Big
Bend
is
a
1998
MW
(
nameplate,
coal­
fired
steam)
facility
with
4
generating
units.
The
facility
first
began
operations
in
1970
and
added
generating
units
in
1973,
1976,
and
1985.
Big
Bend
supplies
cooling
water
to
its
once­
through
cooling
water
systems
via
two
intake
structures.
When
the
facility
added
Unit
4
in
1985,
regulators
required
the
facility
to
install
additional
intake
technologies.
A
fish
handling
and
return
system,
as
well
as
a
fine­
mesh
traveling
screen
(
used
only
during
months
with
potentially
high
entrainment
rates),
were
installed
on
the
intake
structure
serving
both
the
new
Unit
4
and
the
existing
Unit
3.
Salem
Generating
Station.
A
2381
MW
facility
(
nameplate,
nuclear),
Salem
is
located
on
the
Delaware
River
in
Lower
Alloways
Creek
Township,
New
Jersey.
The
facility
has
two
generating
units,
both
of
which
use
once­
through
cooling
and
began
operations
in
1977.
In
1995,
the
facility
installed
modified
Ristroph
screens
and
a
low­
pressure
spray
wash
with
a
fish
return
system.
The
facility
also
redesigned
the
fish
return
troughs
to
reduce
fish
trauma.
Chalk
Point
Generating
Station.
Located
on
the
Patuxent
River
in
Price
George's
County,
Maryland,
Chalk
Point
has
a
nameplate
capacity
of
2647
MW
(
oil­
fired
steam).
The
facility
has
4
generating
units
and
uses
a
combination
of
once­
through
and
closed
cycle
cooling
(
two
once­
through
systems
serving
two
generating
units
and
one
recirculating
system
with
a
tower
serving
the
other
two
generating
units).
In
1983,
the
facility
installed
a
barrier
net,
followed
by
a
second
set
of
netting
in
1985,
giving
the
facility
a
coarse
mesh
(
1.25 )
outer
net
and
a
fine
mesh
(.
75 )
inner
net.
The
barrier
nets
are
anchored
to
a
series
of
pilings
at
the
mouth
of
the
intake
canal
that
supplies
the
cooling
water
to
the
facility
and
serve
to
reduce
both
entrainment
and
the
volume
of
trash
taken
in
at
the
facility.
EPA
believes
that
the
technologies
used
as
the
basis
for
today's
proposal
are
commercially
available
and
economically
practicable
(
see
discussion
below)
for
the
industries
affected
as
a
whole,
and
have
negligible
non­
water
quality
environmental
impacts,
including
energy
impacts.
The
proposed
option
would
meet
the
requirement
of
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
that
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.

3.
Economic
Practicability
EPA
believes
that
the
requirements
of
this
proposal
are
economically
practicable.
EPA
examined
the
annualized
post­
tax
compliance
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
as
a
percentage
of
annual
revenues
to
determine
whether
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17145
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
52EPA's
2000
Section
316(
b)
Industry
Survey
identified
539
facilities
that
are
subject
to
this
proposed
rule.
EPA
applied
sample
weights
to
the
539
facilities
to
account
for
non­
sampled
facilities
and
facilities
that
did
not
respond
to
the
survey.
The
539
analyzed
facilities
represent
550
facilities
in
the
industry.
53
IPM
revenues
for
2008
were
not
available
for
11
facilities
estimated
to
be
baseline
closures,
10
facilities
not
modeled
by
the
IPM,
and
9
facilities
projected
to
have
zero
baseline
revenues.
EPA
used
facility­
specific
electricity
generation
and
firmspecific
wholesale
prices
as
reported
to
the
Energy
Information
Administration
(
EIA)
to
calculate
the
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
for
the
19
non­
baseline
closure
facilities
with
missing
information.
The
revenues
for
one
of
these
facilities
remained
unknown.
54
Two
entities
only
own
Phase
II
facilities
that
are
projected
to
be
baseline
closures.
EPA
estimated
that
for
both
entities,
the
compliance
costs
incurred
would
have
been
less
than
0.5
percent
of
revenues.
the
options
are
economically
practicable.
This
analysis
was
conducted
both
at
the
facility
and
firm
levels.

a.
Facility
Level
EPA
examined
the
annualized
posttax
compliance
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
as
a
percentage
of
annual
revenues,
for
each
of
the
550
facilities
subject
to
this
proposed
rule.
52
The
revenue
estimates
are
facility­
specific
baseline
projections
from
the
Integrated
Planning
Model
(
IPM)
for
2008
(
see
Section
VIII.
Economic
Analysis
of
this
document
for
a
discussion
of
EPA's
analyses
using
the
IPM).
The
results
of
this
analysis
show
that
the
vast
majority
of
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule,
409
out
of
550,
or
approximately
74
percent,
would
incur
annualized
costs
of
less
than
1
percent
of
revenues.
Of
these,
331
facilities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
less
than
0.5
percent
of
revenues.
Eighty­
two
facilities,
or
15
percent,
would
incur
costs
of
between
1
and
3
percent
of
revenues,
and
46
facilities,
or
8
percent,
would
incur
costs
of
greater
than
3
percent.
Eleven
facilities
are
estimated
to
be
baseline
closures,
and
for
one
facility,
revenues
are
unknown.
53
Exhibit
2
below
summarizes
these
findings.

EXHIBIT
2.
 
PROPOSED
RULE
(
FACILITY
LEVEL)

Annualized
cost­
torevenue
ratio
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
<
0.5%
.......................
331
60
0.5
 
1.0%
...................
78
14
1.0
 
3.0%
...................
82
15
>
3.0%
.......................
46
8
Baseline
Closure
......
11
2
n/
a
.............................
1
0
Total
......................
550
100
b.
Firm
Level
Facility­
leval
compliance
costs
are
low
compared
to
facility­
level
revenues.
However,
the
firms
owning
the
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
may
experience
greater
impacts
if
they
own
more
than
one
facility
with
compliance
costs.
EPA
therefore
also
analyzed
the
economic
practicability
of
this
proposed
rule
at
the
firm
level.
EPA
identified
the
domestic
parent
entity
of
each
in­
scope
facility
and
obtained
their
sales
revenue
from
publicly
available
data
sources
(
the
1999
Forms
EIA
 
860A,
EIA
 
860B,
and
EIA
 
861;
and
the
Dun
and
Bradstreet
database)
as
well
as
EPA's
2000
Section
316(
b)
Industry
Survey.
This
analysis
showed
that
131
unique
domestic
parent
entities
own
the
facilities
subject
to
this
proposed
rule.
EPA
compared
the
aggregated
annualized
post­
tax
compliance
costs
for
each
facility
owned
by
the
131
parent
entities
to
the
firms'
total
sales
revenue.
Based
on
the
results
from
this
analysis,
EPA
concludes
that
the
proposed
rule
will
be
economically
practicable
at
the
firm
level.
EPA
estimates
that
the
compliance
costs
will
comprise
a
very
low
percentage
of
firm­
level
revenues.
Of
the
131
unique
entities,
3
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
greater
than
3
percent
of
revenues;
10
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
between
1
and
3
percent
of
revenues;
12
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
between
0.5
and
1
percent
of
revenues;
and
the
remaining
104
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
less
than
0.5
percent
of
revenues.
54
The
estimated
annualized
compliance
costs
represent
between
0.002
and
5.3
percent
of
the
entities'
annual
sales
revenue.
Exhibit
3
below
summarizes
these
findings.

EXHIBIT
3.
 
PROPOSED
RULE
(
FACILITY
LEVEL)

Annualized
cost­
torevenue
ratio
Number
of
phase
II
entities
Percentage
of
total
phase
II
<
0.5%
.......................
104
79
0.5
 
1.0%
...................
12
9
1.0%
 
3.0
...................
10
8
>
3.0%
.......................
3
2
Baseline
Closures
.....
2
2
Total
......................
131
100
c.
Additional
Impacts
As
described
in
Sections
VIII
and
X.
J
below,
EPA
also
considered
the
potential
effects
of
the
proposed
rule
on
installed
electric
generation
capacity,
electrical
production,
production
costs,
and
electricity
prices.
EPA
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
would
not
lead
to
the
early
retirement
of
any
existing
generating
capacity,
and
would
have
very
small
or
no
energy
effects.
After
considering
all
of
these
factors,
EPA
concludes
that
the
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
are
economically
practicable.

d.
Benefits
As
described
in
Section
IX.,
EPA
estimates
the
annualized
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule
would
be
$
70.3
million
for
impingement
reductions
and
$
632.4
million
for
reduced
entrainment.
For
a
more
detailed
discussion,
also
see
the
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule.

4.
Site­
Specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
Under
today's
proposed
rule,
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
Phase
II
existing
facility
may
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
is
appropriate
for
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
that
facility
if
the
owner
or
operator
can
meet
one
of
the
two
cost
tests
specified
under
§
125.94(
c)(
1).
To
be
eligible
to
pursue
this
approach,
the
facility
must
first
demonstrate
to
the
Director
either
(
1)
that
its
costs
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
specified
in
§
125.94(
b)
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
considered
by
the
Administrator
in
establishing
such
performance
standards,
or
(
2)
that
its
costs
of
complying
with
such
standards
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
environmental
benefits
at
the
site.
The
proposed
factors
that
may
justify
a
site­
specific
determination
of
the
best
technology
available
requirements
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
differ
in
two
major
ways
from
those
in
EPA's
recently
promulgated
rule
for
new
facilities.
First,
the
new
facility
rule
required
costs
to
be
``
wholly
disproportionate''
to
the
costs
EPA
considered
when
establishing
the
requirement
at
issue
rather
than
``
significantly
greater''
as
proposed
today.
EPA's
record
for
the
Phase
I
rule
shows
that
those
facilities
could
technically
achieve
and
economically
afford
the
requirements
of
the
Phase
I
rule.
New
facilities
have
greater
flexibility
than
existing
facilities
in
selecting
the
location
of
their
intakes
and
technologies
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
so
as
to
avoid
potentially
high
costs.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
it
appropriate
to
push
new
facilities
to
a
more
stringent
economic
standard.
Additionally,
looking
at
the
question
in
terms
of
its
national
effects
on
the
economy,
EPA
notes
that
in
contrast
to
the
Phase
I
rule,
this
rule
would
affect
facilities
responsible
for
a
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17146
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
significant
portion
(
about
55
percent)
of
existing
electric
generating
capacity,
whereas
the
new
facility
rule
only
affects
a
small
portion
of
electric
generating
capacity
projected
to
be
available
in
the
future
(
about
5
percent).
EPA
believes
it
is
appropriate
to
set
a
lower
cost
threshold
in
this
rule
to
avoid
economically
impracticable
impacts
on
energy
prices,
production
costs,
and
energy
production
that
could
occur
if
large
numbers
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
incurred
costs
that
are
more
than
significantly
greater
than
but
not
wholly
disproportionate
to
the
costs
in
EPA's
record.
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
a
``
significantly
greater''
cost
test
is
appropriate
for
evaluating
requests
for
alternative
requirements
by
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
Second,
today's
proposal
includes
an
opportunity
for
a
facility
to
demonstrate
significantly
greater
costs
as
compared
to
environmental
benefits
at
a
specific
site.
As
stated
above,
EPA's
record
for
the
Phase
I
rule
shows
that
new
facilities
could
technically
achieve
and
economically
afford
the
requirements
of
the
Phase
I
rule.
At
the
same
time,
EPA
was
interested
in
expeditious
permitting
for
these
new
facilities,
due
to
increased
energy
demand,
and
particular
energy
issues
facing
large
portions
of
the
country.
For
this
reason,
EPA
chose
not
to
engage
in
a
site­
specific
analysis
of
costs
and
benefits,
because
to
do
this
properly
would
take
time.
Balancing
the
desire
for
expeditious
permitting
with
a
record
that
supported
the
achievability
of
the
Phase
I
requirements,
EPA
believes
it
was
reasonable
not
to
adopt
a
cost
benefit
alternative
for
the
Phase
I
rule.
By
contrast,
Phase
II
existing
facilities
will
be
able
to
continue
operating
under
their
existing
permits
pending
receipt
of
a
permit
implementing
the
Phase
II
regulations,
even
where
their
existing
permit
has
expired
(
Permits
may
be
administratively
continued
under
section
558(
c)
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
if
the
facility
has
filed
a
timely
application
for
a
new
permit).
Therefore,
delay
in
permitting,
which
could
affect
the
ability
of
a
new
facility
to
begin
operations
while
such
a
sitespecific
analysis
is
conducted,
is
not
an
issue
for
existing
facilities.
Also,
EPA
recognizes
that
Phase
II
existing
facilities
have
already
been
subject
to
requirements
under
section
316(
b).
EPA
is
not
certain
that
it
is
necessary
to
overturn
the
work
done
in
making
those
determinations
by
necessarily
requiring
retrofit
of
the
existing
system
without
allowing
facilities
and
permit
authorities
to
examine
what
the
associated
costs
and
benefits.
Once
again,
because
today's
proposal
would
affect
so
many
facilities
that
are
responsible
for
such
a
significant
portion
of
the
country's
electric
generating
capacity,
EPA
is
interested
in
reducing
costs
where
it
can
do
so
without
significantly
impacting
aquatic
communities
(
recognizing
this
could
increase
permitting
work
loads
for
the
State
and
Federal
permit
writers).
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
the
standards
proposed
today
might
allow
for
backsliding
by
facilities
that
have
technologies
or
operational
measures
in
place
that
are
more
effective
than
in
today's
proposal.
EPA
invites
comment
on
approaches
EPA
might
adopt
to
ensure
that
backsliding
from
more
effective
technologies
does
not
occur.
If
a
facility
satisfies
one
of
the
two
cost
tests
in
the
proposed
§
125.94(
c)(
1),
it
must
propose
less
costly
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
to
the
extent
justified
by
the
significantly
greater
costs.
In
some
cases
the
significantly
greater
costs
may
justify
a
determination
that
no
additional
technologies
or
measures
are
appropriate.
This
would
be
most
likely
in
cases
where
either
(
1)
the
monetized
benefits
at
the
site
were
very
small
(
e.
g.,
a
facility
with
little
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
even
in
the
calculated
baseline),
or
(
2)
the
costs
of
implementing
any
additional
technologies
or
measures
at
the
site
were
unusually
high.

5.
What
Is
the
Role
of
Restoration
Under
Today's
Preferred
Option?
Under
today's
preferred
option,
restoration
measures
can
be
implemented
by
a
facility
in
lieu
of
or
in
combination
with
reductions
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
Thus,
should
a
facility
choose
to
employ
restoration
measures
rather
than
reduce
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment,
the
facility
could
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
the
restoration
efforts
will
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody,
including
the
community
structure
and
function,
at
a
level
comparable
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
through
§
125.94
(
b)
and
(
c).
In
those
cases
where
it
is
not
possible
to
quantify
restoration
measures,
the
facility
may
demonstrate
that
such
restoration
measures
will
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
at
a
level
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94
(
b)
and
(
c).
Similarly,
should
a
facility
choose
to
implement
restoration
measures
in
conjunction
with
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
through
use
of
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures,
the
facility
would
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
the
control
technologies
combined
with
restoration
efforts
will
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish,
including
the
community
structure
and
function,
in
the
waterbody
at
a
comparable
or
substantially
similar
level
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
through
§
125.94
(
b)
and
(
c).
EPA
invites
comment
on
all
aspects
of
this
approach.
EPA
specifically
invites
comment
on
whether
restoration
measures
should
be
allowed
only
as
a
supplement
to
technologies
or
operational
measures.
EPA
also
seeks
comment
on
the
most
appropriate
spatial
scale
under
which
restoration
efforts
should
be
allowed
``
should
restoration
measures
be
limited
to
the
waterbody
at
which
a
facility's
intakes
are
sited,
or
should
they
be
implemented
on
a
broader
scale,
such
as
at
the
watershed
or
State
boundary
level.
Under
today's
preferred
option,
any
restoration
demonstration
must
address
species
of
concern
identified
by
the
permit
director
in
consultation
with
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
that
have
responsibility
for
aquatic
species
potentially
affected
by
a
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s).
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
nature
and
extent
of
consultations
with
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
that
would
be
appropriate
in
order
to
achieve
the
objectives
of
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA.
In
general,
EPA
believes
that
consultations
should
seek
to
identify
the
current
status
of
species
of
concern
located
within
the
subject
waterbody
and
provide
general
life
history
information
for
those
species,
including
preferred
habitats
for
all
life
stages.
Consultations
also
should
include
discussion
of
potential
threats
to
species
of
concern
found
within
the
waterbody
other
than
cooling
water
intake
structures
(
i.
e.,
identify
all
additional
stressors
for
the
species
of
concern),
appropriate
restoration
methods,
and
monitoring
requirements
to
assess
the
overall
effectiveness
of
proposed
restoration
projects.
EPA
believes
that
it
is
important
that
the
consultation
occur
because
natural
resource
management
agencies
typically
have
the
most
accurate
information
available
and
thus
are
the
most
knowledgeable
about
the
status
of
the
aquatic
resources
they
manage.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
the
type
of
information
that
would
be
appropriate
to
include
in
a
written
request
for
consultation
submitted
to
the
State,
Tribal,
and
Federal
agencies
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17147
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
55
For
a
discussion
of
the
extensive
range
of
experience
with
wetland
restoration
efforts,
see
Wetlands,
Third
Edition,
William
J.
Mitsch
and
James
G.
Gosselink,
pp.
653
 
686.
56
For
a
general
discussion
on
different
assessment
procedures
see
The
Process
of
Selecting
a
Wetland
Assessment
Procedure:
Steps
and
Considerations,
by
Candy
C.
Bartoldus,
Wetland
Journal,
Vol.
12,
No.
4,
Fall
2000.
responsible
for
management
of
aquatic
resources
within
the
waterbody
at
which
the
cooling
water
intake
is
sited.
A
copy
of
the
request
and
any
agency
responses
would
be
included
in
the
permit
application.
Under
the
preferred
option,
an
applicant
who
wishes
to
include
restoration
measures
as
part
of
its
demonstration
of
comparable
performance
would
submit
the
following
information
to
the
Director
for
review
and
approval:
 
A
list
and
narrative
description
of
the
proposed
restoration
measures;
 
A
summary
of
the
combined
benefits
resulting
from
implementation
of
technology
and
operational
controls
and/
or
restoration
measures
and
the
proportion
of
the
benefits
that
can
be
attributed
to
these;
 
A
plan
for
implementing
and
maintaining
the
efficacy
of
selected
restoration
measures
and
supporting
documentation
that
shows
that
restoration
measures
or
restoration
measures
in
combination
with
control
technologies
and
operational
measures
will
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish,
including
community
structure,
at
substantially
similar
levels
to
those
specified
at
§
125.94
(
b)
and
(
c);
 
A
summary
of
any
past
or
voluntary
consultation
with
appropriate
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
related
to
proposed
restoration
measures
and
a
copy
of
any
written
comments
received
as
a
result
of
consultations;
and
 
Design
and
engineering
calculations,
drawings,
and
maps
documenting
that
proposed
restoration
measures
will
meet
the
performance
standard
at
§
125.94
(
d).
EPA
believes
this
information
is
necessary
and
sufficient
for
the
proper
evaluation
of
a
restoration
plan
designed
to
achieve
comparable
performance
for
species
of
concern
identified
by
the
Director
in
consultation
with
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies.
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
this
information
is
appropriate
and
adequate
or
if
it
should
be
augmented
or
streamlined.
EPA
invites
comment
on
what
specific,
additional
information
should
be
included
in
a
facility's
restoration
plan
and/
or
which
of
the
proposed
information
requirements
are
unnecessary.
For
restoration
measures
such
as
fish
restocking
programs,
EPA
expects
that
applicants
will
be
able
to
quantitatively
demonstrate
increases
in
fish
and
shellfish
that
are
comparable
to
the
performance
that
would
be
achieved
by
meeting
the
performance
standards
for
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment.
However,
as
it
did
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
new
facility
rule,
EPA
recognizes
that,
due
to
data
and
modeling
limitations
as
well
as
the
uncertainty
associated
with
restoration
measures
such
as
creation
of
new
habitats
to
serve
as
spawning
or
nursery
areas,
it
may
be
difficult
to
establish
quantitatively
that
some
restoration
measures
adequately
compensate
for
entrainment
and
impingement
losses
from
cooling
water
withdrawals.
The
success
of
many
approaches
to
restoration
depends
on
the
functions,
behavior,
and
dynamics
of
complex
biological
systems
that
are
often
not
scientifically
understood
as
well
as
engineered
technologies.
There
are,
however,
several
steps
that
can
be
taken
to
increase
the
certainty
of
attainment
of
performance
levels
by
restoration
measures.
Most
of
these
steps
require
detailed
planning
prior
to
initiation
of
restoration
efforts.
Under
today's
preferred
option,
restoration
planners
would
take
care
to
incorporate
allowances
in
their
plans
for
the
uncertainties
stemming
from
incomplete
knowledge
of
the
dynamics
underlying
aquatic
organism
survival
and
habitat
creation.
Plans
would
include
provisions
for
monitoring
and
evaluating
the
performance
of
restoration
measures
over
the
lifetime
of
the
measures.
Provisions
would
also
be
made
for
mid­
course
corrections
as
necessary.
Unexpected
natural
forces
can
alter
the
direction
of
a
restoration
project.
55
If
uncertainty
regarding
levels
of
performance
is
high
enough,
restoration
planners
would
consider
restoration
measures
in
addition
to
those
otherwise
calculated
as
sufficient
in
order
to
ensure
adequate
levels
of
performance.
EPA
invites
comment
on
how
to
measure
``
substantially
similar
performance''
of
restoration
measures
and
methods
that
can
be
used
to
reduce
the
uncertainty
of
restoration
activities
undertaken
as
part
of
today's
preferred
option.
EPA
recognizes
that
substantial
information
exists
regarding
wetlands
mitigation
and
restoration.
For
example,
tools
and
procedures
exist
to
assess
wetlands
in
the
context
of
section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
56
However,
restoration
of
other
aquatic
systems
such
as
estuaries
is
complex
and
continues
to
evolve.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
how
it
may
measure
the
success
or
failure
of
restoration
activities
given
the
high
degree
of
uncertainty
associated
with
many
areas
of
this
developing
science
and
that
many
of
these
activities
do
not
produce
measurable
results
for
many
months
or
years
after
they
are
implemented.
For
these
reasons,
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
to
require
that
a
facility
using
restoration
measures
restore
more
fish
and
shellfish
than
the
number
subjected
to
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment.
EPA
believes
that
restoring
or
mitigating
above
the
level
that
reflects
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
(
e.
g.,
restocking
higher
numbers
of
fish
than
those
impinged
or
entrained
by
facility
intakes
or
restoring
aquatic
system
acreages
at
ratios
greater
than
one­
to­
one)
would
help
build
a
margin
of
safety,
particularly
when
the
uncertainties
associated
with
a
particular
restoration
activity
are
known
to
be
high.
The
concept
of
compensatory
mitigation
ratios
being
greater
than
oneto
one
is
found
in
other
programs.
For
example,
under
the
CWA
section
404
program
no
set
mitigation
ratio
exists,
however,
current
policies
require
no
net
loss
of
aquatic
resources
on
a
programmatic
basis.
The
permitting
authority
often
requires
permit
applicants
to
provide
more
than
one­
toone
mitigation
on
an
acreage
basis
to
address
the
time
lapse
between
when
the
permitted
destruction
of
wetlands
takes
place
and
when
the
newly
restored
or
created
wetlands
are
in
place
and
ecologically
functioning.
The
permit
may
also
require
more
than
oneto
one
replacement
to
reflect
the
fact
that
mitigation
is
often
only
partially
successful.
Alternatively,
in
circumstances
where
there
is
a
high
confidence
that
the
mitigation
will
be
ecologically
successful,
the
restoration/
creation
has
already
been
completed
prior
to
permitted
impacts,
or
when
the
replacement
wetlands
will
be
of
greater
ecological
value
than
those
they
are
replacing,
the
permitting
authority
may
require
less
than
one­
to­
one
replacement.
In
the
case
of
section
316(
b),
restocking
numbers
and
restoration
ratios
could
be
established
either
by
the
Director
on
a
permit­
by­
permit
basis
or
by
EPA
in
the
final
rule.
EPA
requests
comment
on
establishing
margins
of
safety
for
restoration
measures
(
particularly
for
activities
associated
with
outcomes
having
a
high
degree
of
uncertainty)
and
identifying
the
appropriate
authority
for
establishing
safety
measures.
EPA
also
seeks
comment
on
an
appropriate
basis
for
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17148
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
establishing
safety
margins
(
e.
g.,
based
exclusively
on
project
uncertainty,
relative
functional
value
or
rareness
of
the
system
being
restored,
or
a
combination
of
these)
to
ensure
that
restoration
measures
achieve
performance
comparable
to
intake
technologies.
EPA
also
recognizes
that
restoration
measures
may
in
some
cases
provide
additional
environmental
benefits
that
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures
focused
solely
on
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
would
not
provide.
For
example,
fish
restocking
facilities
may
be
able
to
respond,
on
relatively
short
notice,
to
species­
specific
needs
or
threats,
as
identified
by
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies.
Habitat
restoration
measures
may
provide
important
benefits
beyond
direct
effects
on
fish
and
shellfish
numbers,
such
as
flood
control,
habitat
for
other
wildlife
species,
pollution
reduction,
and
recreation.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
and
how
additional
environmental
benefits
should
also
be
considered
in
determining
appropriate
fish
and
shellfish
rates
for
restoration
projects.
Assessing
the
full
range
of
requirements
necessary
for
the
survival
of
aquatic
organisms
requires
understanding
and
use
of
knowledge
from
multiple
scientific
disciplines
(
aquatic
biology,
hydrology,
landscape
ecology)
that
together
address
the
biological
and
physical
requirements
of
particular
species.
Under
today's
preferred
option,
restoration
planners
would
utilize
the
full
range
of
disciplines
available
when
designing
restoration
measures
for
a
facility.
Plans
utilizing
an
insufficient
range
of
knowledge
are
more
likely
to
fail
to
account
for
all
aquatic
organism
survival
requirements.
For
some
aquatic
organisms,
or
for
certain
life
stages
of
some
aquatic
organisms,
there
may
not
be
sufficient
knowledge
of
the
factors
required
for
that
organism's
survival
and
thus
restoration
planners
would
be
unable
to
address
those
factors
directly
in
a
restoration
plan.
In
such
cases,
it
may
be
necessary
for
restoration
planners
to
plan
to
create
habitat
that
replicates
as
closely
as
possible
those
habitats
in
which
the
aquatic
organisms
are
found
to
thrive
naturally.
Suitable
habitat
can
be
created
or
restored,
or
existing
habitats
can
be
enhanced
in
order
to
provide
suitable
habitat
for
the
organisms
of
concern.
In
this
manner,
appropriate
conditions
can
be
created
even
without
full
understanding
of
an
organism's
requirements.
Habitat
approaches
also
have
the
benefit,
when
properly
designed,
of
simultaneously
providing
suitable
survival
conditions
for
multiple
species.
In
contrast,
measures
such
as
stocking
and
fish
ladders
provide
benefits
for
much
more
limited
number
of
species
and
life
stages.
In
some
cases,
conservation
of
existing,
functional
habitats
 
particularly
conservation
of
habitats
that
are
vulnerable
to
human
encroachment
and
other
anthropogenic
impacts
 
may
be
desirable
as
part
of
a
facility's
restoration
effort.
In
the
case
of
conservation,
the
functionality
of
the
habitat
would
not
be
compromised,
therefore
eliminating
much
of
the
uncertainty
associated
with
measuring
the
success
of
other
restoration
efforts
such
as
habitat
enhancement
or
creation.
However,
because
conserved
habitat
is
already
contributing
to
the
relative
productivity
and
diversity
of
an
aquatic
system,
conservation
measures
would
not
necessarily
ensure
a
net
benefit
to
the
waterbody
or
watershed
of
concern.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
whether
habitat
conservation
would
be
an
appropriate
component
of
a
facility's
restoration
efforts.
Restoration
projects
should
not
unduly
compromise
the
health
of
already­
existing
aquatic
organisms
in
order
to
restore
aquatic
organisms
for
purposes
of
section
316(
b).
Such
alterations
could
negate
or
detract
from
accomplishments
under
a
restoration
plan
and
produce
an
insufficient
net
benefit.
For
example,
fish
stocking
programs
might
introduce
disease
or
weaken
the
genetic
diversity
of
an
ecosystem.
Habitat
creation
programs
should
not
alter
well­
functioning
habitats
to
better
support
species
of
concern
identified
in
the
restoration
plan,
but
rather
should
focus
on
restoring
degraded
habitats
that
historically
supported
the
types
of
aquatic
organisms
currently
impacted
by
a
facility's
cooling
water
intake.
Another
issue
to
consider
when
relying
on
restoration
projects
that
involve
habitat
creation
is
that
many
such
projects
can
take
months
or
years
to
reach
their
full
level
of
performance.
The
performance
of
these
projects
often
relies
heavily
on
establishment
and
growth
of
higher
vegetation
and
of
the
natural
communities
that
rely
on
such
vegetation.
Establishment
and
growth
of
both
vegetation
and
natural
communities
can
take
months
to
years
depending
on
the
type
of
habitat
under
development.
Restoration
planners
need
to
ensure
that
performance
levels
are
met
at
all
points
in
a
mitigation
process.
Where
facilities
are
depending
in
part
on
habitat
creation,
this
may
entail
supplementing
habitat
creation
measures
with
other
restoration
measures
during
the
early
stages
of
habitat
creation
in
order
to
ensure
all
facility
impacts
are
properly
mitigated.
Under
the
preferred
option,
restoration
plans
should
be
developed
in
sufficient
detail
to
address
the
issues
above
before
significant
resources
are
committed
or
other
actions
taken
that
are
difficult
to
reverse.
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
role
of
restoration
in
addressing
the
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
EPA
invites
commenters
to
suggest
alternative
approaches
to
ensuring
that
restoration
efforts
are
successful.

6.
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Assessments
a.
What
Are
the
Minimum
Elements
of
an
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study?

Today's
proposal
requires
the
permit
applicant
to
conduct
an
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
§
125.95(
b)(
3)
to
support
many
important
analyses
and
decisions.
The
data
from
this
Study
supports
development
of
the
calculation
baseline
for
evaluating
reductions
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
documents
current
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
and
provides
the
basis
for
evaluating
the
performance
of
potential
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures.
Should
a
facility
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
the
Study
would
provide
the
critical
biological
data
for
estimating
monetized
benefits.
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
the
narrative
criteria
at
§
125.95(
b)(
1)
are
sufficiently
comprehensive
and
specific
to
ensure
that
scientifically
valid,
representative
data
are
used
to
support
the
various
approaches
for
determining
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
in
today's
proposal.
EPA
recognizes
the
difficulties
in
obtaining
accurate
and
precise
samples
of
aquatic
organisms
potentially
subject
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
EPA
also
recognizes
that
biological
activity
in
the
vicinity
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
can
vary
to
great
degree,
both
within
and
between
years,
seasons
and
intervals
including
time­
of­
day.
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
it
should
set
specific,
minimum
monitoring
frequencies
and/
or
whether
it
should
specify
requirements
for
ensuring
appropriate
consideration
of
uncertainty
in
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
estimates.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17149
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
57
Fisher,
A.
and
R.
Raucher.
1984.
Intrinsic
benefits
of
improved
water
quality:
Conceptual
and
empirical
perspectives.
Advances
in
Applied
Micro­
Economics.
3:
37
 
66.
b.
What
Should
Be
the
Minimum
Frequencies
for
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Compliance
Monitoring?

Today's
proposal
requires
compliance
monitoring
as
specified
by
the
Director
in
§
125.96,
but
does
not
specify
minimum
sampling
frequencies
or
durations.
EPA
is
considering
specifying
minimum
frequencies
for
impingement
and
entrainment
sampling
for
determining
compliance.
EPA
invites
comment
on
including
minimum
sampling
frequencies
and
durations
as
follows:
for
at
least
two
years
following
the
initial
permit
issuance,
impingement
samples
must
be
collected
at
least
once
per
month
over
a
24
hour
period
and
entrainment
samples
must
be
collected
at
least
biweekly
over
a
24
hour
period
during
the
primary
period
of
reproduction,
larval
recruitment
and
peak
abundance.
These
samples
would
need
to
be
collected
when
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
in
operation.
Impingement
and
entrainment
samples
would
be
sufficient
in
number
to
give
an
accurate
representation
of
the
annual
and
seasonal
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
for
all
commercial,
recreational
and
forage
based
fish
and
shellfish
species
and
their
life
stages
at
the
Phase
II
existing
facility
as
identified
in
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
required
under
§
125.95(
b)(
3).
Sample
sets
would
be
of
sufficient
size
to
adequately
address
inter­
annual
variation
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses.
Sampling
would
be
planned
to
eliminate
variation
in
data
due
to
changes
in
sampling
methods.
Data
would
also
be
collected
using
appropriate
quality
assurance/
quality
control
procedures.
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
more
frequent
sampling
would
be
appropriate
to
accurately
assess
diel,
seasonal,
and
annual
variation
in
impingement
and
entrainment
losses.
EPA
also
invites
comment
on
whether
less
frequent
compliance
biological
monitoring
would
be
appropriate
(
perhaps
depending
on
the
technologies
selected
and
implemented
by
a
facility).

7.
How
Is
Entrainment
Mortality
and
Survival
Considered
in
Determining
Compliance
With
the
Proposed
Rule?

Today's
proposed
rule
sets
a
performance
standard
for
reducing
entrainment
rather
than
reducing
entrainment
mortality.
EPA
choose
this
approach
because
EPA
does
not
have
sufficient
data
to
establish
performance
standards
based
on
entrainment
mortality
for
the
technologies
used
as
the
basis
for
today's
proposal.
Entrainment
mortality
studies
can
be
very
difficult
to
conduct
and
interpret
for
use
in
decisionmaking
(
see
section
VI.
A.
8.
b.
below).
EPA
invites
comment
on
regulatory
approaches
that
would
allow
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
incorporate
estimates
of
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
when
determining
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
proposed
in
§
125.94(
b)
of
today's
proposed
rule.
EPA
invites
commenters
to
submit
any
studies
that
document
entrainment
survival
rates
for
the
technologies
used
as
the
basis
for
today's
performance
standards
and
for
other
technologies.

8.
What
Should
Be
Included
in
a
Demonstration
To
Compare
Benefits
to
Costs?

As
part
of
a
Site­
Specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
specified
proposed
in
§
125.94(
c)
of
today's
proposed
rule,
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
can
attempt
to
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
the
costs
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
proposed
in
§
125.94(
b)
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
such
performance
standards
at
the
site.
EPA
is
considering
whether
it
should
develop
regulatory
requirements
or
guidance
to
outline
appropriate
methodologies
to
ensure
that
a
reliable
and
objective
valuation
of
benefits
is
derived
from
the
best
available
information.
The
elements
in
the
benefit
assessment
guidance
would,
at
a
minimum,
include
standards
for
data
quality,
acceptable
methodologies,
technical
peer
review,
and
public
comment.

a.
What
Should
Be
the
Appropriate
Methodology
for
Benefits
Assessment?

EPA
believes
that
a
rigorous
environmental
and
economic
analysis
should
be
performed
when
a
facility
seeks
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
due
to
significantly
greater
cost
as
compared
to
the
benefits
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards.
EPA
invites
comment
on
which
of
these
methodologies,
or
any
other,
is
the
most
appropriate
for
determining
a
fair
estimate
of
the
benefits
that
would
occur
should
the
Phase
II
existing
facility
implement
technology
to
comply
with
the
applicable
performance
standards.
In
addition,
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
narrative
benefits
assessments
should
supplement
these
methodologies
to
properly
account
for
those
benefits
which
cannot
be
quantified
and
monetized.
(
1)
Quantified
and
Monetized
Baseline
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
To
evaluate
the
total
economic
impact
to
fisheries
with
regard
to
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
an
existing
facility,
the
impacts
on
commercial,
recreational,
and
forage
species
must
be
evaluated.
Commercial
fishery
impacts
are
relatively
easy
to
value
because
commercially
caught
fish
are
a
commodity
with
a
market
price
for
the
individual
species.
Recreation
fishery
impacts
are
based
on
benefits
transfer
methods,
applying
the
results
from
nonmarket
valuation
studies.
Valuing
recreational
impacts
involves
the
use
of
willingness­
to­
pay
values
for
increases
in
recreational
catch
rates.
The
analysis
of
the
economic
impact
of
forage
species
losses
can
be
determined
by
estimating
the
replacement
costs
of
these
fish
if
they
were
to
be
restocked
with
hatchery
fish,
or
by
considering
the
foregone
biomass
production
of
forage
fish
resulting
from
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
and
the
consequential
foregone
production
of
commercial
and
recreation
species
that
prey
on
the
forage
species.
Trophic
transfer
efficiency
is
used
to
estimate
the
value
of
forage
fish
in
terms
of
the
foregone
biomass
production
and
the
consequential
foregone
production
of
commercial
and
recreational
species
that
prey
upon
them.
This
methodology
can
also
incorporate
nonuse
or
passive
values.
Nonuse
or
passive
use
values
include
the
concepts
of
existence
(
stewardship)
and
bequest
(
intergenerational
equity)
motives
to
value
environmental
changes.
In
Regulatory
Impact
Analyses,
EPA
values
nonuse
impacts
at
50%
of
value
of
the
recreational
use
impact.
57
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
inclusion
of
this
approach
for
estimating
nonuse
or
passive
values.
Examples
of
the
use
of
this
method
for
evaluating
benefits
are
provided
in
the
Case
Study
Document.
EPA
notes
that
in
locations
where
fisheries
have
been
depleted
by
cumulative
and
long
term
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
from
cooling
water
intake
structures,
this
methodology
may
not
be
the
most
appropriate
as
it
may
have
a
tendency
to
underestimate
the
long
term
benefits
associated
with
technology
implementation.

(
2)
Random
Utility
Model
The
Random
Utility
Model
(
RUM)
estimates
the
effect
of
improved
fishing
opportunities
to
determine
recreational
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17150
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
fishing
benefits
due
to
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
main
assumption
of
this
model
is
that
anglers
will
get
greater
satisfaction,
and
thus
greater
economic
value,
from
sites
where
the
catch
rate
is
higher.
When
anglers
enjoy
fishing
trips
with
higher
catch
rates,
they
may
take
more
fishing
trips
resulting
in
a
greater
overall
value
for
fishing
in
the
region.
This
method
requires
information
on
the
socioeconomic
characteristics
of
anglers
and
their
fishing
preference
in
terms
of
location
and
target
species,
information
on
site
characteristics
that
are
important
determinants
of
anglers'
behavior,
and
the
estimated
price
of
visiting
the
sites.
Two
models
are
used
for
estimating
the
total
economic
value
of
recreational
fish
to
anglers,
the
discrete
choice
model
which
focuses
on
the
choice
of
fishing
site
by
individual
anglers
and
the
trip
participation
model
which
estimates
the
number
of
trips
that
an
angler
will
take
annually.
A
more
thorough
description
of
the
RUM
can
be
found
in
Chapter
A10
of
the
Case
Study
Document.
Examples
of
its
use
are
provided
in
Chapter
5
of
the
case
studies
for
Delaware
Bay
(
Part
B),
Ohio
River
(
Part
C)
and
Tampa
Bay
(
Part
F).
The
greatest
strength
of
this
model
is
that
it
is
able
to
estimate
a
theoretically
defensible
monetary
value
for
recreational
fishing
benefits.
The
weakness
in
the
model
is
its
dependence
on
the
availability
of
survey
data
on
angler
preferences,
and
the
bias
associated
with
conducting
a
survey.
This
approach
is
also
limited
to
estimating
recreational
benefits
only,
and
should
be
used
in
conjunction
with
another
methodology
that
values
commercial
and
forage
species
impacts
and
other
benefit
categories
where
these
are
significant.

(
3)
Contingent
Valuation
Approach
Stated
preference
methods
attempt
to
measure
willingness­
to­
pay
values
directly.
Unlike
the
revealed
preference
methods,
such
as
the
RUM
described
above,
that
determine
values
for
environmental
goods
and
services
from
observed
behavior,
stated
preference
methods
rely
on
data
from
surveys
that
directly
question
respondents
about
their
preferences
to
measure
the
value
of
environmental
goods
and
services.
Contingent
valuation
is
one
of
the
most
well
developed
of
the
stated
preference
methods.
Contingent
valuation
surveys
either
ask
respondents
if
they
would
pay
a
specified
amount
for
a
described
commodity
(
usually
a
change
in
environmental
quality)
or
ask
their
highest
willingness­
to­
pay
for
that
commodity.
For
example,
in
the
case
of
section
316(
b),
a
contingent
valuation
survey
might
ask
how
much
individuals
would
be
willing
to
have
their
electricity
bill
increase
from
their
utility's
power
plants
to
avoid
the
impacts
of
impingement
and
entrainment
on
fish
and
shellfish,
as
well
as
impacts
on
threatened
and
endangered
species.
One
strength
of
contingent
valuation
estimates
is
that
they
include
the
nonuse
values
such
as
option,
existence,
and
bequest
values,
so
adjustments
to
the
estimates
to
cover
these
values
are
not
needed.
A
weakness
of
this
approach
is
that
respondents
are
asked
to
value
a
hypothetical
good
and
they
do
not
have
to
back
up
their
stated
willingness­
to­
pay
with
actual
expenditures.
However,
this
concern
can
be
minimized
by
placing
the
valuation
questions
in
the
context
of
familiar
economic
transactions
(
e.
g.,
increases
in
electricity
bills).

b.
Should
Estimates
of
Entrainment
Mortality
and
Survival
Be
Included
in
Benefits
Assessments?
The
proposed
rule
language
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
does
not
preclude
the
use
of
estimates
of
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
when
presenting
a
fair
estimation
of
the
monetary
benefits
achieved
through
the
installation
of
the
best
technology
available,
instead
of
assuming
100
percent
entrainment
mortality.
In
EPA's
view,
estimates
of
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
used
for
this
purpose
should
be
based
on
sound
scientific
studies.
EPA
believes
such
studies
should
address
times
of
both
full
facility
capacity
and
peak
abundance
of
entrained
organisms.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
it
is
appropriate
to
allow
consideration
of
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
in
benefit
estimates,
and
if
so,
should
EPA
set
minimum
data
quality
objectives
and
standards
for
a
study
of
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
used
to
support
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
may
decide
to
specify
such
data
quality
objectives
and
standards
either
in
the
final
rule
language
or
through
guidance.
A
more
thorough
discussion
of
entrainment
survival
is
provided
in
Chapter
D7
of
the
EBA.
In
this
chapter,
EPA
has
reviewed
a
number
of
entrainment
survival
studies
(
see
DCN
2
 
017A
 
R7
in
Docket
W
 
00
 
03).
EPA's
preliminary
review
of
these
studies
has
raised
a
number
of
concerns
regarding
the
quality
of
data
used
to
develop
some
estimates
of
entrainment
survival.
Specifically,
the
majority
of
studies
reviewed
collected
samples
at
times
of
low
organismal
abundance,
at
times
when
the
facility
was
not
operating
at
full
capacity,
at
times
when
biocides
were
not
in
use,
and
at
times
which
may
not
reflect
current
entrainment
rates
at
the
facility.
These
sampling
conditions
may
lead
to
overestimation
of
entrainment
survival.
In
addition,
the
majority
of
studies
reviewed
had
very
low
sample
sizes
and
calculated
survival
for
only
a
few
of
all
species
entrained.
EPA
is
also
concerned
that
entrainment
survival
estimates
were
based
on
mortal
effects
only
and
did
not
address
sub­
lethal
entrainment
effects,
which
can
include
changes
to
organismal
growth,
development,
and
reproduction.
EPA
invites
comment
on
its
preliminary
review
of
the
data
quality
of
entrainment
survival
studies
provided
in
Chapter
D7.
EPA
also
requests
that
commenters
submit
additional
entrainment
survival
or
mortality
studies
for
review.

9.
When
Could
the
Director
Impose
More
Stringent
Requirements?
Proposed
§
125.94(
e)
provides
that
the
Director
could
establish
more
stringent
requirements
relating
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
or
capacity
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
at
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
than
those
that
would
be
required
based
on
the
proposed
performance
standards
in
the
rule
(
§
125.94(
b)),
or
based
on
the
proposed
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
allowed
under
the
rule
(
§
125.94(
c)),
where
compliance
with
the
proposed
requirements
of
§
125.94(
b)
or
(
c)
would
not
meet
the
requirements
of
applicable
Tribal,
State
or
other
Federal
law.
The
relevant
State
law
may
include,
but
is
not
necessarily
limited
to,
State
or
Tribal
water
quality
standards,
including
designated
uses,
criteria,
and
antidegradation
provisions;
endangered
or
threatened
species
or
habitat
protection
provisions;
and
other
resource
protection
requirements.
The
term
``
other
Federal
law''
is
intended
to
denote
Federal
laws
others
than
section
316(
b),
and
could
include,
but
not
be
limited
to,
the
Endangered
Species
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
1531
et
seq.,
the
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
1451
et
seq.,
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Coordination
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
661
et
seq.,
the
Wild
and
Scenic
Rivers
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
1273
et
seq.,
and
potentially
the
Magnuson­
Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
1801
et
seq.
See
40
CFR
122.49
for
a
brief
description
of
these
and
certain
other
laws.
Note
that
these
laws
may
apply
to
federally
issued
NPDES
permits
independent
of
this
proposed
rule.
EPA
expects
that
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
resource
protection
agencies
will
work
with
Federal
and
State
Directors
and
permittees
to
identify
and
assess
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17151
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
situations
where
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
law
might
be
violated,
particularly
where
such
violations
involve
impacts
to
species
of
concern.
For
example,
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
implement
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
Where
a
NPDES
permit
for
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
comply
with
the
performance
requirements
of
§
125.94(
b)
or
(
c)
but
may
harm
endangered
species
or
critical
habitat,
EPA
expects
the
resource
agencies
to
contribute
their
expertise
to
the
evaluation
and
decisionmaking
process.
EPA
is
considering
whether
to
establish
additional
criteria
for
when
the
Director
could
establish
more
stringent
requirements.
EPA
requests
comment
on
specifying
that
more
stringent
requirements
would
be
appropriate
when
compliance
with
the
applicable
requirements
in
§
125.94(
b)
and
(
c)
would
(
1)
result
in
unacceptable
effects
on
migratory
and/
or
sport
or
commercial
species
of
concern
to
the
Director;
and
(
2)
not
adequately
address
cumulative
impacts
caused
by
multiple
intakes
or
multiple
stressors
within
the
waterbody
of
concern.
Unacceptable
effects
on
sport
or
commercial
species
of
concern
might
include
a
significant
reduction
in
one
or
more
such
species
due
to
direct
or
indirect
effects
of
one
or
more
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Examples
of
unacceptable
effects
on
migratory
species
of
concern
might
include
the
interference
with
or
disruption
of
migratory
pathways,
patterns,
or
behavior.
Multiple
stressors
within
the
waterbody
of
concern
might
include
toxics,
nutrients,
low
dissolved
oxygen,
habitat
loss,
non­
point
source
runoff,
and
pathogen
introductions.
EPA
is
also
concerned
about
the
potential
stress
from
multiple
intakes
because
demonstration
studies
are
typically
conducted
on
an
individual
facility
basis
and
do
not
consider
the
effects
of
multiple
intakes
on
local
aquatic
organisms.
EPA
notes
that
under
section
510
of
the
CWA,
States
already
have
the
authority
to
establish
more
stringent
conditions
in
any
permit
in
accordance
with
State
law.
However,
this
provision
does
not
apply
in
cases
where
EPA
is
the
permitting
authority.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
any
explicit
regulatory
provision
for
more
stringent
requirements
is
needed
in
light
of
section
510.
EPA
also
notes
that
States
have
designated
many
waterbodies
for
the
propagation
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
are
not
attaining
such
uses
due
to
pollution,
and
that,
in
these
waters,
aquatic
communities
may
be
significantly
stressed
or
under­
populated.
EPA
also
believes
that
in
some
waterbodies,
heavy
fishing
pressures
have
greatly
altered
and
reduced
aquatic
communities.
EPA
anticipates
that
studies
valuing
the
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
may
not
identify
significant
site­
specific
benefits
in
such
areas
and,
should
one
or
more
permit
applicants
request
site­
specific
determinations
of
less­
costly
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
a
State
may
not
have
authority
to
deny
such
requests.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
recovery
of
aquatic
communities
in
such
waterbodies
might
be
delayed
by
use
of
the
significantly
greater
cost­
to­
benefit
test
proposed
today.
EPA
requests
comment
on
an
regulatory
alternative
that
would
explicitly
allow
the
Director
to
require
more
stringent
technologies
or
measures
where
not
doing
so
would
delay
recovery
of
an
aquatic
species
or
community
that
fish
and
wildlife
agencies
are
taking
active
measures
to
restore,
such
as
imposing
significant
harvesting
restrictions.

10.
Discussion
of
the
5%
Flow
Threshold
in
Freshwater
Rivers
The
withdrawal
threshold
is
based
on
the
concept
that,
absent
any
other
controls,
withdrawal
of
a
unit
volume
of
water
from
a
waterbody
will
result
in
the
entrainment
of
an
equivalent
unit
of
aquatic
life
(
such
as
eggs
and
larval
organisms)
suspended
in
that
volume
of
the
water
column.
This,
in
turn,
is
related
to
the
idea
that,
absent
any
controls,
the
density
of
aquatic
organisms
withdrawn
by
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
equivalent
to
the
density
of
organisms
in
the
water
column.
Thus,
if
5%
of
the
mean
annual
flow
is
withdrawn,
it
would
generally
result
in
the
entrainment
of
5%
of
the
aquatic
life
within
the
area
of
hydraulic
influence
of
the
intake.
EPA
believes
that
it
is
unacceptable
to
impact
more
than
5%
of
the
organisms
within
the
area
of
an
intake
structure.
Hence,
if
the
facility
withdraws
more
than
5%
of
the
mean
annual
flow
of
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
reduce
entrainment
by
60
 
90%.
EPA
discussed
these
concepts
in
more
detail
and
invited
comment
on
the
use
of
this
threshold
and
supporting
documents
in
its
NODA
for
the
New
Facility
Rule
(
66
FR
28863).
In
today's
proposed
rule,
EPA
again
invites
comment
on
use
of
this
threshold
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
and
on
the
supporting
documents
for
this
threshold
that
were
referenced
in
the
NODA.
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
the
following
alternative
withdrawal
thresholds
for
triggering
the
requirement
for
entrainment
controls:
(
1)
5%
of
the
mean
flow
measured
during
the
spawning
season
(
to
be
determined
by
the
average
of
flows
during
the
spawning
season,
but
remaining
applicable
to
non­
spawning
time
periods);
(
2)
10%
or
15%
of
the
mean
annual
or
spawning
season
flow;
(
3)
25%
of
the
7Q10;
and
(
4)
a
speciesspecific
flow
threshold
that
would
use
minimum
flow
requirements
of
a
representative
species
to
determine
allowable
withdrawals
from
the
waterbody.

11.
State
or
Tribal
Alternative
Requirements
That
Achieve
Comparable
Environmental
Performance
to
the
Regulatory
Standards
Within
a
Watershed
In
§
125.90,
today's
proposal
includes
an
alternative
where
an
authorized
State
or
Tribe
may
choose
to
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator
that
it
has
adopted
alternative
regulatory
requirements
that
will
result
in
environmental
performance
within
a
watershed
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
otherwise
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.
If
a
State
or
Tribe
can
successfully
make
this
demonstration,
the
Administrator
is
to
approve
the
State
or
Tribe's
alternative
regulatory
requirements.
EPA
is
proposing
that
such
alternative
requirements
achieve
comparable
performance
at
the
watershed
level,
rather
than
at
larger
geographic
scales
or
at
the
individual
facility­
level,
to
allow
States
and
Tribes
greater
flexibility
and,
potentially,
greater
efficiency
in
efforts
to
prevent
or
compensate
for
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
losses,
while
still
coordinating
those
efforts
within
defined
ecological
boundaries
where
the
increased
impacts
are
directly
offset
by
controls
or
restoration
efforts.
Requiring
performance
level
assessment
to
take
place
at
the
watershed
level
ensures
that
facility
mitigation
efforts
take
the
overall
health
of
the
waterbody
in
the
target
watershed
into
account.
The
Agency
requests
comment
on
all
aspects
of
this
approach,
including
the
appropriate
definition
of
watershed.
A
watershed
is
generally
a
hydrologicallydelineated
geographic
area,
typically
the
area
that
drains
to
a
surface
waterbody
or
that
recharges
or
overlays
ground
waters
or
a
combination
of
both.
Watersheds
can
be
defined
at
a
variety
of
geographic
scales.
The
United
States
Geological
Survey
(
USGS)
defines
watersheds
(
hydrologic
units)
in
the
United
States
at
scales
ranging
from
the
drainage
areas
of
major
rivers,
such
as
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17152
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
the
Missouri,
to
small
surface
drainage
basins,
combinations
of
drainage
basins,
or
distinct
hydrologic
features.
The
USGS
is
currently
defining
additional,
more
detailed
subdivisions
of
currently
existing
hydrologic
units.
(
See
http://
water.
usgs.
gov/
GIS/
huc.
html.)
Watersheds
have
been
defined
for
other
natural
resource
programs
as
well
(
e.
g.,
the
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
program,
actions
under
section
306
of
the
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act).
In
general,
the
appropriate
scale
at
which
to
define
a
watershed
depends
on
a
program's
goals.
EPA
believes
that
the
watershed
scale
selected
for
the
purposes
of
determining
comparability
of
a
State
or
Tribal
alternative
requirements
should
allow
confident
accounting
of
impingement
and
entrainment
levels
at
facilities
within
the
watershed
and
of
the
results
of
the
actions
taken
to
prevent
or
compensate
for
impingement
and
entrainment
losses.
EPA
invites
comment
on
use
of
the
USGS
eight­
digit
hydrologic
unit
(
generally
about
the
size
of
a
county)
as
the
maximum
geographic
scale
at
which
an
authorized
State
or
Tribe
could
establish
alternative
regulatory
requirements.
A
State
or
Tribe
could
seek
to
establish
the
comparability
of
alternative
regulatory
requirements
for
as
many
eight­
digit
hydrologic
units
as
it
saw
fit,
but
would
need
to
demonstrate
that
its
alternative
requirements
achieve
environmental
performance
comparable
to
the
performance
standards
proposed
in
today's
rule
within
each
such
unit.
EPA
believes
that
defining
watersheds
at
too
small
a
scale
might
not
allow
sufficient
flexibility.
However,
EPA
is
concerned
that
defining
watersheds
at
a
very
large
scale
increases
the
potential
that
there
will
be
no
direct
ecological
connection
between
increased
impacts
in
one
area
and
compensatory
efforts
in
another.
EPA
also
recognizes
that
States
sometimes
assign
higher
priority
to
protecting
some
waters
over
others.
This
may
be
due
to
the
exceptional
environmental,
historic,
or
cultural
value
of
some
waters,
or
conversely
to
a
concern
with
multiple
stresses
already
occurring
in
a
watershed.
It
could
also
be
based
on
the
presence
of
individual
species
of
particular
commercial,
recreational,
or
ecological
importance.
For
these
reasons,
States
with
alternative
requirements
might
choose
to
provide
more
protection
that
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94
in
some
watersheds
and
less
protection
in
others.
Under
current
language
in
proposed
§
125.90,
States
could
not
use
such
an
approach
because
they
would
not
be
able
to
demonstrate
comparable
environmental
performance
within
each
watershed.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
it
should
instead
allow
States
to
demonstrate
comparable
environmental
performance
at
the
State
level,
thus
allowing
States
the
flexibility
to
focus
protection
on
priority
watersheds.
The
standard
provided
in
proposed
§
125.90
for
evaluating
alternate
State
requirements
is
``
environmental
performance
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
that
would
otherwise
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.''
EPA
recognizes
that
it
may
not
always
be
possible
to
determine
precisely
the
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment
associated
with
either
§
125.94
or
the
alternate
State
requirements,
particularly
at
the
watershed
level
or
State­
wide.
Furthermore,
alternate
State
requirements
may
provide
additional
environmental
benefits,
beyond
impingement
and
entrainment
reductions,
that
the
State
may
wish
to
factor
into
its
comparability
demonstration.
However,
in
making
this
demonstration,
the
State
should
make
a
reasonable
effort
to
estimate
impingement
and
entrainment
reductions
that
would
occur
under
§
125.94
and
under
its
alternate
requirements,
and
should
clearly
identify
any
other
environmental
benefits
it
is
taking
into
account
and
explain
how
their
comparability
to
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
under
§
125.94
is
being
evaluated.
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
most
appropriate
scale
at
which
to
define
a
watershed
to
reflect
the
variability
of
the
nature
of
the
ecosystems
impacted
by
cooling
water
intake
structures
within
a
State
or
Tribal
area
and
on
methods
for
ensuring
ecological
comparability
within
watershed­
level
assessments.
EPA
also
invites
comment
on
whether
defined
watershed
boundaries
for
the
purpose
of
section
316(
b)
programs
should
lie
entirely
within
the
political
boundaries
of
a
Tribe
or
State
unless
adjoining
States
and/
or
Tribes
jointly
propose
to
establish
alternative
regulatory
requirements
for
shared
watersheds.

12.
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
Section
125.94
of
today's
proposal
allows
a
facility
to
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
based
on
costs
significantly
greater
than
in
EPA's
record,
or
significantly
greater
than
sitespecific
benefits.
Section
125.95(
b)(
6)(
i)
requires
a
facility
seeking
such
a
determination
to
conduct
a
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study.
To
adequately
demonstrate
sitespecific
compliance
costs,
EPA
believes
that
a
facility
would
need
to
provide
engineering
cost
estimates
that
are
sufficiently
detailed
to
allow
review
by
a
third
party.
The
preferred
cost
estimating
methodology,
in
the
Agency's
view,
is
the
adaption
of
empirical
costs
from
similar
projects
tailored
to
the
facility's
characteristics.
The
submission
of
generic
costs
relying
on
engineering
judgment
should
be
verified
with
empirical
data
wherever
possible.
In
the
cases
where
empirical
demonstration
costs
are
not
available,
the
level
of
detail
should
allow
the
costs
to
be
reproduced
using
standard
construction
engineering
unit
cost
databases.
These
costs
should
be
supported
by
estimates
from
architectural
and
engineering
firms.
Further,
the
engineering
assumptions
forming
the
basis
of
the
cost
estimates
should
be
clearly
documented
for
the
key
cost
items.
The
Agency
and
other
regulatory
entities
have
reviewed
recent
cost
estimates
submitted
by
permittees
for
several
section
316(
b)
and
316(
a)
demonstrations.
As
discussed
in
Chapter
X
of
the
Technical
Development
Document,
in
several
cases
where
the
level
of
detail
provided
by
the
permittee
was
sufficient
to
afford
a
detailed
review,
EPA
has
some
concerns
about
the
magnitude
of
these
cost
estimates.
In
other
cases,
the
engineering
assumptions
that
formed
the
basis
of
the
cost
submissions
were
insufficiently
documented
to
afford
a
critical
review.
Based
in
part
on
these
examples,
the
Agency
emphasizes
the
importance
of
empirically
verified
and
well
documented
engineering
cost
submissions.
The
Agency
anticipates
that
the
inclusion
of
a
site­
specific
cost
to
benefit
test
will
continue
to
be
of
concern
to
local
regulatory
entities
and
the
regulated
community
in
light
of
the
associated
burden
on
permit
writers.
In
two
recent
cases,
significant
burden
was
associated
with
engineering
cost
reviews.
In
one
case,
a
regional
authority
utilized
a
significant
portion
of
its
annual
permitting
budget
(
over
$
80,000)
and
significant
man­
hours
(
approximately
500
hours)
to
review
the
engineering
cost
estimates
submitted
in
a
single
permit
demonstration.
In
another
case,
EPA
conducted
approximately
200
hours
of
senior­
level
review
of
a
single
engineering
estimate
that
had
already
undergone
significant,
and
costly,
local
regulatory
review.
In
each
of
these
cases,
the
reviewers
identified
areas
where
they
believed
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17153
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
58
State
Water
Quality
Management
Resource
Model,
ver.
3.16
(
9/
00).
(
See
Docket
for
today's
proposal.)
This
is
an
on­
going
joint
effort
between
states
and
EPA
to
develop
information
on
the
resource
``
gap''
facing
State
water
quality
management
programs.
The
information
included
in
the
model
reflects
the
consensus
of
the
participating
states
and
is
intended
to
reflect
averages.
59
Communication
from
Mr.
Mark
Stein,
Office
of
Regional
Counsel,
US
EPA
Region
I,
Boston,
MA,
dated
January
24,
2002.
(
See
Docket
for
today's
proposal.)
permit
applicant
had
significantly
overestimated
costs
of
a
potential
compliance
option.
The
level
of
effort
was
sufficient
to
identify
the
areas
of
concern,
but
not
to
develop
counter
proposals
for
cost
estimates.
However,
EPA
believes
it
is
important
to
have
a
site­
specific
option
in
the
rule
to
cover
cases
of
exceptionally
high
costs
and/
or
minimal
benefits.
By
EPA's
estimates,
the
costs
for
some
of
the
technologies
on
which
the
presumptive
performance
standards
are
based
may
be
several
million
dollars.
In
cases
where,
due
to
the
site­
specific
factors,
an
individual
facility's
costs
are
significantly
higher,
or
the
benefits
are
minimal,
the
additional
permitting
burden
hours
(
upwards
of
several
hundred
hours)
associated
with
the
sitespecific
estimate
may
be
appropriate.
EPA
anticipates
that
many,
if
not
most,
facilities
will
choose
to
comply
with
the
presumptive
standards,
but
believes
that
for
those
facilities
with
exceptionally
high
costs
or
exceptionally
low
benefits,
the
site­
specific
provisions
provide
an
important
``
safety
valve.''
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
the
Agency
should
establish
minimum
standards
for
a
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
and
on
whether
such
standards
should
be
established
by
regulation
or
as
guidance
only.
EPA
also
invites
comment
on
the
above
discussion
of
the
burden
that
reviewing
site­
specific
cost
studies
poses
for
permitting
authorities
and
on
its
belief
that
site­
specific
provisions
to
address
cases
of
unusually
high
costs
or
unusually
low
benefits
are
necessary.

13.
Cost­
Benefit
Test
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
costbenefit
provision
in
§
124.95.
EPA
placed
several
documents
in
the
docket
for
the
new
facilities
final
rule
(
see
docket
items
2
 
034A
and
2
 
034B)
that
summarized
information
from
several
States
on
the
burdens
of
site­
specific
decisionmaking.
To
make
section
316(
b)
determinations
for
large
power
plants
in
the
Southeast
in
the
late
1970s
and
early
1980s,
EPA
estimates
a
workload
of
as
much
as
650
person
hours
per
permit
and
$
25,000
contract
dollars,
with
an
additional
(
and
potentially
larger)
resource
investment
by
State
permitting
authorities.
To
reissue
a
permit
to
the
Salem
Nuclear
Generating
Station,
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environment
Protection
recently
reviewed
and
considered
a
36­
volume
permit
application
supported
by
137
volumes
of
technical
and
reference
materials.
The
facility
filed
its
application
in
1994;
NJDEP
made
its
decision
in
2001.
EPA
invites
comments
on
these
burden
estimates.
As
noted
above,
however,
while
concerned
about
the
burden
of
sitespecific
section
316(
b)
determinations,
EPA
also
recognizes
the
much
larger
costs
of
complying
with
the
presumptive
performance
standards
and
believes
that
some
provision
for
situations
where
costs
are
significantly
greater
than
benefits
is
appropriate.
EPA
notes
that
at
some
sites,
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
are
minimal.
In
such
cases
it
may
not
make
sense
to
require
a
facility
to
spend
a
lot
of
dollars
to
comply
with
presumptive
performance
requirements.
EPA
is
also
concerned
about
the
potential
for
members
of
the
public
who
object
to
the
authority's
site­
specific
determinations
to
raise
challenges
that
must
be
resolved
in
administrative
appeals
that
can
be
very
lengthy
and
burdensome,
followed
in
some
cases
by
judicial
challenges.
An
ongoing
State
study
of
permitting
workloads
estimates
that
appeals
of
NPDES
permits
issued
to
major
facilities
require
40
hours
to
resolve
in
a
simple
case
and
up
to
240
hours
for
a
very
complex
permit.
58
EPA
Region
1
estimates
that
one
year
is
required
to
resolve
a
complex
administrative
appeal,
involving
significant
amounts
of
technical
and
legal
resources.
Should
the
permit
appeal
be
followed
by
a
judicial
challenge,
EPA
Region
1
estimates
an
additional
two
years
or
more
of
significant
investment
of
technical
and
legal
resources
in
one
decision,
with
additional
time
and
resources
needed
if
the
initial
judicial
decision
is
appealed.
59
Again,
however,
EPA
notes
that
these
burdens
may
be
small
compared
to
the
potential
costs
of
complying
with
presumptive
performance
standards.
EPA
invites
comments
on
ways
to
incorporate
sitespecific
consideration
of
costs
and
benefits
without
undue
burden
on
the
Director.
In
particular,
EPA
invites
comment
on
decision
factors
and
criteria
for
weighing
and
balancing
these
factors
that
could
be
included
in
a
regulation
or
guidance
that
would
streamline
the
workload
for
evaluating
site­
specific
applications
and
minimize
the
potential
for
legal
challenges.
14.
Capacity
Utilization
In
§
125.94
(
b)(
2),
the
Agency
proposes
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
but
not
entrainment
when
a
facility
operates
less
than
15
percent
of
the
available
operating
time
over
the
course
of
several
years.
Fifteen
percent
capacity
utilization
corresponds
to
facility
operation
for
roughly
55
days
in
a
year
(
that
is,
less
than
two
months).
The
Agency
refers
to
this
differentiation
between
facilities
based
on
their
operating
time
as
a
capacity
utilization
cut­
off.
The
Agency's
record
demonstrates
that
facilities
operating
at
capacity
utilization
factors
of
less
than
15
percent
are
generally
facilities
of
significant
age,
including
the
oldest
facilities
within
the
scope
of
the
rule.
Frequently,
entities
will
refer
to
these
facilities
as
peaker
plants,
though
the
definition
extends
to
a
broader
range
of
facilities.
These
peaker
plants
are
less
efficient
and
more
costly
to
operate
than
other
facilities.
Therefore,
operating
companies
generally
utilize
them
only
when
demand
is
highest
and,
therefore,
economic
conditions
are
favorable.
Because
these
facilities
operate
only
a
fraction
of
the
time
compared
to
other
facilities,
such
as
base­
load
plants,
the
peaking
plants
achieve
sizable
flow
reductions
over
their
maximum
design
annual
intake
flows.
Therefore,
the
concept
of
an
entrainment
reduction
requirement
for
such
facilities
does
not
appear
necessary.
Additionally,
the
plants
typically
operate
during
two
specific
periods:
the
extreme
winter
and
the
extreme
summer
demand
periods.
Each
of
these
periods
can,
in
some
cases,
coincide
with
periods
of
abundant
aquatic
concentrations
and/
or
sensitive
spawning
events.
However,
it
is
generally
accepted
that
peak
winter
and
summer
periods
will
not
be
the
most
crucial
for
aquatic
organism
communities
on
a
national
basis.
Of
the
facilities
exceeding
the
capacity
utilization
cut­
off,
the
median
and
average
capacity
utilization
is
50
percent.
As
a
general
rule,
steam
plants
operate
cyclically
between
100
percent
load
and
standby.
In
turn,
the
intake
flow
rate
of
a
typical
steam
plant
cycles
between
full
design
intake
flow
and
standby.
Facilities
operating
with
an
average
capacity
utilization
of
50
percent
would
generally
withdraw
more
than
three
times
as
much
water
over
the
course
of
time
than
a
facility
with
a
capacity
utilization
of
less
than
15.
Therefore,
the
capacity
utilization
cutoff
coincides
with
an
approximate
flow
reduction,
and
hence
entrainment
reduction,
of
roughly
70
percent
as
compared
to
the
average
facility
above
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17154
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
60
The
lower
range
would
be
appropriate
where
State
water
quality
standards
limit
chloride
to
a
maximum
increase
of
10
percent
over
background
and
therefore
require
a
1.1
cycle
of
concentraction.
The
higher
range
may
be
attained
where
cycles
of
concentration
up
to
2.0
are
used
for
the
design.
the
cut­
off,
which
is
within
the
range
of
the
performance
standard
for
entrainment
reduction.
Of
the
539
facilities
for
which
the
Agency
has
detailed
intake
flow
information,
53
would
fall
under
the
capacity
utilization
cut­
off.
Were
the
Agency
to
establish
the
cut­
off
at
less
than
20
percent
capacity
utilization,
an
additional
18
facilities
would
be
subject
to
the
reduced
requirements
and
the
comparable
flow
reduction
would
be
roughly
60
percent.
However,
the
operating
period
would
extend
to
approximately
75
days
(
that
is,
2.5
months).
Were
the
Agency
to
establish
the
cut­
off
at
less
than
25
percent
capacity,
108
of
the
539
facilities
would
be
subject
to
the
reduced
standards,
and
the
comparable
entrainment
reduction
would
be
roughly
54
percent.
For
a
hypothetical
25
percent
capacity
utilization
cut­
off,
the
operating
period
would
extend
to
approximately
three
months.
EPA
invites
comment
on
its
proposed
approach
to
regulating
Phase
II
existing
facilities
with
limited
capacity
utilization.
EPA
specifically
invites
comment
on
the
above
alternative
thresholds
for
using
capacity
utilization
to
establish
performance
standard
that
address
impingement
mortality
but
not
entrainment.

B.
Other
Technology­
Based
Options
Under
Consideration
EPA
also
considered
a
number
of
other
technology­
based
options
for
regulating
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
As
in
the
proposed
option,
any
technologybased
options
considered
below
would
allow
for
voluntary
implementation
of
restoration
measures
by
facilities
that
choose
to
reduce
their
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
performance
requirements.
Thus,
under
these
options,
facilities
would
be
able
to
implement
restoration
measures
that
would
result
in
increases
in
fish
and
shellfish
if
a
demonstration
of
comparable
performance
is
made
for
species
of
concern
identified
by
the
Director
in
consultation
with
national,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
with
responsibility
for
aquatic
resources
potentially
affected
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
Similarly,
any
technology­
based
options
considered
also
would
allow
facilities
to
request
alternative
requirements
that
are
less
stringent
than
those
specified,
but
only
if
the
Director
determines
that
data
specific
to
the
facility
indicate
that
compliance
with
the
relevant
requirement
would
result
in
compliance
costs
significantly
greater
than
those
EPA
considered
in
establishing
the
requirement
at
issue,
or
would
result
in
significant
adverse
impacts
on
local
air
quality
or
local
energy
markets.
The
alternative
requirement
could
be
no
less
stringent
than
justified
by
the
significantly
greater
cost
or
the
significant
adverse
impacts
on
local
air
quality
or
local
energy
markets.
EPA
invites
comment
on
these
provisions
and
on
other
factors
that
might
form
the
basis
for
alternative
regulations.
The
example
regulatory
language
presented
in
section
VI.
B.
3
below
does
not
include
a
provision
similar
to
the
40
CFR
125.85
in
the
new
facility
final
rule
for
alternative
requirements
based
on
significant
adverse
impact
on
local
water
resources
other
than
impingement
and
entrainment.
In
EPA's
judgement,
this
provision
would
primarily
be
used
to
address
water
allocation
and
quantity
issues
which
do
not
arise
in
tidal
rivers,
estuaries
and
oceans,
where
salinity
limits
competing
water
uses.

1.
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
with
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
for
All
Facilities
EPA
considered
a
regulatory
option
that
would
require
Phase
II
existing
facilities
having
a
design
intake
flow
50
MGD
or
more
to
reduce
the
total
design
intake
flow
to
a
level,
at
a
minimum,
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
system
using
minimized
makeup
and
blowdown
flows.
In
addition,
facilities
in
specified
circumstances
(
e.
g.,
located
where
additional
protection
is
needed
due
to
concerns
regarding
threatened,
endangered,
or
protected
species
or
habitat;
migratory,
sport
or
commercial
species
of
concern)
would
have
to
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
This
option
does
not
distinguish
between
facilities
on
the
basis
of
the
waterbody
from
which
they
withdraw
cooling
water.
Rather,
it
would
ensure
that
the
same
stringent
controls
are
the
nationally
applicable
minimum
for
all
waterbody
types.
This
is
the
regulatory
approach
EPA
adopted
for
new
facilities.
Reducing
the
cooling
water
intake
structure's
capacity
is
one
of
the
most
effective
means
of
reducing
entrainment
(
and
impingement).
For
the
traditional
steam
electric
utility
industry,
facilities
located
in
freshwater
areas
that
have
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
water
systems
can,
depending
on
the
quality
of
the
make­
up
water,
reduce
water
use
by
96
to
98
percent
from
the
amount
they
would
use
if
they
had
once­
through
cooling
water
systems,
though
many
of
these
areas
generally
contain
species
that
are
less
susceptible
to
entrainment.
Steam
electric
generating
facilities
that
have
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems
using
salt
water
can
reduce
water
usage
by
70
to
96
percent
when
make­
up
and
blowdown
flows
are
minimized.
60
Of
the
539
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities
that
EPA
believes
would
potentially
be
subject
to
the
Phase
II
existing
facility
proposed
rule,
73
of
these
facilities
already
have
a
recirculating
wet
cooling
system
(
e.
g.,
wet
cooling
towers
or
ponds).
These
facilities
would
meet
the
requirements
under
this
option
unless
they
are
located
in
areas
where
the
director
or
fisheries
managers
determine
that
fisheries
need
additional
protection.
Therefore,
under
this
option,
466
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities
would
be
required
to
meet
performance
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
a
reduction
in
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system.
A
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
system
is
an
available
technology
for
facilities
that
currently
have
oncethrough
cooling
water
systems.
There
are
a
few
examples
of
existing
facilities
converting
from
one
type
of
cooling
system
to
another
(
e.
g.,
from
oncethrough
to
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
system).
Converting
to
a
different
type
of
cooling
water
system,
however,
is
significantly
more
expensive
than
the
technologies
on
which
the
proposed
performance
standards
are
based
(
generally
by
a
factor
of
10
or
greater)
and
significantly
more
expensive
that
designing
new
facilities
to
run
on
recirculating
systems.
EPA
has
identified
four
power
plants
that
would
be
regulated
by
today's
proposal
that
have
converted
from
once­
through
to
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
systems.
Three
of
these
facilities
 
Palisades
Nuclear
Plant
in
Michigan,
Jefferies
Coal
in
South
Carolina,
and
Canadys
Steam
in
South
Carolina
 
converted
from
once­
through
to
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
systems
after
significant
periods
of
operation
utilizing
the
once­
through
system.
The
fourth
facility
 
Pittsburg
Unit
7
 
is
not
a
full
conversion
in
that
it
never
operated
with
its
once­
through
system.
In
this
case,
the
``
conversion''
occurred
just
prior
to
construction,
after
initial
design
of
the
once­
through
system
design
and
power
plant
had
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17155
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
occurred.
A
brief
description
of
these
conversions
follows.
The
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule
provides
additional
detail.
The
Palisades
Nuclear
Plant.
Located
in
Covert,
Michigan,
the
Palisades
Nuclear
Plant
is
a
812
MW
(
nameplate,
steam
capacity)
facility
with
a
pressurized
water
reactor,
utilizing
a
mechanical
draft
wood
cooling
tower
to
condense
the
steam
load
of
the
plant.
The
reactor
began
operation
in
1972
utilizing
a
once­
through
cooling
system
and
subsequently
converted
to
a
closedcycle
recirculating
system
at
the
beginning
of
1974.
Canadys
Steam
Plant.
This
490
MW
(
nameplate,
steam
capacity)
coal­
fired
facility
with
three
generating
units
is
located
in
Colleton
County,
South
Carolina.
The
first
unit
initially
came
online
in
1962,
the
second
in
1964,
and
the
third
in
1967.
All
three
units
operated
with
a
once­
through
cooling
water
system
for
many
years.
The
Canadys
Steam
plant
was
converted
from
a
once­
through
to
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
system
in
two
separate
projects.
Unit
3
(
218
MW)
was
first
converted
in
1972.
Units
1
and
2,
both
with
nameplate
capacities
of
136
MW,
were
converted
from
a
oncethrough
to
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system
in
1992.
Jefferies
Coal
Units
3
&
4.
Located
in
Moncks
Corner,
South
Carolina,
this
facility
has
a
combined,
coal­
fired
capacity
of
346
MW
(
nameplate,
steam).
The
coal
units
came
online
in
1970
and
operated
for
approximately
15
years
utilizing
once­
through
cooling.
After
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
re­
diverted
the
Santee
Cooper
River,
thereby
limiting
the
plant's
available
water
supply,
the
cooling
system
was
converted
from
once­
through
to
recirculating
towers.
The
plant
conducted
an
empirical
energy­
penalty
study
over
several
years
to
determine
the
economic
impact
of
the
cooling
system
conversion.
Pittsburg
Power
Plant,
Unit
7.
Located
in
Contra
Costa
County,
California,
this
750
MW
(
nameplate,
gas­
fired
steam)
unit
was
designed
and
planned
with
a
once­
through
cooling
water
system.
However,
late
in
the
construction
process,
the
plant
switched
to
a
closedcycle
recirculating
cooling
system
with
a
mechanical
draft
cooling
tower.
The
system
utilizes
the
condenser,
conduit
system,
and
circulating
pumps
originally
designed
for
the
once­
through
cooling
water
system.
EPA
did
not
select
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems
as
the
best
technology
available
for
existing
facilities
because
of
the
generally
high
costs
of
such
conversions.
According
to
EPA's
cost
estimates,
capital
costs
for
individual
high­
flow
plants
to
convert
to
wet
towers
generally
ranged
from
130
to
200
million
dollars,
with
annual
operating
costs
in
the
range
of
4
to
20
million
dollars.
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
annualized
post­
tax
cost
of
compliance
for
this
option
is
approximately
$
2.26
billion.
Not
included
in
this
estimate
are
9
facilities
that
are
projected
to
be
baseline
closures.
Including
compliance
costs
for
these
9
facilities
would
increase
the
total
cost
of
compliance
with
this
option
to
approximately
$
2.32
billion.
EPA
also
has
serious
concerns
about
the
short
term
energy
implications
of
a
massive
concurrent
conversion
and
the
potential
for
supply
disruptions
that
it
would
entail.
EPA
requests
comment
on
its
decision
not
to
base
best
technology
available
for
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
on
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
technology.
The
estimated
annual
benefits
(
in
$
2001)
for
requiring
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
reduce
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
the
use
of
closedcycle
recirculating
cooling
systems
are
$
83.9
million
per
year
and
$
1.08
billion
for
entrainment
reductions.

2.
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
with
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
Systems
Based
on
Waterbody
Type
EPA
also
considered
an
alternate
technology­
based
option
in
which
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems
would
be
required
for
all
facilities
on
certain
waterbody
types.
Under
this
option,
EPA
would
group
waterbodies
into
the
same
five
categories
as
in
today's
proposal:
(
1)
Freshwater
rivers
or
streams,
(
2)
lakes
or
reservoirs,
(
3)
Great
Lakes,
(
4)
tidal
rivers
or
estuaries;
and
(
5)
oceans.
Because
oceans,
estuaries
and
tidal
rivers
contain
essential
habitat
and
nursery
areas
for
the
vast
majority
of
commercial
and
recreational
important
species
of
shell
and
fin
fish,
including
many
species
that
are
subject
to
intensive
fishing
pressures,
these
waterbody
types
would
require
more
stringent
controls
based
on
the
performance
of
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems.
EPA
discussed
the
susceptibility
of
these
waters
in
a
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
for
the
new
facility
rule
(
66
FR
28853,
May
25,
2001)
and
invited
comment
on
documents
that
may
support
its
judgment
that
these
waters
are
particularly
susceptible
to
adverse
impacts
from
cooling
water
intake
structures.
In
addition,
the
NODA
presented
information
regarding
the
low
susceptibility
of
non­
tidal
freshwater
rivers
and
streams
to
impacts
from
entrainment
from
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Under
this
alternative
option,
facilities
that
operate
at
less
than
15
percent
capacity
utilization
would,
as
in
the
proposed
option,
only
be
required
to
have
impingement
control
technology.
Facilities
that
have
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system
would
require
additional
design
and
construction
technologies
to
increase
the
survival
rate
of
impinged
biota
or
to
further
reduce
the
amount
of
entrained
biota
if
the
intake
structure
was
located
within
an
ocean,
tidal
river,
or
estuary
where
there
are
fishery
resources
of
concern
to
permitting
authorities
or
fishery
managers.
Facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
a
freshwater
(
including
rivers
and
streams,
the
Great
Lakes
and
other
lakes)
would
have
the
same
requirements
as
under
the
proposed
rule.
If
a
facility
chose
to
comply
with
Track
II,
then
the
facility
would
have
to
demonstrate
that
alternative
technologies
would
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
to
levels
comparable
to
those
that
would
be
achieved
with
a
closed­
loop
recirculating
system
(
90%
reduction).
If
such
a
facility
chose
to
supplement
its
alternative
technologies
with
restoration
measures,
it
would
have
to
demonstrate
the
same
or
substantially
similar
level
of
protection.
(
For
additional
discussion
see
the
new
facility
final
rule
66
FR
65256,
at
65315
columns
1
and
2.)
EPA
has
estimated
that
there
are
109
facilities
located
on
oceans,
estuaries,
or
tidal
rivers
that
do
not
have
a
closed
cycle
recirculating
system
and
would
be
required
to
meet
performance
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
a
reduction
in
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system.
The
other
430
facilities
would
be
required
to
meet
the
same
performance
standards
in
today's
proposal.
The
potential
environmental
benefits
of
this
option
have
been
estimated
at
$
87.8
million
and
$
1.24
billion
for
entrainment
reductions
annually.
Although
this
option
is
estimated
(
a
full
cost
analysis
was
not
done
for
this
option)
to
be
less
expensive
at
a
national
level
than
requiring
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems
for
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
EPA
is
not
proposing
this
option.
Facilities
located
on
oceans,
estuaries,
and
tidal
rivers
would
incur
high
capital
and
operating
and
maintenance
costs
for
conversions
of
their
cooling
water
systems.
Furthermore,
since
impacted
facilities
would
be
concentrated
in
coastal
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17156
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
regions,
there
is
the
potential
for
short
term
energy
impacts
and
supply
disruptions
in
these
areas.
EPA
also
invites
comment
on
this
option.

3.
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
With
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
Based
on
Waterbody
Type
and
Proportion
of
Waterbody
Flow
EPA
is
also
considering
a
variation
on
the
above
approach
that
would
require
only
facilities
withdrawing
very
large
amounts
of
water
from
an
estuary,
tidal
river,
or
ocean
to
reduce
their
intake
capacity
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closedcycle
recirculating
cooling
system.
For
example,
for
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
a
tidal
river
or
estuary,
if
the
intake
flow
is
greater
than
1
percent
of
the
source
water
tidal
excursion,
then
the
facility
would
have
to
meet
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
the
performance
of
wet
cooling
towers.
These
facilities
would
have
the
choice
of
complying
with
Track
I
or
Track
II
requirements.
If
a
facility
on
a
tidal
river
or
estuary
has
intake
flow
equal
to
or
less
than
1
percent
of
the
source
water
tidal
excursion,
the
facility
would
only
be
required
to
meet
the
performance
standards
in
the
proposed
rule.
These
standards
are
based
on
the
performance
of
technologies
such
as
fine
mesh
screens
and
traveling
screens
with
welldesigned
and
operating
fish
return
systems.
The
more
stringent,
closedcycle
recirculating
cooling
system
based
requirements
would
also
apply
to
a
facility
that
has
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
located
in
an
ocean
with
an
intake
flow
greater
than
500
MGD.
Regulatory
language
implementing
the
Waterbody
Type
and
Intake
Capacity
Based
Option
could
read
as
follows:

(
a)(
1)
The
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facility
must
comply
with:
(
i)
The
requirements
of
(
b)(
1)
if
your
cooling
water
intake
structure
has
a
utilization
rate
less
than
15
percent;
(
i)
The
requirements
of
(
b)(
2)
if
your
cooling
water
intake
structure
withdraws
water
for
use
in
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
system;
(
ii)
The
requirements
of
(
b)(
3)
if
your
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream;
(
iii)
The
requirements
of
(
b)(
4)
if
your
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
lake
(
other
than
one
of
the
Great
Lakes)
or
reservoir;
(
iv)
The
requirements
of
(
b)(
5)
or
(
c)
if
your
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
an
estuary
or
tidal
river;
(
v)
The
requirements
of
(
b)(
6)
if
your
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
one
of
the
Great
Lakes;
(
vi)
The
requirements
of
(
b)(
7)
or
(
c)
if
your
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
an
ocean.
(
2)
In
addition
to
meeting
the
requirements
of
(
b)
or
(
c),
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facility
must
meet
any
more
stringent
requirements
imposed
under
(
d).
(
b)
Track
I
Requirements.
Based
on
the
design
characteristics
of
your
facility
and
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
you
must
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
10).
(
1)
Requirements
for
Facilities
With
a
Capacity
Utilization
Rates
Less
Than
15
Percent.
If
you
own
or
operate
an
existing
facility
with
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
has
a
capacity
utilization
rate
less
than
15
percent,
you
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95%
for
fish
and
shellfish.
(
2)
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
that
Withdraw
Water
for
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Systems
Only.
If
you
own
or
operate
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
withdraws
water
from
an
estuary,
tidal
river,
or
ocean
for
a
closedcycle
recirculating
system
only,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
as
follows:
(
i)
Impingement
Design
and
Construction
Technologies
or
Operational
Measures.
You
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
for
fish
and
shellfish
if:
(
A)
There
are
threatened
or
endangered
or
otherwise
protected
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
species,
or
critical
habitat
for
these
species,
within
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
or
(
B)
There
are
migratory
and/
or
sport
or
commercial
species
of
impingement
concern
to
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies),
which
pass
through
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
or
(
C)
It
is
determined
by
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies)
that
the
facility
contributes
unacceptable
stress
to
the
protected
species,
critical
habitat
of
those
species,
or
species
of
concern.
(
ii)
Entrainment
Design
and
Construction
Technologies
or
Operational
Measures.
You
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
minimize
entrainment
for
entrainable
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
if:
(
A)
There
are
threatened
or
endangered
or
otherwise
protected
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
species,
or
critical
habitat
for
these
species,
within
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
or
(
B)
There
are
or
would
be
undesirable
cumulative
stressors
affecting
entrainable
life
stages
of
species
of
concern
to
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies),
and
it
is
determined
by
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies)
that
the
facility
contributes
unacceptable
stress
to
these
species
of
concern.
(
3)
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Located
in
Freshwater
Rivers
or
Streams.
If
you
own
or
operate
an
existing
facility
with
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
you
must
comply
with
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)(
i)
or
(
ii)
as
follows:
(
i)
If
your
total
design
intake
flow
is
equal
to
or
less
than
5
percent
of
the
source
water
annual
mean
flow,
you
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95%
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish;
or
(
ii)
If
your
total
design
intake
flow
is
greater
than
5
percent
of
the
source
water
annual
mean
flow,
you
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95%
and
entrainment
by
60
to
90%
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
(
4)
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Located
in
Lakes
(
Other
Than
one
of
the
Great
Lakes)
or
Reservoirs.
If
you
own
or
operate
an
existing
facility
with
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
located
in
a
lake
(
other
than
one
of
the
Great
Lakes)
or
reservoir,
you
must
comply
with
paragraphs
(
b)(
4)(
i)
and
(
ii)
as
follows:
(
i)
Your
total
design
intake
flow
must
not
disrupt
the
natural
thermal
stratification
or
turnover
pattern
(
where
present)
of
the
source
water
except
in
cases
where
the
disruption
is
determined
to
be
beneficial
to
the
management
of
fisheries
for
fish
and
shellfish
by
any
fisheries
management
agency(
ies);
and
(
ii)
You
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95%
for
fish
and
shellfish.
(
5)
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Located
in
Estuaries
or
Tidal
Rivers.
If
you
own
or
operate
an
existing
facility
with
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
located
in
an
estuary
or
tidal
river
you
must
comply
with
paragraphs
(
b)(
5)(
i)
or
(
ii)
as
follows:
(
i)
If
your
total
design
intake
flow
over
one
tidal
cycle
of
ebb
and
flow
is
equal
to
or
less
than
one
(
1)
percent
of
the
volume
of
the
water
column
within
the
area
centered
about
the
opening
of
the
intake
with
a
diameter
defined
by
the
distance
of
one
tidal
excursion
at
the
mean
low
water
level,
you
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95%
and
entrainment
by
60
to
90%
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish;
or
(
ii)
If
your
total
design
intake
flow
over
one
tidal
cycle
of
ebb
and
flow
is
greater
than
one
(
1)
percent
of
the
volume
of
the
water
column
within
the
area
centered
about
the
opening
of
the
intake
with
a
diameter
defined
by
the
distance
of
one
tidal
excursion
at
the
mean
low
water
level,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
5)(
ii)(
A)
or
(
B):
(
A)
Reduce
your
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system
and
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
as
follows:
(
1)
Impingement
Design
and
Construction
Technologies
or
Operational
Measures.
You
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17157
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
measures
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
for
fish
and
shellfish
if:
(
i)
There
are
threatened
or
endangered
or
otherwise
protected
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
species,
or
critical
habitat
for
these
species,
within
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
or
(
ii)
There
are
migratory
and/
or
sport
or
commercial
species
of
impingement
concern
to
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies),
which
pass
through
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
or
(
iii)
It
is
determined
by
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies)
that
the
facility
contributes
unacceptable
stress
to
the
protected
species,
critical
habitat
of
those
species,
or
species
of
concern.
(
2)
Entrainment
Design
and
Construction
Technologies
or
Operational
Measures.
You
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
minimize
entrainment
for
entrainable
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
if:
(
i)
There
are
threatened
or
endangered
or
otherwise
protected
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
species,
or
critical
habitat
for
these
species,
within
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
or
(
ii)
There
are
or
would
be
undesirable
cumulative
stressors
affecting
entrainable
life
stages
of
species
of
concern
to
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies),
and
it
is
determined
by
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies)
that
the
facility
contributes
unacceptable
stress
to
these
species
of
concern.
(
B)
Comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
II
in
(
c).
(
6)
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Located
in
One
of
the
Great
Lakes.
If
you
own
or
operate
an
existing
facility
with
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
located
in
one
of
the
Great
Lakes
you
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95%
and
entrainment
by
60
to
90%
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
(
7)
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Located
in
an
Ocean.
If
you
own
or
operate
an
existing
facility
with
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
located
in
an
ocean
you
must
comply
with
paragraphs
(
b)(
7)(
i)
or
(
ii)
as
follows:
(
i)
If
your
total
design
intake
flow
is
less
than
500
MGD,
you
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95%
and
entrainment
by
60
to
90%
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish;
or
(
ii)
If
your
total
design
intake
flow
is
equal
to,
or
greater
than
500
MGD,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
7)(
ii)(
A)
or
(
B):
(
A)
Reduce
your
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system
and
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
as
follows:
(
1)
Impingement
Design
and
Construction
Technologies
or
Operational
Measures.
You
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
for
fish
and
shellfish
if:
(
i)
There
are
threatened
or
endangered
or
otherwise
protected
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
species,
or
critical
habitat
for
these
species,
within
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
or
(
ii)
There
are
migratory
and/
or
sport
or
commercial
species
of
impingement
concern
to
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies),
which
pass
through
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
or
(
iii)
It
is
determined
by
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies)
that
the
facility
contributes
unacceptable
stress
to
the
protected
species,
critical
habitat
of
those
species,
or
species
of
concern.
(
2)
Entrainment
Design
and
Construction
Technologies
or
Operational
Measures.
You
must
select
and
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
minimize
entrainment
for
entrainable
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
if:
(
i)
There
are
threatened
or
endangered
or
otherwise
protected
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
species,
or
critical
habitat
for
these
species,
within
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
or
(
ii)
There
are
or
would
be
undesirable
cumulative
stressors
affecting
entrainable
life
stages
of
species
of
concern
to
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies),
and
it
is
determined
by
the
Director
or
any
fishery
management
agency(
ies)
that
the
facility
contributes
unacceptable
stress
to
these
species
of
concern.
(
B)
Comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
II
in
(
c).
(
8)
You
must
submit
the
application
information
required;
(
9)
You
must
implement
the
monitoring
requirements
specified;
(
10)
You
must
implement
the
recordkeeping
requirements
specified;
(
c)
Track
II
Requirements.
If
you
are
an
existing
steam
electric
power
generating
facility
with
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
located
in
an
estuary,
tidal
river,
or
ocean
that
chooses
to
meet
the
requirements
of
Track
II
in
lieu
of
Track
I
in
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
or
(
b)(
7)(
ii),
you
must
comply
with
the
following:
(
1)
You
must
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
supplemental
restoration
measures
employed
will
reduce
the
level
of
adverse
environmental
impact
from
your
cooling
water
intake
structures
to
a
level
comparable
to
that
which
you
would
achieve
were
you
to
reduce
your
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system.
(
2)
Except
as
specified
in
subparagraph
(
c)(
4)
below,
your
demonstration
must
include
a
showing
that
the
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish,
including
important
forage
and
predator
species,
within
the
watershed
will
be
comparable
to
those
which
would
result
if
you
were
to
reduce
your
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system.
This
showing
may
include
consideration
of
impacts
other
than
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
(
3)
Restoration
Measures.
Phase
II
existing
facilities
complying
with
the
requirements
of
Track
II
may
supplement
technologies
with
restoration
measures
that
will
result
in
increases
in
fish
and
shellfish
if
you
can
demonstrate
that
they
will
result
in
a
comparable
performance
for
species
that
the
Director,
in
consultation
with
national,
State
and
Tribal
fishery
management
agencies
with
responsibility
for
fisheries
potentially
affected
by
your
cooling
water
intake
structure,
identifies
as
species
of
concern.
(
4)
In
cases
where
air
emissions
and/
or
energy
impacts
that
would
result
from
reducing
your
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system
would
result
in
significant
adverse
impacts
on
local
air
quality,
or
significant
adverse
impact
on
local
energy
markets,
you
may
request
alternative
requirements.
(
5)
You
must
submit
the
application
information
required;
(
6)
You
must
implement
the
monitoring
requirements
specified;
(
7)
You
must
implement
the
recordkeeping
requirements
specified;

EPA
notes
that
of
these,
some
facilities
would
likely
opt
to
comply
through
Track
II
and
estimates
that
21
facilities
would
select
this
option.
These
facilities
would
perform
site­
specific
studies
and
demonstrate
compliance
using
alternative
technologies,
perhaps
supplemented
by
habitat
enhancement
or
fishery
restocking
efforts.
Assuming
as
a
high
impact
scenario
that
all
51
of
these
facilities
install
wet
cooling
towers,
the
energy
impacts
associated
with
these
51
facilities
would
comprise
0.2
percent
of
total
existing
electric
generating
capacity
from
facilities
with
an
intake
flow
of
50
MGD
or
more.
The
environmental
impacts
associated
with
increased
air
emissions
(
SO2,
NOX,
CO2,
and
Hg)
associated
with
this
option
would
be
a
0.1
percent
increase
of
emissions
of
these
pollutants
from
the
total
existing
electric
generators.
The
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
estimates
that
a
steam­
electric
plant
utilizing
a
once­
through
cooling
system
would
consume
approximately
40
percent
less
water
than
a
comparably
sized
plant
equipped
with
recirculating
wet
cooling
towers
because
a
wet
cooling
tower
uses
a
small
amount
of
water
many
times
and
evaporates
most
of
this
water
to
provide
its
cooling
(
which
can
sometimes
be
seen
as
a
white
vapor
plume).
In
contrast,
a
oncethrough
cooling
system
uses
a
much
larger
volume
of
water,
one
time.
While
no
cooling
water
evaporates
directly
to
the
air,
once
the
heated
water
is
discharged
back
into
the
waterbody,
some
evaporation
occurs.
Thus,
in
some
areas,
conversion
to
closed­
cycle
cooling
could
raise
water
quantity
issues.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17158
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Based
on
an
analysis
of
data
collected
through
the
detailed
industry
questionnaire
and
the
short
technical
questionnaire,
EPA
estimates
there
are
potentially
109
Phase
II
existing
facilities
located
on
estuaries,
tidal
rivers,
or
oceans
which
may
incur
capital
cost
under
this
option.
Of
these
109
facilities,
EPA
estimates
that
51
would
exceed
the
applicable
flow
threshold
and
be
required
to
meet
performance
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
a
reduction
in
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system.
Of
the
58
facilities
estimated
to
fall
below
the
applicable
flow
threshold,
10
facilities
already
meet
these
performance
standards
and
would
not
require
any
additional
controls,
whereas
48
facilities
would
require
entrainment
or
impingement
controls,
or
both.
Because
this
option
would
only
require
cooling
tower­
based
performance
standards
for
facilities
located
on
tidal
rivers,
estuaries
or
oceans
where
they
withdraw
saline
or
brackish
waters,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
option
would
raise
any
significant
water
quantity
issues.
Total
annualized
post­
tax
cost
of
compliance
for
the
waterbody/
capacitybased
option
is
approximately
$
585
million.
Not
included
in
this
estimate
are
9
facilities
that
are
projected
to
be
baseline
closures.
Including
compliance
costs
for
these
9
facilities
would
increase
the
total
cost
of
compliance
with
this
option
to
approximately
$
595
million.
EPA
also
examined
the
annualized
post­
tax
compliance
costs
of
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
as
a
percentage
of
annual
revenues
to
assess
the
economic
practicability
of
this
alternative
option.
This
analysis
was
conducted
at
the
facility
and
firm
levels.
The
revenue
estimates
are
the
same
as
those
used
in
the
analysis
in
Section
VI.
A.
3
above:
facility­
specific
baseline
projections
from
the
Integrated
Planning
Model
(
IPM)
for
2008.
The
results
at
the
facility
level
are
similar
to
those
of
the
proposed
rule:
355
out
of
550
facilities,
or
65
percent,
would
incur
annualized
costs
of
less
than
0.5
percent
of
revenues;
60
facilities
would
incur
costs
of
between
0.5
and
1
percent
of
revenues;
57
facilities
would
incur
costs
of
between
1
and
3
percent;
and
67
facilities
would
incur
costs
of
greater
than
3
percent.
Nine
facilities
are
estimated
to
be
baseline
closures,
and
for
one
facility,
revenues
are
unknown.
Exhibit
4
below
summarizes
these
findings.
EXHIBIT
4.
 
WATERBODY/
CAPACITYBASED
OPTION
(
FACILITY
LEVEL)

Annualized
cost­
torevenue
ratio
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
<
0.5
%
.....................
355
65
0.5
 
1.0
......................
60
11
1.0
 
3.0%
...................
57
10
>
3.0
%
.....................
67
12
Baseline
Closure
......
9
2
n/
a
.............................
1
0
Total
......................
550
100
Similar
to
the
preferred
option,
EPA
estimates
that
the
compliance
costs
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
would
also
be
low
compared
to
firmlevel
revenues.
Of
the
131
unique
parent
entities
that
own
the
facilities
subject
to
this
rule,
108
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
less
than
0.5
percent
of
revenues;
12
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
between
0.5
and
1
percent
of
revenues;
6
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
between
1
and
3
percent
of
revenues;
and
three
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
greater
than
3
percent
of
revenues.
Two
entities
only
own
facilities
that
are
estimated
to
be
baseline
closures.
The
estimated
annualized
facility
compliance
costs
for
this
option
represent
between
0.001
and
5.4
percent
of
the
entities'
annual
sales
revenue.
Exhibit
5
below
summarizes
these
findings.

EXHIBIT
5.
 
WATERBODY/
CAPACITYBASED
OPTION
(
FIRM
LEVEL)

Annualized
cost­
torevenue
ratio
Number
of
phase
II
entities
Percent
of
total
phase
II
<
0.5
%
.....................
108
82
0.5
 
1.0
%
.................
12
9
1.0
 
3.0%
...................
6
5
>
3.0
%
.....................
3
2
Baseline
Closure
......
2
2
Total
......................
131
100
The
results
of
EPA's
approach
to
estimating
national
benefits
are
$
79.86
million
per
year
for
impingement
reduction
and
$
769.0
million
annually
for
entrainment
reduction.
Additional
details
of
EPA's
economic
practicability
and
benefits
analysis
of
this
and
other
options
can
be
found
in
the
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule
and
the
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule.
While
the
national
costs
of
this
option
are
lower
than
those
of
requiring
wet
cooling
towers­
based
performance
standard
for
all
facilities
located
on
oceans,
estuaries
and
tidal
rivers,
the
cost
for
facilities
to
meet
these
standards
could
be
substantial
if
they
installed
a
cooling
tower.
Under
this
option,
EPA
would
provide
an
opportunity
to
seek
alternative
requirements
to
address
locally
significant
air
quality
or
energy
impacts.
EPA
notes
that
the
incremental
costs
of
this
option
relative
to
the
proposed
option
($
413
million)
significantly
outweigh
the
incremental
benefits
($
146
million).
While
EPA
is
not
proposing
this
option,
EPA
is
considering
it
for
the
final
rule.
To
facilitate
informed
public
comment,
EPA
has
drafted
sample
rule
language
reflecting
this
option
(
see
above).
EPA
invites
comment
on
this
alternative
technology
based
option
for
establishing
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impacts
from
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities.

4.
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Controls
Everywhere
Under
an
additional
alternative
being
considered,
EPA
would
establish
national
minimum
performance
requirements
for
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
based
on
the
use
of
design
and
construction
technologies
that
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
at
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
without
regard
to
waterbody
type
and
with
no
site­
specific
compliance
option
available.
Under
this
alternative
the
Agency
would
set
performance
requirements
based
on
the
use
of
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
that
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment.
EPA
would
specify
a
range
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction
that
is
the
same
as
the
performance
requirements
proposed
in
§
125.94(
b)(
3)
(
i.
e.,
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
be
required
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
for
fish
and
shellfish,
and
to
reduce
entrainment
by
60
to
90
percent
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish).
However,
unlike
the
proposed
option,
performance
requirements
under
this
alternative
would
apply
to
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
regardless
of
the
category
of
waterbody
used
for
cooling
water
withdrawals.
Like
the
proposed
option,
the
percent
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
under
this
alternative
would
be
relative
to
the
calculation
baseline.
Thus,
the
baseline
for
assessing
performance
would
be
an
existing
facility
with
a
shoreline
intake
with
the
capacity
to
support
once­
through
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17159
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
cooling
water
systems
and
no
impingement
or
entrainment
controls.
In
addition,
as
proposed,
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
could
demonstrate
either
that
it
currently
meets
the
performance
requirements
or
that
it
would
upgrade
its
facility
to
meet
these
requirements.
Further,
under
this
alternative,
EPA
would
set
technologybased
performance
requirements,
but
the
Agency
would
not
mandate
the
use
of
any
specific
technology.
Unlike
the
proposed
option,
this
alternative
would
not
allow
for
the
development
of
best
technology
available
on
a
site­
specific
basis
(
except
on
a
best
professional
judgment
basis).
This
alternative
would
not
base
requirements
on
the
percent
of
source
water
withdrawn
or
restrict
disruption
of
the
natural
thermal
stratification
of
lakes
or
reservoirs.
It
also
would
impose
entrainment
performance
requirements
on
Phase
II
existing
facilities
located
on
freshwater
rivers
or
streams,
and
lakes
or
reservoirs.
Finally,
under
this
alternative,
restoration
could
be
used,
but
only
as
a
supplement
to
the
use
of
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures.
This
alternative
would
establish
clear
performance­
based
requirements
that
are
simpler
and
easier
to
implement
that
those
proposed
and
are
based
on
the
use
of
available
technologies
to
reduce
adverse
environmental
impact.
Such
an
alternative
would
be
consistent
with
the
focus
on
use
of
best
technology
required
under
section
316(
b).
Total
annualized
post­
tax
cost
of
compliance
for
the
modified
proposed
option
is
approximately
$
191
million.
Not
included
in
this
estimate
are
11
facilities
that
are
projected
to
be
baseline
closures.
Including
compliance
costs
for
these
11
facilities
would
increase
the
total
cost
of
compliance
with
this
option
to
approximately
$
195
million.
The
benefits
calculated
for
reduced
impingement
under
this
option
were
$
64.5
million
per
year;
entrainment
reduction
benefits
were
estimated
to
be
$
0.65
billion
annually.

C.
Site­
Specific
Based
Options
Under
Consideration
1.
Sample
Site­
Specific
Rule
EPA
also
invites
comment
on
sitespecific
approaches
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
at
existing
facilities.
In
general,
a
site­
specific
option
is
a
formal
process
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
at
particular
facilities
that
focuses
on
the
site­
specific
interactions
between
cooling
water
intakes
and
the
affected
environment
and
the
costs
of
implementing
controls.
This
approach
would
be
based
on
the
view
that
the
location
of
each
power
plant
and
the
associated
intake
structure
design,
construction,
and
capacity
are
unique,
and
that
the
optimal
combination
of
measures
to
reflect
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
must
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
In
order
to
focus
public
comment,
EPA,
in
consultation
with
other
interested
Federal
agencies,
has
drafted
sample
regulatory
text
for
a
site­
specific
approach,
which
is
set
forth
below.
The
Site­
Specific
Sample
Rule
omits
regulatory
text
on
two
key
subjects:
(
1)
The
definition
of
adverse
environmental
impact;
and
(
2)
the
components
of
the
analysis
that
is
used
to
determine
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Instead,
the
Sample
Rule
contains
references
to
the
preamble
discussion
of
these
subjects
(
see
§
125.93,
definition
of
``
adverse
environmental
impact''
and
§
125.94(
b)(
2),
concerning
analysis
of
the
best
technology
available).
Regulatory
text
is
not
offered
on
these
subjects
because
the
various
sitespecific
approaches
described
in
the
discussion
following
the
Sample
Rule
deal
with
them
in
significantly
different
ways.

Site­
Specific
Alternative:
Sample
Rule
Sec.
125.90
What
are
the
purpose
and
scope
of
this
subpart?
125.91
Who
is
subject
to
this
subpart?
125.92
When
must
I
comply
with
this
subpart?
125.93
What
special
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?
125.94
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility,
what
must
I
do
to
comply
with
this
subpart?
125.95
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility,
may
I
undertake
restoration
measures
to
mitigate
adverse
environmental
impact?
125.96
Will
alternate
State
requirements
and
methodologies
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
be
recognized?
125.97
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility,
what
must
I
collect
and
submit
when
I
apply
for
my
reissued
NPDES
permit?
125.98
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility,
must
I
perform
monitoring?
125.99
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility,
must
I
keep
records
and
report?
125.100
As
the
Director,
what
must
I
do
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
subpart?
Section
125.90
What
Are
the
Purpose
and
Scope
of
This
Subpart?

(
a)
This
subpart
establishes
requirements
that
apply
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
existing
facilities
that
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
equal
to
or
greater
than
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD).
The
purpose
of
these
requirements
is
to
establish
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
any
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
These
requirements
are
implemented
through
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits
issued
under
section
402
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
(
b)
This
subpart
implements
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
for
existing
facilities
that
have
a
design
flow
of
equal
to
or
greater
than
50
MGD.
Section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
provides
that
any
standard
established
pursuant
to
sections
301
or
306
of
the
CWA
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
process
established
in
this
subpart
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
for
intake
design,
location,
construction,
and
capacity
provides
for
a
case­
by­
case
determination
based
on
the
unique,
sitespecific
interactions
between
intakes
and
the
environment
and
the
costs
of
implementing
controls
at
existing
facilities.

Section
125.91
Who
Is
Subject
to
This
Subpart?

(
a)
This
subpart
applies
to
an
existing
facility
if
it:
(
1)
Is
a
point
source
that
uses
or
proposes
to
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure;
(
2)
Has
at
least
one
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
it
withdraws
for
cooling
purposes
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section;
and
(
3)
Has
a
design
intake
flow
equal
to
or
greater
than
50
MGD;
(
b)
Use
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
includes
obtaining
cooling
water
by
any
sort
of
contract
or
arrangement
with
an
independent
supplier
(
or
multiple
suppliers)
of
cooling
water
if
the
supplier
or
suppliers
withdraw(
s)
water
from
waters
of
the
United
States.
Use
of
cooling
water
does
not
include
obtaining
cooling
water
from
a
public
water
system
or
use
of
treated
effluent
that
otherwise
would
be
discharged
to
a
water
of
the
U.
S.
This
provision
is
intended
to
prevent
circumvention
of
these
requirements
by
creating
arrangements
to
receive
cooling
water
from
an
entity
that
is
not
itself
a
point
source.
(
c)
The
threshold
requirement
that
at
least
25
percent
of
water
withdrawn
be
used
for
cooling
purposes
must
be
measured
on
an
average
monthly
basis.

Section
125.92
When
Must
I
Comply
With
This
Subpart?

You
must
comply
with
this
subpart
when
an
NPDES
permit
containing
requirements
consistent
with
this
subpart
is
issued
to
you.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17160
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Section
125.93
What
Special
Definitions
Apply
to
This
Subpart?

The
definitions
in
Subpart
I
of
Part
125
apply
to
this
subpart.
The
following
definitions
also
apply
to
this
subpart:
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
[
Reserved;
see
discussion
at
V.
C.
5.
a
below.]
Existing
facility
means
any
facility
that
both
generates
and
transmits
electric
power
and
any
facility
that
generates
electric
power
but
sells
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission.
This
definition
specifically
includes
(
1)
any
major
modification
of
a
facility;
(
2)
any
addition
of
a
new
unit
to
a
facility
for
purposes
of
the
same
industrial
operation;
(
3)
any
addition
of
a
unit
for
purposes
of
a
different
industrial
operation
that
uses
an
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
but
does
not
increase
the
design
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
and
(
4)
any
facility
that
is
constructed
in
place
of
a
facility
that
has
been
demolished,
but
that
uses
an
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
whose
design
intake
flow
has
not
been
increased
to
accommodate
the
intake
of
additional
cooling
water.

Section
125.94
How
Will
Requirements
Reflecting
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
Be
Established
for
My
Existing
Facility?

(
a)(
1)
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
of
this
section,
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility
covered
by
this
subpart
must
conduct
a
baseline
biological
survey
and
provide
any
other
information
specified
in
§
125.97
that
the
Director
concludes
is
necessary
for
determining
the
magnitude
of
any
adverse
environmental
impact
occurring
at
the
facility.
(
2)
A
previously
conducted
section
316(
b)
demonstration
may
be
used
to
determine
whether
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
reflect
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
if
it
reflects
current
biological
conditions
in
the
water
body
and
the
current
location
and
design
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
A
previously
conducted
section
316(
b)
demonstration
generally
would
reflect
current
conditions
or
circumstances
if:
(
i)
The
previous
section
316(
b)
demonstration
used
data
collection
and
analytical
methods
consistent
with
guidance
or
requirements
of
the
permitting
agency
and/
or
the
Administrator;
(
ii)
The
available
evidence
shows
that
there
have
been
no
significant
changes
in
the
populations
of
critical
aquatic
species;
and
(
iii)
The
owner
or
operator
can
show
there
have
been
no
significant
changes
in
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
would
lead
to
a
greater
adverse
environmental
impact.
(
b)
The
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
required
by
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
may
be
based
on:
(
1)
A
previously
conducted
section
316(
b)
demonstration
that
is
shown
to
be
still
valid
in
the
current
circumstances,
as
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
of
this
section;
or
(
2)
An
analysis
of
best
technology
available
based
on
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan,
operational
measures,
and
any
restoration
measures
allowed
under
§
125.95,
that
are
submitted
pursuant
to
§
125.97.
This
analysis
may
include
use
of
risk
assessment.
[
See
V.
C.
5.
c
below
for
a
discussion
of
possible
additional
components
of
this
analysis.]
(
c)
In
determining
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
at
an
existing
facility,
the
Director
shall
:
(
1)
Minimize
impingement
mortality
for
fish
and
shellfish;
(
2)
Minimize
entrainment
mortality
for
entrainable
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish;
(
3)
Take
into
account
non­
aquatic
environmental
impacts,
including
energy
requirements,
and
impacts
on
local
air
quality
or
water
resources;
and
(
4)
Not
require
any
technologies
for
location,
design,
construction
or
capacity
or
operational
and/
or
restoration
measures
the
costs
of
which
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
estimated
benefits
of
such
technology
or
measures.
(
d)
The
Director
may
establish
more
stringent
requirements
as
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
if
the
Director
determines
that
your
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
c)
would
not
ensure
compliance
with
State
or
other
Federal
law.
(
e)
The
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility
must
comply
with
any
permit
requirements
imposed
by
the
Director
pursuant
to
§
125.100(
b)
of
this
section.

Section
125.95
As
an
Owner
or
Operator
of
an
Existing
Facility,
May
I
Undertake
Restoration
Measures
To
Mitigate
Adverse
Environmental
Impact?

(
a)
An
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility
may
undertake
restoration
measures
(
such
as
habitat
improvement
and
fish
stocking)
that
will
mitigate
adverse
environmental
impact
from
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure.
(
b)
In
determining
whether
adverse
environmental
impact
is
minimized,
the
Director
must
take
into
account
any
voluntary
restoration
measures.

Section
125.96
Will
Alternative
State
Requirements
and
Methodologies
for
Determining
the
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
Be
Recognized?

Notwithstanding
any
other
provisions
of
this
subpart,
if
a
State
demonstrates
to
the
Administrator
that
it
has
adopted
alternative
regulatory
requirements
that
will
result
in
environmental
performance
within
a
watershed
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
otherwise
be
achieved
under
this
subpart,
the
Administrator
shall
approve
such
alternative
regulatory
requirements.

Section
125.97
As
an
Owner
or
Operator
of
an
Existing
Facility,
What
Must
I
Collect
and
Submit
When
I
Apply
for
My
Reissued
NPDES
Permit?

(
a)
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility
covered
by
this
part,
you
must
submit
the
information
required
by
§
125.94
and
this
section
to
the
Director
when
you
apply
for
a
reissued
NPDES
permit
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
122.21.
(
b)
Biological
Survey.
(
1)
The
biological
survey
must
include:
(
i)
A
taxonomic
identification
and
characterization
of
aquatic
biological
resources
including
a
determination
and
description
of
the
target
populations
of
concern
(
those
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
all
life
stages
that
are
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment),
and
a
description
of
the
abundance
and
temporal/
spatial
characterization
of
the
target
populations
based
on
the
collection
of
a
sufficient
number
of
years
of
data
to
capture
the
seasonal
and
diel
variations
(
e.
g.,
spawning,
feeding
and
water
column
migration)
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
found
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
and
(
ii)
An
identification
of
threatened
or
endangered
or
otherwise
protected
Federal,
state
or
tribal
species
that
might
be
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s);
and
(
iii)
A
description
of
additional
chemical,
water
quality,
and
other
anthropogenic
stresses
on
the
source
water
body
based
on
available
information.
(
2)
As
provided
in
§
125.94(
a)(
2)
and
(
d)(
1),
biological
survey
data
previously
produced
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
may
be
used
in
the
biological
survey
if
the
data
are
representative
of
current
conditions.
(
c)
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan.
(
1)
The
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
must
explain
the
technologies
and
measures
you
have
selected
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
based
on
information
collected
for
the
biological
survey.
(
2)
In­
place
technologies
implemented
previously
to
comply
with
section
316(
b),
and
information
regarding
their
effectiveness,
may
be
included
in
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
for
an
existing
facility.
(
3)
Design
and
engineering
calculations,
drawings,
maps,
and
costs
estimates
supporting
the
technologies
and
measures
you
have
selected
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
(
d)
Operational
Measures.
Operational
measures
that
may
be
proposed
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
seasonal
shutdowns
or
reductions
in
flow
and
continuous
operation
of
screens.
(
e)
Restoration
Measures.
If
you
propose
to
use
restoration
measures
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
as
allowed
in
§
125.95,
you
must
provide
the
following
information
to
the
Director
for
review:
(
1)
Information
and
data
to
show
that
you
have
coordinated
with
the
appropriate
fish
and
wildlife
management
agency;
(
2)
A
plan
that
provides
a
list
of
the
measures
you
have
selected
and
will
implement
and
how
you
will
demonstrate
that
your
restoration
measures
will
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
water
body
to
the
level
required
to
offset
mortality
from
entrainment
and
impingement;
and
(
3)
Design
and
engineering
calculations,
drawings,
maps,
and
costs
estimates
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17161
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
supporting
the
proposed
restoration
measures.

Section
125.98
As
an
Owner
or
Operator
of
an
Existing
Facility,
Must
I
Perform
Monitoring?

(
a)
Following
issuance
of
an
NPDES
permit,
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility
must
submit
to
the
Director
a
program
for
monitoring
that
will
be
adequate
to
verify
that
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
(
b)
The
Director
may
require
modifications
of
the
monitoring
program
proposed
by
the
owner
or
operator
based
on,
but
not
limited
to,
consideration
of
the
following
factors:
(
1)
Whether
or
not
the
facility
has
been
determined
to
cause
adverse
environmental
impacts
under
§
125.100;
(
2)
The
types
of
modifications
and
restoration
that
are
required
in
the
NPDES
permit
under
§
125.100;
(
3)
The
amount
and
quality
of
the
data
or
information
available
on
the
water
body
health
and
quality
of
the
fishery;
and
(
4)
The
stability
or
flux
in
the
environmental
factors
that
influence
biological
response
in
the
water
body.
(
c)
The
monitoring
program
for
an
existing
facility
that
the
Director
has
determined
is
not
causing
adverse
environmental
impact
must
provide
for
monitoring
sufficient
for
the
Director
to
make
the
subsequent
5­
year
permit
decision.
(
d)
The
monitoring
program
for
an
existing
facility
that
the
Director
has
determined
to
cause
adverse
environmental
impact
must
provide
for
monitoring
sufficient
to
demonstrate
that
the
modifications
to
facility
operations
and
intake
technology
and
any
restoration
measures
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
have
been
effective
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
monitoring
must
begin
during
the
first
year
following
implementation
of
the
modifications
and
restoration
measures,
and
must
continue
until
the
Director
is
satisfied
that
adverse
environmental
impact
caused
by
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
has
been
minimized.

Section
125.99
As
an
Owner
or
Operator
of
an
Existing
Facility,
Must
I
Keep
Records
and
Report?

(
a)
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility,
you
must
keep
records
of
all
the
data
used
to
complete
the
permit
application
and
show
compliance
with
the
requirements
in
the
permit
and
any
compliance
monitoring
data
for
a
period
of
at
least
three
(
3)
years
from
the
date
of
permit
issuance.
(
b)
The
Director
may
require
that
these
records
be
kept
for
a
longer
period.

Section
125.100
As
the
Director,
What
Must
I
Do
To
Comply
With
the
Requirements
of
This
Subpart?

(
a)
Permit
Applications.
As
the
Director,
you
must
review
materials
submitted
by
the
applicant
under
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
3)
and
§
125.94
before
each
permit
renewal
or
reissuance.
(
1)
After
receiving
the
permit
application
from
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
new
facility,
the
Director
must
determine
if
the
applicant
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.
(
2)
For
each
subsequent
permit
renewal
for
a
covered
facility,
the
Director
must
review
the
application
materials
and
monitoring
data
to
determine
whether
requirements,
or
additional
requirements,
for
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
should
be
included
in
the
permit,
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
b)
Permitting
Requirements.
(
1)
Section
316(
b)
requirements
are
implemented
for
a
facility
through
an
NPDES
permit.
As
the
Director,
you
must:
(
i)
Determine
whether
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
at
the
existing
facility
reflects
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
based
on
the
information
provided
under
§
125.94(
a)
and
§
125.97
and
any
other
available,
relevant
information;
and
(
ii)
If
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
at
the
existing
facility
does
not
reflect
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
specify
the
requirements
and
conditions
for
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
that
must
be
included
in
the
permit
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
This
determination
must
be
based
on
information
provided
under
§
125.94
and
§
125.97
and
any
other
available,
relevant
information.
(
2)
(
i)
Before
issuing
an
NPDES
permit
containing
section
316(
b)
requirements,
the
Director
must
consult
with
and
consider
the
views
and
any
information
provided
by
interested
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies.
(
ii)
If
any
fish
and
wildlife
management
agency
having
jurisdiction
over
the
water
body
used
for
cooling
water
withdrawal
determines
that
the
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
of
an
existing
facility
contributes
to
unacceptable
stress
to
aquatic
species
or
their
habitat,
the
fish
and
wildlife
management
agency
may
recommend
design,
construction,
or
operational
changes
to
the
Director
that
will
minimize
that
stress.
(
c)
Monitoring
Requirements.
At
a
minimum,
the
Director
must
ensure
that
the
permit
requires
the
permittee
to
perform
the
monitoring
required
in
§
125.98.
You
may
modify
the
monitoring
program
when
the
permit
is
reissued
and
during
the
term
of
the
permit
based
on
changes
in
the
physical
or
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.

The
Agency
invites
comment
on
the
above
framework
as
an
appropriate
approach
for
implementing
section
316(
b)
as
an
alternative
to
today's
proposed
requirements.
The
Agency
also
invites
comments
on
the
following
site­
specific
approaches
for
implementing
section
316(
b)
on
a
sitespecific
basis
within
the
general
framework
set
forth
in
the
Sample
Rule.

2.
Site­
Specific
Alternative
Based
on
EPA's
1977
Draft
Guidance
Since
the
Fourth
Circuit
remanded
EPA's
section
316(
b)
regulations
in
1977,
decisions
implementing
section
316(
b)
have
been
made
on
a
case­
bycase
site­
specific
basis.
EPA
published
guidance
addressing
section
316(
b)
implementation
in
1977.
See
Draft
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Adverse
Impact
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
on
the
Aquatic
Environment:
Section
316(
b)
P.
L.
92
 
500
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1977).
This
guidance
describes
the
studies
recommended
for
evaluating
the
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
on
the
aquatic
environment,
and
it
establishes
a
basis
for
determining
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
1977
Section
316(
b)
Draft
Guidance
states,
``
The
environmental­
intake
interactions
in
question
are
highly
site­
specific
and
the
decision
as
to
best
technology
available
for
intake
design,
location,
construction,
and
capacity
must
be
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.''
(
Section
316(
b)
Draft
Guidance,
U.
S.
EPA,
1977,
p.
4).
This
case­
by­
case
approach
also
is
consistent
with
the
approach
described
in
the
1976
Development
Document
referenced
in
the
remanded
regulation.
The
1977
Section
316(
b)
Draft
Guidance
recommends
a
general
process
for
developing
information
needed
to
support
section
316(
b)
decisions
and
presenting
that
information
to
the
permitting
authority.
The
process
involves
the
development
of
a
sitespecific
study
of
the
environmental
effects
associated
with
each
facility
that
uses
one
or
more
cooling
water
intake
structures,
as
well
as
consideration
of
that
study
by
the
permitting
authority
in
determining
whether
the
facility
must
make
any
changes
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
Where
adverse
environmental
impact
is
occurring
and
must
be
minimized
by
application
of
best
technology
available,
the
1977
guidance
suggests
a
``
stepwise''
approach
that
considers
screening
systems,
size,
location,
capacity,
and
other
factors.
Although
the
Draft
Guidance
describes
the
information
to
be
developed,
key
factors
to
be
considered,
and
a
process
for
supporting
section
316(
b)
determinations,
it
does
not
establish
national
standards
for
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
Rather,
the
guidance
leaves
the
decisions
on
the
appropriate
location,
design,
capacity,
and
construction
of
each
facility
to
the
permitting
authority.
Under
this
framework,
the
Director
determines
whether
appropriate
studies
have
been
performed
and
whether
a
given
facility
has
minimized
adverse
environmental
impact.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17162
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
3.
The
Utility
Water
Act
Group
(
UWAG)
Approach
The
Utility
Water
Act
Group
(
UWAG),
an
association
of
more
than
100
individual
electric
utility
companies
and
three
national
trade
associations
of
electric
utilities,
provided
EPA
with
a
recommended
site­
specific
regulatory
framework,
entitled
``
316(
b)
Decision
Principles
for
Existing
Facilities.''
UWAG's
recommended
approach
for
decision
making
under
section
316(
b)
includes
the
following
components:
 
A
definition
of
``
Adverse
Environmental
Impact;
 
Use
of
Representative
Indicator
Species
(
RIS)
for
the
assessment
of
adverse
environmental
impact;
 
Making
decisions
under
section
316(
b)
that
complement,
but
do
not
duplicate,
other
Federal,
state,
and
local
regulatory
programs;
 
Use
of
de
minimis
criteria
to
exempt
small
cooling
water
users
that
pose
no
appreciable
risk
of
causing
adverse
environmental
impact
because
only
a
small
amount
of
cooling
water
is
withdrawn
from
a
water
body
at
a
location
that
does
not
require
special
protection;
 
Determination
of
adverse
environmental
impact
or
its
absence
using
the
facility's
choice
of
three
methods,
either
alone
or
in
combination:
(
1)
Use
of
previously
conducted
section
316(
b)
demonstrations
that
are
still
valid
in
light
of
current
circumstances;
(
2)
use
of
ecological
risk
assessment
by
means
of
demonstration
of
no
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact
using
conservative
decision
criteria;
or
assessment
of
risk
using
a
structured
decision
making
process
consistent
with
EPA's
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Guidelines;
 
A
``
maximize
net
benefits''
approach
for
selecting
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact;
 
At
the
option
of
the
permittee,
recognition
of
voluntary
enhancements
such
as
fish
stocking
or
habitat
improvements;
and
 
Providing
data
or
information
with
NPDES
permit
renewal
applications
if
new
information
shows
that
previously
conducted
section
316(
b)
demonstrations
are
no
longer
scientifically
valid.
These
features
of
UWAG's
recommended
approach
are
discussed
in
the
Discussion
of
Site­
Specific
Approach
Issues
and
Questions
for
Comment
that
follows.
UWAG's
submission
is
included
in
the
rulemaking
record.
4.
Site­
Specific
Alternative
Suggested
by
PSEG
EPA
also
received
a
suggested
sitespecific
regulatory
framework
from
the
Public
Service
Electricity
and
Gas
Company
(
PSEG).
The
framework
includes
three
alternative
decisionmaking
approaches
that
would
allow
permittees
and
permit
writers
to
utilize
prior
analyses
and
data
that
may
be
appropriate
and
helpful,
consider
previous
best
technology
available
determinations
that
were
based
on
these
analyses
and
data,
and
take
into
account
the
benefits
of
prior
section
316(
b)
implementing
actions.
The
following
summary
of
the
framework
suggested
by
PSEG
closely
tracks
PSEG's
submission,
which
is
included
in
the
rulemaking
record.
PSEG's
submission
states
that
EPA
guidance
and
other
precedents
have
identified
certain
ecological
criteria
as
relevant
factors
for
considering
adverse
environmental
impact,
including
entrainment
and
impingement;
reductions
of
threatened,
endangered,
or
other
protected
species;
damage
to
critical
aquatic
organisms,
including
important
elements
of
the
food
chain;
diminishment
of
a
population's
compensatory
reserve;
losses
to
populations,
including
reductions
of
indigenous
species
populations,
commercial
fishery
stocks,
and
recreational
fisheries;
and
stresses
to
overall
communities
or
ecosystems
as
evidenced
by
reductions
in
diversity
or
other
changes
in
system
structure
or
function.
Many
existing
section
316(
b)
decisions
are
based
upon
extensive
data
and
analyses
pertaining
to
those
factors.
Those
factors
would
remain
applicable
for
all
existing
facilities.
Under
PSEG's
recommended
approach,
permitting
authorities
would
have
the
authority
to
continue
to
place
emphasis
on
the
factors
they
believe
are
most
relevant
to
a
given
situation.
For
example,
when
long­
term
data
are
available
that
meet
appropriate
data
quality
standards,
and
when
analyses
using
appropriate
techniques
such
as
models
that
already
have
been
developed
to
allow
population­
level
analysis
of
the
potential
for
adverse
environmental
impact,
permit
writers
would
focus
on
those
adverse
environmental
impact
factors
related
to
population­
level
impacts.
In
other
situations,
especially
where
permittees
do
not
wish
to
invest
the
time
and
financial
resources
necessary
for
biological
data
gathering
and
analysis,
permitting
authorities
would
have
the
discretion
to
focus
on
other
factors
by
applying
different
decision­
making
paths.
5.
Discussion
of
Site­
Specific
Approach
Issues
and
Associated
Questions
for
Comment
The
following
sections
focus
on
several
key
aspects
of
any
site­
specific
approach,
specifically
requesting
comment
on
an
appropriate
definition
of
adverse
environmental
impact
and
associated
decision­
making
criteria.

a.
Determination
of
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
EPA's
1977
Draft
Guidance
assumes
there
will
be
adverse
environmental
impact
whenever
there
is
entrainment
or
impingement
``
damage''
as
a
result
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
focuses
study
on
the
magnitude
of
the
impact
to
determine
the
appropriate
technologies
needed
to
minimize
the
impact.
The
evaluation
criteria
for
assessing
the
magnitude
of
an
adverse
impact
are
broad
and
recommend
consideration
both
in
terms
of
absolute
damage
(
e.
g.,
numbers
of
fish)
and
percentages
of
populations.
Although
the
UWAG
and
PSEG
site­
specific
approaches
contain
different
definitions
of
the
term
``
adverse
environmental
impact,''
there
is
general
agreement
among
them
that
the
focus
should
be
on
the
health
of
critical
aquatic
populations
or
ecosystems,
rather
than
on
absolute
numbers
of
fish
and
other
aquatic
organisms
impinged
or
entrained
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
UWAG
offered
the
most
detailed
and
specific
recommendations
for
making
a
determination
of
adverse
environmental
impact.

(
1)
EPA's
1977
Definition
of
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
and
Examples
of
Its
Current
Use
In
EPA's
1977
Draft
Guidance,
adverse
environmental
impact
is
defined
as
follows:

Adverse
environmental
impact
means
the
adverse
aquatic
environmental
impact
that
occurs
whenever
there
will
be
entrainment
or
impingement
damage
as
a
result
of
the
operation
of
a
specific
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
critical
question
is
the
magnitude
of
any
adverse
impact
which
should
be
estimated
both
in
terms
of
short
term
and
long
term
impact
with
respect
to
(
1)
absolute
damage
(
number
of
fish
impinged
or
percentage
of
larvae
entrained
on
a
monthly
or
yearly
basis);
(
2)
percentage
damage
(
percentage
of
fish
or
larvae
in
existing
populations
which
will
be
impinged
or
entrained,
respectively);
(
3)
absolute
and
percentage
damage
to
any
endangered
species;
(
4)
absolute
and
percentage
damage
to
any
critical
aquatic
organism;
(
5)
absolute
and
percentage
damage
to
commercially
valuable
and/
or
sport
species
yield;
and
(
6)
whether
the
impact
would
endanger
(
jeopardize)
the
protection
and
propagation
of
a
balanced
population
of
shellfish
and
fish
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17163
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
61
Drawing
on
the
concept
of
``
critical
aquatic
organisms''
in
EPA's
1977
draft
guidance,
UWAG
would
define
a
representative
indicator
species
(
RIS)
as
a
species
of
commercial
or
recreational
importance,
a
Federal
or
state
threatened
or
endangered
or
specially
designated
species,
an
important
species
for
ecological
community
structure
or
function,
or
on
the
basis
of
species
and
life
stage
vulnerability.
in
and
on
the
body
of
water
from
which
the
cooling
water
is
withdrawn
(
long
term
impact).

Over
the
past
25
years,
permitting
agencies
have
interpreted
this
definition
in
a
variety
of
ways.
Some
agencies
consider
the
absolute
number
of
organisms
subjected
to
impingement
and
entrainment
by
facility
cooling
water
intakes.
Permitting
authorities
that
evaluate
adverse
environmental
impact
by
enumerating
losses
of
numbers
of
fish
individuals
find
this
approach
removes
much
of
the
uncertainty
associated
with
evaluating
effects
to
species
at
higher
organizational
levels
such
as
populations,
communities,
or
ecosystems.
Other
permitting
authorities
have
focused
on
evaluating
effects
on
populations
in
determining
whether
an
adverse
environmental
impact
is
occurring.

(
2)
An
Alternative
Definition
EPA
solicits
comment
on
an
alternative
definition
of
``
adverse
environmental
impact''
as
follows:

Adverse
environmental
impact
means
one
or
more
of
the
following:
entrainment
and
impingement
of
significant
numbers
of
a
critical
aquatic
organisms
or
percentages
of
aquatic
populations;
adverse
impacts
to
threatened,
endangered
or
other
protected
species,
or
their
designated
critical
habitat;
significant
losses
to
populations,
including
reductions
of
indigenous
species
populations,
commercial
fishery
stocks,
and
recreational
fisheries;
and
stresses
to
overall
communities
or
ecosystems
as
evidenced
by
reductions
in
diversity
or
other
changes
in
system
structure
or
function.

(
3)
Discussion
of
UWAG
Recommendation
for
Determining
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
UWAG
offers
the
following
definition:

Adverse
environmental
impact
is
a
reduction
in
one
or
more
representative
indicator
species
(
RIS)
61
that
(
1)
creates
an
unacceptable
risk
to
a
population's
ability
to
sustain
itself,
to
support
reasonably
anticipated
commercial
or
recreational
harvests,
or
to
perform
its
normal
ecological
function
and
(
2)
is
attributable
to
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.

In
UWAG's
view,
defining
adverse
environmental
impact
in
terms
of
``
unacceptable
risk''
combines
science
with
the
judgments
society
makes
about
the
value
of
different
resources.
UWAG
argues
that
this
recommended
definition
is
scientifically
sound
and
environmentally
protective
because
it
focuses
on
protecting
populations
or
species
that
are
subject
to
impingement
and
entrainment
by
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
because
it
requires
that
the
level
of
population
protection
be
adequate
to
ensure
protection
of
the
integrity
of
the
ecosystem
(
community
structure
and
function).
However,
it
notes
that
this
definition
does
not
create
a
``
bright
line''
test
based
on
engineering
or
science.
In
addition
to
use
of
a
valid,
previously
conducted
section
316(
b)
demonstration,
UWAG
would
allow
facilities
to
use
two
risk
assessment
approaches
to
make
a
demonstration
of
``
no
adverse
environmental
impact.''
The
first
approach
involves
demonstrating
that
the
facility
meets
one
or
more
of
a
set
of
conservative
decision
criteria.
Under
the
second
approach,
a
facility
would
cooperate
with
regulators
and
stakeholders
to
determine
the
benchmarks
for
a
risk
analysis
to
determine
whether
there
is
an
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact.

(
a)
Protective
Decision
Criteria
for
Determining
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
UWAG
recommends
protective
decision
criteria
that
it
believes
are
conservative
enough
to
eliminate
the
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact
for
all
practical
purposes.
The
recommended
physical
and
biological
decision
criteria
are
as
follows:

Physical
Criteria
Locational
Criterion:
An
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
be
considered
not
to
create
a
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact
if
it
withdraws
water
from
a
zone
of
a
water
body
that
does
not
support
aquatic
life
due
to
anoxia
or
other
reasons,
such
as
lack
of
habitat,
poor
habitat,
or
water
quality
conditions.
Design
Criterion:
An
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
not
be
considered
to
create
a
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact
if
it
uses
wet
closed­
cycle
cooling
or
technologies
that
achieve
a
level
of
protection
reasonably
consistent
with
that
achieved
by
wet
closed­
cycle
cooling.
However,
wet
closed­
cycle
cooling
or
reasonably
consistent
protection
would
be
considered
insufficient
if
permit
writers
or
natural
resource
agencies
identify
special
local
circumstances
such
as
impacts
to
threatened,
endangered,
or
otherwise
protected
species
or
areas
designated
for
special
protection.
Proportion
of
Flow
or
Volume
Criterion:
On
fresh
water
rivers,
lakes
(
other
than
the
Great
Lakes),
and
reservoirs,
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
be
considered
not
to
create
a
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact
if
it
withdraws
no
more
than
5%
of
either
the
source
water
body
or
the
``
biological
zone
of
influence.''
This
criterion
would
apply
only
to
entrainable
life
stages.
Because
it
might
not
be
appropriate
for
many
RIS
to
consider
the
entire
source
water
body
in
making
this
decision,
determining
the
appropriate
flow
or
volume
would
be
of
critical
importance.
UWAG
recommends
how
the
``
biological
zone
of
influence''
would
be
determined
for
different
RIS.

Biological
Criteria
Percent
Population
Loss
Criterion:
On
freshwater
rivers,
lakes
(
other
than
the
Great
Lakes),
and
reservoirs,
a
facility
would
be
considered
not
to
create
a
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact
if
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
causes
the
combined
loss,
from
entrainment
and
impingement,
of
(
1)
no
more
than
1%
of
the
population
of
any
harvested
RIS
and
(
2)
no
more
than
5%
of
the
population
of
any
non­
harvested
RIS,
with
fractional
losses
summed
over
life
stages
for
the
entire
lake,
reservoir,
or
river
reach
included
in
the
evaluation.
UWAG
explains
that
the
1%/
5%
population
loss
criteria
are
based
in
part
on
the
recognition
that
these
percentages
are
small
relative
to
the
inter­
annual
fluctuations
typical
of
fish
populations
and
also
small
relative
to
the
compensatory
responses
typical
of
many
species.
No
Significant
Downward
Trend:
On
freshwater
rivers,
lakes
(
other
than
the
Great
Lakes),
and
reservoirs,
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
be
considered
to
create
no
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact
if
adequate
data
collected
over
a
representative
period
of
years,
including
preoperational
data,
show
no
statistically
significant
downward
trend
in
the
population
abundance
of
RIS.
The
foregoing
criteria
would
be
applied
independently.
Passing
a
single
criterion
could
serve
as
the
basis
for
a
successful
demonstration
of
no
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact
for
a
facility.
If
population­
based
biological
criteria
are
used,
they
would
be
applied
independently
to
each
RIS
species,
and
each
species
would
need
to
meet
the
criteria
for
the
facility
to
demonstrate
no
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact.
UWAG
states
that
most
of
these
recommended
criteria
have
limitations
on
their
use,
such
as
being
limited
to
certain
water
body
types
or
to
use
with
either
impingeable
or
entrainable
organisms,
but
not
both.
Some
facilities,
therefore,
might
use
the
criteria
for
only
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17164
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
some
of
their
RIS
and
would
address
the
remainder
through
the
structured
adverse
environmental
impact
decision
making
process
discussed
below.
(
b)
The
Structured
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
Decision
Making
Process
Consistent
with
EPA
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Guidelines
Under
this
alternative
for
determining
adverse
environmental
impact,
a
facility
would
work
with
permit
writers,
resource
managers,
other
appropriate
technical
experts,
and
stakeholders
to
determine
what
constitutes
an
``
unacceptable''
risk
of
adverse
environmental
impact
in
a
water
body.
The
process
would
be
based
on
EPA's
1998
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Guidelines.
The
key
steps
would
be
as
follows:
 
Stakeholders
would
be
involved
in
identifying
issues
of
concern
caused
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
relative
to
RIS.
To
focus
the
effort
to
identify
RIS
at
risk,
previous
section
316
studies,
the
results
of
demonstrations
using
the
criteria
discussed
above,
information
on
the
design
and
operation
of
the
facility,
water
body
fisheries
management
data
and
plans,
and
other
relevant
water
body
information
could
be
used.
 
The
permit
writer,
with
input
from
the
facility,
would
then
determine
what
data
collection
and
assessment
studies
are
necessary
to
address
the
RIS
of
concern.
Decisions
regarding
the
scope
of
the
assessment
would
include
identification
of
RIS;
study
design,
sampling
methods,
locations,
and
durations;
and
analytical
methods
and/
or
models
to
be
employed.
 
The
facility
and
regulators
also
would
identify
explicit
measurement
endpoints
and
criteria
for
assessing
adverse
environmental
impact
before
any
studies
are
conducted.
If
the
studies
demonstrate
that
predetermined
endpoints
are
not
exceeded,
the
intake
structure
would
be
considered
not
to
cause
adverse
environmental
impact.
If
not,
the
facility
would
proceed
to
identify
best
technology
available
alternatives
or
to
identify
enhancements
that
would
eliminate
adverse
environmental
impact.

(
4)
Questions
for
Comment
on
the
Determination
of
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
(
a)
EPA
invites
public
comment
on
all
aspects
of
the
foregoing
approaches
to
defining
adverse
environmental
impact
and
for
making
the
preliminary
determination
on
adverse
environmental
impact,
and
on
which
approach
should
be
included
if
the
Agency
adopts
a
site­
specific
approach
for
the
final
rule.
(
b)
Should
the
final
rule
adopt
the
1977
Draft
Guidance
approach
to
defining
adverse
environmental
impact
as
any
entrainment
or
impingement
damage
caused
by
a
cooling
water
intake
structure?
(
c)
Should
the
final
rule
state
that
any
impingement
and
entrainment
is
an
adverse
environmental
impact
and
focus
site­
specific
assessment
on
whether
that
impact
is
minimized
by
technologies
already
in
place
or
potential
changes
in
technology?
Alternatively,
should
the
final
rule
define
adverse
environmental
impact
in
terms
of
population­
level
or
community­
level
effects?
(
d)
Should
EPA
adopt
an
approach
that
makes
more
explicit
use
of
threshold
determinations
of
whether
adverse
environmental
impact
is
occurring,
If
so,
should
EPA
adopt
any
or
all
of
the
conservative
decision
criteria
suggested
by
UWAG
in
a
final
rule?
(
e)
Should
the
structured
risk
assessment
decision
process
that
UWAG
recommends
for
determining
adverse
environmental
impact
be
adopted?
b.
Use
of
Previous
Section
316(
b)
Demonstration
Studies
The
Sample
Site­
Specific
Rule
and
the
PSEG
and
UWAG
approaches
would
all
give
the
permittee
an
opportunity
to
show
that
a
previously
conducted
section
316(
b)
demonstration
study
was
conducted
in
accordance
with
accepted
methods
and
guidance,
reflects
current
conditions,
and
supports
decisions
regarding
the
existence
of
adverse
environmental
impact
and
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.

(
1)
Sample
Site­
Specific
Rule
Approach
for
Using
Previous
Demonstration
Studies
Sections
125.94(
a)(
2)
and
125.94(
c)(
1)
of
the
Sample
Rule
would
permit
use
of
a
previously
conducted
section
316(
b)
demonstration
if
the
previous
study
was
performed
using
data
collection
and
analytical
methods
that
conformed
to
applicable
guidance
or
requirements
of
the
permitting
agency
or
EPA
and
there
have
been
no
significant
changes
to
either
the
aquatic
populations
affected
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
or
to
the
design,
construction,
or
operation
of
the
facility.
The
burden
would
be
on
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
facility
to
show
that
these
conditions
were
met.

(
2)
PSEG
Recommendation
for
Using
Previous
Demonstration
Studies
PSEG
would
permit
use
of
previous
section
316(
b)
determinations
that
were
based
upon
analysis
deemed
to
be
thorough
and
based
on
the
appropriate
statutory
factors
and
detailed,
sitespecific
data
and
information.
In
PSEG's
view,
such
prior
decisions
need
not
be
subject
to
a
complete
re­
evaluation
in
subsequent
permit
renewal
proceedings
absent
indications
that
the
current
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
allowing
adverse
environmental
impacts
to
occur
or
that
there
have
been
material
changes
in
any
of
the
key
factors
the
agency
relied
upon
in
reaching
the
prior
determination.
Under
PSEG's
approach,
if
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
at
an
existing
facility
has
previously
been
determined
to
employ
best
technology
available
based
upon
a
diligent
review
of
a
section
316(
b)
demonstration
that
was
conducted
in
conformance
with
the
1977
EPA
Guidance,
then
the
existing
intake
would
continue
to
be
determined
to
employ
best
technology
available
for
the
next
permit
cycle.
The
permit
renewal
application
would
have
to
include
information
sufficient
to
allow
the
permitting
agency
to
determine
that:
(
1)
There
has
been
no
material
change
in
the
operation
of
the
facility
that
would
affect
entrainment
or
impingement;
(
2)
any
in­
place
technologies
have
been
properly
operated,
maintained,
and
are
not
allowing
losses
to
occur
in
excess
of
the
levels
the
agency
considered
in
its
prior
determination;
(
3)
any
conservation
or
mitigation
measures
included
in
prior
permits
are
in
place
and
are
producing
the
intended
benefits;
(
4)
the
economics
of
applying
a
different
technology
have
not
changed;
and
(
5)
data
and/
or
analyses
show
that
fish
species
of
concern
are
being
maintained
or
that
any
declines
in
those
species
are
not
attributable
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
In
the
Fact
Sheet
accompanying
the
draft
permit,
the
permitting
agency
would
be
required
specifically
to:
(
1)
Make
a
finding
of
fact
that
the
prior
section
316(
b)
determination
had
been
based
upon
a
demonstration
conducted
in
conformance
with
the
Agency's
1977
Guidance;
and
(
2)
identify
the
data
and
information
that
the
permittee
provided
in
support
of
the
reaffirmance
of
its
prior
section
316(
b)
determination.
Interested
third
parties
as
well
as
Federal,
state
and
interstate
resource
protection
agencies
(
e.
g.,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
and
the
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service)
would
have
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
draft
section
316(
b)
determination
and
to
challenge
the
final
determination
if
they
were
aggrieved
by
the
agency's
final
decision.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17165
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
3)
UWAG
Recommendation
for
Using
Previous
Demonstration
Studies
UWAG
also
would
permit
use
of
a
previously
conducted
section
316
demonstration
if
the
past
demonstration
reflects
current
biological
conditions
in
the
water
body
and
the
current
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
UWAG
argues
that
many
States
have
developed
section
316(
b)
regulatory
programs
with
significant
information­
gathering
requirements
and
that
this
information
would
provide,
for
many
existing
facilities,
a
sufficient
basis
for
determination
of
compliance
with
section
316(
b).
More
specifically,
UWAG's
approach
would
consider
(
1)
Whether
the
RIS
used
in
past
determinations
are
still
the
appropriate
ones;
(
2)
whether
the
data
collection
and
analytical
tools
used
were
adequate
in
light
of
current
circumstances;
(
3)
whether
water
body
biological
conditions
at
the
time
of
the
study
reflect
current
conditions;
(
4)
whether
the
location,
design,
construction,
or
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
has
been
altered
since
the
previous
section
316(
b)
demonstration;
and
(
5)
other
factors
that
should
be
considered
if
there
is
reason
to
believe
that
the
previous
demonstrations
are
inadequate.

(
4)
Questions
for
Comment
on
Using
Previous
Demonstration
Studies
EPA
invites
public
comment
on
whether
a
final
rule
should
permit
the
use
of
a
previous
section
316(
b)
demonstration
for
determining
whether
there
is
adverse
environmental
impact
and
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
If
such
a
provision
is
included
in
the
final
rule,
what
criteria
or
conditions
should
be
included
to
ensure
that
the
previously
conducted
demonstration
is
an
adequate
basis
for
section
316(
b)
decisions?

c.
Process
for
Determining
the
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
and
the
Role
of
Costs
and
Benefits
Once
it
is
determined
that
there
is
adverse
environmental
impact
attributable
to
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
the
facility
and
permitting
agency
must
decide
on
a
site­
specific
basis
what
changes
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
or
capacity
of
the
intake
or
what
alternative
voluntary
measures,
must
be
installed
and
implemented
to
minimize
the
impact.
(
1)
EPA's
Draft
1977
Guidance
and
Development
Document
EPA's
draft
1977
draft
guidance
and
development
document
provide
guidance
on
how
to
select
best
technology
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
but
are
silent
on
the
role
of
costs
and
benefits
in
determining
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
In
1979,
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
First
Circuit
found
that
cost
is
an
acceptable
consideration
in
section
316(
b)
determinations.
Seacoast
Anti­
Pollution
League
v.
Costle,
597
F.
2d
306,
311
(
1st
Cir.
1979).
Over
the
years,
section
316(
b)
determinations
have
focused
on
whether
the
costs
of
technologies
employed
would
be
wholly
disproportionate
to
the
environmental
gains
to
be
derived
from
their
use.
See
e.
g.,
Seacoast
Anti­
Pollution
League
v.
Costle;
Decision
of
the
General
Counsel
No.
63
(
July
29,
1977);
Decision
of
the
General
Counsel
No.
41
(
June
1,
1976).

(
2)
Sample
Site­
Specific
Rule
The
Sample
Rule
would
require
that
the
analysis
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
be
based
on
a
biological
survey
of
the
part
of
the
water
body
affected
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
submitted
by
the
permittee,
together
with
any
voluntary
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures
that
would
be
implemented
at
the
facility.
(
See
Sample
Rule
§
§
125.94,
125.95
and
125.97.)
Examples
of
appropriate
technologies
a
facility
could
propose
in
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
include
wedgewire
screens,
fine
mesh
screens,
fish
handling
and
return
systems,
barrier
nets,
aquatic
filter
barrier
systems,
an
increase
in
the
opening
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
to
reduce
velocity
and,
if
warranted
by
site
specific
conditions,
cooling
tower
technology.
Under
the
Sample
Rule,
in­
place
technologies
implemented
previously
to
comply
with
section
316(
b),
and
information
regarding
their
effectiveness,
may
be
included
in
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan.
Operational
measures
that
may
be
proposed
include
seasonal
shutdowns
or
reductions
in
flow
and
continuous
operation
of
screens.
The
Sample
Rule
also
would
provide
that
the
Director
could
exclude
any
design
or
construction
technology
if
the
costs
of
such
technology
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
estimated
benefits
of
the
technology
(
§
125.94(
f)(
2)).
(
3)
Processes
Structured
on
Incremental
Cost­
Benefit
Assessment
EPA
solicits
comment
on
whether
an
evaluation
of
the
cost­
effectiveness
(
i.
e.,
the
incremental
cost
to
benefit
ratio)
of
cooling
water
intake
structure
technologies
and
any
operational
and/
or
restoration
measures
offered
by
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
is
an
appropriate
component
of
the
analysis
that
would
be
undertaken
in
a
sitespecific
approach
to
determining
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
UWAG
and
PSEG
recommendations
for
selecting
technologies
and
other
measures
based
on
an
evaluation
of
costs
and
benefits
are
discussed
below.

(
A)
UWAG
Recommendation
for
a
Process
Under
the
UWAG
approach,
if
the
facility
is
not
able
to
demonstrate
that
its
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
not
causing
adverse
environmental
impact,
it
would
then
select
and
implement
the
best
technology
available.
As
the
first
step
in
choosing
best
technology
available,
a
facility
would
identify
technology
alternatives.
It
would
then
estimate
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
alternatives.
Relevant
benefits
typically
would
include
preservation
of
fish
and
other
aquatic
life
and
economic
benefits
from
recreational
and
commercial
fisheries.
Relevant
costs
typically
would
include
the
capital
cost
of
constructing
a
technology,
operation
and
maintenance
costs
(
including
energy
penalties),
and
adverse
environmental
effects
such
as
evaporative
loss,
salt
drift,
visible
plumes,
noise,
or
land
use.
For
those
facilities
for
which
the
technologies
will
lower
the
generating
output
of
the
facility,
the
cost
of
replacement
power
and
the
environmental
effects
of
increased
air
pollution
and
waste
generation
from
generating
the
replacement
power
also
would
be
considered.
Facilities
then
would
calculate
the
net
benefits
for
each
technology
and
rank
them
by
cost­
effectiveness.
Those
with
marginal
costs
greater
than
marginal
benefits
would
be
rejected.
The
technology
with
the
greatest
net
benefit
would
be
the
``
best''
technology
for
the
site.
UWAG
believes
use
of
existing
EPA
cost­
benefit
calculation
methodologies,
such
as
those
used
for
natural
resource
damage
valuation
under
CERCLA
and
under
NEPA
would
be
sufficient.

(
B)
PSEG
Recommendation
for
a
Process
PSEG
suggests
two
options
for
determining
best
technology
available
where
prior
section
316(
b)
determinations
were
not
based
upon
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17166
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
data
and
analyses
sufficient
to
allow
a
permittee
to
seek
renewal.
Under
the
first
option,
the
permittee
would
provide
the
permit
writer
with
an
assessment
that
would
address:
(
1)
The
alternative
technologies
or
other
measures
that
are
available
for
addressing
the
cooling
water
intake
structure's
effects,
and
(
2)
the
incremental
costs
and
benefits
of
alternative
technologies
or
other
measures
relative
to
the
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure's
operation.
The
application
would
include:
an
engineering
report
identifying
the
suite
of
technologies
potentially
applicable
to
the
facility;
an
analysis
describing
the
bases
for
the
selection
of
technologies
applicable
to
the
facility;
an
assessment
of
the
issues
associated
with
retrofitting
the
facility
to
include
each
of
the
applicable
technologies
and
their
costs;
and
an
assessment
of
the
reasonably
likely
reductions
in
entrainment
and
impingement
losses
that
would
be
achieved
if
the
facility
were
to
be
retrofitted
to
operate
with
the
technology.
The
application
also
would
include
a
cost­
benefit
analysis
that
would
address
and
assess:
the
effects
of
the
reductions
in
entrainment
and
impingement
losses
on
life
stages
of
the
species
for
which
an
economic
value
can
be
determined
utilizing
readily
available
information,
such
as
market
values
of
commercial
species,
and
recreational
costs
based
on
methods
determined
to
be
appropriate
by
the
Director
and
the
appropriate
fisheries
management
agencies.
The
Director
would
then
select
the
best
alternative
technology
or
other
measures,
the
costs
of
which
are
not
wholly
disproportionate
to
the
benefits,
unless
the
proposed
technology
or
other
measures
clearly
would
not
result
in
any
substantial
improvement
to
the
species
of
concern.
In
evaluating
the
benefits
of
alternative
technologies,
and
in
determining
whether
there
is
likely
to
be
a
substantial
improvement
to
the
species
of
concern,
permittees
and
permitting
authorities
would
undertake
the
level
of
biological
analysis
that
was
appropriate
to
the
situation,
supported
by
the
applicable
data,
and
commensurate
with
the
resources
available
for
developing
and
reviewing
the
necessary
studies.
PSEG's
second
option
would
be
appropriate
where
the
permittee
elects
to
undertake
an
in­
depth
analysis
of
the
potential
adverse
environmental
impact
attributable
to
its
cooling
water
intake
structure,
followed
by
a
site­
specific
determination
of
the
appropriate
best
technology
available
to
minimize
that
adverse
environmental
impact.
This
path
represents
the
most
resourceintensive
and
scientifically
rigorous
approach
to
implementing
section
316(
b).
Under
this
option,
the
permittee
would
provide
the
permit
writer
with
a
detailed
assessment
that
evaluates
the
effects
of
the
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure's
operation,
and
demonstrates
the
extent
to
which
the
operation
may
be
jeopardizing
the
sustainability
of
the
populations
of
the
species
of
concern,
or
assesses
other
appropriate
factors
for
determining
adverse
environmental
impact.
If
the
permitting
agency
concurs
in
an
assessment
that
no
adverse
environmental
impact
is
being
caused
by
the
existing
operation,
then
the
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
be
deemed
to
be
best
technology
available.
If
the
assessment
demonstrates
that
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
causing
adverse
environmental
impact
or
the
permitting
authority
rejects
the
applicant's
determination,
then
the
permit
applicant
would
proceed
to
evaluate
alternative
technologies
or
other
measures.

(
4)
Questions
for
Comment
on
a
Process
for
Determining
the
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
and
the
Role
of
Costs
and
Benefits
EPA
invites
public
comment
on
the
standard
that
would
be
included
in
any
site­
specific
final
rule
for
determining
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
including
the
appropriate
role
for
a
consideration
of
costs
and
benefits.
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
the
long­
standing
``
wholly
disproportionate''
cost­
to­
benefit
test
is
an
appropriate
measure
of
costs
and
benefits
in
determining
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
also
invites
comment
on
the
use
of
the
``
significantly­
greater''
cost
to
benefit
test
in
today's
sample
site­
specific
rule.
EPA
also
invites
comment
on
whether
a
test
based
on
the
concept
that
benefits
should
justify
costs
would
be
more
appropriate,
as
is
used
in
various
other
legal
and
regulatory
contexts
(
see,
e.
g.,
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Section
1412(
b)(
6)(
A)
and
Executive
Order
12866,
Section
1(
b)(
6)).
EPA
also
invites
public
comment
on
whether
variances
are
appropriate
and,
if
so,
what
test
or
tests
should
be
used
for
granting
a
variance.

d.
Use
of
Voluntary
Restoration
Measures
or
Enhancements
The
Sample
Site­
Specific
Rule
and
the
UWAG
and
PSEG
approaches
would
all
permit
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility
to
voluntarily
undertake
restoration
(
or
enhancement)
measures
in
combination
with,
or
in
lieu
of,
technologies
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
Section
125.95
of
the
Sample
Rule
provides
that
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
facility
may
undertake
restoration
measures,
and
the
Director
would
be
required
to
take
into
account
the
expected
benefits
of
those
measures
to
fish
and
shellfish
in
determining
whether
the
facility
has
minimized
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
permittee
would
include
in
its
section
316(
b)
plan
a
list
of
the
measures
it
proposed
to
implement
and
the
methods
for
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
the
restoration
measures.
UWAG
gives
the
following
as
examples
of
potential
enhancements:
(
1)
Stocking
fish
to
replace
impaired
RIS;
(
2)
creating
or
restoring
spawning
or
nursery
habitat
for
RIS;
(
3)
raising
the
dissolved
oxygen
in
anoxic
areas
to
expand
the
carrying
capacity
of
the
RIS
in
a
water
body;
and
(
4)
removing
obstructions
to
migratory
species.
UWAG
would
require
the
objectives
of
particular
enhancements
to
be
established
in
advance,
and
appropriate
monitoring
and/
or
reporting
obligations
would
be
included
in
the
facility's
permit
to
confirm
that
enhancement
objectives
have
been
achieved.
UWAG
argues
that
using
enhancements
might
lower
compliance
costs,
might
possibly
be
of
more
benefit
to
RIS
than
technologies,
and
might
provide
a
longer­
term
benefit
to
RIS.
EPA
invites
public
comment
on
whether
a
final
site­
specific
rule
should
permit
voluntary
restoration
or
enhancement
measures
to
be
taken
into
account
in
determining
compliance
with
section
316(
b)
and,
if
so,
what
criteria
should
be
included
for
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
such
measures.

e.
Consultation
With
Fish
and
Wildlife
Management
Agencies
Because
the
central
focus
of
any
sitespecific
approach
is
the
effect
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
on
the
aquatic
populations
or
ecosystems,
it
is
important
that
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
with
jurisdiction
over
the
affected
water
body
have
an
opportunity
to
provide
information
and
views
to
the
Director
before
section
316(
b)
determinations
are
made.
The
Sample
Rule
would
provide
for
this
in
§
125.100(
b)(
2).
The
UWAG
recommendations
also
recognize
the
important
role
of
stakeholders,
including
fish
and
wildlife
management
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17167
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
62
Information
provided
by
EPA
Region
I.
Region
I
serves
as
permitting
authority
for
the
nondelegated
states
of
Massachusetts
and
New
Hampshire.
63
See
communications
from
Mr.
William
McCracken,
Chief
of
the
Permits
Section,
Surface
Water
Quality
Division,
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
January
24,
2002.
64
Backlog
counts
for
these
facilities
are
based
on
permits
expired
as
of
November
21,
2001
or
if
the
permit
expired
field
in
the
database
is
blank.
65
NPDES
Permit
Backlog
Trend
Report:
October
31,
2001,
issued
on
November
30,
2001
by
EPA's
Water
Permits
Division,
US
EPA,
Washington,
DC.
66Decision
Memorandum
from
the
Deputy
Chief
Financial
Officer
of
EPA
to
the
Administrator,
December
18,
2001.
67
The
Environmental
Council
Of
States
is
a
national
non­
profit
association
of
state
and
territorial
environmental
commissioners.
See
website:
www.
sso.
org/
ecos/.
When
the
Axe
Falls:
How
State
Environmental
Agencies
Deal
with
Budget
Cuts
by
R.
Steven
Brown,
Deputy
Executive
Director
and
Chief
Operating
Officer
of
ECOS.
(
See
Docket
for
today's
proposed
rule.)
68
This
state
budget
outlook
is
supported
by
a
report
published
on
October
31,
2001,
by
the
National
Conference
of
State
Legislatures
(
NCSL).
agencies,
in
a
structured
site­
specific
alternative
(
UWAG,
pp.
8
 
9).
EPA
invites
public
comment
on
the
appropriate
role
of
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
if
the
final
rule
implements
a
site­
specific
approach.

6.
Implementation
Burden
Under
Any
Site­
Specific
Approach
Although
well­
implemented,
sitespecific
approaches
for
determining
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
can
ensure
that
technologies
are
carefully
tailored
to
site­
specific
environmental
needs,
EPA
also
recognizes
that
sitespecific
regulatory
approaches
can
lead
to
difficult
implementation
challenges
for
State
and
Federal
permitting
agencies.
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
following
discussion
of
the
burdens
associated
with
implementing
section
316(
b)
on
a
site­
specific
basis,
the
competing
demands
on
permitting
agencies,
and
resources
available
to
permitting
agencies.
EPA
invites
comment
on
ways
to
employ
a
sitespecific
approach
while
minimizing
implementation
burdens
on
permitting
agencies.
The
site­
specific
decision­
making
process
requires
each
regulated
facility
to
develop,
submit,
and
refine
studies
that
characterize
or
estimate
potential
adverse
environmental
impact.
Although
some
approaches
allow
facilities
to
use
existing
studies
in
renewal
applications,
States
must
still
conduct
evaluations
to
ascertain
the
continued
validity
of
these
studies
and
assess
existing
conditions
in
the
water
body.
Such
studies
can
be
resource
intensive
and
require
the
support
of
a
multidisciplinary
team.
A
Director's
determinations
as
to
whether
the
appropriate
studies
have
been
performed
and
whether
a
given
facility
has
minimized
adverse
environmental
impact
have
often
been
subject
to
challenges
that
can
take
significant
periods
of
time
to
resolve
and
can
impose
significant
resource
demands
on
permitting
agencies,
the
public,
and
the
permit
applicant.
Some
examples
of
the
workload
that
can
be
required
for
permitting
agencies
to
implement
a
site­
specific
approach
follow.
Since,
1999,
EPA
New
England
has
devoted
0.6
full­
time
employees
a
year,
including
a
permit
writer,
a
biologist
and
attorney,
to
reissuance
of
a
permit
for
the
Pilgrim
Nuclear
Power
Station
(
PNPS),
62
At
the
Seabrook
Nuclear
Power
Station,
EPA
Region
I
has
invested
about
one
full­
time
employee
per
year
over
four
years
to
determine
the
nature
and
degree
of
adverse
environmental
impacts
and
the
appropriate
permit
conditions
the
permit
renewal.
The
State
of
New
York
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation's
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife
and
Marine
Resources
spent
$
169,587
in
1997
and
$
167,564
in
1998
to
review
cooling
systems
at
steammotivated
electricity
generating
facilities.
The
Division
estimated
a
total
effort
expenditure
of
approximately
2.2
full­
time
employees
in
1997
and
1998
and
4.3
full­
time
employees
for
2001.
These
figures
do
not
include
the
level
of
effort
associated
with
review
time
spent
by
the
Division
of
Environmental
Permits,
the
Division
of
Water,
or
the
Division
of
Legal
Affairs.
(
See
Docket
W
 
00
 
03.)
Because
of
workload
concerns,
some
States
have
requested
that
EPA
adopt
regulations
that
set
clear
requirements
specifying
standards
of
performance,
monitoring
and
compliance.
63
These
levels
of
burden
are
of
particular
concern
to
the
Agency
and
to
some
State
permitting
agencies
given
the
heavy
permit
workloads,
pressure
on
resources
available
to
permitting
agencies,
and
the
complexity
of
finalizing
permits
required
to
address
316(
b)
requirements.
Recent
data
indicate
that
most
States
are
struggling
to
meet
their
major
permits
issuance
targets
set
for
decreasing
the
permit
backlog.
For
example,
these
data
indicate
that
for
major
facilities
engaged
in
the
generation,
transmission
and/
or
distribution
of
electric
energy
for
sale
(
SIC
4911),
the
permit
backlog
is
30.3
percent
64,
that
is,
higher
than
other
categories
of
major
permits
(
data
indicate
a
backlog
of
23.1
percent
for
major
permits
in
general),
65
In
1998,
the
EPA
Office
of
Inspector
General
identified
the
backlog
in
issuance
of
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permits
as
a
material
weakness
pursuant
to
the
Federal
Managers'
Financial
Integrity
Act
(
FMFIA).
As
part
of
its
Fiscal
Year
2001
FMFIA
Report,
EPA
recommended
that
the
permit
backlog
be
identified
as
a
continuing
material
weaknesses
in
its
programs.
EPA's
Office
of
Water
is
examining
strategies
to
correct
this
weakness.
66
The
evidence
does
not,
however,
establish
that
section
316(
b)
determinations
are
a
factor
in
the
backlog
in
issuance
of
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permits.
EPA
is
also
aware
that
resources
available
to
State
permitting
agencies
are
limited.
In
a
recent
survey
conducted
by
ECOS
(
Environmental
Council
of
States)
67
on
States
environmental
agency
budget
reductions
during
the
current
fiscal
year
and
for
the
upcoming
fiscal
year,
42
States
reported
that
their
agency
was
asked
to
cut
or
reduce
their
budgets
for
the
current
fiscal
year.
68
For
the
following
fiscal
year,
23
of
the
responding
States
expected
additional
budget
cuts.
EPA
is
aware
that
at
least
one
State,
the
State
of
Maryland,
has
used
State
law
to
impose
a
small
surcharge
on
electric
bills
in
the
State
to
support
a
State
research
program,
and
that
funds
from
that
program
are
used
for
section
316(
b)
studies.
EPA
seeks
additional
information
and
data
on
the
resources
necessary
and
available
for
the
review
of
section
316(
b)
determinations
in
existing
facilities'
permit
renewals.
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
the
resource
requirements
of
the
sitespecific
approach
also
have
served
as
a
disincentive
to
a
comprehensive
revisiting
of
section
316(
b)
permit
conditions
during
each
renewal
(
typically
every
5
years),
despite
advances
in
technologies
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
the
above
discussion
of
the
resource
implications
of
implementing
the
requirements
of
section
316(
b)
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
EPA
invites
comment
on
how
the
workload
of
a
site­
specific
approach
could
be
streamlined
so
as
to
provide
for
the
benefits
of
a
site­
specific
approach
(
e.
g.,
application
of
technologies
specifically
tailored
to
sitespecific
conditions)
while
recognizing
the
resource
constraints
faced
by
so
many
permitting
agencies.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17168
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
D.
Why
EPA
Is
Not
Considering
Dry
Cooling
Anywhere?

EPA
conducted
a
full
analysis
for
the
new
facility
rule
(
Phase
I)
and
rejected
dry
cooling
as
an
economically
practicable
option
on
a
national
basis.
Dry
cooling
systems
use
either
a
natural
or
a
mechanical
air
draft
to
transfer
heat
from
condenser
tubes
to
air.
In
conventional
closed­
cycle
recirculating
wet
cooling
towers,
cooling
water
that
has
been
used
to
cool
the
condensers
is
pumped
to
the
top
of
a
recirculating
cooling
tower;
as
the
heated
water
falls,
it
cools
through
an
evaporative
process
and
warm,
moist
air
rises
out
of
the
tower,
often
creating
a
vapor
plume.
Hybrid
wet­
dry
cooling
towers
employ
both
a
wet
section
and
dry
section
and
reduce
or
eliminate
the
visible
plumes
associated
with
wet
cooling
towers.
For
the
new
facility
rule,
EPA
evaluated
zero
or
nearly
zero
intake
flow
regulatory
alternatives,
based
on
the
use
of
dry
cooling
systems.
EPA
determined
that
the
annual
compliance
cost
to
industry
for
this
option
would
be
at
least
$
490
million.
EPA
based
the
costs
on
121
facilities
having
to
install
dry
cooling.
The
cost
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
be
significantly
higher.
EPA
estimates
that
539
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
be
subject
to
this
proposal.
The
cost
would
be
significantly
higher
because
existing
facilities
have
less
flexibility,
thus
incurring
higher
compliance
costs
(
capital
and
operating)
than
new
facilities.
For
example,
existing
facilities
might
need
to
upgrade
or
modify
existing
turbines,
condensers,
and/
or
cooling
water
conduit
systems,
which
typically
imposes
greater
costs
than
use
of
the
same
technology
at
a
new
facility.
In
addition,
retrofitting
a
dry
cooling
tower
at
an
existing
facility
would
require
shutdown
periods
during
which
the
facility
would
lose
both
production
and
revenues,
and
decrease
the
thermal
efficiency
of
an
electric
generating
facility.
The
disparity
in
costs
and
operating
efficiency
of
dry
cooling
systems
compared
with
wet
cooling
systems
is
considerable
when
viewed
on
a
nationwide
or
regional
basis.
For
example,
under
a
uniform
national
requirement
based
on
dry
cooling,
facilities
in
the
southern
regions
of
the
U.
S.
would
be
at
an
unfair
competitive
disadvantage
compared
to
those
in
cooler
northern
climates.
Even
under
a
regional
subcategorization
strategy
for
facilities
in
cool
climatic
regions
of
the
U.
S.,
adoption
of
a
minimum
requirement
based
on
dry
cooling
could
impose
unfair
competitive
restrictions
for
steam
electric
power
generating
facilities.
This
relates
primarily
to
the
elevated
capital
and
operating
costs
associated
with
dry
cooling.
Adoption
of
requirements
based
on
dry
cooling
for
a
subcategory
of
facilities
under
a
particular
capacity
would
pose
similar
competitive
disadvantages
for
those
facilities.
EPA
does
not
consider
dry
cooling
a
reasonable
option
for
a
national
requirement,
nor
for
subcategorization
under
this
proposal,
because
the
technology
of
dry
cooling
carries
costs
that
are
sufficient
to
cause
significant
closures
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
Dry
cooling
technology
would
also
have
a
significant
detrimental
effect
on
electricity
production
by
reducing
energy
efficiency
of
steam
turbines.
Unlike
a
new
facility
that
can
use
direct
dry
cooling,
an
existing
facility
that
retrofits
for
dry
cooling
would
most
likely
use
indirect
dry
cooling
which
is
much
less
efficient
than
direct
dry
cooling.
In
contrast
to
direct
dry
cooling,
indirect
dry
cooling
does
not
operate
as
an
air­
cooled
condenser.
In
other
words,
the
steam
is
not
condensed
within
the
structure
of
the
dry
cooling
tower,
but
instead
indirectly
through
an
indirect
heat
exchanger.
Therefore,
the
indirect
dry
cooling
system
would
need
to
overcome
additional
heat
resistance
in
the
shell
of
the
condenser
compared
to
the
direct
dry
cooling
system.
Ultimately,
the
inefficiency
penalties
of
indirect
dry
cooling
systems
will
exceed
those
of
direct
dry
cooling
systems
in
all
cases.
Although
the
dry
cooling
option
is
extremely
effective
at
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
and
would
yield
annual
benefits
of
$
138.2
million
for
impingement
reductions
and
$
1.33
billion
for
entrainment
reductions,
it
does
so
at
a
cost
that
would
be
unacceptable.
EPA
recognizes
that
dry
cooling
technology
uses
extremely
low­
level
or
no
cooling
water
intake,
thereby
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
of
organisms
to
dramatically
low
levels.
However,
EPA
interprets
the
use
of
the
word
``
minimize''
in
section
316(
b)
in
a
manner
that
allows
EPA
the
discretion
to
consider
technologies
that
very
effectively
reduce,
but
do
not
completely
eliminate,
impingement
and
entrainment
and
therefore
meet
the
requirements
of
section
316(
b).
Although
EPA
has
rejected
dry
cooling
technology
as
a
national
minimum
requirement,
EPA
does
not
intend
to
restrict
the
use
of
dry
cooling
or
to
dispute
that
dry
cooling
may
be
the
appropriate
cooling
technology
for
some
facilities.
For
example,
facilities
that
are
repowering
and
replacing
the
entire
infrastructure
of
the
facility
may
find
that
dry
cooling
is
an
acceptable
technology
in
some
cases.
A
State
may
choose
to
use
its
own
authorities
to
require
dry
cooling
in
areas
where
the
State
finds
its
fishery
resources
need
additional
protection
above
the
levels
provided
by
these
technology­
based
minimum
standards.

E.
What
Is
the
Role
of
Restoration
and
Trading?

1.
Restoration
Measures
Restoration
measures,
as
used
in
the
context
of
section
316(
b)
determinations,
include
practices
that
seek
to
conserve
fish
or
aquatic
organisms,
compensate
for
lost
fish
or
aquatic
organisms,
or
increase
or
enhance
available
aquatic
habitat
used
by
any
life
stages
of
entrained
or
impinged
species.
Such
measures
have
been
employed
in
some
cases
in
the
past
as
one
of
several
means
of
fulfilling
the
requirements
imposed
by
section
316(
b).
Examples
of
restoration
measures
that
have
been
included
as
conditions
of
permits
include
creating,
enhancing,
or
restoring
wetlands;
developing
or
operating
fish
hatcheries
or
fish
stocking
programs;
removing
impediments
to
fish
migration;
and
other
projects
designed
to
replace
fish
or
restore
habitat
valuable
to
aquatic
organisms.
Restoration
measures
have
been
used,
however,
on
an
inconsistent
and
somewhat
limited
basis
in
the
context
of
the
316(
b)
program.
Their
role
under
section
316(
b)
has
never
been
explicitly
addressed
in
EPA
regulations
or
guidance
until
EPA
promulgated
the
final
section
316(
b)
regulations
for
new
facilities,
which
is
discussed
below
in
more
detail.
Prior
to
the
section
316(
b)
new
facility
regulations,
restoration
projects
were
undertaken
as
part
of
section
316(
b)
determinations
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities
and
in
permitting
actions
where
the
cost
of
the
proposed
technology
was
considered
to
be
wholly
disproportionate
to
the
demonstrated
environmental
benefits
that
could
be
achieved.
Often
such
cases
involved
situations
where
retrofitting
with
a
technology
such
as
cooling
towers
was
under
consideration.
In
addition
to
the
role
for
restoration
outlined
as
part
of
the
today's
proposed
rule
(
see
Section
VI.
A.
above),
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
following
alternatives
for
restoration
as
part
of
regulations
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities.

a.
The
Role
of
Restoration
in
the
Section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Regulations
The
final
rule
for
new
facilities
includes
restoration
measures
as
part
of
Track
II.
EPA
did
not
include
restoration
in
Track
I
because
it
was
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17169
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
69
In
re
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
John
Sevier
Steam
Plant,
NPDES
Permit
No.
TN0005436
(
1986);
In
re
Florida
Power
Corp.
Crystal
River
Power
Plant
Units
1,
2,
&
3,
NPDES
Permit
FL0000159
(
1988);
Chalk
Point,
MDE,
State
of
Maryland,
Discharge
Permit,
Potomac
Electric
Power
Co.,
State
Discharge
Permit
No.
81
 
DP
 
0627B,
NPDES
Permit
No.
MD0002658B
(
1987,
modified
1991);
Draft
NJDEP
Permit
Renewal
Including
Section
316(
a)
Variance
Determination
and
Section
316(
b)
BTA
Decision:
NJDEP
Permit
No.
NJ0005622
(
1993).
intended
to
be
expeditious
and
provide
certainty
for
the
regulated
community
and
a
streamlined
review
process
for
the
permitting
authority.
To
do
this
for
new
facilities,
EPA
defined
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
in
terms
of
reduction
of
impingement
and
entrainment,
a
relatively
straightforward
metric
for
environmental
performance
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
In
contrast,
restoration
measures
in
general
require
complex
and
lengthy
planning,
implementation,
and
evaluation
of
the
effects
of
the
measures
on
the
populations
of
aquatic
organisms
or
the
ecosystem
as
a
whole.
EPA
included
restoration
measures
in
Track
II
to
the
extent
that
the
Director
determines
that
the
measures
taken
will
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
in
a
manner
that
represents
performance
comparable
to
that
achieved
in
Track
I.
Applicants
in
Track
II
need
not
undertake
restoration
measures,
but
they
may
choose
to
undertake
such
measures.
Thus,
to
the
extent
that
such
measures
achieve
performance
comparable
to
that
achieved
in
Track
I,
it
is
within
EPA's
authority
to
authorize
the
use
of
such
measures
in
the
place
of
Track
I
requirements.
This
is
similar
to
the
compliance
alternative
approach
EPA
took
in
the
effluent
guidelines
program
for
Pesticide
Chemicals:
Formulating,
Packaging
and
Repackaging.
There
EPA
established
a
numeric
limitation
but
also
a
set
of
best
management
practices
that
would
accomplish
the
same
numeric
limitations.
See
61
FR
57518,
57521
(
Nov.
6,
1997).
EPA
believed
that
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
provided
EPA
with
sufficient
authority
to
allow
the
use
of
voluntary
restoration
measures
in
lieu
of
the
specific
requirements
of
Track
I
where
the
performance
is
substantially
similar
under
the
principles
of
Chevron
USA
v.
NRDC,
467
U.
S.
837,
844
 
45
(
1984).
In
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
Congress
is
silent
concerning
the
role
of
restoration
technologies
both
in
the
statute
and
in
the
legislative
history,
either
by
explicitly
authorizing
or
explicitly
precluding
their
use.
In
the
context
of
the
new
facility
rule
EPA
also
believes
that
appropriate
restoration
measures
or
conservation
measures
that
are
undertaken
on
a
voluntary
basis
by
a
new
facility
to
meet
the
requirements
of
that
rule
fall
within
EPA's
authority
to
regulate
the
``
design''
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Bailey
v.
U.
S.,
516
U.
S.
137
(
1995)
(
In
determining
the
meaning
of
words
used
in
a
statute,
the
court
considers
not
only
the
bare
meaning
of
the
word,
but
also
its
placement
and
purpose
in
the
statutory
scheme.)
In
the
new
facility
rule
EPA
recognized
that
restoration
measures
have
been
used
at
existing
facilities
implementing
section
316(
b)
on
a
caseby
case,
best
professional
judgment
basis
as
an
innovative
tool
or
as
a
tool
to
conserve
fish
or
aquatic
organisms,
compensate
for
the
fish
or
aquatic
organisms
killed,
or
enhance
the
aquatic
habitat
harmed
or
destroyed
by
the
operation
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Under
Track
II,
that
flexibility
will
continue
to
be
available
to
new
facilities
to
the
extent
that
they
can
demonstrate
performance
comparable
to
that
achieved
in
Track
I.
For
example,
if
a
new
facility
that
chooses
Track
II
is
on
an
impaired
waterbody,
that
facility
may
choose
to
demonstrate
that
velocity
controls
in
concert
with
measures
to
improve
the
productivity
of
the
waterbody
will
result
in
performance
comparable
to
that
achieved
in
Track
I.
The
additional
measures
may
include
such
things
as
reclamation
of
abandoned
mine
lands
to
eliminate
or
reduce
acid
mine
drainage
along
a
stretch
of
the
waterbody,
establishment
of
riparian
buffers
or
other
barriers
to
reduce
runoff
of
solids
and
nutrients
from
agricultural
or
silvicultural
lands,
removal
of
barriers
to
fish
migration,
or
creation
of
new
habitats
to
serve
as
spawning
or
nursery
areas.
Another
example
might
be
a
facility
that
chooses
to
demonstrate
that
flow
reductions
and
less
protective
velocity
controls,
in
concert
with
a
fish
hatchery
to
restock
fish
being
impinged
and
entrained
with
fish
that
perform
a
similar
function
in
the
community
structure,
will
result
in
performance
comparable
to
that
achieved
in
Track
I.
Finally,
in
the
new
facility
rule,
EPA
recognized
that
it
may
not
always
be
possible
to
establish
quantitatively
that
the
reduction
in
impact
on
fish
and
shellfish
is
comparable
using
the
types
of
measures
discussed
above
as
would
be
achieved
in
Track
I,
due
to
data
and
modeling
limitations.
Despite
such
limitations,
EPA
stated
that
there
may
be
situations
where
a
qualitative
demonstration
of
comparable
performance
could
reasonably
assure
substantially
similar
performance.
For
that
reason,
EPA
provided,
in
§
125.86
of
the
new
facility
rule,
that
the
Track
II
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
should
show
that
either:
(
1)
The
Track
II
technologies
would
result
in
reduction
in
both
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
of
90
percent
or
greater
of
the
reduction
that
would
be
achieved
through
Track
I
(
quantitative
demonstration)
or,
(
2)
if
consideration
of
impacts
other
than
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
is
included,
the
Track
II
technologies
would
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
at
a
substantially
similar
level
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
Track
I
(
quantitative
or
qualitative
demonstration).

b.
Restoration
Approaches
Being
Considered
for
the
Existing
Facilities
Rule
In
the
existing
facilities
rule,
EPA
is
proposing
to
allow
restoration
as
one
means
of
satisfying
the
compliance
requirements
for
any
one
of
the
three
alternatives
in
§
125.94(
a).
The
demonstration
a
facility
would
make
to
show
that
the
restoration
measures
provide
comparable
performance
to
design
and
construction
technologies
and/
or
operational
measures
would
be
similar
to
the
demonstration
that
a
facility
would
make
under
Track
II
in
the
new
facility
rule.
EPA
is
also
inviting
comment
on
other
restoration
approaches
it
is
considering.
These
include
discretionary
and
mandatory
regulatory
approaches
involving
restoration
measures
as
well
as
restoration
banking,
which
are
discussed
below.

(
1)
Discretionary
Restoration
Approaches
An
approach
being
considered
by
EPA
would
provide
the
Director
with
the
discretion
to
specify
appropriate
restoration
measures
under
section
316(
b),
but
would
not
require
that
he
or
she
do
so.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
several
precedents
in
which
the
permitting
authority
allowed
the
use
of
restoration
measures
when
the
cost
to
retrofit
an
existing
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structures
with
control
technologies
was
determined
to
be
wholly
disproportionate
to
the
benefits
the
control
technology
would
provide
(
e.
g.,
John
Sevier,
Crystal
River,
Chalk
Point,
Salem).
69
(
2)
Mandatory
Restoration
Approach
Under
this
approach,
the
use
of
restoration
measures
would
be
required
as
an
element
of
a
section
316(
b)
determination
in
all
cases
or
in
some
defined
set
of
cases
(
e.
g.,
for
intake
structures
located
on
oceans,
estuaries,

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17170
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
or
tidal
rivers).
Restoration
would
be
required
to
compensate
for
organisms
that
were
not
protected
following
facility
installation
of
control
technologies.
Phase
II
existing
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
would
be
required
to
implement
some
form
of
restoration
measures
in
addition
to
implementing
direct
control
technologies
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
Under
this
approach,
an
existing
facility
would
submit
a
plan
to
restore
fish
and
shellfish
to
the
extent
necessary
for
offsetting
fish
and
shellfish
entrainment
and
impingement
losses
estimated
to
continue
to
occur
after
any
required
control
technology
is
installed.
This
restoration
plan
would
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Director
and
incorporated
in
the
permit.
This
is
similar
to
the
mitigation
sequence
used
under
CWA
section
404,
wherein
environmental
impacts
are
avoided
and
minimized
prior
to
consideration
of
compensatory
mitigation
measures
although
in
section
404,
not
all
projects
require
mitigation.
The
development
of
restoration
measures
applicable
to
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
focus
on
the
unique
situation
faced
by
each
facility
and
would
allow
for
review
and
comment
by
the
permitting
agency
and
the
public.

(
3)
Restoration
Banking
Restoration
plans
could
potentially
use
a
banking
mechanism
similar
to
those
used
in
the
CWA
section
404
program,
that
would
allow
the
permittee
to
meet
requirements
by
purchasing
restoration
credits
from
an
approved
bank.
For
example,
should
wetlands
restoration
be
an
appropriate
mechanism
for
offsetting
the
adverse
impact
caused
by
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
the
permittee
could
purchase
credits
from
an
existing
wetlands
mitigation
bank
established
in
accordance
with
the
Federal
Guidance
for
the
Establishment,
Use
and
Operation
of
Mitigation
Banks
(
50
FR
58605;
November
28,
1995).
As
in
the
CWA
section
404
program,
public
or
private
entities
could
establish
and
operate
the
banks
providing
mitigation
for
impacts
under
316(
b).
EPA
views
the
use
of
restoration
banking
for
the
purposes
of
this
proposed
rule
as
one
way
to
facilitate
compliance
and
reduce
the
burden
on
the
permit
applicant,
while
at
the
same
time
potentially
enhancing
the
ecological
effectiveness
of
the
required
restoration
activities.

2.
Entrainment
Trading
Under
§
125.90(
d)
of
today's
proposed
rule,
States
may
adopt
alternative
regulatory
requirements
that
will
result
in
environmental
performance
within
a
watershed
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
specified
in
the
proposed
§
125.94.
EPA
is
considering
an
approach
for
implementing
section
316(
b)
that
would
allow
specific
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
trade
entrainment
reductions
to
achieve
an
overall
standard
of
performance
for
entrainment
reduction
in
a
watershed
at
a
lower
cost
through
a
voluntary
State
or
authorized
Tribal
section
316(
b)
trading
program.
EPA
believes
such
an
approach
might
be
appropriate
in
light
of
section
316(
b)'
s
objective
of
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
goal
of
the
trading
approach
is
to
provide
an
incentive
for
some
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
implement
more
protective
technologies
than
required
by
today's
proposed
rule,
resulting
in
credits
that
can
be
traded
with
other
facilities
that
may
not
find
the
most
protective
technologies
economically
practicable.
EPA
acknowledges
that
the
trading
framework
that
EPA
is
contemplating
under
section
316(
b)
differs
from
previous
trading
strategies
implemented
by
EPA
because
it
involves
trading
living
resources
rather
than
pollutant
loads.
Because
this
is
a
novel
approach
to
trading,
it
raises
many
questions.
For
example,
how
would
the
program
address
concerns
that
some
species
have
greater
economic
value
than
others,
or
the
counter­
argument
that
some
species
may
not
be
economically
valuable
but
nonetheless
have
high
ecological
value?
What
is
an
appropriate
spatial
scale
under
which
trading
can
occur
to
ensure
protection
of
water
quality
and
aquatic
organisms?
The
following
section
addresses
these
questions
and
others
and
seeks
comment
on
the
appropriate
elements
of
a
trading
approach
under
section
316(
b)
that
would
conserve
and
protect
water
quality
and
aquatic
resources.

a.
Entrainment
Reduction
vs.
Impingement
Reduction
as
a
Basis
for
Trading
Entrainment
and
impingement
are
the
main
causes
of
adverse
environmental
impact
from
cooling
water
intake
withdrawals.
However,
impingement
reduction
technologies
are
relatively
inexpensive
compared
to
entrainment
reduction
(
see
Chapter
2
of
the
Technical
Development
Document
for
the
New
Facility
Rule,
EPA
 
821
 
R
 
01
 
036,
November
2001).
Impingement
reduction
measures
include
decreasing
intake
velocities
and
installation
of
traveling
screens
with
fish
baskets
and
fish
return
systems.
The
implementation
of
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program
for
impingement
may
not
justify
the
cost
of
monitoring
susceptible
species
and
administrating
the
program.
EPA
believes
that
a
trading
program
that
focuses
on
entrainment
is
more
viable.
However,
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
to
extend
trading
to
include
impingement
of
aquatic
organisms.
In
contrast
to
impingement
controls,
entrainment
reduction
technologies
can
be
relatively
expensive.
Section
316(
b)
trading
would
enable
smaller
facilities
that
cannot
afford
to
install
more
costly
technologies
to
reduce
their
costs
by
trading
with
other
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
face
relatively
lower
costs
of
entrainment
reduction.
For
the
purpose
of
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program,
an
entrainment
reduction
performance
standard
for
a
watershed
would
be
set
by
the
authorized
State
or
Tribe
within
the
range
of
60
to
90
percent
for
all
life
stages
of
entrained
fish
and
shellfish.
The
performance
standard
would
be
set
to
reflect
sitespecific
facility
and
ecological
characteristics.
All
facilities
located
in
the
watershed
would
need
to
reach
the
performance
standard
through
the
installation
of
technologies
to
reduce
entrainment
(
or,
potentially,
restoration
measures
to
compensate
for
entrainment
losses
at
the
facility).
A
facility
that
can
afford
to
implement
technologies
to
reduce
entrainment
above
the
performance
standard
would
have
entrainment
reduction
credits
to
sell
to
other
facilities
that
cannot
afford
or
choose
not
to
meet
the
performance
standard
by
technology
alone.
EPA
notes
that
in
§
125.94(
c)
of
today's
proposed
rule,
Phase
II
existing
facilities
may
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
if
the
costs
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
are
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
EPA
considered
when
establishing
the
performance
standards
or
significantly
greater
than
site­
specific
benefits.
If
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program
was
available,
these
facilities
could
potentially
have
a
lower
cost
option
for
meeting
the
applicable
performance
standard
for
their
respective
waterbodies
by
purchasing
credits
from
another
facility
that
implements
more
protective
technologies.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
whether
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program
would
generally
afford
greater
watershed
protection
by
increasing
the
number
of
facilities
meeting
the
performance
standard
and
whether
consideration
of
credit
purchases
should
be
mandatory
prior
to
the
Director
setting
alternative
requirements.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2