Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0003
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 2.
Posted Date: 2002-04-09T04:00Z

17171
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
b.
What
Should
Be
the
Spatial
Scale
for
Trading?

EPA
is
considering
limiting
the
zone
within
which
trading
may
occur
among
Phase
II
existing
facilities
subject
to
section
316(
b).
Due
to
site­
specific
differences
in
species
and
life
stages
of
entrained
organisms,
the
scale
of
the
trading
zone
would
be
set
to
minimize
these
differences
as
much
as
possible.
Trading
would
be
most
protective
if
it
occurred
among
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
generally
entrain
the
same
species
and
life
stages
at
relatively
similar
densities
per
unit
flow
through
the
facility.
Thus,
EPA
would
prefer
that
trades
be
conducted
by
Phase
II
existing
facilities
sited
in
waterbodies
that
share
similar
ecological
characteristics,
regardless
of
the
relative
geographic
proximity
of
the
facilities
to
each
other.
EPA
is
also
considering
limiting
trades
to
specific
waterbodies,
specific
watersheds,
or
general
waterbody
types
(
tidal
rivers,
estuaries,
oceans).
Preliminary
EPA
analyses
indicate
that
some
of
these
options
may
increase
the
number
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
eligible
to
trade
and
thus
may
produce
sufficient
opportunities
to
reduce
the
cost
of
meeting
the
performance
standard,
allowing
for
a
broader
range
of
trades.

(
1)
Specific
Waterbody
If
section
316(
b)
trades
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
were
limited
on
an
individual
waterbody
basis,
EPA
estimates
that
there
would
be
a
total
of
132
Phase
II
existing
facilities
in
40
specific
waterbodies
eligible
to
trade.
In
order
to
be
eligible
to
trade,
each
facility
involved
in
the
trade
would
need
to
be
located
on
the
same
waterbody
and
required
to
meet
the
performance
standard
of
the
waterbody.
Further
limits
would
have
to
be
placed
on
trading
in
very
large
waterbodies
(
e.
g.,
Mississippi
River,
Pacific
Ocean,
Atlantic
Ocean)
to
ensure
that
the
facilities
are
within
similar
climatic
zones,
and
thus
entrain
similar
species.
Allowing
trading
among
Phase
II
existing
facilities
and
those
that
may
be
subject
to
Phase
III
regulations
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
could
increase
opportunities
for
facilities
to
trade
intake
control
requirements.

(
2)
Specific
Watershed
By
limiting
trading
on
a
watershed
basis,
the
problems
posed
by
very
large
waterbodies
are
eliminated;
however,
the
zone
may
include
different
types
of
waterbodies
that
may
harbor
different
species
of
organisms.
Hydrologic
Unit
Codes
(
HUC)
were
developed
by
the
United
States
Geological
Survey
(
USGS)
to
divide
the
conterminous
United
States
by
drainage
basins.
As
the
number
of
digits
in
the
code
increases,
the
drainage
basin
delineation
becomes
more
refined.
Eight­
digit
codes
represent
the
fourth
level
of
classification
in
the
hierarchy
of
hydrologic
units,
where
each
code
represents
all
or
part
of
a
surface
drainage
basin.
There
are
2,150
eightdigit
HUCs
in
the
conterminous
United
States.
In
order
to
be
eligible
to
trade
under
this
approach,
all
facilities
involved
in
the
trade
would
be
located
in
the
same
eight­
digit
HUC.
EPA
invites
comment
on
these
and
other
potential
trading
zones
for
section
316(
b)
trading
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities.

(
3)
General
Waterbody
Type
EPA
is
also
considering
a
site­
specific
approach
that
would
require
facilities
to
study
and
provide
data
on
the
numbers,
life
stages,
and
species
of
organisms
entrained
in
order
to
be
properly
matched
for
trading
with
another
Phase
II
existing
facility
on
the
same
waterbody
type
(
e.
g.,
tidal
river,
estuary,
ocean,
Great
Lake)
which
entrains
the
similar
numbers,
life
stages,
and
species
of
organisms.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
this
approach
which
allows
trades
to
occur
among
facilities
on
the
same
general
waterbody
type,
but
not
necessarily
the
same
waterbody.

c.
What
Should
Be
the
Unit
(
Credit)
for
Trading?
A
trading
option
requires
a
definition
of
the
trading
commodity
and
the
unit,
or
credit,
that
would
be
traded.
In
contrast
to
pollutant­
specific
trading,
which
is
normally
based
on
the
pounds
of
a
single
pollutant
released
into
the
environment
or
reduced
from
a
source,
trading
of
entrained
species
can
involve
a
variety
of
fish
and
shellfish
species
and
their
life
stages,
and
may
be
highly
variable
among
facilities.
Therefore,
it
could
be
difficult
to
define
a
trading
unit
and
substantial
oversight
would
be
needed
under
any
of
these
trading
units
to
determine
if
the
trade
complied
with
the
underlying
performance
standards
from
year
to
year,
or
another
appropriate
period.
In
developing
this
proposal,
EPA
considered
a
variety
of
potential
trading
credits
and
invites
comment
on
these
and
other
potential
trading
units.
EPA
is
specifically
interested
in
comments
on
whether
entrainment
trading
should
be
species­
specific,
have
weighted
values
for
different
species,
or
simply
be
net
biomass
entrainment
expressed
in
mass.
EPA
is
also
considering
use
of
restoration
measures
in
conjunction
with
any
of
the
trading
units
discussed
below.
Please
see
section
VI.
E.
1
of
the
preamble
to
today's
proposed
rule
for
additional
information
and
discussion
on
restoration.

(
1)
Species
Density
Trading
based
on
the
density
of
entrained
species
life
stages
(
the
number
of
eggs,
larvae,
juvenile
and
small
fish
for
all
fish
and
shellfish
species
entrained
per
unit
of
flow
through
a
facility)
is
EPA's
preferred
approach
because
it
would
account
for
differences
among
facilities
in
the
number
of
organisms
entrained
per
unit
flow
and
would,
in
a
sense,
standardize
entrainment
losses
with
intake
flow
withdrawals.
Under
this
approach,
trading
would
be
restricted
to
those
Phase
II
existing
facilities
sited
at
waterbodies
with
similar
ecological
zones,
such
as
the
transitional
zone
between
saline
and
freshwater
portions
of
an
estuary.
Because
many
aquatic
species
tend
to
inhabit
specific
zones
within
a
waterbody
during
their
life
histories,
restricting
trade
to
individual
zones
would
ensure
that
similar
species
at
similar
densities
are
traded.
In
order
for
a
trade
to
occur,
the
facilities
involved
must
historically
entrain
similar
species.
Under
this
approach
the
comparable
worth
of
the
unit
of
flow
would
be
dependent
upon
the
density
of
the
species
entrained
(
see
example
below).
Thus,
if
a
facility
entrains
twice
as
many
organisms
as
another
facility,
its
flow
would
be
worth
comparably
twice
as
much.
This
approach
would
ensure
that
all
species
entrained
are
protected,
but
may
limit
the
number
of
trades
possible.
It
is
possible
that
use
of
this
approach
may
lead
to
overprotection
or
under­
protection
of
some
species
since
the
average
density
of
all
fish
and
shellfish
would
be
used
rather
than
the
density
for
individual
species.

(
2)
Species
Counts
Another
option
for
a
trading
unit
is
entrained
organism
counts
by
species,
life
stage,
and
size.
These
types
of
measurements
are
routinely
collected
as
part
of
historical
facility
demonstration
studies.
This
option
would
be
protective
of
all
life
stages
independently,
but
would
require
significant
expenditures
of
time
and
resources.
Entrained
organisms
would
need
to
be
identified
to
fairly
precise
taxonomic
levels
and
organized
by
life
stage
and
size
classes.
This
option
would
best
address
the
question
of
different
economic
values
versus
ecological
values
of
species
since
it
would
allow
different
monetary
values
to
be
set
for
each
species.
Although
this
option
would
allow
for
comparable
species­
by­
species
trading
among
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
EPA
is
concerned
that
it
may
also
result
in
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17172
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
complex
trading
transactions.
Also,
the
number
of
each
species
entrained
by
a
facility
can
vary
substantially
each
year
for
many
reasons,
including
facility
outages
and
extreme
weather
events.
Substantial
oversight
might
be
needed
to
determine
if
the
trade
achieved
the
underlying
technology­
based
performance
standard
from
year
to
year,
or
other
appropriate
period,
for
compliance.

(
3)
Biomass
Another
potential
measure
that
can
be
used
for
trading
is
the
biomass
of
entrained
organisms.
Biomass
is
defined
as
the
weight
of
living
material
(
plant
and
animal)
and
can
be
measured
in
pounds
or
kilograms.
Measuring
the
biomass
of
organisms
entrained
by
facility
intakes
would
be
relatively
fast
and
easy
to
quantify.
However,
the
pound/
kilogram
as
a
unit
of
measurement
does
not
take
into
account
species
variations
found
at
different
facility
locations
and
within
multiple
waterbody
types.
Thus,
as
a
result
of
adopting
this
unit
of
measurement,
it
would
be
impossible
to
distinguish
between
different
species,
or
even
different
kingdoms.
Because
the
weights
of
all
entrained
organisms
are
combined
into
a
total
mass,
biomass
measurement
may
not
be
equally
protective
of
all
species
and
life
stages,
and
larger,
heavier
organisms
may
bias
final
results.
Over
time,
biomass
trading
may
upset
the
natural
equilibrium
of
certain
species
and/
or
impact
the
functionality
of
the
entire
ecosystem
should
some
species
be
entrained
more
frequently
than
others.
However,
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
biomass
trading
might
be
limited
to
certain
zones
of
certain
waterbodies
or
waterbody
types,
in
a
manner
similar
to
that
described
above
for
species­
density
trading
to
address
some
of
these
concerns.

d.
Example
of
Section
316(
b)
Trading
Under
EPA's
Preferred
Alternative
(
Species
Density)
Facility
A
is
an
existing
750
MGD
facility
located
in
an
estuary.
Facility
B
is
an
existing
350
MGD
facility
located
at
the
mouth
of
the
same
estuary.
The
performance
standard
for
this
estuary
has
been
set
by
the
authorized
State
or
Tribe
at
a
75
percent
reduction
of
entrainment
for
all
facilities.
Facility
A
determines
that
it
can
install
a
cooling
tower
at
relatively
low
cost.
The
installation
of
the
cooling
tower
reduces
the
facility's
flow
by
95
percent.
Using
the
standard
assumption
that
entrained
organisms
behave
like
passive
water
molecules,
this
flow
reduction
will,
on
a
long­
term
average
basis,
reduce
entrainment
by
95
percent
at
Facility
A.
In
effect,
Facility
A
has
reduced
its
entrainment
by
20
percent
more
than
it
needs
to
in
order
to
provide
its
share
toward
meeting
the
performance
standard
of
75
percent
for
the
estuary.
Because
of
its
small
size,
Facility
B
determines
that
it
is
not
cost
effective
to
reduce
entrainment
by
75
percent.
Instead,
Facility
B
chooses
to
install
fine
mesh
wedgewire
screens,
which
reduce
its
entrainment
by
60
percent.
Facility
B
could
possibly
make
up
for
the
remaining
15
percent
of
its
share
to
meet
the
estuary's
performance
standard
by
trading.
Based
on
historical
monitoring
data,
Facility
A
entrains
alewife,
Atlantic
croaker,
Atlantic
menhaden,
bay
anchovy,
blueback
herring,
silversides,
spot,
striped
bass,
weakfish
and
white
perch.
The
average
number,
across
many
years
of
data,
of
all
life
stages
of
all
species
entrained
is
417,210
fish
per
day.
Per
gallon
of
water
used,
it
entrains
0.000556
fish
(
417,210/
750,000,000).
Facility
B
also
entrains
alewife,
Atlantic
croaker,
Atlantic
menhaden,
bay
anchovy,
blueback
herring,
silversides,
spot,
striped
bass,
weakfish,
and
white
perch
as
determined
by
historical
monitoring
data.
Facility
B
historically
entrains
the
same
species
of
fish
as
Facility
A
as
they
withdraw
water
from
the
same
waterbody.
The
average
number,
across
many
years
of
data,
of
all
life
stages
of
all
species
entrained
is
322,620
fish
per
day.
Per
gallon
of
water
used,
it
entrains
0.000922
fish
(
322,620/
350,000,000).
Based
on
density,
Facility
B
entrains
1.658
times
as
many
fish
as
Facility
A
per
unit
flow
(
0.000922/
0.000556).
This
is
the
average
density
ratio
of
organisms
entrained.
Facility
B
needs
to
make
up
for
15
percent
of
its
share
toward
the
estuary's
performance
standard
for
entrainment
reduction.
Again,
using
the
standard
assumption
that
entrained
organisms
behave
like
passive
water
molecules,
the
simplified
1:
1
relationship
between
flow
and
entrainment
from
Facility
A
is
also
used
for
Facility
B
in
this
example.
Therefore,
Facility
B
needs
to
compensate
for
the
environmental
effects
caused
by
15
percent
of
its
flow,
or
52,500,000
gallons
of
resource
use
(
0.15
*
350,000,000).
Since
Facility
A
has
reduced
entrainment
20
percent
more
than
required,
it
has
150,000,000
gallons
of
resource
use
available
for
trading
(
0.20
*
750,000,000).
A
trade
could
be
made
between
these
two
facilities
because
they
are
located
on
the
same
waterbody,
they
both
must
install
entrainment
controls,
and
the
same
species
are
present
in
their
respective
entrainment
numbers.
The
average
density
ratio
of
organisms
entrained
multiplied
by
the
gallons
of
resource
use
needed
by
Facility
B
would
equal
the
gallons
of
resource
use
that
Facility
B
would
need
to
buy
from
Facility
A
in
order
to
make
up
for
the
difference
in
the
density
of
the
species
the
two
facilities
entrain.
Based
on
the
discrepancy
in
the
average
density
of
organisms
entrained
as
calculated
above,
in
order
to
trade
with
Facility
A,
Facility
B
must
purchase
entrainment
credits
for
1.658
times
as
many
gallons
as
it
needs.
Thus,
Facility
B
needs
to
purchase
87,045,000
gallons
of
resource
use
from
Facility
A
(
1.658
*
52,500,000).

e.
Trading
Option
for
New
Facilities
EPA
is
considering
extending
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program
beyond
the
Phase
II
rule
for
existing
electric
generation
facilities.
Those
facilities
that
are
covered
by
the
Phase
I
rule
(
new
facilities)
might
be
allowed
to
participate
in
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program.
New
facilities
could
implement
technological
controls
beyond
what
is
required
under
the
Phase
I
rule.
In
general,
if
more
facilities
were
allowed
to
trade,
there
would
be
an
increased
degree
of
competitiveness
in
trading
and
it
would
become
easier
to
meet
the
performance
standard
because
entrainment
reductions
would
be
shared
by
multiple
facilities.
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
option
of
extending
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program
to
new
facilities.

f.
Voluntary
Adoption
of
Trading
by
Authorized
States
and
Tribes
Under
EPA's
preferred
alternative
for
section
316(
b)
trading,
authorized
States
or
Tribes
would
decide
whether
to
voluntarily
adopt
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program.
EPA
notes
that
authorized
States
and
Tribes
would
first
need
to
adopt
the
appropriate
legal
authority
to
conduct
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program.
In
general,
EPA
believes
that
States
and
Tribes
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
dynamics,
value,
and
overall
quality
of
their
local
waterbodies
based
on
assigned
designated
uses,
305(
b)
monitoring
reports,
and
other
relevant
information
and
studies
compiled
over
time.
Thus,
authorized
States
or
Tribes
may
be
in
a
better
position
to
judge
whether
or
not
to
develop
and
implement
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program.
Although
EPA
acknowledges
that
a
nationally­
run
section
316(
b)
trading
program
may
enhance
uniformity,
EPA
is
concerned
that
a
national
program
may
not
be
feasible
because
of
differences
in
species;
habitats;
waterbody
characteristics;
and
the
variety,
nature,
and
magnitude
of
environmental
impacts
from
cooling
water
intake
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17173
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
structures
found
across
the
United
States.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
whether
a
national
registry
of
trades
and
associated
national
trading
guidance
would
be
appropriate.
A
voluntary
program
would
be
administered
by
the
authorized
State
or
Tribe.
Authorized
States
and
Tribes
that
participate
could
allow
trading
among
facilities
to
meet
the
entrainment
reduction
performance
standard.
Key
environmental
and
natural
resource
agencies,
industry
and
its
trade
associations,
and
local
environmental
groups
involved
in
the
protection
of
the
watershed
would
participate
in
the
authorized
State
or
Tribal
section
316(
b)
trading
program
through
the
public
comment
process.
The
program
would
also
include
consultation
with
from
relevant
Federal,
State
and
authorized
Tribal
resource
agencies
and
neighboring
authorized
States
and
Tribes
where
interstate
waters
are
affected
(
similar
to
stakeholder
involvement
under
the
NPDES
permitting
program).

g.
When
Would
the
Permits
Be
Reissued
to
Trading
Partners?
If
trades
under
section
316(
b)
are
done
on
a
watershed
basis,
and
permits
are
synchronized,
then
permits
would
be
reissued
to
trading
partners
at
the
same
time
according
to
the
permitting
authority's
standard
permit
renewal
cycle
(
e.
g.,
every
5
years).
With
permitting
authorities
that
have
moved
toward
a
watershed
permitting
strategy,
synchronizing
the
permit
renewal
process
for
all
trading
partners
in
a
geographic
area
reduces
some
administrative
cost
and
burden
on
the
permitting
authorities.
Alternatively,
a
trading
arrangement
may
not
be
specified
in
the
permit.
Instead,
the
permit
would
include
the
performance
standard
and
a
requirement
to
meet
that
standard.
Under
this
approach,
trades
could
occur
between
permitting
cycles.
Another
option
would
allow
trading
of
entrainment
units
between
Phase
II
existing
facilities
within
permit
cycles
at
the
discretion
of
each
authorized
State
or
Tribal
permitting
authority.
A
disadvantage
to
this
approach
is
the
additional
administrative
burden
borne
by
the
permitting
authorities.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
how
to
harmonize
the
reissuance
of
permits
with
trading
among
Phase
II
existing
facilities
under
section
316(
b).

h.
Implementation
and
Enforcement
Issues
for
Section
316(
b)
Trading
The
concept
of
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
presents
many
challenges
for
the
permitting
program
at
the
Federal,
State,
or
authorized
Tribe
level.
These
challenges
include
development
of
implementation
guidance,
incorporation
of
a
section
316(
b)
trade
tracking
system
within
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
or
through
some
other
tracking
mechanism,
self­
reporting
on
compliance
with
trade
agreements
(
similar
to
the
self­
reporting
conducted
through
use
of
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports),
determination
of
the
administrative
cost
and
burden
of
such
a
trading
program
and
EPA
oversight
of
whether
regulatory
requirements
for
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
are
met.
EPA
invites
comment
on
these
unique
challenges
and
any
others
regarding
implementation,
compliance
assessment,
and
enforcement
of
a
section
316(
b)
trading
program.

VII.
Implementation
As
in
the
new
facility
rule,
section
316(
b)
requirements
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
be
implemented
through
the
NPDES
permit
program.
Today's
proposal
would
establish
application
requirements
in
§
125.95,
monitoring
requirements
in
§
125.96,
and
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
§
125.97
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
MGD
or
more.
The
proposed
regulations
also
require
the
Director
to
review
application
materials
submitted
by
each
regulated
facility
and
include
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
requirements
in
the
permit
(
§
125.98).
EPA
will
develop
a
model
permit
and
permitting
guidance
to
assist
Directors
in
implementing
these
requirements
after
they
are
finalized.
In
addition,
the
Agency
will
develop
implementation
guidance
for
owners
and
operators
that
will
address
how
to
comply
with
the
application
requirements,
the
sampling
and
monitoring
requirements,
and
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
these
proposed
regulations.

A.
When
Does
the
Proposed
Rule
Become
Effective?

Phase
II
existing
facilities
subject
to
today's
proposed
rule
would
need
to
comply
with
the
Subpart
J
requirements
when
an
NPDES
permit
containing
requirements
consistent
with
Subpart
J
is
issued
to
the
facility.
See
proposed
§
125.92.
Under
existing
NPDES
program
regulations,
this
would
occur
when
an
existing
NPDES
permit
is
reissued
or,
when
an
existing
permit
is
modified
or
revoked
and
reissued.
B.
What
Information
Must
I
Submit
to
the
Director
When
I
Apply
for
My
Reissued
NPDES
Permit?

The
NPDES
regulations
that
establish
the
application
process
at
40
CFR
122.21(
d)(
2)
generally
require
that
facilities
currently
holding
a
permit
submit
information
and
data
180
days
prior
to
the
end
of
the
permit
term,
which
is
five
years.
If
you
are
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
that
is
subject
to
this
proposed
rule,
you
would
be
required
to
submit
the
information
that
is
required
under
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
5)
and
§
125.95
of
today's
proposed
rule
with
your
application
for
permit
reissuance.
This
section
provides
a
general
discussion
of
the
proposed
application
requirements
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
at
the
outset
and
then
goes
into
more
detail
in
subsequent
subsections.
The
Director
would
review
the
information
you
provide
in
your
application
including
the
information
submitted
in
compliance
with
40
CFR
122.21(
r)
and
§
125.95
and
would
confirm
whether
your
facility
should
be
regulated
as
an
existing
facility
under
these
proposed
regulations
or
as
a
new
facility
under
regulations
that
were
published
on
December
19,
2001
(
66
FR
65256)
and
establish
the
appropriate
requirements
to
be
applied
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s).
Today's
proposed
rule
would
modify
regulations
at
40
CFR
122.21(
r)
to
require
existing
facilities
to
prepare
and
submit
some
of
the
same
information
required
for
new
facilities.
The
proposed
application
requirements
would
require
owners
or
operators
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
submit
two
general
categories
of
information
when
they
apply
for
a
reissued
NPDES
permit.
The
general
categories
of
information
would
include
(
1)
Physical
data
to
characterize
the
source
waterbody
in
the
vicinity
where
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
are
located
(
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
2))
and
(
2)
data
to
characterize
the
design
and
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
(
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
3)).
Unlike
the
new
facilities,
however,
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
not
be
required
to
submit
the
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
required
under
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
4)).
Today's
proposed
rule
would
add
a
new
requirement
at
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
5)
to
require
a
facility
to
submit
information
describing
the
design
and
operating
characteristics
of
its
cooling
water
systems
and
how
they
relate
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
the
facility.
In
addition,
today's
proposed
rule
would
require
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
submit
the
information
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17174
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
required
under
§
125.95.
In
general,
the
proposed
application
requirements
in
§
125.95
require
all
Phase
II
existing
facility
applicants,
except
those
that
already
use
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system,
to
submit
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
(
§
125.95(
b)).
This
study
includes
a
proposal
for
information
collection;
source
waterbody
information;
a
characterization
of
impingement
morality
and
entrainment;
a
proposal
for
technologies,
operational
measures,
restoration
measures
and
estimated
efficacies;
and
a
plan
to
conduct
monitoring
to
demonstrate
that
the
proposed
technologies
and
measures
achieve
the
performance
levels
that
were
estimated.
The
following
describes
the
proposed
application
requirements
in
more
detail.

1.
Source
Water
Physical
Data
(
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
1)(
ii))
Under
the
proposed
requirements
at
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
1)(
ii),
Phase
II
existing
facilities
subject
to
this
proposed
rule
would
be
required
to
provide
the
source
water
physical
data
specified
at
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
2)
in
their
application
for
a
reissued
permit.
These
data
are
needed
to
characterize
the
facility
and
evaluate
the
type
of
waterbody
and
species
potentially
affected
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
Director
would
use
this
information
to
evaluate
the
appropriateness
of
the
design
and
construction
technologies
proposed
by
the
applicant.
The
applicant
would
be
required
to
submit
the
following
specific
data:
(
1)
A
narrative
description
and
scale
drawings
showing
the
physical
configuration
of
all
source
waterbodies
used
by
the
facility,
including
areal
dimensions,
depths,
salinity
and
temperature
regimes,
and
other
documentation;
(
2)
an
identification
and
characterization
of
the
source
waterbody's
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features,
as
well
as
the
methods
used
to
conduct
any
physical
studies
to
determine
the
intake's
zone
of
influence
and
the
results
of
such
studies;
and
(
3)
locational
maps.

2.
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Data
(
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
1)(
ii))
Under
the
proposed
requirements
at
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
1)(
ii),
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
be
required
to
submit
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
data
specified
at
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
3)
to
characterize
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
evaluate
the
potential
for
impingement
and
entrainment
of
aquatic
organisms.
Information
on
the
design
of
the
intake
structure
and
its
location
in
the
water
column
would
allow
the
permit
writer
to
evaluate
which
species
or
life
stages
would
potentially
be
subject
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
A
diagram
of
the
facility's
water
balance
would
be
used
to
identify
the
proportion
of
intake
water
used
for
cooling,
make­
up,
and
process
water.
The
water
balance
diagram
also
provides
a
picture
of
the
total
flow
in
and
out
of
the
facility,
allowing
the
permit
writer
to
evaluate
compliance
with
the
performance
standards.
The
applicant
would
be
required
to
submit
the
following
specific
data:
(
1)
A
narrative
description
of
the
configuration
of
each
of
its
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
where
they
are
located
in
the
waterbody
and
in
the
water
column;
(
2)
latitude
and
longitude
in
degrees,
minutes,
and
seconds
for
each
of
its
cooling
water
intake
structures;
(
3)
a
narrative
description
of
the
operation
of
each
of
your
cooling
water
intake
structures,
including
design
intake
flows,
daily
hours
of
operation,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation,
and
seasonal
operation
schedules,
if
applicable;
(
4)
a
flow
distribution
and
water
balance
diagram
that
includes
all
sources
of
water
to
the
facility,
recirculating
flows,
and
discharges;
and
(
5)
engineering
drawings
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.

3.
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Cooling
Water
System
Description
(
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
1)(
ii))
Under
the
proposed
requirements
at
40
CFR
122.22(
r)(
1)(
ii),
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
be
required
to
submit
the
cooling
water
system
data
specified
at
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
5)
to
characterize
the
operation
of
cooling
water
systems
and
their
relationship
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
the
facility.
Also
proposed
to
be
required
is
a
description
of
the
design
intake
flow
that
is
attributed
to
each
system
and
the
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation
and
any
seasonal
operation
schedules,
if
applicable.
This
information
would
be
used
by
the
applicant
and
the
Director
in
determining
the
appropriate
standards
that
can
be
applied
to
the
Phase
II
facility.
Facilities
that
have
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
water
systems
will
be
determined
to
have
met
the
performance
standards
in
§
125.94
if
all
of
their
systems
are
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems.
These
facilities
are
not
required
to
submit
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
Additionally,
if
only
a
portion
of
the
total
design
intake
flow
is
water
withdrawn
for
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system,
such
facilities
may
use
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
is
attributed
to
the
reduction
in
flow
in
complying
with
the
performance
standards
in
§
125.94(
b).

4.
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
(
§
125.95(
b))
Proposed
application
requirements
at
§
125.95(
b)
would
require
all
existing
facilities
except
those
deemed
to
have
met
the
performance
standard
in
§
125.94(
b)(
1)
(
reduced
intake
capacity
to
a
level
commensurate
with
the
use
of
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
water
system)
to
perform
and
submit
to
the
Director
the
results
of
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
including
data
and
detailed
analyses
to
demonstrate
that
you
will
meet
applicable
requirements
in
§
125.94.
The
proposed
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
has
seven
components.
 
Proposal
for
Information
Collection;
 
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information;
 
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study;
 
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan;
 
Information
to
Support
Proposed
Restoration
Measures;
 
Information
to
Support
Site­
specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact;
and
 
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
The
information
required
under
each
of
these
components
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
may
not
be
required
to
be
submitted
by
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
Required
submittals
for
your
facility
would
depend
on
the
compliance
option
you
have
chosen.
All
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
except
those
deemed
to
have
met
the
performance
standard
in
§
125.94(
b)(
1),
would
be
required
to
submit
a
Proposal
for
Information
Collection;
a
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information;
an
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study;
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan;
and
a
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
Only
those
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
propose
to
use
restoration
measures
in
whole
or
in
part
to
meet
the
performance
standards
in
§
125.94
would
be
required
to
submit
the
Information
to
Support
Proposed
Restoration
Measures.
Only
those
facilities
who
choose
to
demonstrate
that
a
site­
specific
standard
is
appropriate
for
their
site
would
be
required
to
submit
Information
to
Support
Site­
specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17175
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
a.
Proposal
for
Information
Collection
Before
performing
the
study
you
would
be
required
to
submit
to
the
Director
for
review
and
approval,
a
proposal
stating
what
information
would
be
collected
to
support
the
study
(
see
§
125.96(
b)(
1)).
This
proposal
would
provide:
(
1)
A
description
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technology(
ies)
and/
or
supplemental
restoration
measures
to
be
evaluated;
(
2)
a
list
and
description
of
any
historical
studies
characterizing
impingement
and
entrainment
and/
or
the
physical
and
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
their
relevance
to
this
proposed
study.
If
you
propose
to
use
existing
data,
you
must
demonstrate
the
extent
to
which
the
data
are
representative
of
current
conditions
and
that
the
data
were
collected
using
appropriate
quality
assurance/
quality
control
procedures;
(
3)
a
summary
of
any
past,
ongoing,
or
voluntary
consultations
with
appropriate
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
agencies
that
are
relevant
to
this
study
and
a
copy
of
written
comments
received
as
a
result
of
such
consultation;
and
(
4)
a
sampling
plan
for
any
new
field
studies
you
propose
to
conduct
in
order
to
ensure
that
you
have
sufficient
data
to
develop
a
scientifically
valid
estimate
of
impingement
and
entrainment
at
your
site.
The
sampling
plan
would
document
all
methods
and
quality
assurance/
quality
control
procedures
for
sampling
and
data
analysis.
The
sampling
and
data
analysis
methods
you
propose
must
be
appropriate
for
a
quantitative
survey
and
must
take
into
account
the
methods
used
in
other
studies
performed
in
the
source
waterbody.
The
sampling
plan
would
include
a
description
of
the
study
area
(
including
the
area
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure),
and
provide
taxonomic
identifications
of
the
sampled
or
evaluated
biological
assemblages
(
including
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish).
The
proposed
rule
does
not
specify
particular
timing
requirements
for
your
information
collection
proposal,
but
does
require
review
and
approval
of
the
proposal
by
the
Director.
In
general,
EPA
expects
that
it
would
be
submitted
well
in
advance
of
the
other
permit
application
materials,
so
that
if
the
Director
determined
that
additional
information
was
needed
to
support
the
application,
the
facility
would
have
time
to
collect
this
information,
including
additional
monitoring
as
appropriate.
In
some
cases,
however,
where
the
facility
intends
to
rely
on
existing
data
and
there
has
been
no
change
in
conditions
at
the
site
since
the
last
permit
renewal,
a
long
lead
time
might
not
be
necessary.
This
would
most
likely
be
the
case
for
subsequent
permit
renewals
following
the
first
renewal
after
the
Phase
II
requirements
go
into
effect.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
it
should
specify
a
particular
time
frame
for
submitting
the
information
collection
proposal,
or
alternatively,
whether
it
should
remove
the
requirement
for
approval
by
the
Director.

b.
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
Under
the
proposed
requirements
at
§
125.95(
b)(
2)(
i),
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
except
those
deemed
to
meet
the
performance
standard
in
§
125.94(
b)(
1),
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
that
withdraw
cooling
water
from
freshwater
rivers
or
streams
would
be
required
to
provide
the
mean
annual
flow
of
the
waterbody
and
any
supporting
documentation
and
engineering
calculations
that
allow
a
determination
of
whether
they
are
withdrawing
less
than
or
greater
than
five
(
5)
percent
of
the
annual
mean
flow.
This
would
provide
information
needed
to
determine
which
requirements
(
§
125.94(
b)(
2)
or
(
3))
would
apply
to
the
facility.
The
documentation
might
include
either
publicly
available
flow
data
from
a
nearby
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(
USGS)
gauging
station
or
actual
instream
flow
monitoring
data
collected
by
the
facility.
The
waterbody
flow
should
be
compared
with
the
total
design
flow
of
all
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
the
regulated
facility.
Under
the
proposed
requirements
at
§
125.95(
b)(
2)(
ii),
Phase
II
existing
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
that
withdraw
cooling
water
from
a
lake
or
reservoir
and
that
propose
to
increase
the
facility's
design
intake
flow
would
be
required
to
submit
a
narrative
description
of
the
waterbody
thermal
stratification
and
any
supporting
documentation
and
engineering
calculations
to
show
that
the
increased
flow
meets
the
requirement
not
to
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
fishery
management
agency(
ies)
(
§
125.94(
b)(
4)(
ii)).
Typically,
this
natural
thermal
stratification
would
be
defined
by
the
thermocline,
which
may
be
affected
to
a
certain
extent
by
the
withdrawal
of
cooler
water
and
the
discharge
of
heated
water
into
the
system.
This
information
demonstrates
to
the
permit
writer
that
any
increase
in
design
intake
flow
is
maintaining
the
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
fishery
management
agency(
ies).

c.
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
(
§
125.95(
b)(
3))

The
proposed
regulations
would
require
that
you
submit
the
results
of
an
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
in
accordance
with
§
125.96(
b)(
3).
This
characterization
would
include:
(
1)
Taxonomic
identifications
of
those
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
their
life
stages
that
are
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
are
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment;
(
2)
a
characterization
of
these
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
life
stages,
including
a
description
of
the
abundance
and
temporal/
spatial
characteristics
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
based
on
the
collection
of
a
sufficient
number
of
years
of
data
to
characterize
annual,
seasonal,
and
diel
variations
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
(
e.
g.,
related
to
climate/
weather
differences,
spawning,
feeding
and
water
column
migration);
and
(
3)
documentation
of
the
current
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
at
the
facility
and
an
estimate
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
under
the
calculation
baseline.
This
documentation
may
include
historical
data
that
are
representative
of
the
current
operation
of
the
facility
and
of
biological
conditions
at
the
site.
Impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
samples
to
support
the
calculations
required
in
§
125.95(
b)(
4)(
iii)
and
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
must
be
collected
during
periods
of
representative
operational
flows
for
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
the
flows
associated
with
the
samples
must
be
documented.
In
addition,
this
study
must
include
an
identification
of
species
that
are
protected
under
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
law
(
including
threatened
or
endangered
species)
that
might
be
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s).
The
Director
might
coordinate
a
review
of
your
list
of
threatened,
endangered,
or
other
protected
species
with
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
or
other
relevant
agencies
to
ensure
that
potential
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17176
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
impacts
to
these
species
have
been
addressed.

d.
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
§
125.96(
b)(
4))
If
you
choose
to
use
existing
and/
or
proposed
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
in
whole
or
in
part
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94,
proposed
§
125.95(
b)(
4)
would
require
that
you
develop
and
submit
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
with
your
application
that
demonstrates
that
your
facility
has
selected
and
would
implement
the
design
and
construction
technologies
necessary
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and/
or
entrainment
to
the
levels
required.
The
Agency
recognizes
that
selection
of
the
specific
technology
or
group
of
technologies
for
your
site
would
depend
on
individual
facility
and
waterbody
conditions.
Phase
II
existing
facilities
seeking
to
avoid
entrainment
reduction
requirements
because
their
capacity
utilization
rate
is
less
than
15
percent,
would
also
be
required
to
calculate
and
submit
the
capacity
utilization
rate
and
supporting
data
and
calculations.
The
data
being
requested
include
(
1)
the
average
annual
net
generation
of
the
facility
in
(
Mwh)
measured
over
a
five
year
period
(
if
available)
and
representative
of
operating
conditions
and
(
2)
the
net
capacity
of
the
facility
(
in
MW).
These
data
are
needed
to
determine
whether
the
facility
has
less
than
a
15
percent
utilization
rate
and
would
only
be
required
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
in
accordance
with
§
125.94(
b)(
1).
In
its
application,
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
choosing
to
use
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94
would
be
required
to
describe
the
technology(
ies)
or
operational
measures
they
would
implement
at
the
facility
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
information
that
demonstrates
the
efficacy
of
the
technologies
for
those
species
most
susceptible.
Examples
of
appropriate
technologies
would
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
wedgewire
screens,
fine
mesh
screens,
fish
handling
and
return
systems,
barrier
nets,
aquatic
filter
barrier
systems,
enlargement
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
to
reduce
velocity.
Examples
of
operational
measures
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
seasonal
shutdowns
or
reductions
in
flow,
and
continuous
operations
of
screens,
etc.
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
are
required
to
meet
the
proposed
ranges
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
and
entrainment
by
60
to
90
percent
would
be
required
to
provide
calculations
estimating
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
would
be
achieved
through
the
use
of
existing
and/
or
proposed
technologies
or
operational
measures.
In
determining
compliance
with
any
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment,
you
must
first
determine
the
calculation
baseline
against
which
to
assess
the
total
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
The
calculation
baseline
is
defined
§
125.93
as
an
estimate
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
occur
at
your
site
assuming
you
had
a
shoreline
cooling
water
intake
structure
with
an
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
a
once­
through
cooling
water
system
and
with
no
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
reduction
controls.
Reductions
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
from
this
calculation
baseline
as
a
result
of
any
design
and
construction
technologies
already
implemented
at
your
facility
would
be
added
to
the
reductions
expected
to
be
achieved
by
any
additional
design
and
construction
technologies
that
would
be
implemented
in
order
to
determine
compliance
with
the
performance
standards.
Facilities
that
recirculate
a
portion
of
their
flow
may
take
into
account
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
associated
with
the
reduction
in
flow
when
determining
the
net
reduction
associated
with
existing
technology
and
operational
measures.
This
estimate
must
include
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
the
suitability
of
the
technology(
ies)
based
on
the
species
that
are
found
at
the
site,
and/
or
operational
measures
and
may
be
determined
based
on
representative
studies
(
i.
e.,
studies
that
have
been
conducted
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
same
waterbody
type
with
similar
biological
characteristics)
and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies.
If
your
facility
already
has
some
existing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
controls,
you
would
need
to
estimate
the
calculation
baseline.
This
calculation
baseline
could
be
estimated
by
evaluating
existing
data
from
a
facility
nearby
without
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
control
technology
(
if
relevant)
or
by
evaluating
the
abundance
of
organisms
in
the
source
waterbody
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
structure
that
may
be
susceptible
to
impingement
and/
or
entrainment.
The
proposed
rule
would
specifically
require
that
the
following
information
be
submitted
in
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan:
(
1)
A
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
existing
or
proposed
to
reduce
impingement
mortality;
(
2)
a
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
existing
or
proposed
to
reduce
entrainment;
(
3)
calculations
of
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
would
be
achieved
by
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
you
have
selected
based
on
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
in
§
125.95(
b)(
3);
(
4)
documentation
which
demonstrates
that
you
have
selected
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
reflects
the
best
technology
available
for
meeting
the
applicable
requirements
in
§
125.94;
and
(
5)
design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
narrative
descriptions
required
by
steps
(
1)
and
(
2)
above.
Today's
proposed
rule
allows
for
the
Director
to
evaluate,
with
information
submitted
in
your
application,
the
performance
of
any
technologies
you
may
have
implemented
in
previous
permit
terms.
Additional
or
different
design
and
construction
technologies
may
be
required
if
the
Director
determines
that
the
initial
technologies
you
selected
and
implemented
would
not
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94.

e.
Information
To
Support
Proposed
Restoration
Measures
(
§
125.94(
b)(
5))
Under
proposed
§
125.94(
d),
Phase
II
existing
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
may
propose
to
implement
restoration
measures
in
lieu
of
or
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
or
operational
measures
to
meet
the
performance
standards
in
§
125.94(
b)
or
site­
specific
requirements
imposed
under
§
125.94(
c).
Facilities
proposing
to
use
restoration
measures
would
be
required
to
submit
the
following
information
to
the
Director
for
review
as
proposed
in
§
125.95(
b)(
5).
The
Director
must
approve
any
use
of
restoration
measures.
First,
the
Phase
II
existing
facility
must
submit
a
list
and
narrative
description
of
the
restoration
measures
the
facility
has
selected
and
proposes
to
implement.
This
list
and
description
should
identify
the
species
and
other
aquatic
resources
targeted
under
any
restoration
measures.
The
facility
also
must
submit
a
summary
of
any
past,
ongoing,
or
voluntary
consultation
with
appropriate
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
agencies
regarding
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17177
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
proposed
restoration
measures
that
is
relevant
to
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
and
a
copy
of
any
written
comments
received
as
a
result
of
such
consultation.
Second,
the
facility
must
submit
a
quantification
of
the
combined
benefits
from
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures
and
the
proportion
of
the
benefits
that
can
be
attributed
to
each.
This
quantification
must
include:
(
1)
The
percent
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
be
achieved
through
the
use
of
any
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
that
the
facility
has
selected
(
i.
e.,
the
benefits
that
would
be
achieved
through
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction);
(
2)
a
demonstration
of
the
benefits
that
could
be
attributed
to
the
restoration
measures
selected;
and
(
3)
a
demonstration
that
the
combined
benefits
of
the
design
and
construction
technology(
ies),
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
would
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
at
a
level
comparable
to
that
which
you
would
achieve
were
you
to
implement
the
requirements
of
§
125.94.
They
also
must
establish
that
biotic
community
structure
and
function
would
be
maintained
to
a
level
comparable
or
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
through
§
125.94
(
b)
or
(
c).
If
it
is
not
possible
to
demonstrate
quantitatively
that
restoration
measures
such
as
creation
of
new
habitats
to
serve
as
spawning
or
nursery
areas
or
establishment
of
riparian
buffers
would
achieve
comparable
performance,
a
facility
may
make
a
qualitative
demonstration
that
such
measures
would
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
at
a
level
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.
Any
qualitative
demonstration
must
be
sufficiently
substantive
to
support
a
demonstration
under
§
125.94(
d).
Third,
the
facility
must
submit
a
plan
for
implementing
and
maintaining
the
efficacy
of
the
restoration
measures
it
has
selected
as
well
as
supporting
documentation
to
show
that
the
restoration
measures,
or
the
restoration
measures
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
technology(
ies)
and
operational
measures,
would
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody,
including
the
community
structure
and
function,
to
a
level
comparable
or
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
through
§
125.94(
b)
and
(
c).
This
plan
should
be
sufficient
to
ensure
that
any
beneficial
effects
would
continue
for
at
least
the
term
of
the
permit.
Finally,
the
facility
must
provide
design
and
engineering
calculations,
drawings,
and
maps
documenting
that
the
proposed
restoration
measures
would
meet
the
restoration
performance
standard
at
§
125.94(
d).
The
proposed
regulations
at
§
125.98(
b)(
1)(
ii)
would
require
that
this
information
be
reviewed
by
the
Director
to
determine
whether
the
documentation
demonstrates
that
the
proposed
restoration
measures,
in
conjunction
with
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures
would
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
to
a
level
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.

f.
Information
To
Support
Site­
Specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
Under
the
third
compliance
option,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
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
Phase
II
existing
facility
must
first
demonstrate
to
the
Director
either
(
1)
that
its
cost
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
existing
facility's
costs
would
be
significantly
greater
than
benefits
of
complying
with
the
performance
standards
at
the
facility's
site.
A
discussion
of
applying
this
cost
test
is
provided
in
Section
VI.
A
of
this
proposed
rule.
Where
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
demonstrates
that
it
meets
either
of
these
cost
tests,
the
Director
must
make
a
site­
specific
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
can
approve
less
costly
technologies
to
the
extent
justified
by
the
significantly
greater
cost,
and
could
determine
that
technologies
and
measures
in
addition
to
those
already
in
place
are
not
justified
because
of
the
significantly
greater
cost.
A
Phase
II
existing
facility
that
meets
one
of
the
two
cost
tests
described
above
must
select
less
costly
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
that
would
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
to
the
extent
justified
by
the
significantly
greater
cost.
In
order
to
do
this,
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.
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
assess
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
their
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
that
would
be
required
to
be
submitted
to
the
Director
under
§
125.95(
b).
This
study
would
include
source
waterbody
flow
information,
and
a
characterization
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
as
described
in
this
section
of
this
preamble.
Such
facilities
also
must
submit
to
the
Director
for
approval
a
Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan.
This
plan
would
be
based
on
the
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
and,
for
those
facilities
seeking
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
based
on
costs
significantly
greater
than
benefits,
a
valuation
of
monetized
benefits
(
see
Section
VI.
A).
It
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.
Existing
facilities
would
be
required
to
submit
design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
these
descriptions.
This
plan
also
would
need
to
include
engineering
estimates
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
technologies
or
measures
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
It
also
would
need
to
include
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
the
suitability
of
the
technologies
or
measures
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
representative
studies
and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies.
Again,
design
calculations,
drawings
and
estimates
would
be
required
to
support
such
estimates.
If
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
intends
to
use
restoration
measures
in
its
site­
specific
approach,
it
also
must
submit
the
information
required
under
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17178
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
70
If
the
answer
is
no
to
these
flow
parameters
and
yes
to
all
the
other
questions,
the
Director
would
use
best
professional
judgment
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
establish
permit
conditions
that
ensure
compliance
with
section
316(
b).
§
125.95(
b)(
5).
See
preamble
Section
VII.
B.
4.
e.
Finally,
the
Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan
would
have
to
include
documentation
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures
selected
would
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
to
the
extent
necessary
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
§
125.94
(
i.
e.,
the
level
of
performance
would
be
reduced
only
to
the
extent
justified
by
the
significantly
greater
cost).

g.
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
Finally,
proposed
§
125.95(
b)(
7)
would
require
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
except
those
deemed
to
meet
the
performance
standard
in
§
125.94(
b)(
1),
to
submit
a
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
to
measure
the
efficacy
of
the
implemented
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures.
The
plan
would
include
a
monitoring
study
lasting
at
least
two
years
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
already
implemented
technologies
and
of
any
additional
operational
and
restoration
measures.
The
plan
would
be
required
to
describe
the
frequency
of
monitoring
and
the
parameters
to
be
monitored
and
the
bases
for
determining
these.
The
Director
would
use
the
verification
monitoring
to
confirm
that
the
facility
is
meeting
the
level
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction
expected
and
that
fish
and
shellfish
are
being
maintained
at
the
level
expected
(
as
required
in
§
125.94(
b)).
Verification
monitoring
would
be
required
to
begin
once
the
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
supplemental
restoration
measures
are
implemented
and
continue
for
a
sufficient
period
of
time
(
but
at
least
two
years)
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
is
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
to
the
level
of
reduction
required
at
§
125.94(
b)
or
(
c).

C.
How
Would
the
Director
Determine
the
Appropriate
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Requirements?
The
Director's
first
step
would
be
to
determine
whether
the
facility
is
covered
by
this
rule.
If
the
answer
to
all
the
following
questions
is
yes,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
proposed
rule.
(
1)
Does
the
facility
both
generate
and
transmit
electric
power
or
generate
electric
power
but
sell
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission?
(
2)
Is
the
facility
an
``
existing
facility''
as
defined
in
§
125.93?
(
3)
Does
the
facility
withdraw
cooling
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.;
or
does
the
facility
obtain
cooling
water
by
any
sort
of
contract
or
arrangement
with
an
independent
(
supplier
or
multiple
suppliers)
of
cooling
water
if
the
supplier(
s)
withdraw(
s)
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
and
is
not
a
public
water
system?
(
4)
Is
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
withdrawn
by
the
facility
used
for
cooling
purposes?
(
5)
Does
the
facility
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
million
gallons
or
more
per
day
(
MGD)?
70
(
6)
Does
the
facility
discharge
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
U.
S.,
including
storm
water­
only
discharges,
such
that
the
facility
has
or
is
required
to
have
an
NPDES
permit?
The
Director's
second
step
would
be
to
determine
whether
the
facility
proposes
to
comply
by
demonstrating
that
its
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures
meet
the
proposed
performance
standards
(
Option
1);
by
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures
that,
in
combination
with
existing
technologies
and
operational
measures,
meet
the
proposed
performance
standards
(
Option
2);
or
by
seeking
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
(
Option
3)
(
see,
§
125.98(
1)).
The
Director
also
would
need
to
determine
whether
the
facility's
utilization
rate
is
less
than
15
percent,
since
such
facilities
are
only
subject
to
impingement
mortality
performance
requirements.
Where
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
selects
Option
1
and
chooses
to
demonstrate
that
its
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures
meet
the
proposed
performance
standards,
the
Director
would
verify
either
that
the
existing
facility
satisfies
the
reduced
intake
capacity
requirement,
or
that
the
facility
meets
the
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
and
other
requirements.
Facilities
that
have
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
water
systems
would
meet
the
reduced
intake
capacity
requirement,
and
would
not
be
subject
to
further
performance
standards.
Other
methods
of
reducing
intake
capacity
also
could
be
used
but
would
need
to
be
commensurate
with
the
level
that
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
water
system.
Under
Option
1,
to
verify
that
existing
controls
meet
the
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
requirements
in
the
proposed
rule,
the
Director
would
need
to
(
1)
verify
the
facility's
baseline
calculation;
(
2)
confirm
the
location
of
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s);
(
3)
verify
the
withdrawal
percentage
of
mean
annual
flow;
(
4)
review
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
rates
or
estimates;
and
(
5)
consider
any
use
of
restoration.
These
same
steps
also
would
be
part
of
determining
requirements
under
Options
2
and
3,
as
discussed
below.
The
Director
would
initially
review
and
verify
the
calculation
baseline
estimate
submitted
by
the
facility
under
§
125.95(
b)(
iii).
This
estimate
must
be
consistent
with
the
proposed
definition
of
the
term
``
calculation
baseline''
and
must
be
representative
of
current
biological
conditions
at
the
facility.
The
Director
would
then
review
the
information
that
the
facility
provides
to
validate
the
source
waterbody
type
in
which
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
(
freshwater
river
or
stream;
lake
or
reservoir;
or
estuary,
tidal
river,
ocean,
or
Great
Lake).
The
Director
would
review
the
supporting
material
the
applicant
provided
in
the
permit
application
to
document
the
physical
placement
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
For
existing
facilities
with
one
or
more
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
the
Director
would
need
to
determine
whether
the
facility
withdraws
more
or
less
than
five
percent
of
the
mean
annual
flow,
which
determines
whether
impingement,
or
impingement
and
entrainment
controls
would
apply.
For
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
on
lakes
or
reservoirs
other
than
a
Great
Lake
for
which
the
facility
seeks
to
increase
the
design
flow,
the
Director
would
need
to
determine
whether
the
increased
intake
flow
would
disrupt
the
natural
thermal
stratification
or
turnover
pattern
of
the
source
waterbody.
In
making
this
determination
the
Director
would
need
to
consider
anthropogenic
factors
that
can
influence
the
occurrence
and
location
of
a
thermocline,
and
would
need
to
coordinate
with
appropriate
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
agencies
to
determine
if
the
disruption
is
beneficial
to
the
management
of
the
fisheries.
Both
of
these
determinations
would
be
based
on
the
source
waterbody
flow
information
required
under
proposed
§
125.95(
b)(
2).
For
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
use
or
propose
to
implement
restoration
measures
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94(
b),
the
Director
would
review
the
evaluation
of
any
current
or
proposed
restoration
measures
submitted
under
proposed
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17179
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
§
125.95(
b)(
5).
The
Director
could
gather
additional
information
and
solicit
input
for
the
review
from
appropriate
fishery
management
agencies
as
necessary.
The
Director
would
need
to
determine
whether
the
current
or
proposed
measures
would
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
at
comparable
levels
to
those
that
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94,
as
well
as
review
and
approve
the
proposed
Verification
and
Monitoring
Plan
to
ensure
the
restoration
measures
meet
§
125.94(
d)
and
125.95(
b)(
3).
Finally,
the
Director
would
review
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
data
or
estimates
to
determine
whether
inplace
or
identified
controls
achieve
the
performance
standards
proposed
for
the
different
categories
of
source
waterbodies.
This
step
would
involve
comparing
the
calculation
baseline
with
the
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
data
or
estimates
provided
as
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
required
under
§
125.95(
b)
and
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
required
under
§
125.95(
b)(
3).
It
may
also
entail
considering
whether,
how,
and
to
what
extent
restoration
would
allow
the
facility
to
meet
applicable
performance
standards.
If
the
Director
determines
that
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
submitted
does
not
demonstrate
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
supplemental
restoration
measures
employed
would
achieve
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards,
the
Director
may
issue
a
permit
requiring
such
compliance.
If
such
studies
are
approved
and
a
permit
is
issued
but
the
Director
later
determines,
based
on
the
results
of
subsequent
monitoring,
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
supplemental
restoration
measures
did
not
meet
the
rule
standards,
the
Director
could
require
the
existing
facility
to
implement
additional
technologies
and
operational
measures
as
necessary
to
meet
the
rule
requirements.
In
general,
this
would
occur
at
the
next
renewal
of
the
permit.
The
Director
would
also
review
the
facility's
Technology
Verification
Plan
for
post­
operational
monitoring
to
demonstrate
that
the
technologies
are
performing
as
predicted.
Under
compliance
Option
2,
the
same
general
steps
would
be
followed
as
described
above
for
assessing
compliance
of
existing
controls
with
applicable
performance
standards
except
that
under
this
option
the
Phase
II
existing
facility
would
be
demonstrating
that
the
technologies
and
measures
identified
would
meet
(
rather
than
currently
meet)
the
applicable
performance
standards.
This
review
would
also
be
based
on
data
submitted
in
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
required
under
§
125.95(
b).
These
same
basic
steps
also
apply
to
facilities
seeking
to
comply
under
Option
3,
however,
the
Director
must
make
two
additional
determinations
under
this
option,
including
whether
the
facility
meets
one
of
the
applicable
cost
tests
and
whether
any
alternative
requirements
are
justified
by
significantly
greater
costs.
Under
Option
3,
a
Director
must
first
determine
whether
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
satisfies
either
of
the
cost
tests
proposed
at
§
125.94(
c).
Phase
II
existing
facilities
seeking
to
comply
under
this
option
are
required
to
submit
a
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
under
§
125.95(
b)(
6),
which
includes
data
that
document
the
cost
of
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.94,
as
well
as
the
costs
of
alternative
technologies
or
operational
measures
proposed.
The
Director
would
need
to
review
these
data,
including
detailed
engineering
cost
estimates,
and
compare
these
with
the
costs
the
Agency
considered
in
establishing
these
requirements.
Where
the
Director
finds
that
the
facility's
cost
of
implementation
are
significantly
greater
than
those
considered
during
rule
development,
he
or
she
must
approve
site­
specific
requirements
and
could
approve
alternative
technologies
or
operational
measures.
Such
alternative
technologies
or
operational
measures
could
be
those
proposed
by
the
facility
in
the
Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan,
but
less
protective
requirements
would
have
to
be
justified
by
the
significantly
greater
costs.
Where
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
seeks
site­
specific
requirements
based
on
facility
costs
that
are
significantly
greater
than
the
environmental
benefits
of
compliance,
the
facility
must
submit
a
Valuation
of
Monetized
Benefits
of
Reducing
Impingement
and
Entrainment.
The
Director
must
review
this
valuation
to
determine
whether
it
fully
values
the
impacts
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
issue,
as
required
in
§
125.95(
b)(
6)(
ii),
and
whether
the
facility's
cost
of
implementation
are
significantly
greater
than
the
environmental
benefits
of
complying
with
the
requirements
of
§
125.94.
If
the
Director
determines
that
the
implementation
costs
are
significantly
greater
than
the
environmental
benefits,
the
Director
must
approve
site­
specific
requirements
and
could
approve
alternative
technologies
or
operational
measures.
Such
alternative
technologies
or
operational
measures
could
be
those
proposed
by
the
facility
in
the
Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan,
but
less
protective
requirements
would
have
to
be
justified
by
the
significantly
greater
costs.
EPA
is
interested
in
ways
to
decrease
application
review
time
and
make
this
process
both
efficient
and
effective.

D.
What
Would
I
Be
Required
To
Monitor?

Proposed
§
125.96
provides
that
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
have
to
perform
monitoring
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
125.94
as
prescribed
by
the
Director.
In
establishing
such
monitoring
requirements,
the
Director
should
consider
the
need
for
biological
monitoring
data,
including
impingement
and
entrainment
sampling
data
sufficient
to
assess
the
presence,
abundance,
life
stages,
and
mortality
(
including
eggs,
larvae,
juveniles,
and
adults)
of
aquatic
organisms
(
fish
and
shellfish)
impinged
or
entrained
during
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
These
data
could
be
used
by
the
Director
in
developing
permit
conditions
to
determine
whether
requirements,
or
additional
requirements,
for
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
should
be
included
in
the
permit.
The
Director
should
ensure,
where
appropriate,
that
any
required
sampling
would
allow
for
the
detection
of
any
annual,
seasonal,
and
diel
variations
in
the
species
and
numbers
of
individuals
that
are
impinged
or
entrained.
The
Director
should
also
consider
if
a
reduced
frequency
in
biological
monitoring
may
be
justified
over
time
if
the
supporting
data
show
that
the
technologies
are
consistently
performing
as
projected
under
all
operating
and
environmental
conditions
and
less
frequent
monitoring
would
still
allow
for
the
detection
of
any
future
performance
fluctuations.
The
Director
should
further
consider
whether
weekly
visual
or
remote
or
similar
inspections
should
be
required
to
ensure
that
any
technologies
that
have
been
implemented
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment
are
being
maintained
and
operated
in
a
manner
that
ensures
that
they
function
as
designed.
Monitoring
requirements
could
be
imposed
on
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
have
been
deemed
to
meet
the
performance
standard
in
§
125.94(
b)(
1)
to
the
extent
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
the
NPDES
program.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00059
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17180
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
E.
How
Would
Compliance
Be
Determined?

This
proposed
rule
would
be
implemented
by
the
Director
placing
conditions
consistent
with
this
proposed
rule
in
NPDES
permits.
To
demonstrate
compliance,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
that
the
following
information
be
submitted
to
the
Director:
 
Data
submitted
with
the
NPDES
permit
application
to
show
that
the
facility
is
in
compliance
with
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
requirements;
 
Compliance
monitoring
data
and
records
as
prescribed
by
the
Director.
Proposed
§
125.97
would
require
existing
facilities
to
keep
records
and
report
compliance
monitoring
data
in
a
yearly
status
report.
In
addition,
Directors
may
perform
their
own
compliance
inspections
as
deemed
appropriate
(
see
CFR
122.41).

F.
What
Are
the
Respective
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
Roles?

Section
316(
b)
requirements
are
implemented
through
NPDES
permits.
Today's
proposed
regulations
would
amend
40
CFR
123.25(
a)(
36)
to
add
a
requirement
that
authorized
State
and
Tribal
programs
have
sufficient
legal
authority
to
implement
today's
requirements
(
40
CFR
part
125,
subpart
J).
Therefore,
today's
proposed
rule
would
affect
authorized
State
and
Tribal
NPDES
permit
programs.
Under
40
CFR
123.62(
e),
any
existing
approved
section
402
permitting
program
must
be
revised
to
be
consistent
with
new
program
requirements
within
one
year
from
the
date
of
promulgation,
unless
the
NPDES­
authorized
State
or
Tribe
must
amend
or
enact
a
statute
to
make
the
required
revisions.
If
a
State
or
Tribe
must
amend
or
enact
a
statute
to
conform
with
today's
proposed
rule,
the
revision
must
be
made
within
two
years
of
promulgation.
States
and
Tribes
seeking
new
EPA
authorization
to
implement
the
NPDES
program
must
comply
with
the
requirements
when
authorization
is
requested.
EPA
recognizes
that
some
States
have
invested
considerable
effort
in
developing
section
316(
b)
regulations
and
implementing
programs.
EPA
is
proposing
regulations
that
would
allow
States
to
continue
to
use
these
programs
by
including
in
this
national
rule
a
provision
that
allows
States
to
use
their
existing
program
if
the
State
establishes
that
such
programs
would
achieve
comparable
environmental
performance.
Specifically,
the
proposed
rule
would
allow
any
State
to
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator
that
it
has
adopted
alternative
regulatory
requirements
that
would
result
in
environmental
performance
within
each
relevant
watershed
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.
EPA
invites
comment
on
such
``
functionally
equivalent''
programs.
In
particular,
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
proposed
alternative
and
on
decision
criteria
EPA
should
consider
in
determining
whether
a
State
program
is
functionally
equivalent.
If
EPA
adopts
such
an
approach,
the
Agency
would
also
need
to
specify
the
process
through
which
an
existing
State
program
is
evaluated
and
whether
such
process
can
occur
under
the
existing
State
program
regulations
or
whether
additional
regulations
to
provide
the
evaluation
criteria
are
needed.
Finally,
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
role
of
restoration
and
habitat
enhancement
projects
as
part
of
any
``
functionally
equivalent''
State
programs.
In
addition
to
updating
their
programs
to
be
consistent
with
today's
proposed
rule,
States
and
Tribes
authorized
to
implement
the
NPDES
program
would
be
required
to
implement
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
requirements
following
promulgation
of
the
proposed
regulations.
The
requirements
would
have
to
be
implemented
upon
the
issuance
or
reissuance
of
permits
containing
the
requirements
of
proposed
subpart
J.
Duties
of
an
authorized
State
or
Tribe
under
this
regulation
may
include
 
Review
and
verification
of
permit
application
materials,
including
a
permit
applicant's
determination
of
source
waterbody
classification
and
the
flow
or
volume
of
certain
waterbodies
at
the
point
of
the
intake;
 
Determination
of
the
standards
in
§
125.94
that
apply
to
the
facility;
 
Verification
of
a
permit
applicant's
determination
of
whether
it
meets
or
exceeds
the
applicable
performance
standards;
 
Verification
that
a
permit
applicant's
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
demonstrates
that
the
proposed
alternative
technologies
would
reduce
the
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish
to
levels
required;
 
Verification
that
a
permit
applicant
meets
the
cost
test
and
that
permit
conditions
developed
on
a
site­
specific
basis
are
justified
based
on
documented
costs,
and,
if
applicable,
benefits;
 
Verification
that
a
permit
applicant's
proposed
restoration
measures
would
meet
regulatory
standards;
 
Development
of
draft
and
final
NPDES
permit
conditions
for
the
applicant
implementing
applicable
section
316(
b)
requirements
pursuant
to
this
rule;
and
 
Ensuring
compliance
with
permit
conditions
based
on
section
316(
b)
requirements.
EPA
would
implement
these
requirements
where
States
or
Tribes
are
not
authorized
to
implement
the
NPDES
program.
EPA
also
would
implement
these
requirements
where
States
or
Tribes
are
authorized
to
implement
the
NPDES
program
but
do
not
have
sufficient
authority
to
implement
these
requirements.

G.
Are
Permits
for
Existing
Facilities
Subject
to
Requirements
Under
Other
Federal
Statutes?
EPA's
NPDES
permitting
regulations
at
40
CFR
122.49
contain
a
list
of
Federal
laws
that
might
apply
to
federally
issued
NPDES
permits.
These
include
the
Wild
and
Scenic
Rivers
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
1273
et
seq.;
the
National
Historic
Preservation
Act
of
1966,
16
U.
S.
C.
470
et
seq.;
the
Endangered
Species
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
1531
et
seq.;
the
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
1451
et
seq.;
and
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
4321
et
seq.
See
40
CFR
122.49
for
a
brief
description
of
each
of
these
laws.
In
addition,
the
provisions
of
the
Magnuson­
Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
1801
et
seq.,
relating
to
essential
fish
habitat
might
be
relevant.
Nothing
in
this
proposed
rulemaking
would
authorize
activities
that
are
not
in
compliance
with
these
or
other
applicable
Federal
laws.

H.
Alternative
Site­
Specific
Requirements
Today's
proposed
rule
would
establish
national
requirements
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
EPA
has
taken
into
account
all
the
information
that
it
was
able
to
collect,
develop,
and
solicit
regarding
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
these
existing
facilities.
EPA
concludes
that
these
proposed
requirements
would
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
on
a
national
level.
In
some
cases,
however,
data
that
could
affect
the
economic
practicability
of
requirements
might
not
have
been
available
to
be
considered
by
EPA
during
the
development
of
today's
proposed
rule.
Therefore,
where
a
facility's
cost
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
cost
considered
by
EPA
in
establishing
the
applicable
performance
standards,
proposed
§
125.94(
c)(
2)
would
require
the
Director
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00060
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17181
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
71
For
a
more
detailed
description
of
IPM
2000
see
the
EBA
document.
72
The
IPM
model
simulates
electricity
market
function
for
a
period
of
25
years.
Model
output
is
provided
for
five
user
specified
model
run
years.
EPA
selected
three
run
years
to
provide
output
across
the
ten
year
compliance
period
for
the
rule.
Analyses
of
regulatory
options
are
based
on
output
for
model
run
years
which
reflect
a
scenario
in
which
all
facilities
are
operating
in
their
postcompliance
condition.
Options
requiring
the
installation
of
cooling
towers
are
analyzed
using
output
from
model
run
year
2013.
All
other
options
are
analyzed
using
output
from
model
run
years
2008.
See
the
EBA
document
for
a
detailed
discussion
of
IPM
2000
model
run
years.
to
make
a
site­
specific
determination
of
the
best
technology
available
based
on
less
costly
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures.
Less
costly
technologies
or
measures
would
be
allowable
to
the
extent
justified
by
the
significantly
greater
cost.
Similarly,
§
125.94(
c)(
3)
provides
that
where
an
existing
facility's
cost
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
applicable
performance
standards,
the
Director
must
make
a
site­
specific
determination
of
the
best
technology
available
based
on
less
costly
technologies
or
measures.
These
provisions
would
allow
the
Director,
in
the
permit
development
process,
to
set
alternative
best
technology
available
requirements
that
are
less
stringent
than
the
nationally
applicable
requirements.
Under
proposed
§
125.94(
c),
alternative
requirements
would
not
be
granted
based
on
a
particular
facility's
ability
to
pay
for
technologies
that
would
result
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
proposed
§
125.94.
Thus,
so
long
as
the
costs
of
compliance
are
not
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
EPA
considered
and
determined
to
be
economically
practicable,
and
are
not
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
compliance
with
the
proposed
performance
standards,
the
ability
of
an
individual
facility
to
pay
in
order
to
attain
compliance
with
the
rule
would
not
support
the
imposition
of
alternative
requirements.
Conversely,
if
the
costs
of
compliance
for
a
particular
facility
are
significantly
higher
than
those
considered
by
EPA
in
establishing
the
presumptive
performance
standards,
then
regardless
of
the
facility's
ability
to
afford
the
significantly
higher
costs,
the
Director
should
make
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
based
on
less
costly
technologies
and
measures
to
the
extent
justified
by
the
significantly
higher
costs.
The
burden
is
on
the
person
requesting
the
site­
specific
alternative
requirement
to
demonstrate
that
alternative
requirements
should
be
imposed
and
that
the
appropriate
requirements
of
proposed
§
125.94
have
been
met.
The
person
requesting
the
site­
specific
alternative
requirements
should
refer
to
all
relevant
information,
including
the
support
documents
for
this
proposed
rulemaking,
all
associated
data
collected
for
use
in
developing
each
requirement,
and
other
relevant
information
that
is
kept
on
public
file
by
EPA.
VIII.
Economic
Analysis
EPA
used
an
electricity
market
model,
the
Integrated
Planning
Model
2000
(
IPM
2000),
to
identify
potential
economic
and
operational
impacts
of
various
regulatory
options
considered
for
proposal.
Analyzed
characteristics
include
changes
in
capacity,
generation,
revenue,
cost
of
generation,
and
electricity
prices.
These
changes
are
identified
by
comparing
two
scenarios:
(
1)
The
base
case
scenario
(
in
the
absence
of
Section
316(
b)
regulation);
and
(
2)
the
post
compliance
scenario
(
after
the
implementation
of
Section
316(
b)
regulation).
The
results
of
these
comparisons
were
used
to
assess
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
and
two
of
the
five
alternative
regulatory
options
considered
by
EPA.
The
following
sections
present
EPA's
economic
analyses
of
the
proposed
rule
and
the
alternative
options.

A.
Proposed
Rule
Today's
proposed
rule
would
provide
three
compliance
options
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
Such
facilities
could:
(
1)
Demonstrate
that
their
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
meet
the
proposed
performance
standards;
(
2)
implement
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
that
meet
the
proposed
performance
standards;
or
(
3)
where
the
facility
can
demonstrate
that
its
costs
of
complying
with
the
proposed
performance
standards
are
significantly
greater
than
either
the
costs
EPA
considered
in
establishing
these
requirements
or
the
benefits
of
meeting
the
performance
standards,
seek
a
sitespecific
determination
of
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
applicable
performance
standards
are
described
in
Section
VI.
A.,
above.
Section
VIII.
A.
1
below
presents
the
analysis
of
national
costs
associated
with
the
proposed
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Rule.
Section
VIII.
A.
2
presents
a
discussion
of
the
impact
analysis
of
the
proposed
rule
at
the
market
level
and
for
facilities
subject
to
this
rule.

1.
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
facilities
subject
to
this
proposed
rule
will
incur
annualized
post­
tax
compliance
costs
of
approximately
$
178
million.
These
costs
include
one­
time
technology
costs
of
complying
with
the
rule,
annual
operating
and
maintenance
costs,
and
permitting
costs
(
including
initial
permit
costs,
annual
monitoring
costs,
and
repermitting
costs).
This
cost
estimate
does
not
include
the
costs
of
administering
the
rule
by
permitting
authorities
and
the
federal
government.
Also
excluded
are
compliance
costs
for
11
facilities
that
are
projected
to
be
baseline
closures
(
see
discussion
below).
Including
compliance
costs
for
projected
baseline
closure
facilities
would
result
in
a
total
annualized
compliance
cost
of
approximately
$
182
million.

2.
Economic
Impacts
EPA
used
an
electricity
market
model
to
account
for
the
dynamic
nature
of
the
electricity
market
when
analyzing
the
potential
economic
impacts
of
Section
316(
b)
regulation.
The
IPM
2000
is
a
long­
term
general
equilibrium
model
of
the
domestic
electric
power
market
which
simulates
the
least­
cost
dispatch
solution
for
all
generation
assets
in
the
market
given
a
suite
of
user­
specified
constraints.
71
The
impacts
of
compliance
with
a
given
regulatory
option
are
defined
as
the
difference
between
the
model
output
for
the
base
case
scenario
and
the
model
output
for
the
post­
compliance
scenario.
72
Due
to
the
lead
time
required
in
running
an
integrated
electricity
market
model,
EPA
first
completed
an
electricity
market
model
analysis
of
two
options
with
costs
higher
than
those
in
today's
proposed
option:
the
``
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Wet
Cooling
based
on
Waterbody
type
and
Intake
Capacity''
Option
(
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option)
and
the
``
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Wet
Cooling
Everywhere''
Option
(
all
cooling
towers
option).
Both
of
the
analyzed
options
are
more
stringent
in
aggregate
than
the
proposed
rule
and
provide
a
ceiling
on
its
potential
economic
impacts.
Because
of
limited
time
after
final
definition
of
the
rule
as
proposed
herein,
EPA
was
unable
to
rerun
the
IPM
model
with
an
analytic
option
that
completely
matches
the
proposed
rule's
specifications.
As
a
result,
EPA
adopted
a
two­
step
approach
for
the
aggregate
impact
analysis.
First,
EPA
identified
that
for
certain
regional
electricity
markets
that
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00061
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17182
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
73
While
the
compliance
requirements
are
identical
under
the
proposed
rule
and
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option,
permitting
costs
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
are
higher
than
those
for
the
alternative
option
analyzed
using
the
IPM
2000.
The
cost
differential
averages
approximately
30
percent
of
total
compliance
costs
associated
with
the
alternative
option.
Despite
the
higher
permitting
costs,
EPA
concludes
that
the
results
of
the
alternative
analysis
are
representative
of
impacts
that
could
be
expected
under
the
proposed
rule.
74
ECAR
(
East
Central
Area
Reliability
Coordination
Agreement)
includes
the
states
of
Kentucky,
Ohio,
and
West
Virginia,
and
portions
of
Michigan,
Maryland,
Virginia,
and
Pennsylvania.
MAIN
(
Mid­
America
Interconnected
Network,
Inc.)
includes
the
state
of
Illinois
and
portions
of
Missouri,
Wisconsin,
Iowa,
Minnesota
and
Michigan.
MAPP
(
Mid­
Continent
Area
Power
Pool)
includes
the
states
of
Nebraska
and
North
Dakota,
and
portions
of
Iowa,
South
Dakota,
Wisconsin,
Montana
and
Minnesota.
SPP
(
Southwest
Power
Pool)
includes
the
states
of
Kansas
and
Oklahoma,
and
portions
of
Arkansas,
Louisiana,
Texas,
and
New
Mexico.
75
The
market
level
results
include
results
for
all
units
located
in
each
of
the
four
NERC
regions
including
facilities
both
in
scope
and
out
of
scope
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
do
not
have
any
facilities
costed
with
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
water
system,
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option,
as
analyzed,
matches
the
technology
compliance
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule.
73
These
are
the
North
American
Electric
Reliability
Council
(
NERC)
regions
that
do
not
border
oceans
and
estuaries:
ECAR,
MAIN,
MAPP,
SPP.
74
Accordingly,
EPA
was
able
to
interpret
the
results
of
the
IPM
analysis
for
the
waterbody/
capacitybased
option
for
these
four
NERC
regions
as
representative
of
the
proposed
rule
in
these
regions.
As
shown
below,
EPA
found
very
small
or
no
impacts
in
these
NERC
regions.
Second,
EPA
identified
and
compared
data
relevant
to
determination
of
rule
impacts
for
these
four
NERC
regions
and
the
remaining
NERC
regions
for
which
the
IPM
analysis
would
not
be
indicative
of
the
proposed
rule.
Finding
no
material
differences
in
these
underlying
characteristics
between
the
two
groups
of
NERC
regions,
EPA
concluded
that
the
finding
of
no
significant
impacts
from
the
IPM­
based
analysis
of
the
four
NERC
regions
identified
above,
could
also
be
extended
to
the
remaining
six
NERC
regions.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
proposed
option,
which
would
apply
the
same
requirements
(
e.
g.,
based
on
technologies
such
as
fine
mesh
screens,
filter
fabric
barrier
nets,
or
fish
return
systems)
to
facilities
in
all
NERC
regions,
would,
in
total,
have
very
small
or
no
impacts.
The
remainder
of
this
section
presents
an
assessment
of
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
using
the
market
and
Phase
II
existing
facilitylevel
results
from
the
IPM
2000
analysis
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacitybased
option
for
these
four
NERC
regions.
A
more
detailed
analysis
of
all
NERC
regions
under
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
is
presented
in
Section
VIII.
B.
2
below.

i.
Market
Level
Impacts
This
section
presents
the
results
of
the
IPM
2000
analysis
for
the
four
NERC
regions
with
no
cooling
tower
requirements
under
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option:
ECAR,
MAIN,
MAPP,
and
SPP.
75
As
indicated
above,
the
compliance
requirements
of
this
analyzed
option
are
identical
to
those
of
the
proposed
rule
for
these
four
regions.
Given
the
similarity
in
compliance
requirements
and
the
limited
electricity
exchanges
between
NERC
regions
modeled
in
IPM
2000,
EPA
concludes
that
the
impacts
modeled
for
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
would
be
representative
of
potential
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
for
each
of
these
regions.
Five
measures
developed
from
the
IPM
2000
output
are
used
to
assess
market
level
impacts
associated
with
Section
316(
b)
regulation:
(
1)
Total
capacity,
defined
as
the
total
available
capacity
of
all
facilities
not
identified
as
either
baseline
closures
or
economic
closures
resulting
from
the
regulatory
option;
(
2)
new
capacity,
defined
as
total
capacity
additions
from
new
facilities;
(
3)
total
generation,
calculated
as
the
sum
of
generation
from
all
facilities
not
identified
as
baseline
closures
or
economic
closures
resulting
from
the
regulatory
option;
(
4)
production
costs
per
MWh
of
generation,
calculated
as
the
sum
of
total
fuel
and
variable
O&
M
costs
divided
by
total
generation;
and
(
5)
energy
prices,
defined
as
the
prices
received
by
facilities
for
the
sale
of
electricity.
Exhibit
6
presents
the
base
case
and
post
compliance
results
for
each
of
these
economic
measures.

EXHIBIT
6.
 
MARKET­
LEVEL
IMPACTS
OF
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
[
Four
Nerc
Regions;
2008]

NERC
region
Base
case
Option
1
Difference
%
Change
(
ECAR)
Total
Capacity
(
MW)
........................................................................................
118,390
118,570
180
0.2
New
Capacity
(
MW)
.........................................................................................
8,310
8,490
180
2.2
Total
Generation
(
GWh)
..................................................................................
649,140
649,140
0
0.0
Production
Costs
($
2001/
MWh)
.......................................................................
$
12.53
$
12.53
$
0.00
0.0
Energy
Prices
($
2001/
MWh)
............................................................................
$
22.58
$
22.56
($
0.02)
¥
0.1
(
MAIN)
Total
Capacity
(
MW)
........................................................................................
60,230
60,210
¥
20
0.0
New
Capacity
(
MW)
.........................................................................................
6,540
6,530
¥
10
¥
0.2
Total
Generation
(
GWh)
..................................................................................
284,920
284,860
¥
60
0.0
Production
Costs
($
2001/
MWh)
.......................................................................
$
12.29
$
12.29
$
0.00
0.0
Energy
Prices
($
2001/
MWh)
............................................................................
$
22.54
$
22.55
$
0.01
0.0
(
MAPP)
Total
Capacity
(
MW)
........................................................................................
35,470
35,470
0
0.0
New
Capacity
(
MW)
.........................................................................................
2,760
2,760
0
0.0
Total
Generation
(
GWh)
..................................................................................
179,110
179,170
60
0.0
Production
Costs
($
2001/
MWh)
.......................................................................
$
11.67
$
11.68
$
0.01
0.0
Energy
Prices
($
2001/
MWh)
............................................................................
$
22.25
$
22.20
($
0.05)
¥
0.2
(
SPP)
Total
Capacity
(
MW)
........................................................................................
49,110
49,110
0
0.0
New
Capacity
(
MW)
.........................................................................................
160
160
0
0.0
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00062
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17183
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
76
In
addition
to
the
five
impact
measures
presented
in
Exhibit
6,
EPA
utilized
IPM
2000
to
identify
changes
in
other
economic
and
operational
characterisitcs,
including
revenues,
average
fuel
costs,
changes
in
repowering,
and
the
number
and
capacity
of
facilities
identfiied
as
economic
closures.
The
IPM
results
showed
no
economic
closures
and
no
changes
in
repowering
associated
with
compliance
with
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
in
any
of
the
four
NERC
regions
presented
in
Exhibit
6.
For
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
results
of
the
IPM
2000
analysis
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity
based
option
see
section
VIII.
B.
2
and
the
EBA
document.
77
The
six
other
NERC
regions
are:
Electric
Reliability
Council
of
Texas
(
ERCOT),
Florida
Reliability
Coordinating
Council
(
FRCC),
Mid
Atlantic
Area
Council
(
MAAC),
Northeast
Power
Coordination
Council
(
NPCC),
Southeastern
Electricity
Reliability
Council
(
SERC),
and
Western
Systems
Coordinating
Council
(
WSCC).
78
The
comparison
presented
in
Exhibit
7
includes
information
for
facilities
modeled
in
IPM
2000
only.
Of
the
539
existing
facilities
subject
to
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
rule,
nine
are
not
modeled
in
the
IPM
2000:
Three
facilities
are
in
Hawaii,
and
one
is
in
Alaska.
Neither
state
is
represented
in
the
IPM
2000.
One
facility
is
identified
as
an
``
Unspecified
Resource''
and
does
not
report
on
any
EIA
forms.
Four
facilities
are
onsite
facilities
that
do
not
provide
electricity
to
the
grid.
The
530
existing
facilities
were
weighted
to
account
for
facilities
not
sampled
and
facilities
that
did
not
respond
to
the
EAP's
industry
survey
and
thus
represent
a
total
of
540
facilities
industrywide
EXHIBIT
6.
 
MARKET­
LEVEL
IMPACTS
OF
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
 
Continued
[
Four
Nerc
Regions;
2008]

NERC
region
Base
case
Option
1
Difference
%
Change
Total
Generation
(
GWh)
..................................................................................
217,670
217,750
80
0.0
Production
Costs
($
2001/
MWh)
.......................................................................
$
14.43
$
14.43
$
0.00
0.0
Energy
Prices
($
2001/
MWh)
............................................................................
$
25.00
$
24.99
($
0.01)
0.0%

The
results
presented
in
Exhibit
6
reveal
no
significant
changes
in
any
of
the
economic
measures
used
to
assess
the
impacts
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
in
any
of
the
four
NERC
regions.
76
One
region,
SPP,
experienced
no
change
of
any
consequence
to
any
of
the
five
impact
measures
as
a
result
of
the
alternative
option.
Post
compliance
changes
in
total
capacity
and
new
capacity
were
experienced
in
both
ECAR
and
MAIN.
Each
of
these
measures
decreased
by
insignificant
amounts
in
MAIN
while
ECAR
experienced
a
slight
increase
of
0.2
percent
in
total
capacity
and
a
slightly
larger
increase
of
2.2
percent
in
new
capacity
additions.
While
the
slight
increases
in
total
and
new
capacity
seen
in
ECAR
did
not
result
in
changes
in
either
generation
or
production
costs,
energy
prices
did
decrease
slightly.
Energy
prices
also
decreased
slightly
in
MAPP
despite
no
appreciable
difference
in
any
other
measure
for
that
region.
Based
on
these
results,
EPA
concludes
that
there
are
no
significant
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Rule
in
these
regions.
While
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option,
as
analyzed
in
IPM,
matches
the
technology
specifications
of
the
proposed
rule
for
the
four
regions
discussed
above,
this
is
not
the
case
for
the
other
six
NERC
regions:
ERCOT,
FRCC,
MAAC,
NPCC,
SERC,
and
WSCC.
77
Under
the
waterbody/
capacitybased
option,
as
analyzed,
some
facilities
in
these
regions
were
analyzed
with
more
stringent
and
costly
compliance
requirements,
including
recirculating
wet
cooling
towers,
than
would
required
by
the
proposed
rule.
As
a
result,
the
IPM
waterbody/
capacitybased
option
overstates
the
expected
rule
impacts
in
these
remaining
six
regions.
To
provide
an
alternative
approach
to
estimating
the
rule's
impacts
in
these
regions,
EPA
compared
characteristics
relevant
to
the
determination
of
rule
impacts
for
the
four
NERC
regions
explicitly
analyzed
in
the
IPM
analysis
and
the
six
NERC
regions
for
which
the
IPM
analysis
otherwise
overstates
impacts.
EPA
found
no
material
differences
between
the
two
groups
of
regions
in
(
1)
the
percentage
of
total
base
case
capacity
subject
to
the
proposed
rule,
(
2)
the
ratio
of
the
annualized
compliance
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
to
total
base
case
generation,
and
(
3)
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
(
see
Exhibit
7
below).
EPA
therefore
concludes
that
the
results
for
the
four
regions
would
be
representative
of
the
other
NERC
regions
as
well.
78
EXHIBIT
7.
 
COMPARISON
OF
COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS
BY
NERC
REGION
 
2008
NERC
region
Percent
of
total
capacity
subject
to
the
rule
Total
annualized
compliance
cost
per
MWh
generation
($
2001)
Percentage
of
facilities
subject
to
each
compliance
requirement
 
proposed
rule
Total
facilities
Both
impingement
and
entrainment
controls
Entrainment
controls
only
(
percent)
Impingement
controls
only
(
percent)
None
(
percent)

ECAR
...........................
66.5
0.05
99
32.4
7.1
23.9
36.6
MAIN
............................
60.9
0.04
49
30.6
6.1
22.7
40.7
MAPP
...........................
42.1
0.04
42
9.5
7.1
28.5
54.8
SPP
..............................
40.7
0.03
32
12.6
0.0
46.9
40.5
Average
........................
57.1
0.04
........................
24.8
5.8
27.8
41.5
ERCOT
.........................
57.8
0.04
51
2.0
11.8
60.8
25.5
FRCC
...........................
49.8
0.07
30
40.0
13.3
16.7
30.0
MAAC
...........................
50.7
0.06
43
26.2
19.1
28.8
25.9
NPCC
...........................
49.6
0.08
54
22.1
34.2
16.5
27.1
SERC
...........................
53.8
0.03
95
16.8
7.4
31.6
44.2
WSCC
..........................
18.3
0.02
33
52.9
3.0
16.6
27.5
Average
........................
43.6
0.04
........................
22.8
14.6
30.3
32.3
Average
of
All
NERC
Regions
....................
47.7
0.04
........................
23.6
10.9
29.3
36.2
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00063
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17184
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
79
These
results
only
pertain
to
the
steam
electric
component
of
the
Phase
II
existing
facilities
and
thus
do
not
provide
complete
measures
for
facilities
with
both
steam
electric
and
non­
steam
electric
generation.
Exhibit
7
indicates
that,
on
average,
the
percentage
of
total
capacity
is
slightly
higher
and
the
percentage
of
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
is
slightly
lower
in
the
four
analyzed
NERC
regions
compared
to
the
other
six
regions.
In
addition,
the
average
annualized
compliance
costs
per
MWh
of
generation
is
very
similar
in
all
NERC
regions.
Based
on
this
comparison
and
the
limited
amount
electricity
exchanges
between
regions
modeled
in
IPM
2000,
EPA
concluded
that
the
analysis
of
impacts
under
the
proposed
rule
for
the
four
NERC
regions
is
representative
of
likely
impacts
in
the
other
NERC
regions.
As
the
analysis
of
the
impacts
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
revealed
no
significant
impacts
at
the
market
level,
EPA
concluded
that
there
would
be
no
significant
impacts
on
any
NERC
region
associated
with
the
proposed
rule.

ii.
Impacts
on
Facilities
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Rule
This
section
presents
the
results
of
the
facility
impact
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule,
again
using
the
IPM
2000
analysis
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacitybased
option
for
the
four
NERC
regions
where
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
and
the
analyzed
option
are
identical.
79
EPA
used
the
IPM
2000
results
to
analyze
two
potential
facility
level
impacts
of
the
proposed
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Rule:
(
1)
potential
changes
in
the
economic
and
operational
characteristics
of
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
and
(
2)
potential
changes
to
individual
facilities
within
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
EPA
used
output
from
model
run
year
2008
to
develop
four
measures
used
to
identify
changes
in
the
economic
and
operational
characteristics
of
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
These
measures
include:
(
1)
Total
capacity,
defined
as
the
total
available
capacity
of
all
facilities
not
identified
as
either
baseline
closures
or
economic
closures
resulting
from
the
regulatory
option;
(
2)
total
generation,
calculated
as
the
sum
of
generation
from
all
facilities
not
identified
as
baseline
closures
or
economic
closures
resulting
from
the
regulatory
option;
(
3)
revenues,
calculated
as
the
sum
of
energy
and
capacity
revenues;
and
(
4)
production
costs
per
MWh
of
generation,
calculated
as
the
sum
of
total
fuel
and
variable
O&
M
costs
divided
by
total
generation.
Exhibit
8
presents
the
base
case
and
post
compliance
results
for
each
of
these
economic
measures.

EXHIBIT
8.
 
IMPACTS
ON
PHASE
II
EXISTING
FACILITIES
OF
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
[
Four
NERC
Regions;
2008]

Base
case
Proposed
rule
Difference
%
Change
(
ECAR)
Total
Capacity
(
MW)
........................................................................................
78,710
78,710
0.00
0.0
Total
Generation
(
GWh)
..................................................................................
515,020
515,030
10.00
0.0
Revenues
(
Million
$
2001)
................................................................................
$
17,650
$
17,650
0.00
0.0
Production
Costs
($
2001/
MWh)
.......................................................................
$
12.34
$
12.34
0.00
0.0
(
MAIN)
Total
Capacity
(
MW)
........................................................................................
36,700
36,700
0.00
0.0
Total
Generation
(
GWh)
..................................................................................
226,360
226,350
¥
10.00
0.0
Revenues
(
Million
$
2001)
................................................................................
$
7,890
$
7,890
0.00
0.0
Production
Costs
($
2001/
MWh)
.......................................................................
$
11.74
$
11.74
0.00
0.0
(
MAPP)
Total
Capacity
(
MW)
........................................................................................
14,920
14,920
0.00
0.0
Total
Generation
(
GWh)
..................................................................................
103,430
103,470
40.00
0.0
Revenues
(
Million
$
2001)
................................................................................
$
3,420
$
3,420
0.00
0.0
Production
Costs
($
2001/
MWh)
.......................................................................
$
11.78
$
11.78
0.00
0.0
(
SPP)
Total
Capacity
(
MW)
........................................................................................
19,990
19,990
0.00
0.0
Total
Generation
(
GWh)
..................................................................................
112,250
112,350
100.00
0.1
Revenues
(
Million
$
2001)
................................................................................
$
3,930
$
3,930
0.00
0.0
Production
Costs
($
2001/
MWh)
.......................................................................
$
13.32
$
13.34
0.01
0.1
Note:
Total
capacity,
total
generation,
and
revenues
have
been
rounded
to
the
closest
10.

The
results
for
the
four
NERC
regions
presented
in
Exhibit
8
reveal
no
significant
changes
in
any
of
the
economic
measures
used
to
assess
the
impacts
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
to
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
None
of
the
four
NERC
regions
analyzed
experienced
any
post
compliance
change
in
either
capacity
or
revenues.
Further,
while
there
were
some
variations
in
total
generation
derived
from
Phase
II
existing
facilities
in
these
regions,
no
region
experienced
an
increase
or
decrease
in
generation
of
more
than
one
tenth
of
one
percent.
Similarly,
there
was
no
significant
change
to
the
production
costs
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
in
any
of
the
analyzed
regions.
Given
EPA's
earlier
noted
finding
of
no
material
differences
between
these
four
NERC
regions
and
the
remaining
six
NERC
regions
in
important
characteristics
relevant
to
rule
impacts,
EPA
again
concluded
that
the
finding
of
no
significant
impact
for
these
four
regions
could
be
extended
to
the
remaining
six
regions.
As
a
result,
EPA
concludes
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
pose
significant
impacts
in
any
NERC
region.
While
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
as
a
whole
is
not
expected
to
experience
impacts
under
the
proposed
rule,
it
is
possible
that
there
would
be
shifts
in
economic
performance
among
individual
facilities
subject
to
this
rule.
To
examine
the
range
of
possible
impacts
to
individual
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
EPA
analyzed
facility­
specific
changes
in
generation,
production
costs,
capacity
utilization,
revenue,
and
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00064
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17185
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
operating
income.
Exhibit
9
presents
the
number
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
located
in
the
four
analyzed
NERC
regions
by
category
of
change
for
each
economic
measure.

EXHIBIT
9.
 
OPERATIONAL
CHANGES
AT
PHASE
II
EXISTING
FACILITIES
FROM
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
[
Four
NERC
Regions;
2008]

Economic
measures
Reduction
Increase
No
change
0
 
1%
1%
0
 
1%
1%

Change
in
Generation
.............................................................................
2
0
1
2
218
Change
in
Production
Costs
....................................................................
0
0
27
0
178
Change
in
Capacity
Utilization
.................................................................
2
0
2
1
218
Change
in
Revenue
.................................................................................
56
0
44
2
121
Change
in­
Operating
Income
...................................................................
66
0
58
1
98
Note:
IPM
2000
output
for
run
year
2008
provides
data
for
223
Phase
II
existing
facilities
located
in
the
four
NERC
regions
with
identical
compliance
requirements
under
the
alternative
option
and
proposed
rule.
Eighteen
facilities
had
zero
generation
in
either
the
base
case
or
post
compliance
scenario.
As
such
it
was
not
possible
to
calculate
production
costs
in
dollars
per
MWh
of
generation
for
these
facilities.
For
all
measures,
the
percentages
used
to
assign
facilities
to
impact
categories
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
10th
of
a
percent.

Exhibit
9
shows
that
there
is
almost
no
shift
in
economic
activity
between
facilities
subject
to
this
rule
in
the
four
analyzed
NERC
regions.
No
facility
experiences
a
decrease
in
generation,
capacity
utilization,
revenues,
or
operating
income,
or
an
increase
in
production
costs
of
more
than
one
percent.
These
findings,
together
with
the
findings
from
the
comparison
of
compliance
costs
and
requirements
across
all
regions
above,
further
confirm
EPA's
conclusion
that
the
proposed
rule
would
not
result
in
economic
impacts
to
Phase
II
existing
facilities
located
in
the
four
analyzed
NERC
regions.

B.
Alternative
Regulatory
Options
EPA
is
considering
four
alternative
options
that
would
establish
substantive
requirements
for
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
by
specific
rule
rather
than
by
site­
specific
analysis.
These
include:
(
1)
Requiring
existing
facilities
located
on
estuaries
and
tidal
rivers
to
reduce
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
the
use
of
a
closedcycle
recirculating
cooling
system;
(
2)
requiring
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
reduce
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
the
use
of
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems;
(
3)
requiring
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
to
levels
established
based
on
the
use
of
design
and
construction
(
e.
g.,
fine
mesh
screens,
fish
return
systems)
or
operational
measures;
and
(
4)
requiring
all
existing
facilities
to
reduce
their
intake
capacity
to
a
level
commensurate
with
the
use
of
a
dry
cooling
system.
EPA
conducted
an
electricity
market
model
analysis
of
alternative
options
one
and
two
as
defined
above.
Section
VIII.
B.
1
below
presents
the
national
costs
of
these
two
alternative
regulatory
options
considered
by
EPA.
Section
VIII.
B.
2
discusses
the
impacts
associated
with
these
two
alternative
regulatory
options.

1.
Costs
EPA
estimated
total
national
annualized
post­
tax
cost
of
compliance
for
two
alternative
options:
(
1)
The
``
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
with
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
based
on
Waterbody
Type/
Capacity''
Option
(
waterbody/
capacitybased
option)
and
(
2)
the
``
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
with
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
for
All
Facilities''
Option
(
all
closed­
cycle
option).
The
estimated
total
annualized
post­
tax
cost
of
compliance
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
is
approximately
$
585
million.
EPA
further
estimates
that
the
total
annualized
post­
tax
cost
of
compliance
for
the
all
cooling
tower
option
is
approximately
$
2.26
billion.
Not
included
in
either
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
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
to
approximately
$
595
million,
and
to
roughly
$
2.32
billion
for
the
all
cooling
tower
option.

2.
Economic
Impacts
As
stated
in
Section
VIII.
A.
2
above,
EPA
used
the
IPM
2000
electricity
market
model
to
assess
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
and
regulatory
options.
These
impacts
are
assessed
by
comparing
model
output
for
the
base
case
and
post
compliance
scenarios
for
each
regulatory
option.
In
support
of
this
rule,
EPA
completed
an
electricity
market
model
analysis
of
two
post
compliance
scenarios:
(
1)
The
``
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
with
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
based
on
Waterbody
Type/
Capacity''
Option
(
waterbody/
capacitybased
option)
and
(
2)
the
``
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
with
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
for
All
Facilities''
Option
(
all
closed­
cycle
option).
This
section
presents
the
results
of
the
IPM
2000
analysis
of
these
two
post­
compliance
scenarios.

a.
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
With
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
Based
on
Waterbody
Type/
Capacity
This
section
presents
the
market
level
and
Phase
II
existing
facility
level
impacts
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
This
option
would
require
facilities
that
withdraw
water
from
an
estuary,
tidal
river,
or
ocean
and
that
meet
certain
intake
flow
requirements,
to
reduce
their
intake
capacity
to
a
level
that
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system.
This
requirement
would
be
met
within
five
to
ten
years
of
promulgation
of
the
final
rule
(
2004
to
2012)
depending
on
when
a
permittee's
first
NPDES
permit
after
promulgation
expires.
The
impacts
of
compliance
with
this
option
are
calculated
using
base
case
and
post
compliance
results
for
model
run
year
2013.
This
run
year
reflects
the
long­
term
operational
changes
of
the
regulatory
option
with
all
in­
scope
facilities
operating
in
their
post
compliance
condition.

(
1)
Market
Level
Impacts
EPA
used
five
measures
to
identify
changes
to
economic
and
operational
characteristics
of
existing
facilities
and
assess
market
level
impacts
due
to
compliance
with
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option:
(
1)
Capacity
retirements,
calculated
as
the
total
capacity
of
facilities
identified
as
economic
closures
due
to
the
alternative
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00065
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17186
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
option;
(
2)
capacity
retirements
as
a
percentage
of
baseline
capacity;
(
3)
post
compliance
changes
in
total
production
costs
per
MWh,
where
production
costs
are
calculated
as
the
sum
of
total
fuel
and
variable
O&
M
costs
divided
by
total
generation;
(
4)
post
compliance
changes
in
energy
price,
where
energy
prices
are
defined
as
the
prices
received
by
facilities
for
the
sale
of
electric
generation;
and
(
5)
post
compliance
changes
in
capacity
price,
where
capacity
prices
are
defined
as
the
price
paid
to
facilities
for
making
unloaded
capacity
available
as
reserves
to
ensure
system
reliability.
Exhibit
10
presents
the
market
level
summary
of
these
impact
measures
by
NERC
region.

EXHIBIT
10.
 
MARKET­
LEVEL
IMPACTS
OF
THE
ALTERNATIVE
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY­
BASED
OPTION
(
2013)

NERC
region
Baseline
capacity
(
MW)
Capacity
closures
(
MW)
Closures
as
%
of
baseline
capacity
Change
in
production
cost
($/
MWh)
(
percent)
Change
in
energy
price
($/
MWh)
(
percent)
Change
in
capacity
price
($/
MWh)
(
percent)

ECAR
.......................................................
122,080
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
¥
0.2
ERCOT
.....................................................
80,230
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
¥
0.2
FRCC
.......................................................
52,850
0
0.0
0.4
0.5
¥
2.0
MAAC
.......................................................
65,270
0
0.0
0.7
0.6
¥
1.5
MAIN
........................................................
61,380
0
0.0
0.2
0.1
¥
0.1
MAPP
.......................................................
36,660
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
¥
0.1
NPCC
.......................................................
74,080
840
1.1
0.5
¥
0.3
13.2
SERC
.......................................................
205,210
0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
SPP
..........................................................
51,380
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
WSCC
......................................................
173,600
2,170
1.3
1.9
¥
0.1
2.0
Total
..................................................
922,740
3,010
0.3
0.5
n/
a
n/
a
Note:
Baseline
Capacity
and
Closure
Capacity
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
10
MW.

Exhibit
10
shows
that
with
the
exception
of
an
increase
in
the
capacity
price
paid
in
NPCC,
no
significant
change
in
market­
level
operation
would
result
from
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
Two
of
the
ten
NERC
regions
modeled,
NPCC
and
WSCC,
would
experience
economic
closures
of
existing
facilities
as
a
result
of
the
alternative
option.
However,
these
closures
represent
an
insignificant
percentage
of
total
baseline
capacity
in
these
regions
(
1.1
percent
and
1.3
percent
respectively).
Of
the
capacity
retirements
in
NPCC,
400
MW
would
be
nuclear
capacity
and
440
MW
would
be
oil/
gas­
fired
capacity.
The
vast
majority
of
the
closures
in
WSCC,
2,150
MW,
represents
nuclear
capacity.
Six
NERC
regions
would
experience
slight
increases
in
production
costs
per
MWh.
Production
cost
per
MWh
in
WSCC
would
increase
the
most,
by
almost
2
percent.
In
addition,
three
NERC
regions
would
experience
a
slight
increase
in
energy
price
while
NPCC
and
WSCC
both
would
both
see
a
slight
decrease
in
post
compliance
energy
prices
due
to
the
economic
closure
of
existing
capacity.
Further,
NPCC
and
WSCC
are
the
only
regions
that
would
experience
an
increase
in
capacity
price.
The
increase
in
capacity
prices
would
be
the
highest
in
NPCC
with
13.2
percent.
(
2)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Level
Impacts
The
IPM
2000
results
from
model
run
year
2013
were
used
to
analyze
two
potential
facility
level
impacts
associated
with
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option:
(
1)
Potential
changes
in
the
economic
and
operational
characteristics
of
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
and
(
2)
potential
changes
to
individual
facilities
within
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
EPA
analyzed
economic
closures
and
changes
in
production
costs
to
assess
impacts
to
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
resulting
from
the
alternative
option.
Exhibit
11
below
presents
the
results
from
this
analysis,
by
NERC
region.

EXHIBIT
11.
 
IMPACTS
ON
PHASE
II
EXISTING
FACILITIES
OF
THE
ALTERNATIVE
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY­
BASED
OPTION
(
2013)

NERC
region
Baseline
capacity
(
MW)
Closure
Analysis
Change
in
production
cost
($/
MWh)
(
percent)
#
Facilities
Capacity
(
MW)
Percent
of
baseline
capacity
ECAR
...................................................................................
78,680
0
0
0.0
¥
0.1
ERCOT
.................................................................................
42,330
0
0
0.0
0.0
FRCC
...................................................................................
24,460
0
0
0.0
0.7
MAAC
...................................................................................
30,310
0
0
0.0
0.0
MAIN
....................................................................................
33,650
0
0
0.0
0.0
MAPP
...................................................................................
14,900
0
0
0.0
0.0
NPCC
...................................................................................
36,360
(
1)
650
1.8
¥
0.2
SERC
...................................................................................
100,780
0
0
0.0
0.0
SPP
......................................................................................
19,990
0
0
0.0
0.0
WSCC
..................................................................................
30,110
2
2,170
7.2
3.9
Total
..............................................................................
411,570
1
2,820
0.7
¥
0.3
Note:
Baseline
Capacity
and
Closure
Capacity
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
10
MW.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
21:
35
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00066
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm11
PsN:
09APP2
17187
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
80
Note
that
the
facility­
level
exhibit
excludes
inscope
facilities
with
significant
status
changes
(
including
baseline
closures,
avoided
closures,
and
facilities
that
repower)
to
allow
for
a
better
comparison
of
operational
changes
as
a
result
of
the
analyzed
option.
Status
changes
are
discussed
separately
in
this
section
and
the
supporting
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
Document.
Exhibit
11
shows
that
impacts
under
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
would
be
small.
Similar
to
the
market
level,
WSCC
and
NPCC
are
the
only
regions
that
would
experience
capacity
retirements
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities
under
this
regulatory
option.
It
should
be
noted
that
retirements
presented
in
these
exhibits
are
net
retirements,
accounting
for
both
a
potential
increase
and
decrease
in
the
number
of
retirements,
post
compliance.
For
example,
NPCC
is
projected
to
experience
a
capacity
loss
of
650
MW
under
this
option.
However,
one
facility
fewer
than
under
the
base
case
is
projected
to
retire:
Two
facilities
that
would
have
retired
in
the
baseline
remain
operational
under
the
analyzed
option,
because
their
compliance
costs
are
low
compared
to
that
of
other
facilities
in
the
same
region
and
they
would
therefore
become
relatively
more
profitable.
WSCC
is
the
other
region
with
projected
Phase
II
retirements
under
this
option.
The
combined
capacity
retirements
of
both
regions
would
be
2,820
MW,
or
0.7
percent
of
all
Phase
II
capacity.
While
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
as
a
whole
is
not
expected
to
experience
impacts
under
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option,
it
is
possible
that
there
would
be
shifts
in
economic
performance
among
individual
facilities
subject
to
this
rule.
To
assess
potential
distributional
effects,
EPA
analyzed
facility­
specific
changes
in
generation,
production
costs,
capacity
utilization,
revenue,
and
operating
income.
Exhibit
12
presents
the
total
number
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
with
different
degrees
of
change
in
each
of
these
measures.
80
EXHIBIT
12.
 
OPERATIONAL
CHANGES
AT
PHASE
II
EXISTING
FACILITIES
FROM
THE
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY­
BASED
OPTION
(
2013)

Economic
measures
Reduction
Increase
No
change
0
 
1%
1
 
3%
>
3%
0
 
1%
1
 
3%
>
3%

Change
in
Generation
..............................
7
17
21
4
4
9
444
Change
in
Production
Costs
....................
6
5
1
13
16
3
380
Change
in
Capacity
Utilization
.................
10
7
12
7
3
5
462
Change
in
Revenue
.................................
57
43
17
48
15
20
306
Change
in
Operating
Income
...................
75
42
10
46
15
22
296
Note:
IPM
2000
output
for
model
run
year
2013
provides
output
for
506
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
Eighty­
two
facilities
had
zero
generation
in
either
the
base
case
or
post
compliance
scenario.
As
such
it
was
not
possible
to
calculate
production
costs
in
dollars
per
MWh
of
generation
for
these
facilities.
For
all
measures
percentages
used
to
assign
facilities
to
impact
categories
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
10th
of
a
percent.

Exhibit
12
indicates
that
the
majority
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
not
experience
changes
in
generation,
production
costs,
or
capacity
utilization
due
to
compliance
with
the
alternative
option.
Of
those
facilities
with
changes
in
post
compliance
generation
and
capacity
utilization,
most
would
experience
decreases
in
these
measures.
In
addition,
while
approximately
40
percent
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
experience
an
increase
or
decrease
in
revenues
and/
or
operating
income,
the
magnitude
of
such
changes
would
be
small.
Under
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option,
facilities
withdrawing
water
from
an
estuary,
tidal
river,
or
ocean
are
required
to
meet
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
the
performance
of
wet
cooling
towers.
These
facilities
would
have
the
choice
to
comply
with
Track
I
or
Track
II
requirements.
Facilities
that
choose
to
comply
with
Track
I
would
be
required
to
reduce
their
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
system.
Facilities
that
choose
to
comply
with
Track
II
would
have
to
demonstrate
that
alternative
technologies
would
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
to
comparable
levels
that
would
be
achieved
with
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system.
EPA's
estimation
of
impacts
associated
with
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
is
based
on
an
electricity
market
model
analysis
that
assumes
all
facilities
withdrawing
water
from
an
estuary,
tidal
river,
or
ocean
choose
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
I.
While
these
impacts
represent
the
worst
case
scenario
under
this
option,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
a
number
of
facilities
would
choose
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
II.
EPA
therefore
also
considered
an
additional
scenario
in
which
33
of
the
54
existing
facilities
costed
with
a
cooling
tower,
or
61
percent,
would
choose
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
II.
While
this
scenario
was
not
explicitly
analyzed,
the
absence
of
significant
impacts
under
the
more
expensive
scenario,
where
all
54
facilities
are
costed
with
cooling
towers,
suggests
the
alternative
scenario
would
have
similar
or
lower
impacts.
b.
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
with
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
for
All
Facilities
This
section
presents
the
market
level
and
Phase
II
existing
facility
level
impacts
of
the
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
wet
cooling
everywhere
option.
This
option
requires
that
existing
facilities
with
a
design
intake
flow
50
MGD
or
more
reduce
their
total
design
intake
flow
to
a
level
that
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
water
system.
In
addition,
facilities
in
specified
circumstances
would
have
to
install
design
and
construction
technologies
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
Existing
facilities
would
be
required
to
comply
within
five
to
ten
years
of
promulgation
of
the
final
rule
(
2004
to
2012)
depending
on
when
a
permittee's
first
NPDES
permit
after
promulgation
expires.
The
impacts
of
compliance
with
this
option
are
calculated
using
base
case
and
post
compliance
results
for
model
run
year
2013
in
order
to
reflect
the
long­
term
operational
changes
of
the
rule
with
all
in­
scope
facilities
operating
in
their
post
compliance
condition.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00067
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17188
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
1)
Market
Level
Impacts
EPA
used
IPM
output
to
examine
changes
to
economic
and
operational
characteristics
of
existing
facilities
and
to
assess
market
level
impacts
due
to
compliance
with
the
all
cooling
towers
option.
The
measures
used
to
assess
market
level
responses
to
this
option
include
capacity
retirements,
capacity
retirements
as
a
percentage
of
baseline
capacity,
and
post
compliance
changes
in
total
production
costs
per
MWh,
energy
price,
and
capacity
price.
Exhibit
13
presents
the
market
level
summary
of
these
impact
measures
by
NERC
region.

EXHIBIT
13.
 
MARKET­
LEVEL
IMPACTS
OF
THE
ALTERNATIVE
ALL
COOLING
TOWERS
OPTION
(
2013)

NERC
region
Baseline
capacity
(
MW)
Capacity
closures
(
MW)
Closures
as
%
of
baseline
capacity
percent
Change
in
production
cost
($/
MWh)
percent
Change
in
energy
price
($/
MWh)
percent
Change
in
capacity
price
($/
MWh)
percent
ECAR
...................
122,080
2,190
1.8
2.4
1.9
0.7
ERCOT
.................
80,230
510
0.6
0.3
0.4
¥
0.1
FRCC
...................
52,850
90
0.2
0.7
1.1
¥
3.8
MAAC
...................
65,270
0
0.0
1.8
0.6
¥
0.2
MAIN
....................
61,380
490
0.8
2.3
0.9
0.3
MAPP
...................
36,660
0
0.0
1.0
0.1
3.0
NPCC
...................
74,080
890
1.2
1.0
0.1
16.6
SERC
...................
205,210
0
0.0
1.2
0.4
0.0
SPP
......................
51,380
20
0.0
0.5
0.3
¥
0.7
WSCC
..................
173,600
2,370
1.4
1.9
0.1
1.0
Total
..............
922,740
6,560
0.7
1.4
Note:
Baseline
Capacity
and
Closure
Capacity
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
10
MW.

Exhibit
13
indicates
that,
of
the
ten
NERC
regions
modeled,
only
MAAC,
MAPP,
and
SERC
would
not
experience
economic
closures
of
existing
capacity
as
a
result
of
the
all
cooling
towers
option.
ECAR
and
WSCC
would
experience
the
highest
closures
with
2,370
MW
and
2,190
MW,
respectively.
Of
the
6,560
MW
of
capacity
projected
to
retire
as
a
result
of
this
option,
5,150
MW,
or
79
percent,
would
be
nuclear
capacity.
The
remainder
would
be
oil/
gas
steam
capacity.
In
addition,
every
NERC
region
would
experience
an
increase
in
both
production
costs
per
MWh
and
energy
prices.
The
increases
in
production
costs
would
range
from
a
0.3
percent
increase
in
ERCOT
to
an
increase
of
more
than
2
percent
in
ECAR.
The
most
substantial
changes
would
occur
in
the
prices
paid
for
capacity
reserves.
The
highest
capacity
price
increase
would
occur
in
NPCC
with
16.6
percent.

(
2)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Level
Impacts:

As
with
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
analysis,
the
IPM
2000
results
from
model
run
year
2013
were
used
to
analyze
two
potential
facility
level
impacts
associated
with
the
alternative
all
cooling
towers
option:
(
1)
Potential
changes
in
the
economic
and
operational
characteristics
of
the
Phase
II
existing
facilities
and
(
2)
potential
changes
to
individual
facilities
within
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
EPA
analyzed
economic
closures
and
changes
in
production
costs
to
assess
impacts
to
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
resulting
from
the
alternative
option.
Exhibit
14
below
presents
the
results
from
this
analysis,
by
NERC
region.

EXHIBIT
14.
 
IMPACTS
ON
PHASE
II
EXISTING
FACILITIES
OF
THE
ALTERNATIVE
ALL
COOLING
TOWERS
OPTION
(
2013)

NERC
region
Baseline
capacity
Closure
analysis
Change
in
production
Cost
($/
MWh)
(
percent)
#
Facilities
Capacity
(
MW)
Percent
of
baseline
capacity
ECAR
.....................................................
78,680
1
2,060
2.6
1.4
ERCOT
..................................................
42,330
1
420
1.0
¥
0.5
FRCC
.....................................................
24,460
0
0
0.0
0.8
MAAC
.....................................................
30,310
0
0
0.0
¥
1.0
MAIN
......................................................
33,650
0
490
1.5
1.4
MAPP
.....................................................
14,900
0
0
0.0
1.3
NPCC
.....................................................
36,360
0
720
2.0
¥
0.3
SERC
.....................................................
100,780
0
0
0.0
1.0
SPP
........................................................
19,990
1
20
0.1
0.1
WSCC
....................................................
30,110
2
2,170
7.2
2.6
Total
................................................
411,570
5
5,880
1.4
¥
0.2
Note:
Baseline
Capacity
and
Closure
Capacity
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
10
MW.

Exhibit
14
shows
that
economic
impacts
under
the
all
cooling
tower
option
would
be
higher
than
under
the
proposed
rule
and
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
Overall,
seven
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
retire
under
this
option.
An
additional
two
facilities
that
retire
in
the
base
case
would
find
it
profitable
to
remain
operating
under
this
option.
The
net
retirements
are
therefore
five
facilities
and
5,880
MW
of
capacity.
ECAR
would
experience
the
highest
impact
with
capacity
closures
of
over
2,000
MW
while
WSCC
would
experience
the
highest
percentage
retirement,
with
7.2
percent
of
its
total
Phase
II
capacity.
While
the
group
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
as
a
whole
is
not
expected
to
experience
impacts
under
the
all
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
21:
35
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00068
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm11
PsN:
09APP2
17189
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
81
As
explained
earlier,
facilities
with
significant
status
changes
(
including
baseline
closures,
avoided
closures,
and
facilities
that
repower)
are
excluded
from
this
comparison.
cooling
towers
option,
it
is
possible
that
this
option
would
lead
to
shifts
in
economic
performance
among
individual
facilities
subject
to
this
rule.
To
identify
these
shifts,
EPA
analyzed
facility­
specific
changes
in
generation,
production
costs,
capacity
utilization,
revenue,
and
operating
income.
Exhibit
15
presents
the
total
number
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
with
different
degrees
of
change
in
each
of
these
measures.

EXHIBIT
15.
 
OPERATIONAL
CHANGES
AT
PHASE
II
EXISTING
FACILITIES
FROM
THE
ALL
COOLING
TOWERS
OPTION
(
2013)

Economic
Measures
Reduction
Increase
No
Change
0
¥
1%
1
¥
3%
>
3%
0
¥
1%
1
 
3%
>
3%

Change
in
Generation
..............................
18
251
53
3
4
22
151
Change
in
Production
Costs
....................
16
12
4
64
257
17
51
Change
in
Capacity
Utilization
.................
15
25
25
8
12
15
402
Change
in
Revenue
.................................
154
121
55
88
39
35
10
Change
in­
Operating
Income
...................
118
160
50
83
47
29
15
Note:
IPM
2000
output
for
model
run
year
2013
provides
output
for
502
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
Eighty­
one
facilities
had
zero
generation
in
either
the
base
case
or
post
compliance
scenario.
As
such
it
was
not
possible
to
calculate
production
costs
in
dollars
per
MWh
of
generation
for
these
facilities.
For
all
measures
percentages
used
to
assign
facilities
to
impact
categories
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
10th
of
a
percent.

Exhibit
15
indicates
that
under
the
all
cooling
tower
option,
more
facilities
would
experience
changes
in
their
operations
and
economic
performance
than
under
the
other
two
analyzed
options.
For
example,
322
out
of
502
facilities,
or
64
percent,
would
experience
a
reduction
in
generation.
81
In
addition,
328
facilities
would
experience
a
reduction
in
operating
income
while
338
facilities
would
see
their
production
cost
per
MWh
increase.
However,
some
facilities
subject
to
today's
rule
would
also
benefit
from
regulation
under
this
option:
162
facilities
would
experience
an
increase
in
revenues
and
159
would
experience
an
increase
in
operating
income.

IX.
Benefit
Analysis
A.
Overview
of
Benefits
Discussion
This
section
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
national
environmental
benefits
of
the
proposed
section
316(
b)
regulations
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
The
benefits
occur
due
to
the
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
affected
by
this
rulemaking.
Impingement
and
entrainment
kills
or
injures
large
numbers
of
aquatic
organisms.
By
reducing
the
levels
of
impingement
and
entrainment,
today's
proposed
rule
would
increase
the
number
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
other
aquatic
life
in
local
aquatic
ecosystems.
This,
in
turn,
will
directly
and
indirectly
improve
direct
use
benefits
such
as
those
associated
with
recreational
and
commercial
fisheries.
Other
types
of
benefits,
including
ecological
and
nonuse
values,
would
also
be
enhanced.
The
text
below
provides
an
overview
of
types
and
sources
of
benefits
anticipated,
how
these
benefits
were
estimated,
what
level
of
benefits
have
been
estimated
for
the
proposed
rule,
and
how
benefits
compare
to
costs.
Additional
detail
and
EPA's
complete
benefits
assessment
can
be
found
in
the
EBA
for
the
proposed
rule.

B.
The
Physical
Impacts
of
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Impingement
and
entrainment
can
have
adverse
impacts
on
many
kinds
of
aquatic
organisms,
including
fish,
shrimp,
crabs,
birds,
sea
turtles,
and
marine
mammals.
Adult
fish
and
larger
organisms
are
trapped
against
intake
screens,
where
they
often
die
from
the
immediate
impact
of
impingement,
residual
injuries,
or
from
exhaustion
and
starvation.
Entrained
organisms
that
are
carried
through
the
facility's
intakes
die
from
physical
damage,
thermal
shock,
or
chemical
toxicity
induced
by
antifouling
agents.
The
extent
of
harm
to
aquatic
organisms
depends
on
species
characteristics,
the
environmental
setting
in
which
the
facilities
are
located,
and
facility
location,
design,
and
capacity.
Species
that
spawn
in
nearshore
areas,
have
planktonic
eggs
and
larvae,
and
are
small
as
adults
experience
the
greatest
impacts,
since
both
new
recruits
and
reproducing
adults
are
affected
(
e.
g.,
bay
anchovy
in
estuaries
and
oceans).
In
general,
higher
impingement
and
entrainment
are
observed
in
estuaries
and
near
coastal
waters
because
of
the
presence
of
spawning
and
nursery
areas.
By
contrast
the
young
of
freshwater
species
are
epibenthic
and/
or
hatchel
from
attached
egg
masses
rather
than
existing
as
freefloating
individuals,
and
therefore
freshwater
species
may
be
less
susceptible
to
entrainment.
The
likelihood
of
impingement
and
entrainment
also
depends
on
facility
characteristics.
If
the
quantity
of
water
withdrawn
is
large
relative
to
the
flow
of
the
source
waterbody,
a
larger
number
of
organisms
will
be
affected.
Intakes
located
in
nearshore
areas
tend
to
have
greater
ecological
impacts
than
intakes
located
offshore,
since
nearshore
areas
are
usually
more
biologically
productive
and
have
higher
concentrations
of
aquatic
organisms.
In
general,
the
extent
and
value
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
at
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
locations
depends
on
intake
and
species
characteristics
that
influence
the
intensity,
time,
and
spatial
extent
of
interactions
of
aquatic
organisms
with
a
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
the
physical,
chemical,
and
biological
characteristics
of
the
source
waterbody.
A
oncethrough
cooling
system
withdraws
water
from
a
source
waterbody,
circulates
it
through
the
condenser
system,
and
then
discharges
the
water
back
to
the
waterbody
without
recirculation.
By
contrast,
closed­
cycle
cooling
systems
(
which
are
one
part
of
the
basis
for
best
technology
available
in
some
circumstances)
withdraw
water
from
the
source
waterbody,
circulate
the
water
through
the
condensers,
and
then
sends
it
to
a
cooling
tower
or
cooling
pond
before
recirculating
it
back
through
the
condensers.
Because
cooling
water
is
recirculated,
closedcycle
systems
generally
reduce
the
water
flow
from
72
percent
to
98
percent,
thereby
using
only
2
percent
to
28
percent
of
the
water
used
by
oncethrough
systems.
It
is
generally
assumed
that
this
would
result
in
a
comparable
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00069
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17190
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
C.
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Impacts
and
Regulatory
Benefits
are
Site­
Specific
Site­
specific
information
is
critical
in
predicting
benefits,
because
studies
at
existing
facilities
demonstrate
that
benefits
are
highly
variable
across
facilities
and
locations.
Even
similar
facilities
on
the
same
waterbody
can
have
very
different
impacts
depending
on
the
aquatic
ecosystem
in
the
vicinity
of
the
facility
and
intake­
specific
characteristics
such
as
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity.
Some
of
the
important
factors
that
make
benefits
highly
site­
specific
include
important
differences
across
the
regulated
facilities
themselves.
Many
of
these
facility­
specific
characteristics
that
affect
benefits
add
additional
stressors
to
the
aquatic
systems
in
which
they
operate.
Benefits
occur
through
the
reduction
of
the
stressors
through
the
application
of
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
technologies.
Stressor­
related
factors
that
make
benefits
site­
specific
include:
 
Cooling
water
intake
structure
size
and
scale
of
operation
(
e.
g.,
flow
volume
and
velocity)
 
Cooling
water
intake
structure
technologies
and/
or
operational
practices
in
place
(
if
any)
for
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
at
baseline
(
i.
e.,
absent
any
new
regulations)
 
Cooling
water
intake
structure
intake
location
in
relation
to
local
zones
of
ecological
activity
and
significance
(
e.
g.,
depth
and
orientation
of
the
intake
point,
and
its
distance
from
shore)
 
Cooling
water
intake
structure
flow
volumes
in
relation
to
the
size
of
the
impacted
waterbody
Many
of
the
key
factors
that
make
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
site­
specific
reflect
the
receptors
exposed
to
the
stressor­
related
impacts.
Receptors
include
the
types
of
waterbodies
impacted,
the
aquatic
species
that
are
affected
in
those
waterbodies,
and
the
people
who
use
and/
or
value
the
status
of
the
water
resources
and
aquatic
ecosystems
affected.
Receptor­
oriented
factors
that
make
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
highly
site­
specific
include:
 
The
aquatic
species
present
near
a
facility
 
The
ages
and
life
stages
of
the
aquatic
species
present
near
the
intakes
 
The
timing
and
duration
of
species'
exposure
to
the
intakes
 
The
ecological
value
of
the
impacted
species
in
the
context
of
the
aquatic
ecosystem
 
Whether
any
of
the
impacted
species
are
threatened,
endangered,
or
otherwise
of
special
concern
and
status
(
e.
g.,
depleted
commercial
stocks)
 
Local
ambient
water
quality
issues
that
may
also
affect
the
fisheries
and
their
uses
All
of
these
factors,
as
well
as
several
others,
have
important
impacts
on
the
level
and
significance
of
impingement
and
entrainment.
These
factors
determine
baseline
impacts,
and
the
size
and
value
of
regulation­
related
reductions
in
those
impacts.
The
regulatory
framework
proposed
by
EPA
recognizes
the
site­
specific
nature
of
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
and
is
designed
to
accommodate
these
factors
to
the
greatest
degree
practicable
in
a
national
rulemaking.
For
example,
EPA's
proposed
regulatory
approach
accounts
for
the
types
of
waterbodies
that
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
impacts,
the
proportion
of
the
source
water
flow
supplied
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
technological
design
parameters
related
to
the
impingement
and
entrainment
from
the
intake.
The
Agency's
benefits
analysis
attempts
to
accommodate
and
reflect
these
sitespecific
parameters.

D.
Data
and
Methods
Used
to
Estimate
Benefits
To
estimate
the
economic
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
at
existing
cooling
water
intake
structures,
all
the
beneficial
outcomes
need
to
be
identified
and,
where
possible,
quantified
and
assigned
appropriate
monetary
values.
Estimating
economic
benefits
can
be
challenging
because
of
the
many
steps
that
need
to
be
analyzed
to
link
a
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
to
changes
in
impacted
fisheries
and
other
aspects
of
relevant
aquatic
ecosystems,
and
then
to
link
these
ecosystem
changes
to
the
resulting
changes
in
quantities
and
values
for
the
associated
environmental
goods
and
services
that
ultimately
are
linked
to
human
welfare.
The
benefit
estimates
for
this
rule
are
derived
from
a
series
of
case
studies
from
a
range
of
waterbody
types
at
a
number
of
locations
around
the
country
including:
 
The
Delaware
Estuary
(
Mid­
Atlantic
Estuaries)
 
The
Ohio
River
(
Large
Freshwater
Rivers)
 
Tampa
Bay
(
Gulf
Coast
Estuaries)
 
New
England
Coast
(
Oceans)
 
Mount
Hope
Bay,
New
England
(
North
Atlantic
Estuaries)
 
San
Francisco
Bay/
Delta
(
Pacific
Coast
Estuaries)
 
The
Great
Lakes
The
following
sections
describe
the
methods
used
by
EPA
used
to
evaluate
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
at
section
316(
b)
case
study
Phase
II
existing
facilities
and
to
derive
an
economic
value
associated
with
any
such
losses.

1.
Estimating
Losses
of
Aquatic
Organisms
The
first
set
of
steps
in
estimating
the
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule
involves
estimating
the
magnitude
of
impingement
and
entrainment.
EPA's
analysis
involved
compiling
facilityreported
empirical
impingement
and
entrainment
counts
and
life
history
information
for
affected
species.
Life
history
data
typically
included
speciesspecific
growth
rates,
the
fractional
component
of
each
life
stage
vulnerable
to
harvest,
fishing
mortality
rates,
and
natural
(
nonfishing)
mortality
rates.
It
is
important
to
note
that
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
data
are
often
limited
to
a
subset
of
species,
and
monitoring
is
often
of
very
limited
duration
(
e.
g.,
confined
to
a
single
year).
This
implies
that
the
magnitude
of
impingement
and
entrainment
is
often
underestimated.
In
addition,
in
many
cases
data
are
over
two
decades
old
(
e.
g.,
from
1979).
Therefore
the
data
may
not
always
reflect
current
fishery
conditions,
including
changes
in
fisheries
due
to
water
quality
improvements
since
the
monitoring
period.
The
limited
temporal
extent
of
the
data
also
omits
the
high
variability
often
seen
in
aquatic
populations.
If
data
are
collected
only
in
a
year
of
low
abundance,
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
will
also
be
low,
and
may
not
reflect
the
long
term
average.
The
data
also
may
not
represent
potential
cumulative
long­
term
impacts
of
impingement
and
entrainment.
In
EPA's
analysis
of
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts,
these
facilityderived
impingement
and
entrainment
counts
were
modeled
with
relevant
life
history
data
to
derive
estimates
of
age
1
equivalent
losses
(
the
number
of
individuals
that
would
have
survived
to
age
1
if
they
had
not
been
impinged
and
entrained
by
facility
intakes),
foregone
fishery
yield
(
the
amount
in
pounds
of
commercial
and
recreational
fish
and
shellfish
that
is
not
harvested
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment
losses)
and
foregone
production
(
losses
of
impinged
and
entrained
forage
species
that
are
not
commercial
or
recreational
fishery
targets
but
serve
as
valuable
components
of
aquatic
food
webs,
particularly
as
an
important
food
supply
to
other
aquatic
species
including
commercial
and
recreational
species).

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00070
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17191
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
2.
Estimating
Baseline
Losses
and
the
Economic
Benefits
of
the
Proposed
Rule
Given
the
projected
physical
impact
on
aquatic
organisms
(
losses
of
age
1
equivalents
resulting
from
impingement
and
entrainment),
the
second
set
of
steps
in
the
benefits
analysis
entails
assigning
monetary
values
to
the
estimated
losses.
These
economic
loss
estimates
are
subsequently
converted
into
estimated
benefits
for
the
proposed
rule
by
examining
the
extent
to
which
impingement
and
entrainment
is
reduced
by
adoption
of
the
best
technology
available
in
accordance
with
the
options
defined
in
this
proposed
rule.
Economic
benefits
can
be
broadly
defined
according
to
several
categories
of
goods
and
services
furnished
by
the
impacted
species,
including
those
that
pertain
to
the
direct
use
or
indirect
use
of
the
impacted
resources.
There
also
are
benefits
that
are
independent
of
any
current
or
anticipated
use
(
direct
or
indirect)
of
the
resource;
these
are
known
as
nonuse
or
passive
use
values.
The
benefits
can
be
further
categorized
according
to
whether
or
not
affected
goods
and
services
are
traded
in
the
market.
``
Direct
use''
benefits
include
both
``
market''
commodities
(
e.
g.,
commercial
fisheries)
and
``
nonmarket''
goods
(
e.
g.,
recreational
angling).
Indirect
use
benefits
also
can
be
linked
to
either
market
or
nonmarket
goods
and
services
``
for
example,
the
manner
in
which
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment­
related
losses
of
forage
species
leads
through
the
aquatic
ecosystem
food
web
to
enhance
the
biomass
of
species
targeted
for
commercial
(
market)
and
recreational
(
nonmarket)
uses.
``
Nonuse''
benefits
include
only
``
nonmarketed''
goods
and
services,
reflecting
human
values
associated
with
existence
and
bequest
motives.
The
economic
value
of
benefits
is
estimated
using
a
range
of
traditional
methods,
with
the
specific
approach
being
dependent
on
the
type
of
benefit
category,
data
availability,
and
other
suitable
factors.
Accordingly,
some
benefits
are
valued
using
market
data
(
e.
g.,
for
commercial
fisheries),
and
others
are
valued
using
secondary
nonmarket
valuation
data
(
e.
g.,
benefits
transfer
of
nonmarket
valuation
studies
of
the
value
of
recreational
angling).
Some
benefits
are
described
only
qualitatively,
because
it
was
not
feasible
to
derive
reliable
quantitative
estimates
of
the
degree
of
impact
and/
or
the
monetary
worth
of
reducing
those
impacts.
In
addition,
some
nonmarket
benefits
are
estimated
using
primary
research
methods.
Specifically,
recreational
values
are
estimated
for
some
of
the
case
studies
(
those
that
are
examined
on
a
watershed­
scale)
using
a
Random
Utility
Model
(
RUM).
Also,
some
benefits
estimates
are
developed
using
habitat
restoration
costing
or
similar
approaches
that
use
replacement
costs
as
a
proxy
for
beneficial
values.
Variations
of
these
general
methodologies
have
been
applied
to
better
reflect
site­
specific
circumstances
or
data
availability.
In
the
case
of
forage
species,
benefits
valuation
is
challenging
because
these
species
are
not
targeted
directly
by
commercial
or
recreational
anglers
and
have
no
direct
use
values
that
can
be
observed
in
markets
or
inferred
from
revealed
actions
of
anglers.
Therefore,
two
general
approaches
were
used
to
translate
estimated
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
to
forage
species
into
monetary
values.
The
first
approach
examines
replacement
costs
as
a
proxy
for
the
value
of
estimated
forage
species
losses
(
expressed
as
the
total
number
of
age
1
equivalents)
and
was
valued
based
on
hatchery
costs.
This
approach
does
not
take
into
consideration
ecological
problems
associated
with
introducing
hatchery
fish
into
wild
populations.
The
second
approach
used
two
distinct
estimates
of
trophic
transfer
efficiency
to
relate
foregone
forage
production
to
foregone
commercial
and
recreational
fishery
yields.
A
portion
of
total
forage
production
has
relatively
high
trophic
transfer
efficiency
because
it
is
consumed
directly
by
harvested
species.
The
remaining
portion
of
total
forage
production
has
low
trophic
transfer
efficiency
because
it
reaches
harvested
species
indirectly
following
multiple
interactions
at
different
parts
of
the
food
web.
Ultimately,
the
production
foregone
approach
assigns
a
value
to
reduced
forage
species
losses
based
on
their
indirect
contribution
to
higher
commercial
and
recreational
fishery
values.
Benefits
analyses
for
rulemakings
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
have
been
limited
in
the
range
of
benefits
addressed,
which
has
hindered
EPA's
ability
to
compare
the
benefits
and
costs
of
rules
comprehensively.
The
Agency
is
working
to
improve
its
benefits
analyses,
including
applying
methodologies
that
have
now
become
well
established
in
the
natural
resources
valuation
field,
but
have
not
been
used
previously
in
the
rulemaking
process.
EPA
was
particularly
interested
in
expanding
its
benefits
analysis
for
this
rule
to
include
more
primary
research
along
with
the
use
of
secondary
(
e.
g.,
benefits
transfer)
methods
to
estimate
recreation
benefits.
EPA
has
therefore
expanded
upon
its
traditional
methodologies
in
the
benefits
analysis
for
this
proposed
rule
by
applying
an
original
travel
cost
study
using
data
from
the
National
Marine
Fishery
Service
in
the
Delaware
and
Tampa
Estuaries
and
data
from
the
National
Recreational
Demand
Survey
(
NDS)
in
Ohio
in
a
Random
Utility
Model
(
RUM)
of
recreational
behavior,
to
estimate
the
changes
in
consumer
valuation
of
water
resources
that
would
result
from
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment­
related
fish
losses.
These
studies
are
presented
in
detail
in
the
Case
Study
Document.
The
Agency
also
improved
its
analyses
by
performing
several
Habitat­
Based
Replacement
Cost
analyses.
A
complete
Habitat­
Based
Replacement
Cost
analysis
develops
values
for
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
based
on
the
combined
costs
for
implementing
habitat
restoration
actions,
administering
the
programs,
and
monitoring
the
increased
production
after
the
restoration
actions.
These
costs
are
developed
by
identifying
the
preferred
habitat
restoration
alternative
for
each
species
with
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
then
scaling
the
level
of
habitat
restoration
until
the
losses
across
all
species
have
been
offset
fully
by
expected
increases
in
the
production
of
those
species.
The
total
value
of
the
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
is
then
calculated
as
the
sum
of
the
costs
across
the
categories
of
preferred
habitat
restoration
alternatives.
An
in­
depth
discussion
of
the
Habitat­
Based
Replacement
Cost
methodology
is
in
Chapter
A11
of
the
Case
Study
Document.
Examples
of
estimating
benefits
using
the
Habitat­
Based
Replacement
Cost
methodology
can
be
found
in
the
case
studies
for
the
Pilgrim
Nuclear
facility
(
Part
G)
and
the
Brayton
Point
facility
(
Part
F).
A
stream­
lined
version
of
the
methodology
can
be
found
in
the
J.
R.
Whiting
case
study
(
Part
H)
and
the
Monroe
case
study
(
Part
I)
of
the
Case
Study
Document.
The
primary
strength
of
the
Habitat­
Based
Replacement
Cost
method
is
the
explicit
recognition
that
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
have
impacts
on
all
components
of
the
aquatic
ecosystem,
and
the
public's
use
and
enjoyment
of
that
ecosystem,
beyond
that
estimated
by
reduced
commercial
and
recreational
fish
catches.
Results
depend
on
the
quality
of
the
impingement
and
entrainment
data
collected,
the
availability
of
data
on
the
habitat
requirements
of
impinged
or
entrained
species,
and
the
program
for
defining
expected
production
increases
for
species
following
implementation
of
restoration
activities.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00071
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17192
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
3.
EPA's
Estimates
of
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
and
Benefits
Probably
are
Underestimates
EPA's
estimates
of
fish
losses
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
of
the
benefits
of
the
proposed
regulations,
are
subject
to
considerable
uncertainties.
As
a
result,
the
Agency's
benefits
estimates
could
be
either
overor
under­
estimated.
However,
because
of
the
many
factors
omitted
from
the
analysis
(
typically
because
of
data
limitations)
and
the
manner
in
which
several
key
uncertainties
were
addressed,
EPA
believes
that
its
analysis
is
likely
to
lead
to
a
potentially
significant
underestimate
of
baseline
losses
and,
therefore
lead
to
understated
estimates
of
regulatory
benefits.
Several
of
the
key
factors
that
are
likely
to
lead
EPA's
analysis
to
underestimate
benefits
include:

Data
Limitations
 
EPA's
analysis
is
based
on
facilityprovided
biological
monitoring
data.
These
facility­
furnished
data
typically
focus
on
a
subset
of
the
fish
species
impacted
by
impingement
and
entrainment,
resulting
in
an
underestimate
of
the
total
magnitude
of
losses.
 
Industry
biological
studies
often
lack
a
consistent
methodology
for
monitoring
impingement
and
entrainment.
Thus,
there
are
often
substantial
uncertainties
and
potential
biases
in
the
impingement
and
entrainment
estimates.
Comparison
of
results
between
studies
is
therefore
very
difficult
and
sometimes
impossible,
even
among
facilities
that
impinge
and
entrain
the
same
species.
 
The
facility­
derived
biological
monitoring
data
often
pertain
to
conditions
existing
many
years
ago
(
e.
g.,
the
available
biological
monitoring
often
was
conducted
by
the
facilities
20
or
more
years
ago,
before
activities
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
had
improved
aquatic
conditions).
In
those
locations
where
water
quality
was
relatively
degraded
at
the
time
of
monitoring
relative
to
current
conditions,
the
numbers
and
diversity
of
fish
are
likely
to
have
been
depressed
during
the
monitoring
period,
resulting
in
low
impingement
and
entrainment.
In
most
of
the
nation's
waters,
current
water
quality
and
fishery
levels
have
improved,
so
that
current
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
are
likely
to
be
greater
than
available
estimates
for
depressed
populations.

Estimated
Technology
Effectiveness
 
The
only
technology
effectiveness
that
is
certain
is
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment
with
cooling
towers.
 
Potential
latent
mortality
rates
are
unknown
for
most
technologies.
 
Installed
technologies
may
not
operate
at
the
maximum
efficiency
assumed
by
EPA
in
its
estimates
of
technology
effectiveness.

Potential
Cumulative
Impacts
 
Impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
often
have
cumulative
impacts
that
are
usually
not
considered.
Cumulative
impacts
refer
to
the
temporal
and
spatial
accumulation
of
changes
in
ecosystems
that
can
be
additive
or
interactive.
Cumulative
impacts
can
result
from
the
effects
of
multiple
facilities
located
within
the
same
waterbody
and
from
individually
minor
but
collectively
significant
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
taking
place
over
a
period
or
time.
 
Relatively
low
estimates
of
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
may
reflect
a
situation
where
cumulative
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
(
and
other
stresses)
have
appreciably
reduced
fishery
populations
so
that
there
are
fewer
organisms
present
in
intake
flows.
 
In
many
locations
(
especially
estuary
and
coastal
waters),
many
fish
species
migrate
long
distances.
As
such,
these
species
are
often
subject
to
impingement
and
entrainment
risks
from
a
large
number
cooling
water
intake
structures.
EPA's
analyses
reflect
the
impacts
of
a
limited
set
of
facilities
on
any
given
fishery,
whereas
many
of
these
fish
are
subjected
to
impingement
and
entrainment
at
a
greater
number
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
than
are
included
in
the
boundaries
of
the
Agency's
case
studies.

Recreational
Benefits
 
The
proportion
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
of
fishery
species
that
were
valued
as
lost
recreational
catch
was
determined
from
stockspecific
fishing
mortality
rates,
which
indicate
the
fraction
of
a
stock
that
is
harvested.
Because
fishing
mortality
rates
are
typically
less
than
20%,
a
large
proportion
of
the
losses
of
fishery
species
were
not
valued
in
the
benefits
transfer
and
RUM
analyses.
 
Only
selected
species
were
evaluated
because
impingement
and
entrainment
or
valuation
data
were
limited.
 
In
applying
benefits
transfer
to
value
the
benefits
of
improved
recreational
angling,
the
Agency
only
assigned
a
monetary
benefit
to
the
increases
in
consumer
surplus
for
the
baseline
number
of
fishing
days.
Changes
in
participation
(
except
where
the
RUM
is
estimated)
are
not
considered.
Thus,
benefits
will
be
understated
if
participation
increases
in
response
to
increased
availability
of
fishery
species
as
a
result
of
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment.
This
approach
omits
the
portion
of
recreational
fishing
benefits
that
arise
when
improved
conditions
lead
to
higher
levels
of
participation.
Empirical
evidence
suggests
that
the
omission
of
increased
angling
days
can
lead
to
an
underestimate
of
total
recreational
fishing
benefits.
Where
EPA
has
been
able
to
apply
its
RUM
analyses,
the
recreational
angling
benefits
are
more
indicative
of
the
full
range
of
beneficial
angling
outcomes.

Secondary
(
Indirect)
Economic
Impacts
Secondary
impacts,
are
not
calculated
(
effects
on
marinas,
bait
sales,
property
values,
and
so
forth
are
not
included,
even
though
they
may
be
significant
and
applicable
on
a
regional
scale).

Commercial
Benefits
 
The
proportion
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
of
fishery
species
that
were
valued
as
lost
commercial
catch
was
determined
from
stockspecific
fishing
mortality
rates,
which
indicate
the
fraction
of
a
stock
that
is
harvested.
Because
fishing
mortality
rates
are
typically
less
than
20%,
a
large
proportion
of
the
losses
of
fishery
species
were
not
valued
in
the
benefits
transfer
analyses.
 
In
most
cases,
invertebrate
species
(
e.
g,
lobsters,
mussels,
crabs,
shrimp)
were
not
included
because
of
a
lack
of
impingement
and
entrainment
data
and/
or
life
history
information.
 
Impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
and
associated
reductions
in
fishery
yields
are
probably
understated
even
for
those
species
EPA
could
evaluate
because
of
a
lack
of
monitoring
data
to
capture
population
variability
and
cumulative
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
over
time.
 
Current
fishing
mortality
rates
(
and
resulting
estimates
of
yield)
often
reflect
depleted
fisheries,
not
what
the
fisheries
should
or
could
be
if
not
adversely
impacted
by
impingement
and
entrainment
and
other
stressors.
As
such,
yield
estimates
may
be
artificially
low
because
of
significantly
curtailed
recreational
and/
or
commercial
catch
of
key
species
impinged
and
entrained
(
e.
g.,
winter
flounder
in
Mount
Hope
Bay).

Forage
Species
 
Forage
species
often
make
up
the
predominant
share
of
losses
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
However,
impingement
and
entrainment
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00072
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17193
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
losses
of
forage
species
are
usually
not
known
because
many
facility
studies
focus
on
commercial
and
recreational
fishery
species
only.
 
Even
when
forage
species
are
included
in
loss
estimates,
the
monetary
value
assigned
to
forage
species
is
likely
to
be
understated
because
the
full
ecological
value
of
the
species
as
part
of
the
food
web
is
not
considered.
 
Forage
losses
are
often
valued
at
only
a
fraction
of
their
potential
full
value
because
of
partial
``
replacement''
cost
(
even
if
feasible
to
replace).
 
Low
production
foregone
assumptions
(
no
inherent
value,
only
added
biomass
to
landed
recreational
and
commercial
species
is
considered).
 
In
one
valuation
approach
EPA
applied
to
forage
species,
only
the
small
share
of
these
losses
are
valued
 
namely
the
contribution
of
the
forage
species
to
the
increased
biomass
of
landed
recreational
and
commercial
species.
 
This
does
not
apply
to
benefits
derived
by
the
Habitat­
Based
Replacement
Cost
approach,
which
provides
a
more
comprehensive
indication
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
on
all
species,
including
forage
fish.
EPA
has
applied
this
approach
to
a
limited
number
of
settings,
and
in
those
settings
the
findings
suggest
benefits
appreciably
greater
than
derived
from
the
more
traditional,
partial
benefits
approaches
applied
by
the
Agency.

Nonuse
Benefits
 
Nonuse
benefits
are
most
likely
understated
using
the
50
percent
rule
because
the
recreational
values
used
are
likely
to
be
understated.
 
The
50
percent
rule
itself
is
conservative
(
e.
g.,
only
reflects
nonuse
component
of
total
value
to
recreational
users.
It
does
not
reflect
any
nonuse
benefits
to
recreational
nonusers).
 
Impacts
on
threatened
and
endangered
species
are
not
fully
captured.

Incidental
Benefits
 
EPA
has
not
accounted
for
thermal
impact
reductions,
which
will
be
incidental
benefits
in
places
where
once­
through
facilities
are
replaced
with
recirculating
water
regimes.
E.
Summary
of
Benefits
Findings:
Case
Studies
As
noted
above,
EPA
developed
benefits
estimates
for
various
case
studies,
and
key
results
are
described
below.

1.
The
Delaware
Estuary
(
Mid­
Atlantic
Estuaries)
The
results
of
EPA's
evaluation
of
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Delaware
Estuary
transition
zone
indicate
that
cumulative
impacts
can
be
substantial.
EPA's
analysis
shows
that
even
when
losses
at
individual
facilities
appear
insignificant,
the
total
of
all
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
on
the
same
fish
populations
can
be
sizable.
For
example,
nearly
44,000
age
1
equivalents
of
weakfish
are
lost
as
a
result
of
entrainment
at
Hope
Creek,
which
operates
with
closed­
cycle
cooling
and
therefore
has
relatively
low
entrainment
rates.
However,
the
number
of
total
weakfish
age
1
equivalents
lost
as
a
result
of
entrainment
at
all
transition
zone
cooling
water
intake
structures
is
over
2.2
million
individuals.
Cumulative
impacts
of
all
species
at
Delaware
Estuary
transition
zones
facilities
is
14.3
million
age
1
equivalent
fish
impinged
per
year
and
entrainment
is
616
million
age
1
equivalent
fish
entrained
per
year.
EPA
has
conservatively
estimated
cumulative
impacts
on
Delaware
Estuary
species
by
considering
the
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
of
only
transition
zone
cooling
water
intake
structures.
In
fact,
many
of
the
species
affected
by
cooling
water
intake
structures
within
the
transition
zone
move
in
and
out
of
this
area,
and
therefore
may
be
exposed
to
many
more
cooling
water
intake
structures
than
considered
here.
Regardless
of
the
geographic
extent
of
an
evaluation
of
cumulative
impacts,
it
is
important
to
consider
how
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
relate
to
the
relative
abundance
of
species
in
the
source
waterbody.
Thus,
low
impingement
and
entrainment
does
not
necessarily
imply
low
impact,
since
it
may
reflect
low
population
abundance,
which
can
result
from
numerous
natural
and
anthropogenic
factors,
including
longterm
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
of
multiple
cooling
water
intake
structures.
On
the
other
hand,
high
population
abundance
in
the
source
waterbody
and
associated
high
impingement
and
entrainment
may
reflect
waterbody
improvements
that
are
independent
of
impacts
from
or
improvements
in
cooling
water
intake
structure
technologies.
High
levels
of
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
on
a
species
may
also
indicate
a
high
susceptibility
of
that
given
species
to
cooling
water
intake
structure
effects.
In
addition
to
estimating
the
physical
impact
of
impingement
and
entrainment
in
terms
of
numbers
of
fish
lost
because
of
the
operation
of
all
in
scope
and
outof
scope
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Delaware
Estuary
transition
zone,
EPA
also
examined
the
estimated
economic
value
of
the
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
estimated
cumulative
impact
of
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
12
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
Delaware
case
study
area
was
based
on
data
available
for
the
Salem
facility
and
then
extrapolated
to
the
other
facilities
on
the
basis
of
flow.
Average
losses
at
all
transition
zone
cooling
water
intake
structures
from
impingement
are
valued
(
using
benefits
transfer)
at
between
roughly
$
0.5
million
and
$
1.1
million
per
year,
and
between
approximately
$
23.9
million
and
$
49.5
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$).
Average
losses
at
the
four
in
scope
facilities
(
using
benefits
transfer
combined
with
RUM
recreation
estimates)
range
from
$
0.5
million
to
$
0.8
million
per
year
for
impingement
and
from
$
26.0
to
$
46.2
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
13).
In
this
estuarine
setting,
benefits
attributed
to
reducing
losses
due
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
may
be
quite
large
in
terms
of
numbers
of
fish
and
in
terms
of
the
portion
of
benefits
that
could
be
monetized.
Entrainment
losses
are
over
40
times
greater
than
impingement
losses.
This
reflects
the
typical
richness
of
estuary
waters
as
important
nursery
locations
for
early
life
stages
of
many
important
aquatic
species,
coupled
with
the
significant
adverse
impact
that
entrainment
can
have
on
such
life
stages.
This
result
indicates
the
relative
importance
of
entrainment
controls
in
estuary
areas.

EXHIBIT
13.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
AT
FOUR
IN
SCOPE
FACILITIES
IN
THE
TRANSITION
ZONE
OF
THE
DELAWARE
ESTUARY
Impingement
Entrainment
Four
In
Scope
Facilities
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
.........................................................
>
14.3
mil/
yr
.........................................
>
616
mil/
yr.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00073
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17194
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
13.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
AT
FOUR
IN
SCOPE
FACILITIES
IN
THE
TRANSITION
ZONE
OF
THE
DELAWARE
ESTUARY
 
Continued
Impingement
Entrainment
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
.......................................................
>
438,000
lbs/
yr
...................................
>
16
mil
lbs/
yr.
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
.............................................................
$
0.5
mil
 
$
0.8
mil
................................
$
26.0
mil
 
$
46.2
mil.

In
part,
EPA's
recreational
benefits
estimates
for
the
Delaware
Estuary
is
based
on
a
RUM
analysis
of
recreational
fishing
benefits
from
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
RUM
application
in
the
Delaware
Estuary
focuses
on
weakfish
and
striped
bass
fishing
valuation.
Several
recreational
fishing
studies
have
valued
weakfish
and
striped
bass,
but
values
specific
to
these
studies
are
not
available.
The
study
area
includes
recreational
fishing
sites
at
the
Delaware
River
Estuary
and
the
Atlantic
coasts
of
Delaware
and
New
Jersey.
EPA
uses
data
for
this
case
study
from
the
Marine
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey
(
MRFSS),
combined
with
the
1994
Add­
on
MRFSS
Economic
Survey
(
AMES).
The
study
uses
MFRSS
information
on
angler
characteristics
and
angler
preferences,
such
as
where
they
go
fishing
and
what
species
they
catch,
to
infer
their
values
for
changes
in
recreational
fishing
quality.
EPA
estimated
angler
behavior
using
a
RUM
for
single­
day
trips.
The
study
used
standard
assumptions
and
specifications
of
the
RUM
model
that
are
readily
available
from
the
recreation
demand
literature.
Among
these
assumptions
are
that
anglers
choose
fishing
mode
and
then
the
site
in
which
to
fish;
and
that
anglers'
choice
of
target
species
is
exogenous
to
the
model.
EPA
modeled
an
angler's
decision
to
visit
a
site
as
a
function
of
site­
specific
cost,
fishing
trip
quality,
presence
of
boat
launching
facilities,
and
water
quality.
The
quality
of
a
recreational
fishing
trip
is
expressed
in
terms
of
the
number
of
fish
caught
per
hour
of
fishing.
Catch
rate
is
the
most
important
attribute
of
a
fishing
site
from
the
angler's
perspective.
This
attribute
is
also
a
policy
variable
of
concern
because
catch
rate
is
a
function
of
fish
abundance,
which
may
be
affected
by
fish
mortality
caused
by
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
Agency
combined
the
estimated
model
coefficients
with
the
estimated
changes
in
impingement
and
entrainment
associated
with
various
cooling
water
intake
structure
technologies
to
estimate
per
trip
welfare
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
Delaware
Estuary
transition
zone.
The
estimated
economic
values
of
recreational
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
12
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
case
study
area
are
$
0.75,
$
2.04,
and
$
9.97
per
trip
for
anglers
not
targeting
any
particular
species
and
anglers
targeting
weakfish
and
striped
bass,
respectively
(
all
in
2001$).
EPA
then
estimated
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
of
two
species
 
weakfish
and
striped
bass
 
at
the
four
in
scope
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
case
study
area.
The
estimated
values
of
an
increase
in
the
quality
of
fishing
sites
from
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
in
scope
cooling
water
intake
structures
are
$
0.52,
$
1.40
and
$
6.90
per
trip
for
no
target
anglers
and
anglers
targeting
weakfish
and
striped
bass,
respectively
(
all
in
2001$).
EPA
also
examined
the
effects
of
changes
in
fishing
circumstances
on
fishing
participation
during
the
recreational
season.
First,
the
Agency
used
the
negative
binomial
form
of
the
Poisson
model
to
model
an
angler's
decision
concerning
the
number
of
fishing
trips
per
recreation
season.
The
number
of
fishing
trips
is
modeled
as
function
of
the
individual's
socioeconomic
characteristics
and
estimates
of
individual
utility
derived
from
the
site
choice
model.
The
Agency
then
used
the
estimated
model
coefficients
to
estimate
percentage
changes
in
the
total
number
of
recreational
fishing
trips
due
to
improvements
in
recreational
site
quality.
EPA
combined
fishing
participation
data
for
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
obtained
from
MFRSS
with
the
estimated
percentage
change
in
the
number
of
trips
under
various
policy
scenarios
to
estimate
changes
in
total
participation
stemming
from
changes
in
the
fishing
site
quality
in
the
study
area.
The
MRFSS
fishing
participation
data
include
information
on
both
single­
day
and
multiple­
day
trips.
The
Agency
assumed
that
per
day
welfare
gain
from
improved
fishing
site
quality
is
independent
of
trip
length.
EPA
therefore
calculated
total
fishing
participation
for
this
analysis
as
the
sum
of
the
number
of
single
day
trips
and
the
number
of
fishing
days
corresponding
to
multiple
day
trips.
Analysis
results
indicate
that
improvements
in
fishing
site
quality
from
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
at
all
in
scope
facilities
will
increase
the
total
number
of
fishing
days
in
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
by
9,464.
EPA
combined
fishing
participation
estimates
with
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
gain
under
various
policy
scenarios
to
estimate
the
value
to
recreational
anglers
of
changes
in
catch
rates
resulting
from
changes
in
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
Delaware
Estuary
transition
zone.
EPA
calculated
low
and
high
estimates
of
economic
values
of
recreational
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
by
multiplying
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
gain
by
the
baseline
and
policy
scenario
number
of
trips,
respectively.
The
estimated
recreational
losses
(
2001$)
to
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
anglers
from
impingement
and
entrainment
of
2
species
at
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
in
the
transitional
estuary,
and
all
facilities
in
the
transitional
estuary
range
from
$
0.2
to
$
0.3
and
from
$
7.2
to
$
13.2
million,
respectively.
Using
similar
calculations,
the
Agency
estimated
that
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
of
weakfish
and
striped
bass
at
the
four
in
scope
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
transition
zone
will
generate
$
5.2
to
$
9.3
million
(
2001$)
annually,
in
recreational
fishing
benefits
alone,
to
Delaware
and
New
Jersey
anglers.
In
interpreting
the
results
of
the
case
study
analysis,
it
is
important
to
consider
several
critical
caveats
and
limitations
of
the
analysis.
For
example,
in
the
economic
valuation
component
of
the
analysis,
valuation
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
is
often
complicated
by
the
lack
of
market
value
for
forage
species,
which
may
comprise
a
large
proportion
of
total
losses.
EPA
estimates
that
more
than
500
million
age
1
equivalents
of
bay
anchovy
may
be
lost
to
entrainment
at
transition
zone
cooling
water
intake
structure
each
year
(
over
85
percent
of
the
total
of
over
616
million
estimated
lost
age
1
individuals
for
all
species
combined).
Bay
anchovy
has
no
direct
market
value,
but
it
is
nonetheless
a
critical
component
of
estuarine
food
webs.
EPA
included
forage
species
impacts
in
the
economic
benefits
calculations,
but
the
final
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00074
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17195
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
estimates
may
well
underestimate
the
full
value
of
the
losses
imposed
by
impingement
and
entrainment.
Thus,
on
the
whole,
EPA
believes
the
estimates
developed
here
probably
underestimate
the
economic
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
Delaware
transition
zone.

2.
Ohio
River
(
Large
Rivers)

EPA
evaluated
the
impacts
of
impingement
and
entrainment
using
facility­
generated
data
at
9
cooling
water
intake
structures
along
a
500
mile
stretch
of
the
Ohio
River,
spanning
from
the
western
portion
of
Pennsylvania,
along
the
southern
border
of
Ohio,
and
into
eastern
Indiana.
The
results
were
then
extrapolated
to
the
20
other
in
scope
facilities
along
this
stretch
of
the
river
(
a
total
of
29
facilities
are
expected
to
be
in
scope
for
this
rulemaking,
and
another
19
facilities
are
out­
of­
scope).
To
estimate
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
for
the
Ohio,
EPA
evaluated
the
available
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
data
at
9
case
study
facilities
(
W.
C.
Beckjord,
Cardinal,
Clifty
Creek,
Kammer,
Kyger
Creek,
Miami
Fort,
Philip
Sporn,
Tanners
Creek,
and
WH
Sammis).
The
results
from
these
9
facilities
with
impingement
and
entrainment
data
were
then
extrapolated
to
the
remaining
in
scope
facilities
to
derive
an
impingement
and
entrainment
baseline
for
all
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
(
additional
extrapolations
were
also
made
to
out­
of­
scope
facilities
so
that
total
impingement
and
entrainment
could
be
estimated
as
well).
The
extrapolations
were
made
on
the
basis
of
relative
operating
size
(
operating
MGD)
and
by
river
pool
(
Hannibal,
Markland,
McAlpine,
New
Cumberland,
Pike
Island,
and
Robert
C.
Byrd
pools).
The
results
indicate
that
impingement
at
all
facilities
(
in
scope
and
out­
ofscope
causes
the
mortality
of
approximately
11.6
million
fish
(
age
1
equivalents)
per
year.
This
translates
into
over
1.11
million
pounds
of
fishery
production
foregone
per
year,
and
over
15,000
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
annually.
For
in
scope
facilities
only,
the
results
indicate
that
impingement
causes
the
mortality
of
approximately
11.3
million
fish
(
age
1
equivalents)
per
year
(
97.8
percent
of
all
impingement).
This
translates
into
nearly
1.09
million
pounds
of
fishery
production
foregone
per
year,
and
nearly
15,000
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
annually
(
98.1
percent
and
97.1
percent
of
the
total,
respectively).
For
entrainment,
the
results
indicate
that
all
facilities
combined
(
in
scope
and
out­
of­
scope)
cause
the
mortality
of
approximately
24.4
million
fish
(
age
1
equivalents)
per
year.
This
translates
into
over
10.08
million
pounds
of
fishery
production
foregone
per
year,
and
over
39,900
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
annually.
For
in
scope
facilities
only,
the
results
indicate
that
entrainment
causes
the
mortality
of
approximately
23.0
million
fish
(
age
1
equivalents)
per
year
(
94.2
percent
of
all
entrainment).
This
translates
into
nearly
9.89
million
pounds
of
fishery
production
foregone
per
year,
and
over
39,000
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
annually
(
98.1
percent
and
97.7
percent
of
the
total,
respectively).
In
addition
to
estimating
the
physical
impact
of
impingement
and
entrainment
in
terms
of
numbers
of
fish
lost
because
of
the
operation
of
all
in
scope
and
outof
scope
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Ohio
River
case
study
area,
EPA
also
estimated
the
baseline
economic
value
of
the
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
economic
value
of
these
losses
is
based
on
benefits
transfer­
based
values
applied
to
losses
to
the
recreational
fishery,
nonuse
values,
and
the
partial
value
of
forage
species
impacts
(
measured
as
partial
as
replacement
costs
or
production
foregone).
This
provides
an
indication
of
the
estimated
cumulative
impact
of
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
all
in
scope
and
out­
of­
scope
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
case
study
area,
based
on
data
available
for
the
9
case
study
facilities
with
usable
impingement
and
entrainment
data,
and
then
extrapolated
to
the
other
facilities
on
the
basis
of
flow
and
river
pool.
Average
historical
losses
from
all
in
scope
facilities
in
the
case
study
area
for
impingement
are
valued
using
benefits
transfer
at
between
roughly
$
0.1
million
and
$
1.4
million
per
year
(
in
2001$).
Average
historical
losses
from
entrainment
are
valued
using
benefits
transfer
at
between
approximately
$
0.8
million
and
$
2.4
million
per
year
(
all
in
2001$)
for
in
scope
facilities.
EPA
also
estimated
a
random
utility
model
(
RUM)
to
provide
primary
estimates
of
the
recreational
fishery
losses
associated
with
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
Ohio
River
case
study
area.
This
primary
research
results
supplement
the
benefits
transfer
estimates
derived
by
EPA.
The
average
annual
recreation­
related
fishery
losses
at
all
facilities
in
the
case
study
amount
to
approximately
$
8.4
million
(
in
2001$)
per
year
(
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
combined).
For
the
in
scope
facilities
covered
by
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule,
the
losses
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment
were
estimated
via
the
RUM
to
amount
to
approximately
$
8.3
million
per
year
(
in
2001$).
Results
for
the
RUM
analysis
were
merged
with
the
benefits
transfer­
based
estimates
in
a
manner
that
avoids
double
counting,
and
indicate
that
baseline
losses
at
in
scope
facilities
amount
to
between
$
3.5
million
and
$
4.7
million
per
year
for
impingement
and
between
$
9.3
and
$
9.9
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
14).

EXHIBIT
14.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
IN
THE
OHIO
RIVER
AT
IN
SCOPE
FACILITIES
Impingement
Entrainment
29
In
Scope
Facilities
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
11.3
mil/
yr
...............................................
>
23.0
mil/
yr
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
........................................
>
1.1
mil
lbs/
yr
............................................
>
9.9
mil
lbs/
yr
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
..............................................
$
3.5
mil
 
$
4.7
mil/
yr
..................................
$
9.3
mil
 
$
9.9
mil/
yr
In
interpreting
the
results
of
the
case
study
analysis,
it
is
important
to
consider
several
critical
caveats
and
limitations
of
the
analysis.
In
the
economic
valuation
component
of
the
analysis,
valuation
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
is
often
complicated
by
the
lack
of
market
value
for
forage
species,
which
may
comprise
a
large
proportion
of
total
losses.
Forage
species
have
no
direct
market
value,
but
are
nonetheless
a
critical
component
of
aquatic
food
webs.
EPA
included
forage
species
impacts
in
the
economic
benefits
calculations,
but
because
techniques
for
valuing
such
losses
are
limited,
the
final
estimates
may
well
underestimate
the
full
ecological
and
economic
value
of
these
losses.
In
addition,
the
Ohio
River
case
study
is
intended
to
reflect
the
level
of
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00075
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17196
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
hence
the
benefits
associated
with
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts,
for
cooling
water
impact
structures
along
major
rivers
of
the
U.
S.
However,
there
are
several
factors
that
suggest
that
the
Ohio
River
case
study
findings
may
be
a
low­
end
scenario
in
terms
of
estimating
the
benefits
of
the
proposed
regulation
at
facilities
along
major
inland
rivers
of
the
U.
S.
These
factors
include
the
following:
 
The
impingement
and
entrainment
data
developed
by
the
facilities
were
limited
to
one
year
only,
and
are
from
1977
(
nearly
25
years
ago)
and
pertain
to
a
period
of
time
when
water
quality
in
the
case
study
area
was
worse
than
it
is
currently.
This
suggests
that
the
numbers
of
impinged
and
entrained
fish
today
(
the
regulatory
baseline)
would
be
appreciably
higher
than
observed
in
the
data
collection
period.
In
addition,
the
reliance
on
a
monitoring
period
of
one
year
or
less
implies
that
the
naturally
high
variability
in
fishery
populations
is
not
captured
in
the
analysis,
and
the
results
may
reflect
a
year
of
above
or
below
average
impingement
and
entrainment.
 
The
Ohio
River
is
heavily
impacted
by
numerous
significant
anthropogenic
stressors
in
addition
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
river's
hydrology
has
been
extensively
modified
by
a
series
of
20
dams
and
pools,
and
the
river
also
has
been
extensively
impacted
by
municipal
and
industrial
wastewater
discharges
along
this
heavily
populated
and
industrialized
corridor.
To
the
degree
to
which
these
multiple
stressors
were
atypically
extensive
along
the
Ohio
River
(
in
1977)
relative
to
those
along
other
cooling
water
intake
structure­
impacted
rivers
in
the
U.
S.
(
in
2002),
the
case
study
will
yield
smaller
than
typical
impingement
and
entrainment
impact
estimates.
 
The
Ohio
River
is
very
heavily
impacted
by
cumulative
effects
of
impingement
and
entrainment
over
time
and
across
a
large
number
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
The
case
study
segment
of
the
river
has
29
facilities
that
are
in
scope
for
the
Phase
II
rulemaking,
plus
an
additional
19
facilities
that
are
out
of
scope.
Steam
electric
power
generation
accounted
for
5,873
MGD
of
water
withdrawal
from
the
river
basin,
more
than
90
percent
of
the
total
surface
water
withdrawals,
according
to
1995
data
from
USGS.
In
conclusion,
several
issues
and
limitations
in
the
impingement
and
entrainment
data
for
the
Ohio
case
study
(
e.
g.,
the
reliance
on
data
for
one
year,
nearly
25
years
ago),
and
the
many
stressors
that
affect
the
river
(
especially
in
the
1977
time
frame),
suggest
that
the
results
obtained
by
EPA
underestimate
the
benefits
of
the
rule
relative
to
current
Ohio
River
conditions.
The
results
are
also
likely
to
underestimate
the
benefits
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
reductions
at
other
inland
river
facilities.

3.
San
Francisco
Bay/
Delta
(
Pacific
Coast
Estuaries)
The
results
of
EPA's
evaluation
of
impingement
and
entrainment
of
striped
bass,
and
threatened
and
endangered
and
other
special
status
fish
species
at
the
Pittsburg
and
Contra
Costa
facilities
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay/
Delta
demonstrate
the
significant
economic
benefits
that
can
be
achieved
if
losses
of
highly
valued
species
are
reduced
by
the
proposed
section
316(
b)
rule.
The
benefits
were
estimated
by
reference
to
other
programs
already
in
place
to
protect
and
restore
the
declining
striped
bass
population
and
threatened
and
endangered
fish
species
of
the
San
Francisco
Bay/
Delta
region.
The
special
status
species
that
were
evaluated
included
delta
smelt,
threatened
and
endangered
runs
of
chinook
salmon
and
steelhead,
sacramento
splittail,
and
longfin
smelt.
Based
on
limited
facility
data,
EPA
estimates
that
the
striped
bass
recreational
catch
is
reduced
by
about
165,429
fish
per
year
due
to
impingement
at
the
two
facilities
and
185,073
fish
per
year
due
to
entrainment.
Estimated
impingement
losses
of
striped
bass
are
valued
at
between
$
379,000
and
$
589,000
per
year,
and
estimated
entrainment
losses
are
valued
at
between
$
2.58
million
to
$
4.01
million
per
year
(
all
in
2001$).
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
loss
of
special
status
fish
species
at
the
two
facilities
is
145,003
age
1
equivalents
per
year
resulting
from
impingement
and
269,334
age
1
equivalents
per
year
due
to
entrainment.
Estimated
impingement
losses
of
these
species
are
valued
at
between
$
12.38
million
and
$
42.65
million
per
year,
and
estimated
entrainment
losses
are
valued
at
between
$
23.1
million
and
$
79.2
million
per
year
(
all
in
2001$).
The
estimated
value
of
the
recreational
losses
and
the
special
status
species
losses
combined
range
from
$
12.8
million
to
$
43.2
million
per
year
for
impingement
and
from
$
25.6
million
to
$
83.2
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
15).

EXHIBIT
15.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
FOR
SPECIAL
STATUS
FISH
SPECIES
AT
2
FACILITIES
IN
THE
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY/
DELTA
Impingement
Entrainment
Two
In
Scope
Facilities
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
145,000/
yr
...............................................
>
269,000/
yr
b.
number
of
striped
bass
lost
to
recreational
catch
.....
165,429
.......................................................
185,073
c.
$
value
of
combined
loss
(
2001$)
.............................
$
12.8
mil
 
$
43.2
mil/
yr
..............................
$
25.6
mil
 
$
83.2
mil/
yr
In
interpreting
these
results,
it
is
important
to
consider
several
critical
caveats
and
limitations
of
the
analysis.
No
commercial
fisheries
losses
or
nonspecial
status
forage
species
losses
are
included
in
the
analysis.
Recreational
losses
are
analyzed
only
for
striped
bass.
There
are
also
uncertainties
about
the
effectiveness
of
restoration
programs
in
terms
of
meeting
special
status
fishery
outcome
targets.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act,
losses
of
all
life
stages
of
endangered
fish
are
of
concern,
not
simply
losses
of
adults.
However,
because
methods
are
unavailable
for
valuing
losses
of
fish
eggs
and
larvae,
EPA
valued
the
losses
of
threatened
and
endangered
species
based
on
the
estimated
number
of
age
1
equivalents
that
are
lost.
Because
the
number
of
age
1
equivalents
can
be
substantially
less
than
the
original
number
of
eggs
and
larvae
lost
to
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
because
the
life
history
data
required
to
calculate
age
1
equivalent
are
uncertain
for
these
rare
species,
this
method
of
quantifying
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
may
result
in
an
underestimate
of
the
true
benefits
to
society
of
the
proposed
section
316(
b)
regulation.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00076
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17197
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
4.
The
Great
Lakes
EPA
examined
the
estimated
economic
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
at
J.
R.
Whiting
before
installation
of
a
deterrent
net
to
reduce
impingement
to
estimate
the
historical
losses
of
the
facility
and
potential
impingement
and
entrainment
damages
at
other
Great
Lakes
facilities
that
do
not
employ
technologies
to
reduce
impingement
or
entrainment.
Average
impingement
without
the
net
is
valued
at
between
$
0.4
million
and
$
1.2
million
per
year,
and
average
entrainment
is
valued
at
between
$
42,000
and
$
1.7
million
per
year
(
all
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
16).
The
midpoints
of
the
pre­
net
results
from
the
benefits
transfer
approach
were
used
as
the
lower
ends
of
the
valuations
losses.
The
upper
ends
of
the
valuation
of
losses
reflect
results
of
the
Habitatbased
Replacement
Cost
(
HRC)
method
for
valuing
impingement
and
entrainment
losses.
HRC­
based
estimates
of
the
economic
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
J.
R.
Whiting
were
included
with
the
transfer­
based
estimates
to
provide
a
better
estimate
of
loss
values,
particularly
for
forage
species
for
which
valuation
techniques
are
limited.
The
HRC
technique
is
designed
to
provide
a
more
comprehensive,
ecological­
based
valuation
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
than
valuation
by
traditional
commercial
and
recreational
impacts
methods.
Losses
are
valued
on
the
basis
of
the
combined
costs
for
implementing
habitat
restoration
actions,
administering
the
programs,
and
monitoring
the
increased
production
after
the
restoration
actions.
In
a
complete
HRC,
these
costs
are
developed
by
identifying
the
preferred
habitat
restoration
alternative
for
each
species
with
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
and
then
scaling
the
level
of
habitat
restoration
until
the
losses
across
all
the
species
in
that
category
have
been
offset
by
expected
increases
in
production
of
each
species.
The
total
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
the
facility
is
then
calculated
as
the
sum
of
the
costs
across
the
categories
of
preferred
habitat
restoration
alternatives.
The
HRC
method
is
thus
a
supplyside
approach
for
valuing
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
in
contrast
to
the
more
typically
used
demand­
side
valuation
approaches
(
e.
g.,
commercial
and
recreational
fishing
impacts
valuations).
An
advantage
of
the
HRC
method
is
that
the
HRC
values
can
easily
address
losses
for
species
lacking
a
recreational
or
commercial
fishery
value
(
e.
g.,
forage
species
that
typically
are
a
large
proportion
of
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts,
but
that
are
not
readily
valued
in
a
traditional
benefits
analysis).
Further,
the
HRC
explicitly
recognizes
and
captures
the
fundamental
ecological
relationships
between
impinged
and
entrained
organisms
and
their
surrounding
environment
by
valuing
losses
through
the
cost
of
the
actions
required
to
provide
an
offsetting
increase
in
the
existing
populations
of
those
species
in
their
natural
environment.
Impingement
losses
at
J.
R.
Whiting
with
an
aquatic
barrier
net
are
estimated
to
be
reduced
by
92
percent,
while
entrainment
losses
are
not
significantly
affected.
Thus,
losses
with
a
net
are
valued
at
between
$
29,000
and
$
99,000
for
impingement
and
between
$
42,000
and
$
1.7
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
17).

EXHIBIT
16.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
FOR
J.
R.
WHITING
WITHOUT
NET
Impingement
Entrainment
One
Great
Lakes
Facility
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
1.8
mil/
yr
...................................................
>
290,000/
yr.
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
........................................
>
21.4
mil
lbs/
yr
...........................................
>
404,000
lbs/
yr.
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
..............................................
$
0.4
mil
 
$
1.2
mil/
yr
....................................
$
42,000
 
$
1.7
mil/
yr.

EXHIBIT
17.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
FOR
J.
R.
WHITING
WITHOUT
NET
Impingement
Entrainment
One
Great
Lakes
Facility
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
0.1
mil/
yr
...................................................
>
290,000/
yr.
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
........................................
>
1.7
mil
lbs/
yr
.............................................
>
404,000
lbs/
yr.
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
..............................................
$
29,000
 
$
99,000/
yr
....................................
$
42,000
 
$
1.7
mil/
yr.

5.
Tampa
Bay
To
evaluate
potential
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
estuaries
of
the
Gulf
Coast
and
Southeast
Atlantic,
EPA
evaluated
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
at
the
Big
Bend
facility
in
Tampa
Bay.
EPA
estimated
that
the
impingement
impact
of
Big
Bend
is
420,000
age
1
equivalent
fish
and
over
11,000
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
per
year.
The
entrainment
impact
is
7.71
billion
age
1
equivalent
fish
and
over
nearly
23
million
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
per
year.
Extrapolation
of
these
losses
to
other
Tampa
Bay
facilities
indicated
a
cumulative
impingement
impact
of
1
million
age
1
fish
(
27,000
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield)
and
a
cumulative
entrainment
impact
of
19
billion
age
1
equivalent
fish
(
56
million
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield)
each
year.
The
results
of
EPA's
evaluation
of
the
dollar
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Big
Bend,
as
calculated
using
benefits
transfer,
indicate
that
baseline
economic
losses
range
from
$
61,000
to
$
67,000
per
year
for
impingement
and
from
$
7.1
million
to
$
7.4
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$).
Baseline
economic
losses
using
benefits
transfer
for
all
in
scope
facilities
in
Tampa
Bay
(
Big
Bend,
PL
Bartow,
FJ
Gannon,
and
Hookers
Point)
range
from
$
150,000
to
$
165,000
for
impingement
and
from
$
17.5
million
to
$
18.5
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$).
EPA
also
developed
a
random
utility
model
(
RUM)
approach
to
estimate
the
effects
of
improved
fishing
opportunities
due
to
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
Tampa
Bay
Region.
Cooling
water
intake
structures
withdrawing
water
from
Tampa
Bay
impinge
and
entrain
many
of
the
species
sought
by
recreational
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
21:
35
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00077
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm11
PsN:
09APP2
17198
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
anglers.
These
species
include
spotted
seatrout,
black
drum,
sheepshead,
pinfish,
and
silver
perch.
The
study
area
includes
Tampa
Bay
itself
and
coastal
sites
to
the
north
and
south
of
Tampa
Bay.
The
study's
main
assumption
is
that
anglers
will
get
greater
satisfaction,
and
thus
greater
economic
value,
from
sites
where
the
catch
rate
is
higher,
all
else
being
equal.
This
benefit
may
occur
in
two
ways:
first,
an
angler
may
get
greater
enjoyment
from
a
given
fishing
trip
when
catch
rates
are
higher,
and
thus
get
a
greater
value
per
trip;
second,
anglers
may
take
more
fishing
trips
when
catch
rates
are
higher,
resulting
in
greater
overall
value
for
fishing
in
the
region.
EPA's
analysis
of
improvements
in
recreational
fishing
opportunities
in
the
Tampa
Bay
Region
relies
on
a
subset
of
the
1997
Marine
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey
(
MRFSS)
combined
with
the
1997
Add­
on
MRFSS
Economic
Survey
(
AMES)
and
the
follow­
up
telephone
survey
for
the
Southeastern
United
States.
The
Agency
evaluated
five
species
and
species
groups
in
the
model:
drums
(
including
red
and
black
drum),
spotted
seatrout,
gamefish,
snapper­
grouper,
and
all
other
species.
Impingement
and
entrainment
was
found
to
affect
black
drum,
spotted
seatrout,
and
sheepshead
which
is
included
in
the
snapper­
grouper
species
category.
EPA
estimated
both
a
random
utility
site
choice
model
and
a
negative
binomial
trip
participation
model.
The
random
utility
model
assumes
that
anglers
choose
the
site
that
provides
them
with
the
greatest
satisfaction,
based
on
the
characteristics
of
different
sites
and
the
travel
costs
associated
with
visiting
different
sites.
The
trip
participation
model
assumes
that
the
total
number
of
trips
taken
in
a
year
are
a
function
of
the
value
of
each
site
to
the
angler
and
characteristics
of
the
angler.
To
estimate
changes
in
the
quality
of
fishing
sites
under
different
policy
scenarios,
EPA
relied
on
the
recreational
fishery
landings
data
by
State
and
the
estimates
of
recreational
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
on
the
relevant
species
at
the
Tampa
Bay
cooling
water
intake
structures.
The
Agency
estimated
changes
in
the
quality
of
recreational
fishing
sites
under
different
policy
scenarios
in
terms
of
the
percentage
change
in
the
historic
catch
rate.
EPA
divided
losses
to
the
recreational
fishery
from
impingement
and
entrainment
by
the
total
recreational
landings
for
the
Tampa
Bay
area
to
calculate
the
percent
change
in
historic
catch
rate
from
baseline
losses
(
i.
e.,
eliminating
impingement
and
entrainment
completely).
The
results
show
that
anglers
targeting
black
drum
have
the
largest
per
trip
welfare
gain
($
7.18
in
2001$)
from
eliminating
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
Tampa
region.
Anglers
targeting
spotted
seatrout
and
sheepshead
have
smaller
per­
trip
gains
($
1.80
and
$
1.77
respectively,
in
2001$).
The
large
gains
for
black
drum
are
due
to
the
large
predicted
increase
in
catch
rates.
In
general,
based
on
a
hypothetical
one
fish
per
trip
increase
in
catch
rate,
gamefish
and
snappergrouper
are
the
most
highly
valued
fish
in
the
study
area,
followed
by
drums
and
spotted
seatrout.
EPA
calculated
total
economic
values
by
combining
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
gain
with
the
total
number
of
trips
to
sites
in
the
Tampa
Bay
region.
EPA
used
the
estimated
trip
participation
model
to
estimate
the
percentage
change
in
the
number
of
fishing
trips
with
the
elimination
of
impingement
and
entrainment.
These
estimated
percentage
increases
are
0.93
percent
for
anglers
who
target
sheepshead,
0.94
percent
for
anglers
who
target
spotted
seatrout,
and
3.82
percent
for
anglers
who
target
black
drum.
If
impingement
and
entrainment
is
eliminated
in
the
Tampa
region,
total
benefits
are
estimated
to
be
$
2,428,000
per
year
at
the
baseline
number
of
trips,
and
$
2,458,000
per
year
at
the
predicted
increased
number
of
trips
(
all
in
2001$).
At
the
baseline
number
of
trips,
the
impingement
and
entrainment
benefits
to
black
drum
anglers
are
$
270,000
per
year;
benefits
to
spotted
seatrout
anglers
are
$
2,016,000
per
year;
and
benefits
to
sheepshead
anglers
are
$
143,000
per
year
(
all
in
2001$).
Results
for
the
RUM
analysis
were
merged
with
the
benefits
transfer­
based
estimates
to
create
an
estimate
of
recreational
fishery
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
in
a
manner
that
avoids
double
counting
of
the
recreation
impacts.
Baseline
economic
losses
combining
both
approaches
for
all
in
scope
facilities
in
Tampa
Bay
(
Big
Bend,
PL
Bartow,
FJ
Gannon,
and
Hookers
Point)
range
from
$
0.80
million
to
$
0.82
million
for
impingement
and
from
$
20.0
million
to
$
20.9
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
18).
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
EPA
believes
that
the
estimates
developed
here
underestimate
the
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Tampa
Bay
facilities.
EPA
assumed
that
the
effects
of
impingement
and
entrainment
on
fish
populations
are
constant
over
time
(
i.
e.,
that
fish
kills
do
not
have
cumulatively
greater
impacts
on
diminished
fish
populations).
EPA
also
did
not
analyze
whether
the
number
of
fish
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment
would
increase
as
populations
increase
in
response
to
improved
water
quality
or
other
improvements
in
environmental
conditions.
In
the
economic
analyses,
EPA
also
assumed
that
fishing
is
the
only
recreational
activity
affected.

EXHIBIT
18.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
FOR
TAMPA
BAY
Impingement
Entrainment
Four
In
Scope
Facilities
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
1
mil/
yr
......................................................
>
19
billion/
yr.
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
........................................
>
27,000
lbs/
yr
.............................................
>
56
million
lbs/
yr.
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
..............................................
$
0.80
mil
 
$
0.82
mil/
yr
................................
$
20.0
mil
 
$
20.9
mil/
yr.

6.
Brayton
Point
EPA
evaluated
cumulative
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
at
the
Brayton
Point
Station
facility
in
Mount
Hope
Bay
in
Somerset,
Massachusetts.
EPA
estimates
that
the
cumulative
impingement
impact
is
69,300
age
1
equivalents
and
5,100
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
per
year.
The
cumulative
entrainment
impact
amounts
to
3.8
million
age
1
equivalents
and
70,400
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
each
year.
The
results
of
EPA's
evaluation
of
the
dollar
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Brayton
Point
(
as
calculated
using
benefits
transfer)
indicate
that
baseline
economic
losses
range
from
$
7,000
to
$
12,000
per
year
for
impingement
and
from
$
166,000
to
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00078
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17199
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
$
303,000
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$).
EPA
also
developed
an
Habitat­
based
Replacement
Cost
(
HRC)
analysis
to
examine
the
costs
of
restoring
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Brayton
Point.
These
HRC
estimates
were
merged
with
the
benefits
transfer
results
to
develop
a
more
comprehensive
range
of
loss
estimates.
The
HRC
results
were
used
as
an
upper
bound
and
the
midpoint
of
the
benefits
transfer
method
was
used
as
a
lower
bound
(
HRC
annualized
at
7
percent
over
20
years).
Combining
both
approaches,
the
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Brayton
Point
range
from
approximately
$
9,000
to
$
890,00
per
year
for
impingement,
and
from
$
0.2
million
to
$
28.3
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
19).
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
EPA
believes
that
the
estimates
developed
here
underestimate
the
total
economic
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
at
Brayton
Point.
EPA
assumed
that
the
effects
of
impingement
and
entrainment
on
fish
populations
are
constant
over
time
(
i.
e.,
that
fish
kills
do
not
have
cumulatively
greater
impacts
on
diminished
fish
populations).
EPA
also
did
not
analyze
whether
the
number
of
fish
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment
would
increase
as
populations
increase
in
response
to
improved
water
quality
or
other
improvements
in
environmental
conditions.
In
the
economic
analyses,
EPA
also
assumed
that
fishing
is
the
only
recreational
activity
affected.

EXHIBIT
19.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
FOR
BRAYTON
POINT
Impingement
Entrainment
One
In
Scope
Facility
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
69,300/
yr
..................................................
>
3.8
mil/
yr.
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
........................................
>
5,100
lbs/
yr
...............................................
>
70,400
lbs/
yr.
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
..............................................
$
9,000
 
$
890,000/
yr
....................................
$
0.2
mil
 
$
28.3
mil/
yr.

7.
Seabrook
Pilgrim
The
results
of
EPA's
evaluation
of
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
at
Seabrook
and
Pilgrim
indicate
that
impingement
and
entrainment
at
Seabrook's
offshore
intake
is
substantially
less
than
impingement
and
entrainment
at
Pilgrim's
nearshore
intake.
Impingement
per
MGD
averages
68
percent
less
and
entrainment
averages
58
percent
less
at
Seabrook.
The
species
most
commonly
impinged
at
both
facilities
are
primarily
winter
flounder,
Atlantic
herring,
Atlantic
menhaden,
and
red
hake.
These
are
species
of
commercial
and
recreational
interest.
However,
the
species
most
commonly
entrained
at
the
facilities
are
predominately
forage
species.
Because
it
is
difficult
to
assign
an
economic
value
to
such
losses,
and
because
entrainment
losses
are
much
greater
than
impingement
losses,
the
benefits
of
an
offshore
intake
or
other
technologies
that
may
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
at
these
facilities
are
likely
to
be
underestimated.
There
also
are
several
important
factors
in
addition
to
the
intake
location
(
nearshore
versus
offshore)
that
complicate
the
comparison
of
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
Seabrook
facility
to
impingement
and
entrainment
at
Pilgrim
(
e.
g.,
entrainment
data
are
based
on
different
flow
regimes,
different
years
of
data
collection,
and
protocols
for
reporting
monitoring
results).
Average
impingement
losses
at
Seabrook
are
valued
at
between
$
3,500
and
$
5,200
per
year,
and
average
entrainment
losses
are
valued
at
between
$
142,000
and
$
315,000
per
year
(
all
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
20).
Average
impingement
losses
at
Pilgrim
are
valued
at
between
$
3,300
and
$
5,000
per
year,
and
average
entrainment
losses
are
valued
at
between
$
523,500
and
$
759,300
per
year
(
all
in
2001$).
These
values
reflect
estimates
derived
using
benefits
transfer.
EPA
also
developed
an
HRC
analysis
to
examine
the
costs
of
restoring
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Pilgrim.
Using
the
HRC
approach,
the
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Pilgrim
are
approximately
$
507,000
for
impingement,
and
over
$
9.3
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
HRC
annualized
at
7
percent
over
20
years)
(
all
in
2001$).
These
HRC
estimates
were
merged
with
the
benefits
transfer
results
to
develop
a
more
comprehensive
range
of
loss
estimates.
These
HRC
estimates
were
merged
with
the
benefits
transfer
results
to
develop
a
more
comprehensive
range
of
loss
estimates.
The
HRC
results
were
used
as
an
upper
bound
and
the
midpoint
of
the
benefits
transfer
method
was
used
as
a
lower
bound
(
HRC
annualized
at
7
percent
over
20
years).
Combining
both
approaches,
the
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Pilgrim
range
from
approximately
$
4,000
to
$
507,00
per
year
for
impingement,
and
from
$
0.6
million
to
$
9.3
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
21).

EXHIBIT
20.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
FOR
SEABROOK
Impingement
Entrainment
One
In
Scope
Facility:
Seabrook
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
1.8
mil/
yr
.................................................
>
290,000/
yr
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
........................................
>
21.4
mil
lbs/
yr
..........................................
>
404,000
lbs/
yr
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
..............................................
$
3,000
 
$
5,000
............................................
$
142,000
 
$
315,000
EXHIBIT
21.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
FOR
PILGRIM
Impingement
Entrainment
One
In
Scope
Facility:
Pilgrim
Losses
Using
Benefits
Transfer
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
1.8
mil/
yr
.................................................
>
290,000/
yr
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00079
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17200
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
21.
 
BASELINE
IMPACTS
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
FOR
PILGRIM
 
Continued
Impingement
Entrainment
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
........................................
>
21.4
mil
lbs/
yr
..........................................
>
404,000
lbs/
yr
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
..............................................
$
3,000
 
$
5,000/
yr
........................................
$
0.5
mil
 
$
0.7
mil/
yr
Pilgrim
Losses
Using
HRC
as
Upper
Bounds
and
Benefits
Transfer
Midpoints
as
Lower
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
1.8
mil/
yr
.................................................
>
290,000/
yr
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
........................................
>
21.4
mil
lbs/
yr
..........................................
>
404,000
lbs/
yr
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
..............................................
$
4,000
 
$
507,000/
yr
....................................
$
0.6
mil
 
$
9.3
mil/
yr
8.
Monroe
EPA
estimates
that
the
baseline
impingement
losses
at
the
Monroe
facility
are
35.8
million
age
1
equivalents
and
1.4
million
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
per
year.
Baseline
entrainment
impacts
amount
to
11.6
million
age
1
equivalents
and
608,300
pounds
of
lost
fishery
yield
each
year.
The
results
of
EPA's
evaluation
of
the
dollar
value
of
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Monroe
(
as
calculated
using
benefits
transfer)
indicate
that
baseline
economic
losses
range
from
$
502,200
to
$
981,750
per
year
for
impingement
and
from
$
314,600
to
$
2,298,500
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$).
EPA
also
developed
an
HRC
analysis
to
examine
the
costs
of
restoring
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Pilgrim.
These
HRC
estimates
were
merged
with
the
benefits
transfer
results
to
develop
a
more
comprehensive
range
of
loss
estimates.
These
HRC
estimates
were
merged
with
the
benefits
transfer
results
to
develop
a
more
comprehensive
range
of
loss
estimates.
The
HRC
results
were
used
as
an
upper
bound
and
the
midpoint
of
the
benefits
transfer
method
was
used
as
a
lower
bound
(
HRC
annualized
at
7
percent
over
20
years).
Combining
both
approaches,
the
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
Monroe
range
from
approximately
$
0.7
million
to
$
5.6
per
year
for
impingement,
and
from
$
1.3
million
to
$
13.9
million
per
year
for
entrainment
(
all
in
2001$)
(
see
Exhibit
22).
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
EPA
believes
that
the
estimates
developed
here
underestimate
the
total
economic
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
Monroe
facility.
EPA
assumed
that
the
effects
of
impingement
and
entrainment
on
fish
populations
are
constant
over
time
(
i.
e.,
that
fish
kills
do
not
have
cumulatively
greater
impacts
on
diminished
fish
populations).
EPA
also
did
not
analyze
whether
the
number
of
fish
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment
would
increase
as
populations
increase
in
response
to
improved
water
quality
or
other
improvements
in
environmental
conditions.
In
the
economic
analyses,
EPA
also
assumed
that
fishing
is
the
only
recreational
activity
affected.

EXHIBIT
22.
 
BASELINE
LOSSES
AT
(
ANNUAL
AVERAGE)
MONROE
(
USING
HRC
VALUES
AS
UPPER
BOUNDS)

Impingement
Entrainment
One
In
Scope
Facility
a.
age
1
equivalent
fish
lost
..........................................
>
1.8
mil/
yr
.................................................
>
290,000/
yr
b.
#
lbs
lost
to
landed
fishery
........................................
>
21.4
mil
lbs/
yr
..........................................
>
404,000
lbs/
yr
c.
$
value
of
loss
(
2001$)
..............................................
$
0.7
mil
 
$
5.6
mil
........................................
$
1.3
mil
 
$
13.9
mil
F.
Estimates
of
National
Benefits
1.
Methodology
In
order
to
compare
benefits
to
costs
for
a
national
rulemaking
such
as
the
section
316(
b)
proposed
rule
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
there
is
a
need
to
generate
national
estimates
of
both
costs
and
benefits.
This
section
describes
the
methodology
EPA
has
developed
to
provide
national
estimates
of
benefits.
Because
benefits
are
very
site­
specific,
there
are
limited
options
for
how
EPA
can
develop
national­
level
benefits
estimates
from
a
diverse
set
of
over
500
regulated
entities.
EPA
could
only
develop
a
limited
number
of
case
studies,
and
to
interpret
these
cases
in
a
national
context,
the
Agency
identified
a
range
of
settings
that
reflect
the
likely
benefits
potential
of
a
given
type
of
facility
(
and
its
key
stressorrelated
attributes)
in
combination
with
the
waterbody
characteristics
(
receptor
attributes)
in
which
it
is
located.
Benefits
potential
settings
can
thus
be
defined
by
the
various
possible
combinations
of
stressor
(
facility)
and
receptor
(
waterbody,
etc)
combinations.
Ideally,
case
studies
would
be
selected
to
represent
each
of
these
``
benefits
potential''
settings
and
then
could
be
used
to
extrapolate
to
likecharacterized
facility­
waterbody
setting
cooling
water
intake
structure
sites.
However,
data
limitations
and
other
considerations
precluded
EPA
from
developing
enough
case
studies
to
reflect
the
complete
range
of
benefitspotential
settings.
Data
limitations
also
made
it
difficult
to
reliably
assign
facilities
to
the
various
benefits
potential
categories.
Based
on
the
difficulties
noted
above,
EPA
adopted
a
more
practical,
streamlined
extrapolation
version
of
its
preferred
approach,
as
this
is
the
only
viable
approach
available
to
the
Agency.
To
develop
a
feasible,
tractable
manner
for
developing
national
benefits
estimates
from
a
small
number
of
case
study
investigations,
EPA
made
its
national
extrapolations
on
the
basis
of
a
combination
of
three
relevant
variables:
(
1)
The
volume
of
water
(
operational
flow)
drawn
by
a
facility;
(
2)
the
level
of
recreational
angling
activity
within
the
vicinity
of
the
facility;
and
(
3)
the
type
of
waterbody
on
which
the
facility
is
located.
Extrapolations
were
then
made
across
facilities
according
to
their
respective
waterbody
type.
The
first
of
these
variables
 
operational
flow
(
measured
as
millions
of
gallons
per
day,
or
MGD)
 
reflects
the
degree
of
stress
caused
by
a
facility.
The
second
variable
 
the
number
of
angler
days
in
the
area
(
measured
as
the
number
of
recreational
angling
days
within
a
120
mile
radius)
 
reflects
the
degree
to
which
there
is
a
demand
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00080
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17201
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
value)
by
local
residents
to
use
the
fishery
that
is
impacted.
The
third
variable
 
waterbody
type
(
e.
g.,
estuary,
ocean,
freshwater
river
or
lake,
or
Great
Lakes)
 
reflects
the
types,
numbers,
and
life
stages
of
fish
and
other
biological
receptors
that
are
impacted
by
the
facilities.
Accordingly,
the
extrapolations
based
on
these
three
variables
reflect
the
key
factors
that
affect
benefits:
the
relevant
stressor,
the
biological
receptors,
and
the
human
demands
for
the
natural
resources
and
services
impacted.
Flow:
The
flow
variable
the
Agency
developed
is
the
monetized
benefits
per
volume
of
water
flowing
through
cooling
water
intake
structures,
in
specific,
applying
a
metric
of
``
dollars
per
million
gallons
per
day''
($/
MGD),
where
MGD
levels
are
based
on
average
operational
flows
as
reported
by
the
facilities
in
the
EPA
Section
316(
b)
Detailed
Questionnaire
and
Short
Technical
Questionnaire
responses,
or
through
publically
available
data.
Angler
days.
The
angler
day
variable
the
Agency
used
is
based
on
data
developed
by
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Survey
as
part
of
its
1996
National
Survey
of
Fishing,
Hunting,
and
Wildlife­
Associated
Recreation.
These
data
were
interpreted
within
a
GISbased
approach
to
estimate
the
level
of
recreational
angling
pursued
by
populations
living
within
120
miles
of
each
facility
(
additional
detail
is
provided
in
the
EBA).
In
developing
the
index,
EPA
used
a
GIS
analysis
to
identify
counties
within
a
120
mile
radius
of
each
facility.
The
area
for
each
facility
included
the
county
the
facility
is
located
in
and
any
other
county
with
50
percent
or
more
of
its
population
residing
within
120
miles
of
the
facility.
EPA
estimated
angling
activity
levels
for
two
types
of
angling
days
for
each
county:
freshwater
angling
days
and
saltwater
angling
days.
Estimated
angling
days
for
the
appropriate
waterbody
type
were
summed
across
all
counties
in
a
facility's
area
to
yield
estimated
angling
days
near
the
facility.
For
each
type
of
angling,
EPA
estimated
angling
days
by
county
residents
as
a
percentage
of
the
State
angling
days
by
residents
16
years
and
older
reported
in
the
1996
National
Survey
of
Fishing,
Hunting,
and
Wildlife­
Associated
Recreation
(
USFWS,
1997).
Angling
days
in
each
State
were
partitioned
into
days
by
urban
anglers
and
days
by
rural
anglers
based
on
the
U.
S.
percentages
reported
in
the
1996
National
Survey.
For
urban
counties,
Angling
Days
=
State
Urban
Angling
Days
*
County
Pop/
State
Pop
in
Urban
Counties
For
rural
counties,
Angling
Days
=
State
Rural
Angling
Days
*
County
Pop/
State
Pop
in
Rural
Counties
EPA
determined
urban
and
rural
population
by
State
by
summing
the
1999
county
populations
for
the
State's
urban
and
rural
counties
respectively.
EPA
determined
each
county's
urban/
rural
status
using
definitions
developed
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(
as
included
in
NORSIS
1997).
These
index
values
are
based
upon
the
estimated
number
of
angling
days
by
residents
living
near
the
facility.
The
index
value
for
each
facility
is
a
measure
of
the
facility's
share
of
the
total
angling
days
estimated
at
all
in
scope
facilities
located
on
a
similar
waterbody.
The
analysis
then
proceeded
by
waterbody
type.

Estuaries
National
baseline
losses
and
benefits
for
estuaries
were
based
on
the
Salem
and
Tampa
Bay
case
studies.
The
case
studies
were
extrapolated
to
other
facilities
on
the
basis
of
regional
fishery
types,
in
an
effort
to
reflect
the
different
types
of
fisheries
that
are
impacted
in
various
regions
of
the
country's
coastal
waters.
As
such,
the
Tampa
Bay
case
study
results
were
applied
to
estuary
facilities
located
in
Florida
and
other
Gulf
Coast
States,
and
the
Salem
results
were
applied
to
all
remaining
estuary
facilities
(
note
that
the
Salem
results
used
for
the
extrapolation
differ
from
the
case
study
results
presented
above
in
order
to
reflect
losses
without
a
screen
currently
in
place
at
the
facility).
Ideally,
a
West
Coast
facility
would
have
served
as
the
basis
of
extrapolation
to
estuarine
facilities
along
the
Pacific
Coast,
but
EPA
could
not
develop
a
suitable
case
study
for
that
purpose
in
time
for
this
proposal.
However,
EPA
intends
to
develop
such
a
western
estuary
case
study
and
report
its
findings
in
an
anticipated
forthcoming
Notice
of
Data
Availability.
In
order
to
extrapolate
baseline
losses
from
the
Salem
and
Big
Bend
facilities
to
all
in
scope
facilities
on
estuaries,
EPA
calculated
an
index
of
angling
activity
for
each
of
these
in
scope
facilities.
The
angling
index
is
a
percentage
value
that
ranges
from
0
to
1.
Dividing
baseline
losses
at
a
facility
by
the
index
value
provides
an
estimate
of
total
baseline
losses
at
all
in
scope
facilities
located
on
waterbodies
in
the
same
category.

Rivers
and
Lakes
EPA
combined
rivers,
lakes
and
reservoirs
into
one
class
of
freshwaterbased
facilities
(
Great
Lakes
are
not
included
in
this
group,
and
were
considered
separately).
The
waterbody
classifications
for
freshwater
rivers
and
lakes/
reservoirs
were
grouped
together
for
the
extrapolation
due
to
similar
ecological
and
hydrological
characteristics
of
freshwater
systems
used
as
cooling
water.
The
majority
of
these
hydrologic
systems
have
undergone
some
degree
of
modification
for
purposes
such
as
water
storage,
flood
control,
and
navigation.
The
degree
of
modification
can
vary
very
little
or
quite
dramatically.
A
facility
falling
into
the
lake/
reservoir
category
may
withdraw
cooling
water
from
a
lake
that
has
been
reclassified
as
a
reservoir
due
to
the
addition
of
an
earthen
dam,
or
from
a
reservoir
created
by
the
diversion
of
a
river
through
a
diversion
canal
for
use
as
a
cooling
lake.
The
species
composition
and
ecology
of
these
two
waterbodies
may
vary
greatly.
While
the
ecology
of
river
systems
and
lakes
or
reservoirs
are
considerably
different,
due
to
structural
modifications
these
two
classifications
may
be
quite
similar
ecologically
depending
on
the
waterbody
in
question.
For
example,
many
river
systems,
including
the
Ohio
River,
are
now
broken
up
into
a
series
of
navigational
pools
controlled
by
dams
that
may
function
more
similarly
to
a
reservoir
than
a
naturally
flowing
river.
Baseline
losses
and
benefits
in
the
Ohio
case
study
were
based
on
29
in
scope
facilities
in
the
Ohio
River
case
study
area.
The
Agency
extrapolated
these
losses
to
all
in
scope
facilities
on
other
freshwater
rivers,
lakes,
and
reservoirs.

Oceans
and
Great
Lakes
Oceans
and
Great
Lakes
estimates
were
based
on
extrapolations
from
the
Pilgrim
and
JR
Whiting
facility
case
studies,
respectively.
For
these
two
facilities
(
and
their
associated
waterbody
types),
the
valuation
method
applied
by
EPA
in
the
national
extrapolations
was
based
on
the
Habitatbased
Replacement
Cost
approach,
which
reflects
values
for
addressing
a
much
greater
number
of
impacted
species
(
not
just
the
small
share
that
are
recreational
or
commercial
species
that
are
landed
by
anglers).
For
example,
at
JR
Whiting,
the
benefits
transfer
approach
developed
values
for
recreational
angling
amounted
to
only
4
percent
of
the
estimated
total
impingement
losses,
and
reflected
only
0.02
percent
of
the
age
1
fish
lost
due
to
impingement.
At
Pilgrim,
the
benefits
transfer
approach
reflected
recreational
losses
for
only
0.5
percent
of
the
entrained
age
1
equivalent
fish
at
that
site.
Because
the
Agency
was
able
to
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00081
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17202
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
develop
HRC
values
for
these
sites
and
recreational
fishery
impacts
were
such
a
small
part
of
the
impacts,
EPA
extrapolated
only
based
on
HRC
estimates
and
used
only
the
flow­
based
(
MGD)
index
for
oceans
and
the
Great
Lakes.

Results
The
results
of
the
index
calculations
for
operational
flow
and
angling
effort
used
for
extrapolating
case
study
baseline
losses
to
national
baseline
losses
for
all
in
scope
facilities
are
reported
in
Exhibit
23
below.

EXHIBIT
23.
 
FLOW
AND
ANGLING
INDICES
Waterbody
Type
Based
on
Normalized
MGD
percent
Percent
of
in
scope
angling
base
Estuary­
N.
Atlantic
............................................................
Salem
...............................................................................
4.39
2.10
Estuary­
S.
Atlantic
.............................................................
4
Tampa
Bay
facilities
.....................................................
19.24
20.28
Freshwater
systems
..........................................................
29
Ohio
River
facilities
.....................................................
9.30
12.34
Great
Lake
........................................................................
JR
Whiting
........................................................................
3.92
13.89
Ocean
................................................................................
Pilgrim
..............................................................................
3.42
6.54
Waterbody
EPA
further
tailored
its
extrapolation
approach,
so
that
monetized
benefits
estimates
are
based
on
available
data
for
similar
types
of
waterbody
settings.
Thus,
for
example,
the
case
study
results
for
the
Salem
facility
(
located
in
the
Delaware
Estuary)
and
the
Tampa
facilities
are
applied
(
on
a
per
MGD
and
angling
day
index
basis)
only
to
other
facilities
located
in
estuary
waters.
Likewise,
results
from
Ohio
River
facilities
are
applied
to
inland
freshwater
water
cooling
water
intake
structures
(
excluding
facilities
on
the
Great
Lakes),
and
losses
estimated
for
the
Pilgrim
facility
are
applied
to
facilities
using
ocean
waters
at
their
intakes,
and
results
for
J.
R.
Whiting
are
used
for
the
Great
Lakes
facilities.
As
noted
above,
the
waterbody
classifications
for
freshwater
rivers
and
lakes
or
reservoirs
were
grouped
together
for
the
extrapolation
due
to
similar
ecological
and
hydrological
characteristics
of
freshwater
systems
used
as
cooling
water.
The
majority
of
these
hydrologic
systems
have
undergone
some
degree
of
modification
for
purposes
such
as
water
storage,
flood
control,
and
navigation.
Due
to
structural
modifications,
these
freshwater
waterbody
types
be
quite
similar
ecologically.
For
example,
many
river
systems,
including
the
Ohio
River,
are
now
broken
up
into
a
series
of
navigational
pools
controlled
by
dams
that
may
function
more
similarly
to
a
reservoir
than
a
naturally
flowing
river.
The
natural
species
distribution,
genetic
movement,
and
seasonal
migration
of
aquatic
organisms
that
may
be
expected
in
a
natural
system
is
affected
by
factors
such
as
dams,
stocking
of
fish,
and
water
diversions.
Since
the
degree
of
modification
of
inland
waterbodies
and
the
occurrence
of
fish
stocking
could
not
be
determined
for
every
cooling
water
source,
the
waterbody
categories
``
freshwater
rivers'',
and
``
lakes/
reservoirs''
were
grouped
together.
The
facilities
chosen
for
extrapolation
are
expected
to
have
relatively
average
benefits
per
MGD
and
angling
day
index,
for
their
respective
waterbody
types.
Benefits
per
MGD
and
angling
day
index
are
not
expected
to
be
extremely
high
or
low
relative
to
other
facilities.
EPA
was
careful
not
to
use
facilities
that
were
unusual
in
this
regard.
Salem
is
located
in
the
transitional
zone
of
the
estuary,
a
lesser
productive
part
of
the
estuary.
The
use
of
flow
and
angler
day
basis
for
extrapolation
has
some
practical
advantages
and
basis
in
logic;
however,
it
also
has
some
less
than
fully
satisfactory
implications.
The
advantages
of
using
this
extrapolation
approach
include:
 
Feasibility
of
application,
because
the
extrapolation
relies
on
waterbody
type,
angler
demand,
and
MGD
data
that
are
available
for
all
in
scope
facilities.
 
Selectively
extrapolating
case
study
results
to
facilities
on
like
types
of
waterbodies
reflects
the
type
of
aquatic
setting
impacted,
which
is
intended
to
capture
the
number
and
types
of
species
impacted
by
impingement
and
entrainment
at
such
facilities
(
i.
e.,
impacts
at
facilities
on
estuaries
are
more
similar
to
impacts
at
other
estuarybased
cooling
water
intake
structures
than
they
are
to
facilities
on
inland
waters).
 
Flow
in
MGD
is
a
useful
proxy
for
the
scale
of
operation
at
cooling
water
intake
structures,
a
variable
that
typically
will
have
a
large
impact
on
baseline
losses
and
potential
regulatory
benefits.
 
While
there
may
be
a
high
degree
of
variability
in
the
actual
losses
(
and
benefits)
per
MGD
across
facilities
that
impact
similar
waterbodies,
the
extrapolations
are
expected
to
be
reasonably
accurate
on
average
for
developing
an
order­
of­
magnitude
national­
level
estimate
of
benefits.
 
The
recreational
participation
level
(
angler
day)
variable
provides
a
logical
basis
to
reflect
the
extent
of
human
user
demands
for
the
fishery
and
other
resources
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment.
 
The
estimates
are
not
biased
in
either
direction.
Some
of
the
disadvantages
of
the
use
of
extrapolating
results
on
the
basis
of
waterbody
type,
recreational
angling
day
data,
and
operational
flows
(
MGD)
include:
 
The
approach
may
not
reflect
all
of
the
variability
that
exists
in
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
(
and
monetized
losses
or
benefits)
within
waterbody
classifications.
For
example,
within
and
across
U.
S.
estuaries,
there
may
be
different
species,
numbers
of
individuals,
and
life
stages
present
at
different
cooling
water
intake
structures.
 
The
approach
may
not
reflect
all
of
the
variability
that
exists
in
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
(
and
monetized
losses
or
benefits)
across
operational
flow
levels
(
MGD)
at
different
facilities
within
a
given
waterbody
type.
Extrapolating
to
national
benefits
according
to
flow
(
MGD),
angling
levels,
and
waterbody
type,
as
derived
from
estimates
for
a
small
number
of
case
studies,
may
introduce
inaccuracies
into
national
estimates.
This
is
because
the
three
variables
used
as
the
basis
for
the
extrapolation
(
MGD,
recreational
angling
days,
and
waterbody
type)
may
not
account
for
all
of
the
variability
expected
in
site­
specific
benefits
levels.
The
case
studies
may
not
reflect
the
average
or
``
typical''
cooling
water
intake
structures
impacts
on
a
given
type
of
waterbody
(
i.
e.,
the
extrapolated
results
might
under­
or
over­
state
the
physical
and
dollar
value
of
impacts
per
MGD
and
fishing
day
index,
by
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00082
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17203
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
waterbody
type).
The
inaccuracies
introduced
to
the
national­
level
estimates
by
this
extrapolation
approach
are
of
unknown
magnitude
or
direction
(
i.
e.,
the
estimates
may
over­
or
understate
the
anticipated
national­
level
benefits),
however
EPA
has
no
data
to
indicate
that
the
case
study
results
are
atypical
for
each
waterbody
type.

2.
Results
of
National
Benefits
Extrapolation
National
benefits
for
3
regulatory
compliance
options
were
estimated
for
the
539
facilities
found
to
be
in
scope
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
rulemaking.
The
benefits
estimates
were
derived
in
a
multi­
step
process
that
used
operational
flows
and
the
recreational
fishing
index
as
the
basis
for
extrapolating
case
study
results
to
the
national
level.
In
the
first
step,
EPA
used
the
baseline
losses
(
dollars
per
year)
derived
from
the
analysis
of
facilities
examined
in
the
case
studies.
In
some
instances,
the
case
study
facilities
had
already
implemented
some
measures
to
reduce
impingement
and/
or
entrainment.
In
such
cases,
baseline
losses
as
appropriate
to
the
national
extrapolation
were
estimated
using
data
for
years
prior
to
the
facilities'
actions
(
e.
g.,
based
on
impingement
and
entrainment
before
the
impingement
deterrent
net
was
installed
at
JR
Whiting).
These
preaction
baselines
provide
a
basis
for
examining
other
facilities
that
have
not
yet
taken
actions
to
reduce
impingement
and/
or
entrainment.
Baseline
losses
at
the
selected
case
study
facilities
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
24.

EXHIBIT
24.
 
BASELINE
LOSSES
FROM
SELECTED
CASE
STUDIES
[
Baseline
losses
from
selected
case
studies,
values
in
thousands
of
2001$]

Case
study
Impingement
Entrainment
Low
Mid
High
Low
Mid
High
Salem
...............................................................................
$
528
$
704
$
879
$
16,766
$
23,657
$
30,548
Brayton
.............................................................................
9
450
890
235
14,261
28,288
Contra
Costa
....................................................................
2,666
5,726
8,785
6,413
13,630
20,847
Pittsburgh
.........................................................................
10,096
22,268
34,440
19,166
40,760
62,354
4
Tampa
Bay
Facilities
....................................................
801
809
817
20,007
20,454
20,901
29
Ohio
Facilities
.............................................................
3,452
4,052
4,652
9,257
9,584
9,912
Monroe
.............................................................................
742
3,190
5,639
1,307
7,604
13,902
JR
Whiting
........................................................................
358
797
1,235
42
873
1,703
Pilgrim
Nuclear
.................................................................
4
256
507
642
4,960
9,279
In
the
second
step,
EPA
extrapolated
the
baseline
dollar
loss
estimates
from
the
case
study
models
to
all
of
the
remaining
539
facilities
by
multiplying
the
index
of
operational
flow
for
each
facility
by
the
estimated
dollar
losses
at
baseline
per
unit
flow,
based
on
each
facility's
source
waterbody
type,
were
extrapolated.
This
resulted
in
a
national
estimate
of
baseline
monetizable
losses
for
all
539
in
scope
facilities
as
summarized
in
Exhibit
25.

EXHIBIT
25.
 
BASELINE
LOSSES
EXTRAPOLATED
TO
ALL
IN
SCOPE
FACILITIES
USING
MGD
ONLY
[
Baseline
losses
extrapolated
to
all
in
scope
facilities
 
MGD
only,
values
in
thousands
of
2001$]

Facility
Case
study
Impingement
Entrainment
Low
Mid
High
Low
Mid
High
Estuary,
Non
Gulf
Salem
..................................................
Delaware
................................
$
528
$
704
$
879
$
16,766
$
23,657
$
30,548
Brayton
Point
......................................
Brayton
...................................
9
450
890
235
14,261
28,288
Contra
Costa
.......................................
California
................................
2,666
5,726
8,785
6,413
13,630
20,847
Pittsburgh
............................................
California
................................
10,096
22,268
34,440
19,166
40,760
62,354
All
Other
In
Scope
..............................
............................................
11,167
14,875
18,583
354,346
499,991
645,636
All
78
In
Scope
...................................
............................................
24,467
44,022
63,578
396,925
592,298
787,672
Estuary,
Gulf
Coast
4
Tampa
Facilities
...............................
Tampa
Bay
.............................
801
809
817
20,007
20,454
20,901
All
Other
In
Scope
..............................
............................................
3,361
3,395
3,429
83,982
85,857
87,732
All
30
In
Scope
...................................
............................................
4,162
4,204
4,247
103,989
106,311
108,633
Freshwater
29
Ohio
Facilities
................................
Ohio
........................................
3,452
4,052
4,652
9,257
9,584
9,912
Monroe
................................................
Monroe
...................................
742
3,190
5,639
1,307
7,604
13,902
All
Other
In
Scope
..............................
............................................
33,317
39,111
44,906
89,348
92,514
95,679
All
393
In
Scope
.................................
............................................
37,511
46,353
55,196
99,911
109,702
119,493
Great
Lake
JR
Whiting
...........................................
JR
Whiting
..............................
358
797
1,235
42
873
1,703
All
Other
In
Scope
..............................
............................................
8,774
19,523
30,271
1,025
21,385
41,745
All
16
In
Scope
...................................
............................................
9,132
20,319
31,506
1,067
22,257
43,448
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00083
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17204
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
25.
 
BASELINE
LOSSES
EXTRAPOLATED
TO
ALL
IN
SCOPE
FACILITIES
USING
MGD
ONLY
 
Continued
[
Baseline
losses
extrapolated
to
all
in
scope
facilities
 
MGD
only,
values
in
thousands
of
2001$]

Facility
Case
study
Impingement
Entrainment
Low
Mid
High
Low
Mid
High
Ocean
Pilgrim
Nuclear
....................................
Pilgrim
....................................
4
256
507
642
4,960
9,279
All
Other
In
Scope
..............................
............................................
115
7,219
14,323
18,127
140,146
262,165
All
22
In
Scope
...................................
............................................
119
7,475
14,830
18,769
145,106
271,444
Total
All
Facilities
All
539
In
Scope
.................................
............................................
75,390
122,374
169,357
620,661
975,675
1,330,690
In
the
third
step,
the
Agency
extrapolated
baseline
losses
from
the
case
studies
were
also
developed
using
the
angling
index
values
for
each
case
study.
The
calculation
of
the
index
is
described
above.
The
results
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
26.

EXHIBIT
26.
 
BASELINE
LOSSES
EXTRAPOLATED
 
ANGLING
DAYS
ONLY
[
Values
in
thousands
of
2001$]

Facility
Case
Study
Impingement
Entrainment
Low
Mid
High
Low
Mid
High
Estuary,
Non
Gulf
Salem
..........................
Delaware
.....................
$
528
$
704
$
879
$
16,766
$
23,657
$
30,548
Brayton
Point
..............
Brayton
.......................
9
450
890
235
14,261
28,288
Contra
Costa
..............
California
.....................
2,666
5,726
8,785
6,413
13,630
20,847
Pittsburgh
....................
California
.....................
10,096
22,268
34,440
19,166
40,760
62,354
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
23,840
31,755
39,671
756,471
1,067,399
1,378,327
All
78
In
Scope
...........
.....................................
37,139
60,903
84,667
799,050
1,159,706
1,520,363
Estuary,
Gulf
Coast
4
Tampa
Facilities
......
Tampa
Bay
.................
$
801
$
809
$
817
$
20,007
$
20,454
$
20,901
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
3,148
3,180
3,212
78,664
80,421
82,177
All
30
In
Scope
...........
.....................................
3,949
3,989
4,029
98,672
100,875
103,078
Freshwater
29
Ohio
Facilities
........
Ohio
............................
$
3,452
$
4,052
$
4,652
$
9,257
$
9,584
$
9,912
Monroe
........................
Monroe
........................
742
3,190
5,639
1,307
7,604
13,902
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
23,203
27,238
31,273
62,224
64,429
66,633
All
393
In
Scope
.........
.....................................
27,396
34,480
41,564
72,787
81,617
90,447
Great
Lake
JR
Whiting
..................
JR
Whiting
..................
$
358
$
797
$
1,235
$
42
$
873
$
1,703
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
2,231
4,965
7,698
261
5,438
10,616
All
16
In
Scope
...........
.....................................
2,589
5,761
8,933
302
6,311
12,319
Ocean
Pilgrim
Nuclear
...........
Pilgrim
.........................
$
4
$
256
$
507
$
642
$
4,960
$
9,279
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
56
3,529
7,001
8,861
68,504
128,147
All
22
In
Scope
...........
.....................................
60
3,784
7,508
9,502
73,464
137,426
Total
All
Facilities
All
539
In
Scope
.........
.....................................
$
71,134
$
108,918
$
146,701
$
980,314
$
1,421,974
$
1,863,633
As
a
fourth
step,
EPA
calculated
the
average
baseline
losses
of
the
flow­
based
results
and
the
angling­
based
results.
This
develops
results
that
reflect
an
equal­
weighted
extrapolation
measure
of
each
case
study
facility's
baseline
loss,
based
on
it's
percent
share
of
flow
and
recreational
fishing
relative
to
all
in
scope
facilities
in
each
waterbody
type.
The
results
of
this
average
are
reported
in
Exhibit
27.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00084
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17205
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
27.
 
BASELINE
LOSSES
EXTRAPOLATED
TO
ALL
IN
SCOPE
FACILITIES
 
MEANS
OF
MGD
AND
ANGLING
[
Values
in
thousands
of
2001$]

Facility
Case
Study
Impingement
Entrainment
Low
Mid
High
Low
Mid
High
Estuary,
Non
Gulf
Salem
..........................
Delaware
.....................
$
528
$
704
$
879
$
16,766
$
23,657
$
30,548
Brayton
Point
..............
Brayton
.......................
9
450
890
235
14,261
28,288
Contra
Costa
..............
California
.....................
2,666
5,726
8,785
6,413
13,630
20,847
Pittsburgh
....................
California
.....................
10,096
22,268
34,440
19,166
40,760
62,354
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
17,503
23,315
29,127
555,409
783,695
1,011,981
All
78
In
Scope
...........
.....................................
30,803
52,463
74,122
597,988
876,002
1,154,017
Estuary.
Gulf
Coast
4
Tampa
Facilities
......
Tampa
Bay
.................
$
801
$
809
$
817
$
20,007
$
20,454
$
20,901
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
3,255
3,288
3,321
81,323
83,139
84,955
All
30
In
Scope
...........
.....................................
4,055
4,097
4,138
101,330
103,593
105,856
Freshwater
29
Ohio
Facilities
........
Ohio
............................
$
3,452
$
4,052
$
4,652
$
9,257
$
9,584
$
9,912
Monroe
........................
Monroe
........................
742
3,190
5,639
1,307
7,604
13,902
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
28,260
33,175
38,089
75,786
78,471
81,156
All
393
In
Scope
.........
.....................................
32,453
40,417
48,380
86,349
95,660
104,970
Great
Lake
JR
Whiting
..................
JR
Whiting
..................
$
358
$
797
$
1,235
$
42
$
873
$
1,703
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
5,503
12,244
18,985
643
13,412
26,180
All
16
In
Scope
...........
.....................................
5,861
13,040
20,220
685
14,284
27,884
Ocean
Pilgrim
Nuclear
...........
Pilgrim
.........................
$
4
$
256
$
507
$
642
$
4,960
$
9,279
All
Other
In
Scope
......
.....................................
86
5,374
10,662
13,494
104,325
195,156
All
22
In
Scope
...........
.....................................
90
5,629
11,169
14,135
109,285
204,435
Total
All
Facilities
All
539
In
Scope
.........
.....................................
$
73,262
$
115,642
$
158,029
$
800,487
$
1,198,824
$
1,597,162
In
the
fifth
step,
EPA
selected
the
set
of
extrapolation
values
the
Agency
believes
are
the
most
reflective
of
the
baseline
loss
scenarios
that
applied
in
each
waterbody
type.
For
estuaries
and
freshwater
facilities,
EPA
used
the
midpoint
of
its
loss
estimates
of
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
case
study
facilities,
and
then
applied
the
average
of
the
MGD­
and
anglerbased
extrapolation
results.
This
provides
estimates
of
national
baseline
losses
that
reflect
the
broadest
set
of
values
and
parameters
(
i.
e.,
the
full
range
of
loss
estimates,
plus
the
application
of
all
three
extrapolation
variables).
For
oceans
and
the
Great
Lakes,
EPA
developed
national­
scale
estimates
using
its
HRC­
based
loss
estimates,
because
EPA
was
able
to
develop
HRC
estimates
for
these
sites,
and
because
these
HRC
values
are
more
comprehensive
than
the
values
derived
using
the
more
traditional
benefits
transfer
approach.
The
HRC
estimates
cover
losses
for
a
much
larger
percentage
of
fish
lost
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment,
whereas
the
benefits
transfer
approach
addressed
losses
only
for
a
small
share
of
the
impacted
fish.
Since
recreational
fish
impacts
were
an
extremely
small
share
of
the
total
fish
impacts
at
these
sites,
EPA
extrapolated
the
HRC
findings
using
only
the
MGD­
based
index
(
i.
e.,
the
angler­
based
index
was
not
relevant).
The
results
of
EPA's
assessment
of
its
best
estimates
for
baseline
losses
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment
are
shown
in
Exhibit
28.

EXHIBIT
28.
 
BEST
ESTIMATE
BASELINE
LOSSES
[
Best
estimate
baseline
losses,
values
in
thousands
of
2001$]

Facility
Case
study
Impingement
Entrainment
Salem
......................................................................
Delaware
................................................................
$
704
$
23,657
Brayton
Point
..........................................................
Brayton
...................................................................
450
14,261
Contra
Costa
...........................................................
California
................................................................
5,726
13,630
Pittsburgh
................................................................
California
................................................................
22,268
40,760
All
Other
In
Scope
..................................................
.................................................................................
23,315
783,695
All
78
In
Scope
.......................................................
.................................................................................
52,463
876,002
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00085
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17206
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
28.
 
BEST
ESTIMATE
BASELINE
LOSSES
 
Continued
[
Best
estimate
baseline
losses,
values
in
thousands
of
2001$]

Facility
Case
study
Impingement
Entrainment
Estuary
and
Gulf
Coast
4
Tampa
Facilities
..................................................
Tampa
Bay
.............................................................
$
809
$
20,454
All
Other
In
Scope
..................................................
.................................................................................
3,288
83,139
All
30
In
Scope
.......................................................
.................................................................................
4,097
103,593
Freshwater
29
Ohio
Facilities
....................................................
Ohio
........................................................................
$
4,052
$
9,584
Monroe
....................................................................
Monroe
...................................................................
3,190
7,604
All
Other
In
Scope
..................................................
.................................................................................
30,891
73,069
All
393
In
Scope
.....................................................
.................................................................................
38,133
90,258
Great
Lake
JR
Whiting
..............................................................
JR
Whiting
..............................................................
$
1,235
$
1,703
All
Other
In
Scope
..................................................
.................................................................................
30,271
41,745
All
16
In
Scope
.......................................................
.................................................................................
31,506
43,448
Ocean
Pilgrim
Nuclear
.......................................................
Pilgrim
....................................................................
$
507
$
9,279
All
Other
In
Scope
..................................................
.................................................................................
14,323
262,165
All
22
In
Scope
.......................................................
.................................................................................
14,830
271,444
Total
All
Facilities
All
539
In
Scope
.....................................................
.................................................................................
$
141,029
$
1,384,745
In
the
sixth
and
final
step,
EPA
estimated
the
potential
benefits
of
each
regulatory
option
by
applying
a
set
of
estimated
percent
reductions
in
baseline
losses.
The
percent
reduction
in
baseline
losses
for
each
facility
reflects
EPA
assessment
of
(
1)
regulatory
baseline
conditions
at
the
facility
(
i.
e.,
current
practices
and
technologies
in
place),
and
(
2)
the
percent
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment
that
EPA
estimated
would
be
achieved
at
each
facility
that
the
Agency
believes
would
be
adopted
under
each
regulatory
option.
The
options
portrayed
in
the
Exhibits
correspond
to
the
following
technical
descriptions
of
each
alternative:
Option
1
requires
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
located
on
different
categories
of
waterbodies
to
reduce
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
the
use
of
closedcycle
recirculating
cooling
water
systems
based
on
location
and
the
percentage
of
the
source
waterbody
they
withdraw
for
cooling;
Option
2
is
variation
of
Option
1,
but
embodies
a
two­
track
approach
whereby
some
facilities
may
use
site­
specific
studies
to
comply
using
alternative
approaches;
Option
3
(
the
Agency's
preferred
option)
requires
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
to
levels
established
based
on
the
use
of
design
and
construction
or
operational
measures,
except
for
facilities
that
are
below
flow
thresholds
for
lakes
and
rivers;
Option
3a
is
a
variation
of
Option
3,
wherein
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
are
required
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
to
levels
established
based
on
the
use
of
design
and
construction
or
operational
measures;
Option
4
requires
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
reduce
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
the
use
of
closedcycle
recirculating
cooling
water
systems;
Option
5
requires
that
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
reduce
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
the
use
of
dry
cooling
systems.
The
results
of
EPA
approach
to
estimating
national
benefits
are
shown
in
Exhibits
29
through
32
(
note
that
the
percent
reductions
shown
in
these
exhibits
are
the
flow­
weighted
average
reductions
across
all
facilities
in
each
waterbody
category
for
each
regulatory
option).

EXHIBIT
29.
 
IMPINGEMENT
BENEFITS
FOR
VARIOUS
OPTIONS
 
BY
REDUCTION
LEVEL
Waterbody
Type
Facility
Baseline
impingement
loss
Percentage
Reductions
OPTION
1
percent
OPTION
2
percent
OPTION
3
percent
OPTION
3a
percent
OPTION
4
percent
OPTION
5
percent
Estuary
 
NonGulf
All
78
In
Scope
.....
$
52,463
64.5
47.5
33.2
25.0
40.9
97.5
Estuary
 
Gulf
........
All
30
In
Scope
.....
4,097
63.2
45.9
26.5
30.0
45.3
96.7
Freshwater
............
All
393
In
Scope
...
40,417
47.3
47.3
47.3
46.7
59.0
98.0
Great
Lake
............
All
16
In
Scope
.....
31,506
80.0
80.0
80.0
77.0
88.6
96.3
Ocean
...................
All
22
In
Scope
.....
14,830
73.2
59.0
50.6
47.2
59.7
88.8
ALL
........................
All
539
In
Scope
...
143,312
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00086
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17207
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
30.
 
IMPINGEMENT
BENEFITS
FOR
VARIOUS
OPTIONS
 
BY
BENEFIT
LEVEL
Waterbody
type
Facility
Baseline
impingement
loss
Benefits
(
Values
in
thousands
of
2001$)

OPTION
1
OPTION
2
OPTION
3
OPTION
3a
OPTION
4
OPTION
5
Estuary
 
NonGulf
All
78
In
Scope
.....
$
52,463
$
33,834
$
24,909
$
17,418
$
13,125
$
21,470
$
51,141
Estuary
 
Gulf
........
All
30
In
Scope
.....
4,097
2,588
1,882
1,087
1,230
1,856
3,961
Freshwater
............
All
393
In
Scope
...
40,417
19,117
19,117
19,117
18,855
23,828
39,605
Great
Lake
............
All
16
In
Scope
.....
31,506
25,205
25,205
25,205
24,260
27,900
30,326
Ocean
...................
All
22
In
Scope
.....
14,830
10,849
8,746
7,503
6,995
8,858
13,168
ALL
........................
All
539
In
Scope
...
143,312
91,593
79,858
70,329
64,465
83,911
138,201
EXHIBIT
31.
 
ENTRAINMENT
BENEFITS
FOR
VARIOUS
OPTIONS
 
BY
REDUCTION
LEVEL
Waterbody
type
Facility
Baseline
loss
Entrainment
percentage
reductions
OPTION
1
percent
OPTION
2
percent
OPTION
3
percent
OPTION
3a
percent
OPTION
4
percent
OPTION
5
percent
Estuary
 
NonGulf
All
78
In
Scope
.....
$
876,002
67.2
59.1
48.5
47.1
79.2
97.5
Estuary
 
Gulf
........
All
30
In
Scope
.....
103,593
66.9
52.3
47.0
47.8
79.3
96.7
Freshwater
............
All
393
In
Scope
...
95,660
12.4
12.4
12.4
44.2
72.7
98.0
Great
Lake
............
All
16
In
Scope
.....
43,448
57.8
57.8
57.8
57.8
88.6
96.3
Ocean
...................
All
22
In
Scope
.....
271,444
74.2
58.9
45.0
45.0
74.1
88.8
ALL
........................
All
539
In
Scope
...
1,390,147
EXHIBIT
32.
 
ENTRAINMENT
BENEFITS
FOR
VARIOUS
OPTIONS
 
BY
BENEFIT
LEVEL
Waterbody
type
Facility
Baseline
loss
Entrainment
benefit
(
Values
in
thousands
of
2001$)

OPTION
1
OPTION
2
OPTION
3
OPTION
4
OPTION
5
OPTION
6
Estuary
 
NonGulf
All
78
In
Scope
.....
$
876,002
$
588,552
$
517,960
$
424,708
$
412,696
$
693,420
$
853,940
Estuary
 
Gulf
........
All
30
In
Scope
.....
103,593
69,324
54,206
48,645
49,508
82,186
100,175
Freshwater
............
All
393
In
Scope
...
95,660
11,883
11,883
11,883
42,277
69,575
93,738
Great
Lake
............
All
16
In
Scope
.....
43,448
25,092
25,092
25,092
25,092
38,474
41,820
Ocean
...................
All
22
In
Scope
.....
271,444
201,301
159,809
122,098
122,098
201,025
241,020
ALL
........................
All
539
In
Scope
...
1,390,147
896,152
768,950
632,426
651,671
1,084,681
1,330,694
In
addition,
EPA
developed
a
more
generic
illustration
of
potential
benefits,
based
on
a
broad
range
(
from
10
percent
to
90
percent)
of
potential
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment.
These
illustrative
results
are
shown
in
Exhibit
33.
Finally,
the
benefits
estimated
for
Option
3,
the
Agency's
preferred
option,
are
detailed
in
Exhibit
34.

EXHIBIT
33.
 
SUMMARY
OF
POTENTIAL
BENEFITS
ASSOCIATED
WITH
VARIOUS
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
REDUCTION
LEVELS
Reduction
level
percent
Benefits
(
values
in
thousands
of
2001$)

Impingement
Entrainment
10
.................................................
All
539
In
Scope
................................................................................
$
14,331
$
139,015
20
.................................................
All
539
In
Scope
................................................................................
28,662
278,029
30
.................................................
All
539
In
Scope
................................................................................
42,994
417,044
40
.................................................
All
539
In
Scope
................................................................................
57,325
556,059
50
.................................................
All
539
In
Scope
................................................................................
71,656
695,073
60
.................................................
All
539
In
Scope
................................................................................
85,987
834,088
70
.................................................
All
539
In
Scope
................................................................................
100,319
973,103
80
.................................................
All
539
In
Scope
................................................................................
114,650
1,112,118
90
.................................................
All
539
In
Scope
................................................................................
128,981
1,251,132
EXHIBIT
34.
 
SUMMARY
OF
BENEFITS
FROM
IMPINGEMENT
CONTROLS
ASSOCIATED
WITH
OPTION
3
Waterbody
type
Facility
Benefits
(
values
in
thousands
of
2001$)

Impingement
Entrainment
Estuary
 
NonGulf
...................................................
All
78
In
Scope
.......................................................
$
17,418
$
424,708
Estuary
 
Gulf
..........................................................
All
30
In
Scope
.......................................................
1,087
48,645
Freshwater
..............................................................
All
393
In
Scope
.....................................................
19,117
11,883
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00087
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17208
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
34.
 
SUMMARY
OF
BENEFITS
FROM
IMPINGEMENT
CONTROLS
ASSOCIATED
WITH
OPTION
3
 
Continued
Waterbody
type
Facility
Benefits
(
values
in
thousands
of
2001$)

Impingement
Entrainment
Great
Lake
..............................................................
All
16
In
Scope
.......................................................
25,205
25,092
Ocean
.....................................................................
All
22
In
Scope
.......................................................
7,503
122,098
ALL
..........................................................................
All
539
In
Scope
.....................................................
70,329
632,426
Under
today's
proposal,
facilities
can
choose
the
Site­
Specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
in
§
125.94(
a)
in
which
a
facility
can
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
the
cost
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
in
§
125.94(
b)
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
considered
by
EPA
when
establishing
these
performance
standards,
or
the
costs
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
these
performance
standards.
EPA
expects
that
if
facilities
were
to
choose
this
approach,
then
the
overall
national
benefits
of
this
rule
will
decrease
markedly.
This
is
because
under
this
approach
facilities
would
choose
the
lowest
cost
technologies
possible
and
not
necessarily
the
most
effective
technologies
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
facility.

X.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
E.
O.
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
order
defines
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
 
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
Tribal
governments
or
communities;
 
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
 
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
 
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
is
a
``
significant
regulatory
action.''
As
such,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
proposed
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
EPA
has
prepared
an
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
(
EPA
ICR
No.
2060.01)
and
you
may
obtain
a
copy
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.;
Washington,
DC
20007,
by
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epamail.
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
260
 
49011.
You
also
can
download
a
copy
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
collection
requirements
relate
to
existing
electric
generation
facilities
with
design
intake
flows
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
or
more
collecting
information
for
preparing
comprehensive
demonstration
studies,
monitoring
of
impingement
and
entrainment,
verifying
compliance,
and
preparing
yearly
reports.
The
total
burden
of
the
information
collection
requirements
associated
with
today's
proposed
rule
is
estimated
at
4,251,240
hours.
The
corresponding
estimates
of
cost
other
than
labor
(
labor
and
non­
labor
costs
are
included
in
the
total
cost
of
the
proposed
rule
discussed
in
Section
VIII
of
this
preamble)
is
$
191
million
for
539
facilities
and
44
States
and
one
Territory
for
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation
of
the
rule.
Non­
labor
costs
include
activities
such
as
capital
costs
for
remote
monitoring
devices,
laboratory
services,
photocopying,
and
the
purchase
of
supplies.
The
burden
and
costs
are
for
the
information
collection,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
the
three­
year
period
beginning
with
the
assumed
effective
date
of
today's
rule.
Additional
information
collection
requirements
will
occur
after
this
initial
three­
year
period
as
existing
facilities
continue
to
be
issued
permit
renewals
and
such
requirements
will
be
counted
in
a
subsequent
information
collection
request.
EPA
does
not
consider
the
specific
data
that
would
be
collected
under
this
proposed
rule
to
be
confidential
business
information.
However,
if
a
respondent
does
consider
this
information
to
be
confidential,
the
respondent
may
request
that
such
information
be
treated
as
confidential.
All
confidential
data
will
be
handled
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
122.7,
40
CFR
part
2,
and
EPA's
Security
Manual
Part
III,
Chapter
9,
dated
August
9,
1976.
Burden
is
defined
as
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
Compliance
with
the
applicable
information
collection
requirements
imposed
under
this
proposed
rule
(
see
§
§
122.21(
r),
125.95,
125.96,
125.97,
and
125.98)
is
mandatory.
Existing
facilities
would
be
required
to
perform
several
data­
gathering
activities
as
part
of
the
permit
renewal
application
process.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
require
several
distinct
types
of
information
collection
as
part
of
the
NPDES
renewal
application.
In
general,
the
information
would
be
used
to
identify
which
of
the
requirements
in
today's
proposed
rule
apply
to
the
existing
facility,
how
the
existing
facility
would
meet
those
requirements,
and
whether
the
existing
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
reflects
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
environmental
impact.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00088
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17209
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Categories
of
data
required
by
today's
proposed
rule
follow.
 
Source
waterbody
data
for
determining
appropriate
requirements
to
apply
to
the
facility,
evaluating
ambient
conditions,
and
characterizing
potential
for
impingement
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
 
Intake
structure
data,
consisting
of
intake
structure
design
and
a
facility
water
balance
diagram,
to
determine
appropriate
requirements
and
characterize
potential
for
impingement
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish;
 
Information
on
design
and
construction
technologies
implemented
to
ensure
compliance
with
applicable
requirements
set
forth
in
today's
proposed
rule;
and
 
Information
on
supplemental
restoration
measures
proposed
for
use
with
or
in
lieu
of
design
and
construction
technologies
to
minimize
adverse.
In
addition
to
the
information
requirements
of
the
permit
renewal
application,
NPDES
permits
normally
specify
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
met
by
the
permitted
entity.
Existing
facilities
that
fall
within
the
scope
of
this
proposed
rule
would
be
required
to
perform
biological
monitoring
as
required
by
the
Director
to
demonstrate
compliance,
and
visual
or
remote
inspections
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
any
additional
technologies.
Additional
ambient
water
quality
monitoring
may
also
be
required
of
facilities
depending
on
the
specifications
of
their
permits.
The
facility
would
be
expected
to
analyze
the
results
from
its
monitoring
efforts
and
provide
these
results
in
an
annual
status
report
to
the
permitting
authority.
Finally,
facilities
would
be
required
to
maintain
records
of
all
submitted
documents,
supporting
materials,
and
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.
(
Note
that
the
Director
may
require
that
records
be
kept
for
a
longer
period
to
coincide
with
the
life
of
the
NPDES
permit.)
All
impacted
facilities
would
carry
out
the
specific
activities
necessary
to
fulfill
the
general
information
collection
requirements.
The
estimated
burden
includes
developing
a
water
balance
diagram
that
can
be
used
to
identify
the
proportion
of
intake
water
used
for
cooling,
make­
up,
and
process
water.
Facilities
would
also
gather
data
to
calculate
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
would
be
achieved
by
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
they
select.
The
burden
estimates
include
sampling,
assessing
the
source
waterbody,
estimating
the
magnitude
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
and
reporting
results
in
a
comprehensive
demonstration
study.
The
burden
also
includes
conducting
a
pilot
study
to
evaluate
the
suitability
of
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
based
on
the
species
that
are
found
at
the
site.
Some
of
the
facilities
(
those
choosing
to
use
restoration
measures
to
maintain
fish
and
shellfish)
would
need
to
prepare
a
plan
documenting
the
restoration
measures
they
would
implement
and
how
they
would
demonstrate
that
the
restoration
measures
were
effective.
The
burden
estimates
incorporate
the
cost
of
preparing
calculations,
drawings,
and
other
materials
supporting
the
proposed
restoration
measures,
as
well
as
performing
monitoring
to
verify
the
effectiveness
of
the
restoration
measures.
Some
facilities
may
choose
to
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
because
of
costs
significantly
greater
than
those
EPA
considered
in
establishing
the
performance
standards
or
because
costs
are
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
performance
standards.
These
facilities
must
perform
a
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study
and/
or
a
valuation
of
the
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment,
as
well
as
submitting
a
site­
specific
technology
plan
characterizing
the
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
they
have
selected.
Exhibit
35
presents
a
summary
of
the
maximum
burden
estimates
for
a
facility
to
prepare
a
permit
application
and
monitor
and
report
on
cooling
water
intake
structure
operations
as
required
by
this
rule.

EXHIBIT
35.
 
MAXIMUM
BURDEN
AND
COSTS
PER
FACILITY
FOR
NPDES
PERMIT
APPLICATION
AND
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
ACTIVITIES
Activities
Burden
(
hr)
Labor
cost
Other
direct
costs
(
lump
sum)
a
Start­
up
activities
...................................................................................................................
43
$
1,964
$
50
Permit
application
activities
...................................................................................................
242
9,071
500
Source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data
........................................................
265
10,622
750
Proposal
for
collection
of
information
for
comprehensive
demonstration
study
b
.................
271
11,407
1,000
Source
waterbody
flow
information
.......................................................................................
116
3,794
100
Design
and
construction
technology
plan
.............................................................................
146
5,260
50
Impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
characterization
studyb
..........................................
5,264
289,061
13,000
Evaluation
of
potential
cooling
water
intake
structure
effectsb
.............................................
2,578
144,838
500
Information
for
site­
specific
determination
of
BTA
................................................................
692
32,623
200
Site­
specific
technology
plan
.................................................................................................
177
6,963
75
Verification
monitoring
plan
...................................................................................................
128
5,489
1,000
Subtotal
.......................................................................................................................
9,922
521,092
17,225
Biological
monitoring
(
impingement
sampling)
......................................................................
388
20,973
650
Biological
monitoring
(
entrainment
sampling)
.......................................................................
776
42,044
4,000
Visual
or
remote
inspections
c
...............................................................................................
253
8,994
100
Verification
study
d
.................................................................................................................
122
5,927
500
Yearly
status
report
activities
................................................................................................
324
14,906
750
Subtotal
.......................................................................................................................
1,863
92,844
$
6,000
a
Cost
of
supplies,
filing
cabinets,
photocopying,
boat
renting,
etc.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00089
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17210
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
82
In
addition,
13
facilities
owned
by
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
(
TVA),
a
federal
entity,
incur
$
9.8
million
in
compliance
costs.
The
costs
incurred
by
the
federal
government
are
not
included
in
this
section.
b
The
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
and
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
also
have
capital,
O&
M
and
contracted
service
costs
associated
with
them.
c
Remote
monitoring
equipment
also
has
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
it.
d
The
verification
monitoring
also
has
contracted
services
associated
with
it.

EPA
believes
that
all
44
States
and
one
Territory
with
NPDES
permitting
authority
will
undergo
start­
up
activities
in
preparation
for
administering
the
provisions
of
the
proposed
rule.
As
part
of
these
start­
up
activities,
States
and
Territories
are
expected
to
train
junior
technical
staff
to
review
materials
submitted
by
facilities,
and
then
use
these
materials
to
evaluate
compliance
with
the
specific
conditions
of
each
facility's
NPDES
permit.
Each
State's/
Territory's
actual
burden
associated
with
reviewing
submitted
materials,
writing
permits,
and
tracking
compliance
depends
on
the
number
of
new
in­
scope
facilities
that
will
be
built
in
the
State/
Territory
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
EPA
expects
that
State
and
Territory
technical
and
clerical
staff
will
spend
time
gathering,
preparing,
and
submitting
the
various
documents.
EPA's
burden
estimates
reflect
the
general
staffing
and
level
of
expertise
that
is
typical
in
States/
Territories
that
administer
the
NPDES
permitting
program.
EPA
considered
the
time
and
qualifications
necessary
to
complete
various
tasks
such
as
reviewing
submitted
documents
and
supporting
materials,
verifying
data
sources,
planning
responses,
determining
specific
permit
requirements,
writing
the
actual
permit,
and
conferring
with
facilities
and
the
interested
public.
Exhibit
36
provides
a
summary
of
the
maximum
burden
estimates
for
States/
Territories
performing
various
activities
with
the
proposed
rule.

EXHIBIT
36.
 
ESTIMATING
STATE/
TERRITORY
MAXIMUM
BURDEN
AND
COSTS
FOR
ACTIVITIES
Activities
Burden
(
hr)
Labor
cost
Other
direct
costs
(
lump
sum)
a
Start­
up
activities
(
per
State/
Territory)
..................................................................................
100
$
3,496
$
50
State/
Territory
permit
issuance
activities
(
per
facility)
...........................................................
811
32,456
300
Verification
study
review
(
per
facility)
....................................................................................
21
689
50
Review
of
alternative
regulatory
requirements
(
per
facility)
..................................................
192
6,237
50
Annual
State/
Territory
activities
(
per
facility)
.........................................................................
50
1,662
50
Subtotal
.......................................................................................................................
1,174
44,540
500
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information,
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.
EPA
requests
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
Send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.
Washington,
DC
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs;
Office
of
Management
and
Budget;
725
17th
Street,
NW.;
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Because
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
April
9,
2002,
a
comment
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
May
9,
2002.
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.
C.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
1.
UMRA
Requirements
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Pub.
L.
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
Tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
regulatory
requirements.
EPA
estimated
total
annualized
(
posttax
costs
of
compliance
for
the
proposed
rule
to
be
$
182
million
($
2001).
Of
this
total,
$
153
million
is
incurred
by
the
private
sector
and
$
19.6
million
is
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments
that
operate
in­
scope
facilities.
82
Permitting
authorities
incur
an
additional
$
3.6
million
to
administer
the
rule,
including
labor
costs
to
write
permits
and
to
conduct
compliance
monitoring
and
enforcement
activities.
EPA
estimates
that
the
highest
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00090
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17211
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
undiscounted
cost
incurred
by
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year
is
approximately
$
480
million
in
2005.
The
highest
undiscounted
cost
incurred
by
government
sector
in
any
one
year
is
approximately
$
42
million
in
2005.
Thus,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
contains
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
Accordingly,
EPA
has
prepared
a
written
statement
under
§
202
of
UMRA,
which
is
summarized
below.
2.
Analysis
of
Impacts
on
Government
Entities
Governments
may
incur
two
types
of
costs
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
regulation:
(
1)
Direct
costs
to
comply
with
the
rule
for
facilities
owned
by
government
entities;
and
(
2)
administrative
costs
to
implement
the
regulation.
Both
types
of
costs
are
discussed
below.

a.
Compliance
Costs
for
Government­
Owned
Facilities
Exhibit
37
below
provides
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
government
entities
that
operate
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule,
by
ownership
type
and
size
of
government
entity.
The
exhibit
shows
that
23
large
government
entities
operate
43
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
regulation.
There
are
22
small
government
entities
that
operate
22
facilities
subject
to
regulation.
No
small
government
entity
operates
more
than
one
affected
facility.
Of
the
65
facilities
that
are
owned
by
government
entities,
48
are
owned
by
municipalities,
eight
are
owned
by
political
subdivisions,
seven
are
owned
by
state
governments,
and
two
are
owned
by
municipal
marketing
authorities.

EXHIBIT
37.
 
NUMBER
OF
GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES
AND
GOVERNMENT­
OWNED
FACILITIES
Ownership
type
Number
of
government
entities
(
by
size)
Number
of
facilities
(
by
government
entity
size)

Large
Small
Total
Large
Small
Total
Municipality
......................................................................
16
19
35
29
19
48
Municipal
marketing
authority
..........................................
0
2
2
0
2
2
State
Government
............................................................
4
0
4
7
0
7
Political
Subdivision
.........................................................
3
1
4
7
1
8
Total
..........................................................................
23
22
45
43
22
65
Exhibit
38
summarizes
the
annualized
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments
for
the
proposed
rule.
The
exhibit
shows
that
the
estimated
annualized
compliance
costs
for
all
government­
owned
facilities
are
$
19.6
million.
The
43
facilities
owned
by
large
governments
would
incur
costs
of
$
13.6
million;
the
22
facilities
owned
by
small
governments
would
incur
costs
of
$
6
million.

EXHIBIT
38.
 
NUMBER
OF
REGULATED
GOVERNMENT­
OWNED
FACILITIES
AND
COMPLIANCE
COSTS
BY
SIZE
OF
GOVERNMENT
FOR
PROPOSED
RULE
Size
of
Government
Number
of
facilities
subject
to
regulation
Compliance
costs
(
million
$
2001)

Facilities
Owned
by
Large
Governments
.......
43
$
13.6
Facilities
Owned
by
Small
Governments
.......
22
6.0
All
Government­
Owned
Facilities
.................
65
19.6
EPA's
analysis
also
considered
whether
the
proposed
rule
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
EPA
estimates
that
22
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
are
owned
by
small
governments
(
i.
e.,
governments
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000).
The
total
compliance
cost
for
all
the
small
government­
owned
facilities
incurring
costs
under
the
proposed
rule
is
$
6.0
million,
or
approximately
$
273,000
per
facility.
The
highest
annualized
compliance
costs
for
a
government­
owned
facility
is
$
965,000.
In
comparison,
all
nongovernment
owned
facilities
subject
to
this
rule
are
expected
to
incur
annualized
compliance
costs
of
$
176
million,
or
$
330,000
per
facility.
The
highest
annualized
cost
for
a
facility
not
owned
by
a
small
government
is
$
4.3
million.
EPA
therefore
concludes
that
these
costs
do
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
The
Economic
and
Benefits
Assessment
provides
more
detail
on
EPA's
analysis
of
impacts
on
governments.

b.
Administrative
Costs
The
requirements
of
Section
316(
b)
are
implemented
through
the
NPDES
(
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System)
permit
program.
Forty­
five
states
and
territories
currently
have
NPDES
permitting
authority
under
section
402(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
EPA
estimates
that
states
and
territories
will
incur
four
types
of
costs
associated
with
implementing
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule:
(
1)
Start­
up
activities;
(
2)
first
permit
issuance
activities;
(
3)
repermitting
activities,
and
(
4)
annual
activities.
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
annualized
cost
for
these
activities
will
be
$
3.6
million.
Exhibit
39
below
presents
the
annualized
costs
of
the
major
administrative
activities.

EXHIBIT
39.
 
ANNUALIZED
GOVERNMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS
(
MILLION
$
2001)

Activity
Cost
Start­
up
Activities
......................
$
0.02
First
Permit
Issuance
Activities
1.61
Repermitting
Activities
..............
1.05
Annual
Activities
.......................
0.94
Total
..........................................
3.62
3.
Consultation
EPA
consulted
with
State
governments
and
representatives
of
local
governments
in
developing
the
regulation.
The
outreach
activities
are
discussed
in
Section
XI.
E
(
E.
O.
13131
addressing
Federalism)
of
this
preamble.

4.
Alternatives
Considered
In
addition
to
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
considered
and
analyzed
several
alternative
regulatory
options
to
determine
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
selected
the
proposed
rule
because
it
meets
the
requirement
of
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
that
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
CWIS
reflect
the
BTA
for
minimizing
AEI,
and
it
is
economically
practicable.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00091
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17212
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
83
The
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
replaced
trhe
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
System
as
of
October
1,
2000.
The
data
sources
EPA
used
to
identify
the
parent
entities
of
the
facilities
subject
to
this
rule
did
not
provide
NAICS
codes
at
the
time
of
analysis.
D.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
as
Amended
by
SBREFA
(
1996)

The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
the
Agency
certifies
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
for
reasons
explained
below.
For
the
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
according
to
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
size
standards;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county;
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
a
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
The
SBA
thresholds
define
minimum
employment,
sales
revenue,
or
MWh
output
sizes
below
which
an
entity
qualifies
as
small.
The
thresholds
used
in
this
analysis
are
firm­
level
four­
digit
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes.
83
Exhibit
40
below
presents
the
SBA
size
standards
used
in
this
analysis.

EXHIBIT
40.
 
UNIQUE
PHASE
II
ENTITY
SMALL
BUSINESS
SIZE
STANDARDS
(
BY
STANDARD
INDUSTRY
CLASSIFICATION
CODES
(
SIC))
84
SIC
code
SIC
description
SBA
size
standard
1311
................................................
Crude
Petroleum
and
Natural
Gas
........................................................
500
Employees
3312
................................................
Steel
Works,
Blast
Furnaces
(
Including
Coke
Ovens),
and
Rolling
Mills.
1,000
Employees.

4911
................................................
Electric
Services
....................................................................................
4
million
MWh.
4924
................................................
Natural
Gas
Distribution
........................................................................
500
Employees.
4931
................................................
Electric
and
Other
Services
Combined
.................................................
$
5.0
Million.
4932
................................................
Gas
and
Other
Services
Combined
......................................................
$
5.0
Million.
4939
................................................
Combination
Utilities,
NEC
....................................................................
$
5.0
Million.
4953
................................................
Refuse
Systems
.....................................................................................
$
10.0
Million.
6512
................................................
Operators
of
Nonresidential
Buildings
...................................................
$
5.0
Million.
8711
................................................
Engineering
Services
.............................................................................
$
6.0
Million.

84
Information
Source:
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration,
Office
of
Size
Standards,
Exhibit
of
Size
Standards
(
www.
sba.
gov/
regulations/
siccodes/
siccodes.
html)

EPA
used
publicly
available
data
from
the
1999
Forms
EIA
 
860A
and
EIA
 
860B
as
well
as
information
from
EPA's
2000
Section
316(
b)
Industry
Survey
to
identify
the
parent
entities
of
electric
generators
subject
to
this
proposed
rule.
EPA
also
conducted
research
to
identify
recent
changes
in
ownership,
including
the
current
owner
of
each
generator,
and
each
owner's
primary
SIC
code,
sales
revenues,
employment,
and/
or
electricity
sales.
Based
on
the
parent
entity's
SIC
code
and
the
related
size
standard
set
by
the
SBA,
EPA
identified
facilities
that
are
owned
by
small
entities.
Based
on
this
analysis,
EPA
expects
this
proposed
rule
to
regulate
only
a
small
absolute
number
of
facilities
owned
by
small
entities,
representing
only
1.3
percent
of
all
facilities
owned
by
small
entities
in
the
electric
power
industry.
EPA
has
estimated
that
28
inscope
electric
generators
owned
by
small
entities
would
be
regulated
by
this
proposed
rule.
Of
the
28
generators,
19
are
projected
to
be
owned
by
a
municipality,
six
by
a
rural
electric
cooperative,
two
by
a
municipal
marketing
authority,
and
one
by
a
political
subdivision.
Only
facilities
with
design
intake
flows
of
50
MGD
or
more
are
subject
to
this
rule.
In
addition,
only
a
small
percentage
of
all
small
entities
in
the
electric
power
industry,
1.3
percent,
is
subject
to
this
rule.
Finally,
of
the
28
small
entities,
two
entities
would
incur
annualized
post­
tax
compliance
costs
of
greater
than
three
percent
of
revenues;
nine
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
between
one
and
three
percent
of
revenues;
and
the
remaining
17
small
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
less
than
one
percent
of
revenues.
The
estimated
compliance
costs
that
facilities
owned
by
small
entities
would
likely
incur
represent
between
0.12
and
5.29
percent
of
the
entities'
annual
sales
revenue.
Exhibit
41
summarizes
the
results
of
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
analysis.
From
the
small
absolute
number
of
facilities
owned
by
small
entities
that
would
be
affected
by
the
proposed
rule,
the
low
percentage
of
all
small
entities,
and
the
very
low
impacts,
EPA
concludes
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

EXHIBIT
41.
 
SUMMARY
OF
RFA
ANALYSIS
Type
of
Entity
(
A)
Number
of
in­
scope
facilities
owned
by
small
entities
(
B)
Number
of
small
entities
with
in­
scope
facilities
(
C)
Total
number
of
small
entities
(
D)
Percent
of
small
entities
in­
scope
of
rule
[(
B)/(
C)]
(
E)
Annual
compliance
costs/
annual
sales
revenue
Municipality
............................................................................................
19
19
1,110
1.7
0.4
to
5.3%

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00092
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17213
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
41.
 
SUMMARY
OF
RFA
ANALYSIS
 
Continued
Type
of
Entity
(
A)
Number
of
in­
scope
facilities
owned
by
small
entities
(
B)
Number
of
small
entities
with
in­
scope
facilities
(
C)
Total
number
of
small
entities
(
D)
Percent
of
small
entities
in­
scope
of
rule
[(
B)/(
C)]
(
E)
Annual
compliance
costs/
annual
sales
revenue
Municipal
Marketing
Authority
...............................................................
2
2
22
9.1
0.1
to
0.1%
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
....................................................................
6
6
877
0.7
0.2
to
0.5%
Political
Subdivision
...............................................................................
1
1
104
1.0
1.2
to
1.2%
Other
Types
...........................................................................................
0
0
97
0.0
n/
a
Total
...............................................................................................
28
28
2,210
1.3
0.1
 
5.3%

The
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule
presents
more
detail
on
EPA's
small
entity
analysis
in
support
of
this
proposed
rule.

E.
E.
O.
12898:
Federal
Actions
To
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
Executive
Order
12898
requires
that,
to
the
greatest
extent
practicable
and
permitted
by
law,
each
Federal
agency
must
make
achieving
environmental
justice
part
of
its
mission.
E.
O.
12898
provides
that
each
Federal
agency
must
conduct
its
programs,
policies,
and
activities
that
substantially
affect
human
health
or
the
environment
in
a
manner
that
ensures
such
programs,
policies,
and
activities
do
not
have
the
effect
of
excluding
persons
(
including
populations)
from
participation
in,
denying
persons
(
including
populations)
the
benefits
of,
or
subjecting
persons
(
including
populations)
to
discrimination
under
such
programs,
policies,
and
activities
because
of
their
race,
color,
or
national
origin.
Today's
final
rule
would
require
that
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
(
CWIS)
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
For
several
reasons,
EPA
does
not
expect
that
this
final
rule
would
have
an
exclusionary
effect,
deny
persons
the
benefits
of
the
participating
in
a
program,
or
subject
persons
to
discrimination
because
of
their
race,
color,
or
national
origin.
To
assess
the
impact
of
the
rule
on
low­
income
and
minority
populations,
EPA
calculated
the
poverty
rate
and
the
percentage
of
the
population
classified
as
non­
white
for
populations
living
within
a
50­
mile
radius
of
each
of
the
539
in­
scope
facilities.
The
results
of
the
analysis,
presented
in
the
EBA,
show
that
the
populations
affected
by
the
inscope
facilities
have
poverty
levels
and
racial
compositions
that
are
quite
similar
to
the
U.
S.
population
as
a
whole.
A
relatively
small
subset
of
the
facilities
are
located
near
populations
with
poverty
rates
(
24
of
539,
or
4.5%),
or
non­
white
populations
(
101
of
539,
or
18.7%),
or
both
(
13
of
539,
or
2.4%),
that
are
significantly
higher
than
national
levels.
Based
on
these
results,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
rule
will
have
an
exclusionary
effect,
deny
persons
the
benefits
of
the
NPDES
program,
or
subject
persons
to
discrimination
because
of
their
race,
color,
or
national
origin.
In
fact
because
EPA
expects
that
this
final
rule
would
help
to
preserve
the
health
of
aquatic
ecosystems
located
in
reasonable
proximity
to
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
it
believes
that
all
populations,
including
minority
and
low­
income
populations,
would
benefit
from
improved
environmental
conditions
as
a
result
of
this
rule.
Under
current
conditions,
EPA
estimates
approximately
2.2
billion
fish
(
expressed
as
age
1
equivalents)
of
recreational
and
commercial
species
are
lost
annually
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
529
in
scope
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
Under
the
Agency's
preferred
option,
over
1.2
billion
individuals
of
these
commercially
and
recreationally
sought
fish
species
(
age
1
equivalents)
will
now
survive
to
join
the
fishery
each
year
(
435
million
fish
due
to
reduced
impingement
impacts,
and
789
million
fish
due
to
reduced
entrainment).
These
additional
1.2
billion
fish
will
provide
increased
opportunities
for
subsistence
anglers
to
increase
their
catch,
thereby
providing
some
benefit
to
low
income
households
located
near
regulation­
impacted
waters.

F.
E.
O.
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
might
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
and
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
proposed
rule
is
an
economically
significant
rule
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866.
However,
it
does
not
concern
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
would
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
Therefore,
it
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045.

G.
E.
O.
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
Tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
Tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
Tribes.''
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
Tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
Tribes,

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
21:
48
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00093
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm11
PsN:
09APP2
17214
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
EPA's
analyses
show
that
no
facility
subject
to
this
proposed
rule
is
owned
by
tribal
governments.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
affect
Tribes
in
any
way
in
the
foreseeable
future.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
13175
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

H.
E.
O.
13158:
Marine
Protected
Areas
Executive
Order
13158
(
65
FR
34909,
May
31,
2000)
requires
EPA
to
``
expeditiously
propose
new
sciencebased
regulations,
as
necessary,
to
ensure
appropriate
levels
of
protection
for
the
marine
environment.''
EPA
may
take
action
to
enhance
or
expand
protection
of
existing
marine
protected
areas
and
to
establish
or
recommend,
as
appropriate,
new
marine
protected
areas.
The
purpose
of
the
Executive
Order
is
to
protect
the
significant
natural
and
cultural
resources
within
the
marine
environment,
which
means
``
those
areas
of
coastal
and
ocean
waters,
the
Great
Lakes
and
their
connecting
waters,
and
submerged
lands
thereunder,
over
which
the
United
States
exercises
jurisdiction,
consistent
with
international
law.''
This
proposed
rule
recognizes
the
biological
sensitivity
of
tidal
rivers,
estuaries,
oceans,
and
the
Great
Lakes
and
their
susceptibility
to
adverse
environmental
impact
from
cooling
water
intake
structures.
This
proposal
provides
the
most
stringent
requirements
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
on
these
types
of
water
bodies,
including
potential
reduction
of
intake
flows
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
system
for
facilities
that
withdraw
certain
proportions
of
water
from
estuaries,
tidal
rivers,
and
oceans.
EPA
expects
that
this
proposed
rule
will
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
at
facilities
with
design
intake
flows
of
50
MGD
or
more.
The
rule
would
afford
protection
of
aquatic
organisms
at
individual,
population,
community,
or
ecosystem
levels
of
ecological
structures.
Therefore,
EPA
expects
today's
proposed
rule
would
advance
the
objective
of
the
Executive
Order
to
protect
marine
areas.

I.
E.
O.
13211:
Energy
Effects
Executive
Order
13211
on
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
requires
EPA
to
prepare
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects
when
undertaking
regulatory
actions
identified
as
``
significant
energy
actions.''
For
the
purposes
of
Executive
Order
13211,
``
significant
energy
action''
means
(
66
FR
28355;
May
22,
2001):

any
action
by
an
agency
(
normally
published
in
the
Federal
Register)
that
promulgates
or
is
expected
to
lead
to
the
promulgation
of
a
final
rule
or
regulation,
including
notices
of
inquiry,
advance
notices
of
proposed
rulemaking,
and
notices
of
proposed
rulemaking:
(
1)(
i)
That
is
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866
or
any
successor
order,
and
(
ii)
Is
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy;
or
(
2)
That
is
designated
by
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
as
a
significant
energy
action.

For
those
regulatory
actions
identified
as
``
significant
energy
actions,''
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects
must
include
a
detailed
statement
relating
to
(
1)
any
adverse
effects
on
energy
supply,
distribution,
or
use
(
including
a
shortfall
in
supply,
price
increases,
and
increased
use
of
foreign
supplies),
and
(
2)
reasonable
alternatives
to
the
action
with
adverse
energy
effects
and
the
expected
effects
of
such
alternatives
on
energy
supply,
distribution,
and
use.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
qualify
as
a
``
significant
energy
action''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
The
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
any
compliance
requirements
that
would
directly
reduce
the
installed
capacity
or
the
electricity
production
of
U.
S.
electric
power
generators,
for
example
through
parasitic
losses
or
auxiliary
power
requirements.
In
addition,
based
on
the
estimated
costs
of
compliance,
EPA
currently
projects
that
the
rule
will
not
lead
to
any
early
capacity
retirements
at
facilities
subject
to
this
rule
or
at
facilities
that
compete
with
them.
As
described
in
detail
in
Section
VIII,
EPA
estimates
small
effects
of
this
rule
on
installed
capacity,
generation,
production
costs,
and
electricity
prices.
EPA's
therefore
concludes
that
this
proposed
rule
will
have
small
energy
effects
at
a
national,
regional,
and
facility­
level.
As
a
result,
EPA
did
not
prepare
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects.
EPA
recognizes
that
some
of
the
alternative
regulatory
options
discussed
in
the
preamble
would
have
much
larger
effects
and
might
well
quality
as
``
significant
energy
actions''
under
Executive
Order
13211.
If
EPA
decides
to
revise
the
proposed
requirements
for
the
final
rule,
it
will
reconsider
its
determination
under
Executive
Order
13211
and
prepare
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects
as
appropriate.
For
more
detail
on
the
potential
energy
effects
of
this
proposed
rule
or
the
alternative
regulatory
options
considered
by
EPA,
see
Section
VIII
above
or
the
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule.

J.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995,
Pub.
L.
104
 
113,
Sec.
12(
d)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standard
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB),
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
involve
such
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.
EPA
welcomes
comments
on
this
aspect
of
the
proposed
rule
and,
specifically,
invites
the
public
to
identify
potentially
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
and
to
explain
why
such
standards
should
be
used
in
this
proposed
rule.

K.
Plain
Language
Directive
Executive
Order
12866
and
the
President's
memorandum
of
June
1,
1998,
require
each
agency
to
write
all
rules
in
plain
language.
We
invite
your
comments
on
how
to
make
this
proposed
rule
easier
to
understand.
For
example:
Have
we
organized
the
material
to
suit
your
needs?
Are
the
requirements
in
the
rule
clearly
stated?
Does
the
rule
contain
technical
language
or
jargon
that
is
not
clear?
Would
a
different
format
(
grouping
and
order
of
sections,
use
of
headings,
paragraphing)
make
the
rule
easier
to
understand?
Would
more
(
but
shorter)
sections
be
better?
Could
we
improve
clarity
by
adding
tables,
lists,
or
diagrams?
What
else
could
we
do
to
make
the
rule
easier
to
understand?

L.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999)
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.
Policies
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00094
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17215
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
that
have
federalism
implications''
are
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
Under
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
Rather,
this
proposed
rule
would
result
in
minimal
administrative
costs
on
States
that
have
an
authorized
NPDES
program.
EPA
expects
an
annual
burden
of
146,983
hours
with
an
annual
cost
of
$
41,200
(
non­
labor
costs)
for
States
to
collectively
administer
this
proposed
rule.
EPA
has
identified
65
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
are
owned
by
federal,
state
or
local
government
entities.
The
annual
impacts
on
these
facilities
is
not
expected
to
exceed
2,252
burden
hours
and
$
56,739
(
non­
labor
costs)
per
facility.
The
proposed
national
cooling
water
intake
structure
requirements
would
be
implemented
through
permits
issued
under
the
NPDES
program.
Forty­
three
States
and
the
Virgin
Islands
are
currently
authorized
pursuant
to
section
402(
b)
of
the
CWA
to
implement
the
NPDES
program.
In
States
not
authorized
to
implement
the
NPDES
program,
EPA
issues
NPDES
permits.
Under
the
CWA,
States
are
not
required
to
become
authorized
to
administer
the
NPDES
program.
Rather,
such
authorization
is
available
to
States
if
they
operate
their
programs
in
a
manner
consistent
with
section
402(
b)
and
applicable
regulations.
Generally,
these
provisions
require
that
State
NPDES
programs
include
requirements
that
are
as
stringent
as
Federal
program
requirements.
States
retain
the
ability
to
implement
requirements
that
are
broader
in
scope
or
more
stringent
than
Federal
requirements.
(
See
section
510
of
the
CWA.)
Today's
proposed
rule
would
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
either
authorized
or
nonauthorized
States
or
on
local
governments
because
it
would
not
change
how
EPA
and
the
States
and
local
governments
interact
or
their
respective
authority
or
responsibilities
for
implementing
the
NPDES
program.
Today's
proposed
rule
establishes
national
requirements
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures.
NPDES­
authorized
States
that
currently
do
not
comply
with
the
final
regulations
based
on
today's
proposal
might
need
to
amend
their
regulations
or
statutes
to
ensure
that
their
NPDES
programs
are
consistent
with
Federal
section
316(
b)
requirements.
See
40
CFR
123.62(
e).
For
purposes
of
this
proposed
rule,
the
relationship
and
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
States
and
local
governments
are
established
under
the
CWA
(
e.
g.,
sections
402(
b)
and
510);
nothing
in
this
proposed
rule
would
alter
that.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.
Although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule,
EPA
did
consult
with
State
governments
and
representatives
of
local
governments
in
developing
the
proposed
rule.
During
the
development
of
the
proposed
section
316(
b)
rule
for
new
facilities,
EPA
conducted
several
outreach
activities
through
which
State
and
local
officials
were
informed
about
this
proposal
and
they
provided
information
and
comments
to
the
Agency.
The
outreach
activities
were
intended
to
provide
EPA
with
feedback
on
issues
such
as
adverse
environmental
impact,
BTA,
and
the
potential
cost
associated
with
various
regulatory
alternatives.
EPA
has
made
presentations
on
the
section
316(
b)
rulemaking
effort
in
general
at
eleven
professional
and
industry
association
meetings.
EPA
also
conducted
two
public
meetings
in
June
and
September
of
1998
to
discuss
issues
related
to
the
section
316(
b)
rulemaking
effort.
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
meetings
with
environmental
groups
attended
by
representatives
from
between
3
and
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.
EPA
also
met
with
OMB
and
utility
representatives
and
other
federal
agencies
(
the
Department
of
Energy,
the
Small
Business
Administration,
the
Tennessee
Valley
Authority,
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration's
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
and
the
Department
of
Interior's
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service).
After
publication
of
the
proposed
Phase
I
rule,
EPA
continued
to
meet
with
stakeholders
at
their
request.
EPA
received
more
than
2000
comments
on
the
Phase
I
proposed
rule
and
NODA.
In
some
cases
these
comments
have
informed
the
development
of
the
Phase
II
rule
proposal.
In
January,
2001,
EPA
also
attended
technical
workshops
organized
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
and
the
Utilities
Water
Action
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).
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.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00095
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17216
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Finally,
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
for
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA.
In
the
spirit
of
this
Executive
Order
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00096
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17217
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
C
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00097
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17218
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
9
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
122
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Hazardous
substances,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control.

40
CFR
Part
123
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Hazardous
substances,
Indian­
lands,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Penalties,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control.
40
CFR
Part
124
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
waste,
Indians­
lands,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.

40
CFR
Part
125
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Waste
treatment
and
disposal,
Water
pollution
control.

Dated:
February
28,
2002.

Christine
Todd
Whitman,

Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
preamble,
chapter
I
of
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:
PART
9
 
OMB
APPROVALS
UNDER
THE
PAPERWORK
REDUCTION
ACT
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
9
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
7
U.
S.
C.
135
et
seq.,
136
 
136y;
15
U.
S.
C.
2001,
2003,
2005,
2006,
2601
 
2671,
21
U.
S.
C.
331j,
346a,
348;
31
U.
S.
C.
9701;
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.,
1311,
1313d,
1314,
1318,
1321,
1326,
1330,
1342,
1344,
1345
(
d)
and
(
e),
1361;
E.
O.
11735,
38
FR
21243,
3
CFR,
1971
 
1975
Comp.
p.
973;
42
U.
S.
C.
241,
242b,
243,
246,
300f,
300g,
300g
 
1,
300g
 
2,
300g
 
3,
300g
 
4,
300g
 
5,
300g
 
6,
300j
 
1,
300j
 
2,
300j
 
3,
300j
 
4,
300j
 
9,
1857
et
seq.,
6901
 
6992k,
7401
 
7671q,
7542,
9601
 
9657,
11023,
11048.

2.
In
§
9.1
the
table
is
amended
by
revising
the
entry
for
``
122.21(
r)''
and
by
adding
entries
in
numerical
order
under
the
indicated
heading
to
read
as
follows:

§
9.1
OMB
approvals
under
the
Paper
Work
Reduction
Act.

*
*
*
*
*

40
CFR
citation
OMB
control
No.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

EPA
Administered
Permit
Programs:
The
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
122.21(
r)
...................................................................................................................................................................
2040
 
0241,
xxxxx
 
xxxxx
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Criteria
and
Standards
for
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
125.95
.......................................................................................................................................................................
xxxx
 
xxxx
125.96
.......................................................................................................................................................................
xxxx
 
xxxx
125.97
.......................................................................................................................................................................
xxxx
 
xxxx
125.98
.......................................................................................................................................................................
xxxx
 
xxxx
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

PART
122
 
EPA
ADMINISTERED
PERMIT
PROGRAMS:
THE
NATIONAL
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION
SYSTEM
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
122
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
The
Clean
Water
Act,
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.

2.
Section
§
122.21
by
revising
paragraph
(
r)
to
read
as
follows:

§
122.21
Application
for
a
permit
(
applicable
to
State
programs,
see
§
123.25)

*
*
*
*
*
(
r)
Applications
for
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
 
(
1)(
i)
New
facilities
with
new
or
modified
cooling
water
intake
structures.
New
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures
as
defined
in
part
125,
subpart
I
of
this
chapter
must
report
the
information
required
under
paragraphs
(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
4)
of
this
section
and
§
125.86
of
this
chapter.
Requests
for
alternative
requirements
under
§
125.85
of
this
chapter
must
be
submitted
with
your
permit
application.
(
ii)
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
Phase
II
existing
facilities
as
defined
in
part
125,
subpart
J
of
this
chapter
must
report
the
information
required
under
paragraphs
(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
5)
of
this
section
and
§
125.95
of
this
chapter.
Requests
for
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
under
§
125.94(
c)
of
this
chapter
must
be
submitted
with
your
permit
application.
(
2)
Source
Water
Physical
Data
including:
(
i)
A
narrative
description
and
scaled
drawings
showing
the
physical
configuration
of
all
source
water
bodies
used
by
your
facility,
including
areal
dimensions,
depths,
salinity
and
temperature
regimes,
and
other
documentation
that
supports
your
determination
of
the
water
body
type
where
each
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located;
(
ii)
Identification
and
characterization
of
the
source
waterbody's
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features,
as
well
as
the
methods
you
used
to
conduct
any
physical
studies
to
determine
your
intake's
area
of
influence
within
the
waterbody
and
the
results
of
such
studies;
and
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00098
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17219
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
iii)
Locational
maps.
(
3)
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Data
including:
(
i)
A
narrative
description
of
the
configuration
of
each
of
your
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
where
it
is
located
in
the
water
body
and
in
the
water
column;
(
ii)
Latitude
and
longitude
in
degrees,
minutes,
and
seconds
for
each
of
your
cooling
water
intake
structures;
(
iii)
A
narrative
description
of
the
operation
of
each
of
your
cooling
water
intake
structures,
including
design
intake
flows,
daily
hours
of
operation,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable;
(
iv)
A
flow
distribution
and
water
balance
diagram
that
includes
all
sources
of
water
to
the
facility,
recirculating
flows,
and
discharges;
and
(
v)
Engineering
drawings
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
(
4)
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data.
This
information
is
required
to
characterize
the
biological
community
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
to
characterize
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures.
The
Director
may
also
use
this
information
in
subsequent
permit
renewal
proceedings
to
determine
if
your
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
as
required
in
§
125.86(
b)(
4)
should
be
revised.
This
supporting
information
must
include
existing
data
(
if
they
are
available).
However,
you
may
supplement
the
data
using
newly
conducted
field
studies
if
you
choose
to
do
so.
The
information
you
submit
must
include:
(
i)
A
list
of
the
data
in
paragraphs
(
r)(
4)(
ii)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section
that
are
not
available
and
efforts
made
to
identify
sources
of
the
data;
(
ii)
A
list
of
species
(
or
relevant
taxa)
for
all
life
stages
and
their
relative
abundance
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
(
iii)
Identification
of
the
species
and
life
stages
that
would
be
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
Species
evaluated
should
include
the
forage
base
as
well
as
those
most
important
in
terms
of
significance
to
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries;
(
iv)
Identification
and
evaluation
of
the
primary
period
of
reproduction,
larval
recruitment,
and
period
of
peak
abundance
for
relevant
taxa;
(
v)
Data
representative
of
the
seasonal
and
daily
activities
(
e.
g.,
feeding
and
water
column
migration)
of
biological
organisms
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
(
vi)
Identification
of
all
threatened,
endangered,
and
other
protected
species
that
might
be
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
at
your
cooling
water
intake
structures;
(
vii)
Documentation
of
any
public
participation
or
consultation
with
Federal
or
State
agencies
undertaken
in
development
of
the
plan;
and
(
viii)
If
you
supplement
the
information
requested
in
paragraph
(
r)(
4)(
i)
of
this
section
with
data
collected
using
field
studies,
supporting
documentation
for
the
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
must
include
a
description
of
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
sampling,
and
data
analysis
including
a
description
of
the
study
area;
taxonomic
identification
of
sampled
and
evaluated
biological
assemblages
(
including
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish);
and
sampling
and
data
analysis
methods.
The
sampling
and/
or
data
analysis
methods
you
use
must
be
appropriate
for
a
quantitative
survey
and
based
on
consideration
of
methods
used
in
other
biological
studies
performed
within
the
same
source
water
body.
The
study
area
should
include,
at
a
minimum,
the
area
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
(
5)
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Cooling
Water
System
Data.
Phase
II
existing
facilities,
as
defined
in
part
125,
subpart
J
of
this
chapter,
must
provide
the
following
information:
(
i)
A
narrative
description
of
the
operation
of
each
of
your
cooling
water
systems,
relationship
to
cooling
water
intake
structures,
proportion
of
the
design
intake
flow
that
is
used
in
the
system,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable;
(
ii)
Engineering
calculations
and
supporting
data
to
support
the
description
required
by
paragraph
(
r)(
5)(
i)
of
this
section.
3.
Section
122.44
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
to
read
as
follows:

§
122.44
Establishing
limitations,
standards,
and
other
permit
conditions
(
applicable
to
State
NPDES
programs,
see
§
123.25).

*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
3)
Requirements
applicable
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA,
in
accordance
with
part
125,
subparts
I
and
J
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*

PART
123
 
STATE
PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
123
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
The
Clean
Water
Act,
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.

2.
Section
123.25
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
4)
(
a)
and
(
36)
to
read
as
follows:

§
123.25
Requirements
for
permitting.

(
a)
*
*
*
(
4)
§
122.21
(
a)
(
b),
(
c)(
2),
(
e)
(
k),
(
m)
(
p),
and
(
r)
 
(
Application
for
a
permit);
*
*
*
*
*
(
36)
Subparts
A,
B,
D,
H,
I,
and
J
of
part
125
of
this
chapter;
*
*
*
*
*

PART
124
 
PROCEDURES
FOR
DECISIONMAKING
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
124
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
6901
et
seq.;
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
300f
et.
seq;
Clean
Water
Act,
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.;
Clean
Air
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.

2.
Section
124.10
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
d)(
1)(
ix)
to
read
as
follows:

§
124.10
Public
notice
of
permit
actions
and
public
comment
period.

*
*
*
*
*
(
d)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
(
ix)
Requirements
applicable
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA,
in
accordance
with
part
125,
subparts
I
and
J
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*

PART
125
 
CRITERIA
AND
STANDARDS
FOR
THE
NATIONAL
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION
SYSTEM
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
125
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
Clean
Water
Act,
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.;
unless
otherwise
noted.

2.
Section
125.83
is
amended
by
revising
the
definition
of
cooling
water
as
follows:

§
125.83
What
special
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

*
*
*
*
*
Cooling
water
means
water
used
for
contact
or
noncontact
cooling,
including
water
used
for
equipment
cooling,
evaporative
cooling
tower
makeup,
and
dilution
of
effluent
heat
content.
The
intended
use
of
the
cooling
water
is
to
absorb
waste
heat
rejected
from
the
process
or
processes
used,
or
from
auxiliary
operations
on
the
facility's
premises.
Cooling
water
that
is
used
in
a
manufacturing
process
either
before
or
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00099
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2
17220
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
68
/
Tuesday,
April
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
after
it
is
used
for
cooling
is
considered
process
water
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
the
percentage
of
a
new
facility's
intake
flow
that
is
used
for
cooling
purposes
in
§
§
125.81(
c)
and
125.91(
c).
*
*
*
*
*
3.
Add
subpart
J
to
part
125
to
read
as
follows:

Subpart
J
 
Requirements
Applicable
to
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
for
``
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities''
Under
Section
316(
b)
of
the
Act
Sec.
125.90
What
are
the
purpose
and
scope
of
this
subpart?
125.91
What
is
a
Phase
II
existing
facility
subject
to
this
subpart?
125.92
When
must
I
comply
with
this
subpart?
125.93
What
special
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?
125.94
How
will
requirements
reflecting
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
be
established
for
my
Phase
II
existing
facility?
125.95
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
Phase
II
existing
facility,
what
must
I
collect
and
submit
when
I
apply
for
my
reissued
NPDES
permit?
125.96
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
Phase
II
existing
facility,
what
monitoring
must
I
perform?
125.97
As
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
Phase
II
existing
facility,
what
records
must
I
keep
and
what
information
must
I
report?
125.98
As
the
Director,
what
must
I
do
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
subpart?

Subpart
J
 
Requirements
Applicable
to
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
for
``
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities''
Under
Section
316(
b)
of
the
Act
§
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
are
subject
to
this
subpart
(
Phase
II
existing
facilities).
The
purpose
of
these
requirements
is
to
establish
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
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
Phase
II
existing
facilities.
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.
(
c)
Existing
facilities
that
are
not
subject
to
this
subpart
must
meet
requirements
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
determined
by
the
Director
on
a
case­
by­
case,
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ)
basis.
(
d)
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
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
§
125.94,
the
Administrator
shall
approve
such
alternative
regulatory
requirements.
(
e)
Nothing
in
this
subpart
shall
be
construed
to
preclude
or
deny
the
right
of
any
State
or
political
subdivision
of
a
State
or
any
interstate
agency
under
section
510
of
the
CWA
to
adopt
or
enforce
any
requirement
with
respect
to
control
or
abatement
of
pollution
that
is
not
less
stringent
than
those
required
by
Federal
law.

§
125.91
What
is
a
``
Phase
II
Existing
Facility''
subject
to
this
subpart?

(
a)
This
subpart
applies
to
an
existing
facility,
as
defined
in
§
125.93,
if
it:
(
1)
Is
a
point
source
that
uses
or
proposes
to
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure;
(
2)
Both
generates
and
transmits
electric
power,
or
generates
electric
power
but
sells
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission;
(
3)
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
(
4)
Has
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
more.
Facilities
that
meet
these
criteria
are
referred
to
as
``
Phase
II
existing
facilities.''
(
b)
In
the
case
of
a
cogeneration
facility
that
shares
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
with
another
existing
facility,
only
that
portion
of
the
cooling
water
intake
flow
that
is
used
in
the
cogeneration
process
shall
be
considered
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
the
50
MGD
and
25
percent
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)
and
(
4)
of
this
section
are
met.
(
c)
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.
(
d)
Whether
or
not
25
percent
of
water
withdrawn
is
used
for
cooling
purposes
must
be
measured
on
an
average
monthly
basis.
The
25
percent
threshold
is
met
if
any
monthly
average
of
cooling
water
over
any
12
month
period
is
25
percent
or
more
of
the
total
water
withdrawn.

§
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.

§
125.93
What
special
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

The
definitions
in
Subpart
I
of
Part
125,
except
the
definitions
of
cooling
water
and
existing
facility,
apply
to
this
subpart.
The
following
definitions
also
apply
to
this
subpart:
Administrator
means
the
same
as
defined
in
40
CFR
122.2.
All
life
stages
means
eggs,
larvae,
juveniles,
and
adults.
Calculation
baseline
means
an
estimate
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
occur
at
your
site
assuming
you
had
a
shoreline
cooling
water
intake
structure
with
an
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
a
once­
through
cooling
water
system
and
with
no
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
reduction
controls.
Capacity
utilization
rate
means
the
ratio
between
the
average
annual
net
generation
of
the
facility
(
in
MWh)
and
the
total
net
capability
of
the
facility
(
in
MW)
multiplied
by
the
number
of
available
hours
during
a
year.
The
average
annual
generation
must
be
measured
over
a
five
year
period
(
if
available)
of
representative
operating
conditions.
Cogeneration
facility
means
a
facility
that
operates
equipment
used
to
produce,
from
the
same
fuel
source:
electric
energy
used
for
industrial,
commercial,
and/
or
institutional
purposes
at
one
or
more
host
facilities
and/
or
for
sale
to
another
entity
for
transmission;
and
forms
of
useful
thermal
energy
(
such
as
heat
or
steam),
used
for
industrial
commercial,

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
32
Apr
08,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00100
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09APP2.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
09APP2