Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0052-0008
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-21T05:00Z

U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
COOLING
WATER
INTAKE
STRUCTURES
NEW
FACILITY
FINAL
RULE
Office
of
Water
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
EPA
ICR
no.
1973.02
November
2001
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1b
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
2a
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
2a(
i)
Need
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
2a(
ii)
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
2b
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
3
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3a
Nonduplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3c
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
3e
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
3f
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
3g
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
4a
Respondents/
SIC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
4b
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
4b(
i)
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
4b(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
5
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION,
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
5a
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
5b
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
5c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
5d
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
6
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
6a
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
6b(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
6b(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
6c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
6d
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
6e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
6e(
i)
Respondent
Tally
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
6e(
ii)
Agency
Tally
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
6f
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
ii
6g
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
APPENDIX
A
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Analysis
for
the
Information
Collection
Requirements
of
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Proposal
APPENDIX
B
SIC
Codes
for
Nonutility
Power
Producers
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
1.
Selected
NPDES
State
Statutory/
Regulatory
Provisions
Addressing
the
Impact
from
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
Table
2.
Industry
Organization
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
Table
3.
Environmental
Organization
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
Table
4.
Federal
and
State
Government
Representatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
Table
5.
Industry
Categories
and
SIC
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
Table
6.
Number
of
Facilities
Assumed
to
Comply
with
Information
Collection
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
Table
7.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
Table
8.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
50
Table
9.
Estimating
Director
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
Table
10.
Estimating
Federal
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
Table
11.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Responses,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
Table
12.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Responses,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
1
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
TITLE:
Information
Collection
Request
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
New
Facility
Final
rule
U.
S.
EPA
ICR
NUMBER:
1973.02
1b
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
The
proposed
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
requires
the
collection
of
information
from
new
facilities
that
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
(
CWIS).
Section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
requires
that
any
standard
established
under
section
301
or
306
of
the
CWA
and
applicable
to
a
point
source
must
require
that
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
CWISs
at
that
facility
reflect
the
best
technology
available
(
BTA)
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.

Such
impact
occurs
as
a
result
of
impingement
(
where
fish
and
other
aquatic
life
are
trapped
on
technologies
at
the
entrance
to
cooling
water
intake
structures)
and
entrainment
(
where
aquatic
organisms,
eggs,
and
larvae
are
taken
into
the
cooling
system,
passed
through
the
heat
exchanger,

and
then
pumped
back
out
with
the
discharge
from
the
facility).
This
proposal
establishes
standard
requirements
applicable
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
new
facilities.
These
requirements
seek
to
minimize
the
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
CWISs.

Under
the
final
rule,
a
new
facility
is
defined
as
any
building,
structure,
facility,
or
installation
that
meets
the
definition
of
a
"
new
source"
or
"
new
discharger"
in
40
CFR122.2
and
122.29(
b),(
1),(
2)
and
(
4);
commences
construction
after
the
effective
date
of
this
rule;
and
uses
either
a
newly
constructed
cooling
water
intake
structure
or
an
existing
cooling
water
structure
whose
design
capacity
is
increased
to
accommodate
the
intake
of
additional
cooling
water
(
40
CFR,
section
125.83).
According
to
the
final
rule,
before
a
new
facility
is
subject
to
this
regulation
it
must
first
be
a
point
source
(
i.
e.,
be
subject
to
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit)
that
uses
or
proposes
to
use
a
CWIS,
has
at
least
one
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
uses
at
least
25
percent
(
measured
on
an
average
monthly
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
2
basis)
of
the
water
it
withdraws
for
cooling
purposes,
and
has
a
design
intake
flow
greater
than
two
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD).
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
(
40
CFR,
section
125.81).

Generally,
facilities
that
meet
these
criteria
fall
into
two
major
groups,
new
power
producing
facilities
and
new
manufacturing
facilities.
Power
producers
affected
by
the
final
rule
are
likely
to
be
both
utility
and
nonutility
power
producers
since
they
typically
have
large
cooling
water
requirements.
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
identified
four
categories
of
manufacturing
facilities
that
tend
to
require
large
amounts
of
cooling
water:
paper
and
allied
products,
chemical
and
allied
products,
petroleum
and
coal
products,
and
primary
metals
(
see
Section
4a).

The
proposed
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
would
require
several
distinct
types
of
information
collection
as
part
of
the
NPDES
application.
In
general,
the
information
would
be
used
to
identify
which
of
the
standard
requirements
in
the
final
rule
apply
to
the
facility,
how
the
facility
is
meeting
these
requirements,
and
whether
the
facility
is
meeting
the
goal
of
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Specific
data
requirements
that
would
apply
to
all
facilities
are:

°
source
water
physical
data
for
evaluation
of
potential
impact
to
the
water
body
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
placed
°
intake
structure
data
consisting
of
intake
structure
design
and
facility
water
balance
diagram
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
impingement
and
entrainment
of
aquatic
organisms
°
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data
that
characterizes
the
biological
community
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
along
with
a
description
of
data
sources
and
data
collection
procedures
°
source
waterbody
flow
data
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
proportional
flow
(
i.
e.,

intake
flow
may
not
exceed
a
certain
proportion
of
source
water
body
flow)
requirements
Additional
data
requirements
would
apply
to
facilities,
depending
on
which
of
two
alternative
permitting
tracks
they
choose.
Specific
data
requirements
that
would
apply
to
facilities
choosing
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
I
are:

°
flow
reduction
and
velocity
data
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
flow
reduction
and
velocity
requirements
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
3
°
design
and
construction
technology
plan
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
requirement
to
implement
technologies
to
minimize
impingement
and
entrainment
and
maximize
survival
of
impinged
organisms
Specific
data
requirements
that
would
apply
to
facilities
choosing
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
II
are:

°
comprehensive
demonstration
study
that
characterizes
the
source
water
baseline
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake,
characterizes
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake,
and
confirms
that
proposed
technologies
reduce
the
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish
to
levels
comparable
to
those
that
would
be
achieved
by
implementing
the
flow
reduction,
velocity
and
technology
requirements
of
Track
I
In
addition
to
the
information
requirements
of
the
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permits
normally
specify
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
conducted
by
the
permitted
entity.
New
facilities
that
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
rule
would
be
required
to
perform
biological
monitoring
of
impingement
and
entrainment,
monitoring
of
the
through­
screen
or
throughtechnology
velocity,
and
visual
or
remote
inspections
of
the
CWIS
and
any
design
and
construction
technologies.
The
results
of
each
facility's
monitoring
efforts
are
expected
to
be
analyzed
and
then
published
yearly
in
an
annual
status
report
to
the
permitting
Director.
Finally,

facilities
would
be
required
to
maintain
records
of
all
submitted
documents,
supporting
materials,

and
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.

Authorized
States
must
update
their
programs
to
be
consistent
with
the
proposed
cooling
water
intake
requirements,
once
they
are
published
as
final
regulations.
State
Directors
would
be
required
to
also
review
all
materials
submitted
to
them
by
the
facilities
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
regulation,
and
confirm
their
compliance
with
the
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule.

Directors
would
be
required
to
also
work
with
new
facilities
to
determine
if
design
and
construction
technologies
are
necessary
and
appropriate
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.

As
suggested,
the
primary
users
of
this
information
will
be
States
authorized
to
administer
the
NPDES
permitting
program,
and
the
EPA.
It
is
anticipated
that
other
government
agencies,

both
at
the
State
and
federal
level,
as
well
as
public
interest
groups,
private
companies,
and
many
individuals
will
also
use
the
data.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
4
During
the
first
three
years
after
rule
promulgation,
the
information
collection
required
by
the
rule
will
involve
responses
from
an
estimated
total
of
18
facilities
and
44
States
and
Territories
and
cost
approximately
$
11.6
million
(
including
operation
and
maintenance
costs),

with
an
annual
average
of
38
respondents,
40,376
burden
hours,
and
$
3.9
million
per
year
(
see
Exhibit
A11
in
Appendix
A).
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
5
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2a
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
following
sections
describe
the
need
for
this
information
collection
and
the
legal
authority
under
which
this
information
would
be
collected.

2a(
i)
Need
for
the
Collection
The
information
requirements
of
the
final
rule
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
new
facilities
are
complying
with
the
rule's
provisions,
and
thereby
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
resulting
from
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
due
to
the
withdrawal
of
cooling
water.
There
is
substantial
evidence
that
existing
cooling
water
intake
structures
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
nearby
environment.
There
is
also
evidence
that
current
systems
are
not
using
the
BTA,
and
that
a
national
regulatory
approach
is
justified.

Evidence
that
Significant
Environmental
Impact
is
Occurring
as
a
Result
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
EPA's
May
1977
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Adverse
Impact
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
on
the
Aquatic
Environment
describes
two
ways
in
which
cooling
water
intake
structures
can
cause
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
first
is
entrainment,
which
occurs
when
organisms
are
drawn
through
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
into
the
cooling
system.
There,

the
organisms
are
subject
to
mechanical,
thermal,
and
toxic
stress.
Mortality
of
entrained
organisms
is
extremely
high.
The
second
effect
is
the
impingement
of
fish
and
other
aquatic
organisms
on
devices
installed
on
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
to
prevent
debris
from
entering
the
facility's
cooling
water
system.
Organisms
are
trapped
against
these
screening
devices
by
the
velocity
of
the
water
passing
through
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.

Research
of
the
available
literature
and
section
316(
b)
demonstration
studies
obtained
from
NPDES
permit
files
has
identified
numerous
documented
cases
of
impact
associated
with
impingement
and
entrainment
and
the
subsequent
effects
of
these
actions
on
populations
of
aquatic
organisms.
For
example,
specific
losses
associated
with
individual
steam
electric
1
Brunswick
Nuclear
Steam
Electric
Generating
Plant
of
Carolina
Power
and
Light
Company
Located
near
Southport,
North
Carolina,
Historical
Summary
and
Review
of
section
316(
b)
Issues.
EPA
Region
IV,
September
19,
1979
2
Findings
and
Determination
under
33
U.
S.
C.
§
1326,
In
the
Matter
of
Florida
Power
Corporation
Crystal
River
Power
Plant
Units
1,
2,
and
3.
NPDES
Permit
No.
FL0000159.
EPA
Region
IV,
December
2,
1986
3
Impingement
Losses
at
the
D.
C.
Cook
Nuclear
Power
Plant
during
1975­
1982
with
a
Discussion
of
Factors
Responsible
and
Possible
Impact
on
Local
Populations,
Thurber,
Nancy
J.
and
David
J.
Jude.
Special
Report
No.
115
of
the
Great
Lakes
Research
Division.
Great
Lakes
and
Marine
Waters
Center.
The
University
of
Michigan.
1985.

4
Estimates
of
Entrainment
Mortality
for
Striped
Bass
and
Other
Fish
Species
Inhabiting
the
Hudson
River
Estuary,
Boreman,
John
and
Phillip
Goodyear.
American
Fisheries
Society
Monograph
4:
152­
160,
1988.

5
Brunswick
Nuclear
Steam
Electric
Generating
Plant
of
Carolina
Power
and
Light
Company,
Historically
Summary
and
Review
of
section
316(
b)
Issues.
EPA
Region
IV,
1979.

6
Comparison
of
Trends
in
the
Finfish
Assemblages
of
Mt.
Hope
Bay
and
Narragansett
Bay
in
Relation
to
Operations
of
the
New
England
Power
Brayton
Point
Station.
Mark
Gibson,
Rhode
Island
Division
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Marine
Fisheries
Office,
June
1995
and
revised
August
1996.

November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
6
generating
plants
include
three
to
four
billion
larvae
and
post
larvae
per
year,
1
23
tons
of
fish
and
shellfish
of
recreational,
commercial,
or
forage
value
lost
each
year,
2
and
one
million
fish
lost
during
a
three­
week
study
period.
3
Several
studies
estimating
the
impact
of
entrainment
on
populations
of
key
commercial
or
recreational
fish
predicted
declines
in
population
size.
Studies
focusing
on
entrainment
mortality
in
the
Hudson
River
predicted
reductions
in
the
year­
class
strength
for
six
species
ranging
from
4
percent
to
79
percent
depending
on
the
species.
4
A
modeling
study
of
the
impact
of
entrainment
mortality
on
the
population
of
a
selected
species
in
the
Cape
Fear
estuarine
system
predicted
a
15
to
35
percent
reduction
in
the
population.
5
The
following
are
among
other
more
recent
documented
examples
of
impact
occurring
as
a
result
of
cooling
water
intake
structures:

A.
Brayton
Point.
PG&
E
Generating's
Brayton
Point
plant
(
formerly
owned
by
New
England
Power
Company)
is
located
in
Mt.
Hope
Bay,
in
the
northeastern
reach
of
Narragansett
Bay,
Rhode
Island.
To
increase
electric
generating
capacity,
Unit
4
was
switched
from
closedcycle
to
once­
through
cooling
in
1985.
The
modification
of
Unit
4
increased
cooling
water
intake
flow
by
45
percent.
Studies
designed
to
evaluate
whether
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
was
affecting
fish
species
abundance
trends
found
that
Mt.
Hope
Bay
experienced
a
progressively
steady
rate
of
decline
in
finfish
species
of
recreational,
commercial,
and
ecological
importance.
6
In
contrast,
species
abundance
trends
were
relatively
stable
in
coastal
areas
and
portions
of
7
Review
of
Southern
California
Edison,
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station
(
SONGS)
316(
b)
Demonstration.
Prepared
by
SAIC,
July
20,
1993.

November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
7
Narragansett
Bay
that
are
not
influenced
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
Further
strengthening
the
evidence
that
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
was
contributing
to
the
documented
declines
was
the
finding
that
the
rate
of
population
decline
increased
substantially
with
the
full
implementation
of
the
once­
through
cooling
mode
for
Unit
4.

B.
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station.
The
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station
(
SONGS)
is
on
the
coastline
of
the
Southern
California
Bight,
approximately
2.5
miles
southeast
of
San
Clemente,
California.
The
marine
portions
of
Units
2
and
3,
which
are
once­
through,

open­
cycle
cooling
systems,
began
commercial
operation
in
August
of
1993
and
1994,

respectively.
Since
then,
many
studies
have
been
completed
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
the
SONGS
facility
on
the
marine
environment.
7
Studies
of
kelp
beds
in
near
shore
waters
within
the
vicinity
of
the
SONGS
facility
determined
that
the
operation
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
resulted
in
a
60
percent
(
80
hectare)
reduction
in
the
area
covered
by
moderate
to
high
density
kelp.
Studies
indicated
that
poor
survival
and
lack
of
development
of
new
kelp
plants
was
the
result
of
increased
turbidity
due
to
withdrawal
of
intake
water
at
SONGS.
The
loss
of
kelp
was
also
determined
to
be
detrimental
to
fish
communities
associated
with
the
kelp
forests.
For
example,
fish
living
close
to
the
cobble
bottom
in
the
impact
area
experienced
a
70
percent
decline
in
abundance.
Fish
living
in
the
water
column
in
the
impact
areas
had
a
17
percent
loss
in
abundance
and
a
33
percent
decline
in
biomass
relative
to
control
populations.
The
abundance
of
large
invertebrates
within
kelp
beds
also
declined
for
many
species,
particularly
snails.

Estimated
losses
of
midwater
fish
species
due
to
direct
entrainment
by
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
SONGS
ranges
between
16.5
and
45
tons
per
year.
This
loss
represents
a
41
percent
mortality
rate
for
fish
(
primarily
northern
anchovy,
queenfish,
and
white
croaker)

entrained
by
intake
water
at
SONGS.
In
a
normal
year,
approximately
350,000
juvenile
white
croaker
would
be
killed
through
entrainment
at
SONGS.
This
number
represents
33,000
adult
individuals
or
3.5
tons
of
adult
fish.
Changes
in
densities
of
fish
populations
within
the
vicinity
of
the
plant
were
observed
in
species
of
queen
fish
and
white
croaker
relative
to
control
populations.

Within
3
kilometers
of
SONGS,
the
density
of
queenfish
and
white
croaker
decreased
by
34
to
63
percent
in
shallow
water
samples
and
50
to
70
percent
in
deep
water
samples.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
8
Evidence
That
Point
Sources
Are
Not
Using
Best
Technology
Available
To
Minimize
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
addresses
CWISs
at
new
facilities
rather
than
existing
ones.
EPA,
however,
investigated
the
types
of
technologies
currently
employed
at
existing
facilities
with
CWISs
to
determine
whether
there
is
an
existing
trend
toward
greater
use
of
BTA
technologies,
which
might
indicate
that
new
facilities
are
also
most
likely
to
implement
BTA
technologies.

EPA
studied
traditional
steam
electric
utilities
because
they
use
a
wide
variety
of
cooling
water
intake
technologies
to
maximize
cooling
system
efficiency
and
minimize
environmental
impact.
Data
on
technologies
used
at
these
facilities
can
be
found
in
the
Power
Statistics
Database,
a
database
funded
by
the
Edison
Electric
Institute
and
maintained
by
the
Utility
Data
Institute
(
UDI).
The
database
consists
of
a
compilation
of
limited
information
on
cooling
water
intake
structures
voluntarily
reported
by
traditional
steam
electric
utilities
to
UDI.
Updated
yearly
until
1994,
the
database
provides
information
on
the
technologies
employed
at
individual
facilities,

but
it
does
not
provide
information
on
whether
the
technology
employed
was
determined
to
be
BTA.
As
a
result,
the
database
could
not
help
EPA
evaluate
whether
the
technologies
employed
at
specific
cooling
water
intake
structures
would
be
considered
BTA
at
the
present
time.

Nevertheless,
EPA
looked
at
what
technologies
had
been
implemented
at
traditional
steam
electric
utilities.
Based
on
knowledge
gained
from
extensive
literature
reviews
and
dialogue
with
other
Federal,
State,
industry,
academic,
consulting,
and
environmental
experts,
EPA
made
assumptions
about
what
technologies
might
be
considered
"
best"
under
certain
circumstances.

Using
these
assumptions
to
evaluate
the
data
on
existing
technology,
EPA
concluded
that
many
point
sources
are
not
using
BTA
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.

Evidence
that
a
National
Regulatory
Approach
Is
Warranted
NPDES
permitting
authorities
have
codified
the
requirements
of
section
316(
b)
in
a
variety
of
ways.
In
1993,
after
evaluating
State
regulations
and
statutes
relating
to
section
316(
b),
EPA
determined
that
of
the
then
40
States
with
NPDES
permitting
authority,
the
majority
did
not
have
statutes
or
regulations
specifically
addressing
CWISs
in
any
detail.
Table
1.
below
summarizes
some
of
the
State
authorities
EPA
identified
that
did
address
CWISs.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
9
States
such
as
California
and
Florida
have
developed
regulatory
requirements
that
closely
mirror
the
statutory
language
of
section
316(
b).
Additionally,
several
other
NPDES
States
have
included
language
in
their
statutes
or
regulations
referencing
either
section
316(
b)
or
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
I,
which
is
the
blank
section
of
the
Federal
NPDES
regulations
reserved
for
criteria
applicable
to
cooling
water
intake
structures.
For
example,
New
Jersey's
NPDES
regulations
state,
"[
T]
he
criteria
applicable
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
shall
be
as
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
I
when
the
USEPA
adopts
these
criteria."
Other
States
merely
restate
the
statutory
language.
For
example,
New
York's
NPDES
regulations
require
that
"[
t]
he
location,

design,
construction
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures,
in
connection
with
point
source
thermal
discharges,
shall
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact."

Table
1.
Selected
NPDES
State
Statutory/
Regulatory
Provisions
Addressing
the
Impact
from
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
NPDES
State
Citation
Summary
of
Requirements
Connecticut
RCSA
section
22a,

430­
4
Provides
for
coordination
with
other
Federal/
State
agencies
with
jurisdiction
over
fish,
wildlife,
or
public
health,
which
may
recommend
conditions
necessary
to
avoid
substantial
impairment
of
fish,
shellfish,
or
wildlife
resources
New
Jersey
NJAC
section
7:
14A­

11.6
Criteria
applicable
to
intake
structure
shall
be
as
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
125,
when
EPA
adopts
these
criteria
New
York
6
NYCRR
section
704.5
The
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
intake
structures
in
connection
with
point
source
thermal
discharges
shall
reflect
BTA
for
minimizing
environmental
impact
Maryland
MRC
sec.
26.08.03
Detailed
regulatory
provisions
addressing
BTA
determinations
Illinois
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
306.201
(
1998)
Requirement
that
new
intake
structures
on
waters
designated
for
general
use
shall
be
so
designed
as
to
minimize
harm
to
fish
and
other
aquatic
organisms
Iowa
567
IAC
62.4(
455B)
Incorporates
40
CFR
part
401,
with
cooling
water
intake
structure
provisions
designated
"
reserved"

California
Cal.
Wat.
Code
section
13142.5(
b)
Requirements
that
new
or
expanded
coastal
power
plants
or
other
industrial
installations
using
seawater
for
cooling
shall
use
best
available
site,
design
technology,
and
mitigation
measures
feasible
to
minimize
intake
and
mortality
of
marine
life
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
10
In
discussions
with
State
and
EPA
regional
contacts,
EPA
has
found
that
there
are
differences
in
the
manner
in
which
States
have
implemented
their
section
316(
b)
authority
through
the
years.
Some
States
and
Regions
review
section
316(
b)
requirements
each
time
an
NPDES
permit
is
reissued.
These
permitting
authorities
may
re­
evaluate
the
potential
for
impact
and
whether
operations
or
other
conditions
influencing
the
potential
for
impact
have
changed
at
the
facility.
Other
permitting
authorities
were
found
to
have
made
initial
determinations
for
facilities
in
the
1970s
but
not
to
have
revisited
the
determinations
since.

Based
on
the
above
findings,
EPA
believes
that
approaches
to
implementing
section
316(
b)
vary
greatly.
It
is
evident
that
some
authorities
have
regulations
and
other
program
mechanisms
in
place
to
ensure
continued
implementation
of
section
316(
b)
and
evaluation
of
the
potential
impact
from
cooling
water
intake
structures,
while
others
do
not.
Furthermore,
section
316(
b)
determinations
are
currently
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
based
on
permit
writers'
best
professional
judgment.
Through
discussions
with
some
State
permitting
officials
(
e.
g.,
in
California,
Georgia,
and
New
Jersey),
EPA
was
asked
to
establish
national
standards
in
order
to
help
ease
the
case­
by­
case
burden
on
permit
writers
and
to
promote
national
uniformity
with
respect
to
implementation
of
section
316(
b).

2a(
ii)
Authority
for
the
Collection
Section
316
was
included
in
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
of
1972
for
the
express
purpose
of
regulating
thermal
discharges
and
to
address
the
environmental
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Moreover,
section
316(
b)
is
the
only
provision
in
the
CWA
that
focuses
exclusively
on
water
intake.
Section
316(
b)
provides
that
"[
a]
ny
standard
established
pursuant
to
[
CWA
section
301]
or
[
CWA
section
306]
and
applicable
to
a
point
source
shall
require
that
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact."
The
requirements
of
section
316(
b)
are
closely
linked
to
several
of
the
core
elements
of
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
program
established
under
the
CWA.

Conditions
implementing
section
316(
b)
are
and
will
continue
under
this
rule
to
be
included
in
NPDES
permits
issued
under
section
402
of
the
CWA.

EPA
published
guidance
addressing
section
316(
b)
implementation
in
1977.
(
See
Draft
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Adverse
Impact
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
on
the
Aquatic
Environment:
section
316(
b)
P.
L.
92­
500
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1977).
This
guidance
describes
the
studies
needed
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
on
the
aquatic
environment
and
8
Although
the
final
section
316(
b)
regulation
remanded
in
1977
had
been
withdrawn
and
is
of
no
current
effect,
some
permit
writers
continue
to
use
the
Development
Document
cited
therein
as
a
source
of
information
and
guidance.

November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
11
thereby
establish
a
basis
for
determining
the
BTA
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.

The
1977
section
316(
b)
Draft
Guidance
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1977,
p.
4)
states
that
"[
t]
he
environmentalintake
interactions
in
question
are
highly
site­
specific
and
the
decision
as
to
best
technology
available
for
intake
design,
location,
construction,
and
capacity
must
be
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis."
This
case­
by­
case
approach
also
is
consistent
with
the
approach
described
in
the
1976
Development
Document
referenced
in
the
remanded
regulation.
8
The
final
rule
partially
fulfills
EPA's
obligation
to
comply
with
a
Consent
Decree
entered
in
the
United
States
District
Court,
Southern
District
of
New
York
in
Cronin
v.
Browner,
No.
93
Civ.
0314
(
AGS),
a
case
brought
against
EPA
by
a
coalition
of
individuals
and
environmental
groups.
The
Consent
Decree
as
entered
on
October
10,
1995,
provided
that
EPA
propose
regulations
implementing
section
316(
b)
by
July
2,
1999,
and
take
final
action
with
respect
to
those
regulations
by
August
13,
2001.
EPA
later
moved
to
amend
the
Consent
Decree
by
bifurcating
the
rule
into
two
phases
 
Phase
I
addressing
new
facilities
using
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
Phase
II
addressing
existing
facilities
 
and
extending
the
deadlines
for
proposal
and
final
action.
Plaintiffs
opposed
EPA's
motion
for
an
extension
of
the
deadlines.
On
March
27,
2000,
the
Court
amended
the
Consent
Decree
to
provide
that
EPA
propose
regulations
addressing
new
facilities
on
or
before
July
20,
2000,
and
propose
regulations
addressing
existing
facilities
on
or
before
July
20,
2001.
The
Court
left
in
place
the
August
13,
2001,
deadline
for
final
action
and
ordered
that
the
parties
attempt
to
reach
an
agreement
with
respect
to
the
deadlines
in
the
Consent
Decree.
EPA
proposed
regulations
for
new
facilities
on
July
20,
2000,
in
partial
fulfillment
of
the
Consent
Decree.

On
November
21,
2000,
EPA
and
the
plaintiffs
in
Riverkeeper,
Inc.
v.
Whitman
submitted
an
Amended
Consent
Decree
to
the
U.
S.
District
Court,
Southern
District
of
New
York,
which
the
court
then
signed.
The
Amended
Court
Decree
revised
the
existing
court
order
to
divide
the
rulemaking
into
three
phases
 
Phase
I
addressing
new
facilities
using
cooling
water
intake
structures;
Phase
II
addressing,
at
a
minimum,
existing
utilities
and
non­
utility
power
producers
using
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
whose
flow
levels
exceed
a
minimum
threshold
to
be
determined
by
EPA;
and
Phase
III
addressing,
at
a
minimum,
existing
facilities
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
that
are
not
covered
by
the
Phase
II
rule
and
whose
intake
flow
levels
exceed
a
minimum
threshold
to
be
determined
by
EPA.
The
Amended
Consent
Decree
provided
that
EPA
take
final
action
on
regulations
for
Phase
I
by
November
9,
2001;
propose
regulations
for
Phase
II
by
February
28,
2002,
and
take
final
action
for
Phase
II
by
August
28,
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
12
2003;
and
propose
regulations
for
Phase
III
by
June
15,
2003,
and
take
final
action
for
Phase
III
by
December
15,
2004.
This
final
rule
fulfills
EPA's
obligation
under
the
Amended
Consent
Decree
to
take
final
action
on
regulations
addressing
new
facilities.

2b
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
final
rule
includes
both
information
that
must
be
submitted
to
permitting
authorities
and
data
that
must
be
collected
and
maintained
on­
site
by
the
facility.
Each
new
facility
maintains
facility­
level
records
of
the
measurements,
diagrams,
and
calculations
submitted
to
the
Directors,

as
well
as
the
analytical
results
of
monitoring
actions.
Facilities
could
use
the
data
to:

monitor
CWIS
performance

monitor
the
performance
of
design
and
construction
technologies.

Under
the
final
rule,
EPA
and
NPDES
Directors
are
to
maintain
records
compiled
from
the
regulated
facilities.
Much
of
the
basic
information
obtained
from
the
NPDES
permit
application
is
stored
in
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database.
PCS
is
used
to
track
permit
limits,
permit
expiration
dates,
monitoring
data,
and
other
data,
and
provides
EPA
with
a
nationwide
inventory
of
permit
holders.
EPA
stores
basic
NOI
information
submitted
for
coverage
under
an
NPDES
general
permit
in
the
NOI
database
housed
at
the
NOI
Processing
Center.

EPA
Headquarters
uses
the
information
contained
in
PCS
and
the
NOI
databases
to
develop
reports
on
permit
issuance,
backlog,
and
compliance
rates.
The
Agency
also
uses
the
information
to
respond
to
public
and
Congressional
inquiries,
develop
and
guide
its
policies,

formulate
its
budgets,
assist
States
in
acquiring
authority
for
permitting
programs,
and
manage
the
NPDES
program
to
ensure
national
consistency
in
permitting.
States
can
use
this
initial
permit
information
along
with
the
additional
documentation
and
the
annual
reports
to
track
facility
monitoring,
compliance
violations,
and
enforcement
activities.

Permittees
must
reapply
for
an
NPDES
permits
every
five
years.
The
re­
application
process
is
the
primary
mechanism
for
obtaining
up­
to­
date
and
new
information
concerning
onsite
conditions.
Although
under
the
final
rule,
new
facilities
provide
data
from
self­
monitoring
activities
in
annual
reports
to
the
permitting
authority,
these
reports
are
a
less
comprehensive
information
gathering
process
than
is
the
permit
application
process.
EPA
and
States
will
use
re­
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
13
application
data
to
identify
new
species
at
risk
or
other
potential
concerns
that
could
lead
the
permit
writers
to
take
the
following
actions:

specify
additional
permit
limitations

assess
compliance
with
applicable
standard
requirements

place
appropriate
special
conditions
in
permits.

Environmental
and
citizen
groups
are
expected
to
use
the
data
collected
under
the
final
rule
to
independently
assess
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
for
affected
water
bodies
in
their
location.
In
addition,
the
data
will
be
useful
for
the
scientific
community
for
assessing
the
impact
of
CWISs
on
recreational
and
commercial
fisheries
productivity
and
aquatic
ecosystem
health.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
14
3
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
The
following
sections
verify
and
affirm
that
this
Information
Collection
Request
satisfies
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
data­
collection
guidelines,
has
public
support,
and
does
not
duplicate
another
collection.

3a
Nonduplication
Given
that
the
rule
applies
to
new
facilities,
current
data
sources
do
not
yet
exist
for
the
information
required
under
the
rule.
However,
once
the
facilities
are
built,
data
concerning
them
will
be
collected
by
various
sources.
Therefore,
it
was
important
that
EPA
review
existing
data
sources
to
identify
currently
available
information
on
entities
subject
to
section
316(
b)
regulation
and
to
ensure
that
the
data
requested
by
the
rule
are
not
otherwise
accessible.
Data
sources
reviewed
included:
data
collected
by
offices
within
EPA;
data,
reports,
and
analyses
published
by
other
federal
agencies;
reports
and
analyses
published
by
industry;
and
publicly
available
financial
information
compiled
by
government
and
private
organizations.
From
this
effort,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
information
collection
and
reporting
requirements
considered
in
this
ICR
are
not
contained
or
duplicated
in
other
routinely
collected
documents
or
reports.

3b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
EPA
published
a
draft
of
the
ICR
for
public
comment
with
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule.
Comments
received
are
addressed
as
part
of
the
comment/
response
summary
for
the
final
rule.

3c
Consultations
The
following
paragraphs
describe
the
specific
outreach
activities
that
EPA
Staff
performed
during
the
development
of
the
proposed
Section
316(
b)
rule
for
new
facilities.
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.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
15
EPA
conducted
a
program
of
outreach
to
industry
groups,
environmental
groups,
and
other
government
entities
to
get
early
feedback
on
the
section
316(
b)
regulatory
effort.
EPA
coordinated
with
industry
and
environmental
organization
representatives,
States
and
regulators
with
the
Department
of
Energy(
DOE),
in
an
effort
to
find
alternative
approaches
for
regulating
new
facilities.

EPA
has
made
presentations
on
the
section
316(
b)
rulemaking
effort
in
general
at
eleven
professional
and
industry
association
meetings.
EPA
also
held
two
public
meetings
in
the
Summer
of
1998
to
discuss
issues
related
to
the
section
316(
b)
rulemaking
effort.
EPA
met
with
industry
,
environmental,
and
state
and
federal
government
representatives
in
May,
June
and
July
of
2000
to
discuss
regulatory
alternatives
for
the
New
Facility
Rule.
Comments
from
these
meetings
helped
EPA
to
evaluate
and
revise
draft
regulatory
framework
options.

The
tables
below
provide
lists
of
the
representatives
attending
the
meetings
and
the
organizations
they
represent.
Tables
2,
3,
and
4
are
for
industry
organizations,
environmental
organizations,
and
Federal
and
State
governments,
respectively.
In
addition
to
the
Federal
and
State
government
representatives
listed
in
Table
4,
EPA
met
with
representatives
from
the
states
of
Alabama,
Delaware,
Florida,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Kentucky,
Mississippi,
Nebraska,
New
York,

North
Carolina,
North
Dakota,
Ohio,
Rhode
Island,
South
Carolina,
and
Virginia,
as
well
as
representatives
from
the
New
England
Interstate
WPCA
and
ORSANCA.

Table
2.
Industry
Organization
Representatives
Organization
Point
of
Contact
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
Jerry
Schwartz
American
Petroleum
Institute
Jackie
Sincore
Utility
Water
Act
Group
Dave
Bailey/
Kristy
Bulleit/
Jim
Stine
Edison
Electric
Institute
Richard
Bozec
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
Doug
Dixon
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
16
Table
3.
Environmental
Organization
Representatives
Organization
Point
of
Contact
Atlantic
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission
Carrie
Selberg
Delaware
Riverkeeper
Maya
Van
Rossum
Eastern
Environmental
Law
Center
Glenn
Elters
Georgetown
University
Law
Center
Jim
May
Hudson
Riverkeeper
Kent
Correll/
Theresa
Hanczor
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
Kil
Kennedy
Nuclear
Information
and
Resource
Service
Paul
Gunter
Safe
Energy
Communication
Linda
Gunter
Table
4.
Federal
and
State
Government
Representatives
Organization
Point
of
Contact
New
York
DEC
Bill
Sarbello
Small
Business
Administration
John
Pawlow
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
Jim
Wright
NOAA,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
Brian
Pawlak
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
Debra
Littleton
3d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
has
concluded
that
less
frequent
data
collection
may
fail
to
identify
in
a
timely
manner,
adverse
environmental
impact
resulting
from
the
operation
of
new
CWISs.
In
addition,

less
frequent
collection
would
also
hinder
the
ability
of
EPA,
States,
and
facility
operators
to
take
advantage
of
technological
improvements
in
impingement
and
entrainment
technologies
as
they
occur,
or
to
track
long­
term
trends.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
17
3e
General
Guidelines
The
information
collection
requirements
of
the
final
rule
are
in
accordance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
guidelines
at
5
CFR
1320.5(
d)(
2).
Requests
for
supplemental
information
for
the
purposes
of
emergency
response
or
enforcement
activities
are
exempt
from
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
requirements.

3f
Confidentiality
Applications
for
an
NPDES
permit
may
contain
confidential
business
information.

However,
EPA
does
not
consider
the
specific
information
being
requested
by
the
final
rule
to
be
typical
of
confidential
business
or
personal
information.
If
a
respondent
does
consider
this
information
to
be
of
a
personal
nature,
the
respondent
may
request
that
such
information
be
treated
as
confidential.
All
confidential
data
will
be
handled
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
§
122.7,

40
CFR
Part
2,
and
EPA's
Security
Manual
Part
III,
Chapter
9,
dated
August
9,
1976.

3g
Sensitive
Questions
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
does
not
require
respondents
to
divulge
information
pertaining
to
private
or
personal
information,
such
as
sexual
behavior
or
religious
beliefs.

Therefore,
this
section
is
not
applicable.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
18
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4a
Respondents/
SIC
The
final
rule
defines
a
new
facility
as
any
building,
structure,
facility,
or
installation
that
meets
the
definition
of
a
"
new
source"
or
"
new
discharger"
in
40
CFR122.2
and
122.29(
b),(
1),(
2)

and
(
4);
commences
construction
after
the
effective
date
of
this
rule;
and
uses
either
a
newly
constructed
cooling
water
intake
structure
or
an
existing
cooling
water
structure
whose
design
capacity
is
increased
to
accommodate
the
intake
of
additional
cooling
water.
For
a
new
facility
to
be
subject
to
this
regulation
it
must
be
a
point
source
(
i.
e.,
be
subject
to
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit)
that
uses
or
proposes
to
use
a
CWIS,
has
at
least
one
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
uses
at
least
25
percent
(
measured
on
an
average
monthly
basis)
of
the
water
it
withdraws
for
cooling
purposes,
and
has
a
design
intake
flow
greater
than
two
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD).
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
(
40
CFR,
section
125.81).

While
respondents
would
include
any
facilities
that
meet
the
applicable
requirements
of
the
rule,
EPA
estimates
that
there
are
six
primary
industrial
sectors
that
account
for
more
than
99
percent
of
all
cooling
water
used
in
the
United
States.
The
first
two
types
of
facilities
that
use
CWISs
include
traditional
utilities
and
nonutility
power
producers.
Traditional
utilities
and
nonutility
power
producers
that
use
cooling
water
were
further
limited
to
those
plants
that
generate
electricity
by
means
of
steam
as
the
thermodynamic
medium
(
steam
electric)
because
they
are
associated
with
large
cooling
water
needs.
Facilities
in
the
traditional
steam
electric
utility
category
are
classified
under
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes
4911
and
493,

while
nonutility
power
producers
are
classified
under
the
major
code
that
corresponds
to
the
primary
purpose
of
the
facility
(
e.
g.,
the
primary
code
may
be
SIC
49
if
the
primary
purpose
of
the
facility
is
to
generate
electricity).

EPA
identified
four
manufacturing
industries
that
were
found
to
use
large
amounts
of
cooling
water.
These
manufacturing
industries
are
Paper
and
Allied
Products
(
SIC
Major
Group
26),
Chemical
and
Allied
Products
(
SIC
Major
Group
28),
Petroleum
and
Coal
Products
(
SIC
Major
Group
29),
and
Primary
Metals
(
SIC
Major
Group
33).
SIC
Codes
associated
with
facilities
that
may
use
a
CWIS
are
provided
in
Table
5.
A
more
detailed
accounting
of
SIC
codes
for
nonutility
power
producers
is
provided
in
Appendix
B.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
19
Table
5.
Industry
Categories
and
SIC
Codes
Respondent
Industry
Categories
SIC
Codes
Traditional
Steam
Electric
Utilities
SIC
codes
4911
and
493
Steam
Electric
Nonutility
Power
Producers:

Industrial
Self­
Generators
Nonindustrial
See
Appendix
B
SIC
Major
Group
49
Other
Industries:

Agricultural
production
0133
Metal
mining
1011
Oil
and
gas
extraction
1311,
1321
Mining
and
quarrying
of
nonmetallic
minerals
1474
Food
and
kindred
products
2046,
2061,
2062,
2063,
2075,
2085
Tobacco
products
2141
Textile
mill
products
2211
Lumber
and
wood
products,
except
furniture
2415,
2421,
2436,
2493
Paper
and
allied
products
2611,
2621,
2631,
2676
Chemical
and
allied
products
28
(
except
2895,
2893,
2851,
and
2879)

Petroleum
refining
and
related
industries
2911,
2999
Rubber
and
miscellaneous
plastics
products
3011,
3069
Stone,
clay,
glass,
and
concrete
products
3241
Primary
metal
industries
3312,
3313,
3315,
3316,
3317,
3334,
3339,
3353,

3363,
3365,
3366
Fabricated
metal
products,
except
machinery
and
transportation
equipment
3421,
3499
Industrial
and
commercial
machinery
and
3523,
3531
computer
equipment
Transportation
equipment
3724,
3743,
3764
Measuring,
analyzing,
and
controlling
instruments;

photographic,
medical,
and
optical
goods;
watches
and
clocks
3861
Electric,
gas,
and
sanitary
services
4911,
4931,
4939,
4961
Educational
services
8221
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
20
4b
Information
Requested
The
following
sections
provide
details
on
data
items
requested
and
associated
activities
that
the
final
rule
would
require
respondents
to
undertake
to
provide
this
information.
The
two
principal
respondent
categories
are
new
facilities
subject
to
the
rule
and
NPDES
program
Directors
(
i.
e.
States
and
Tribes
authorized
under
CWA
Section
402(
b)
to
administer
the
NPDES
permit
program,
and
EPA
regional
offices).

Information
requirements
for
new
facilities
will
differ
depending
on
criteria
established
by
the
rule.
Certain
information
requirements
are
applicable
to
all
new
permitted
facilities
to
which
the
rule
applies.
Other
information
requirements
are
based
on
which
of
two
alternative
permitting
tracks
the
facility
chooses
to
comply
with.

Since
section
316(
b)
standards
are
implemented
through
NPDES
permits,
the
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
affects
Directors
in
a
manner
similar
to
other
changes
to
NPDES
program
requirements.
There
are
currently
43
States
and
one
territory
authorized
under
CWA
Section
402(
b)
to
implement
the
NPDES
permit
program,
these
new
cooling
water
intake
structure
requirements
potentially
affect
authorized
State
NPDES
programs.
To
be
consistent
with
the
new
rule,
States
will
need
to
revise
their
current
regulations.
States
will
need
to
begin
implementing
cooling
water
intake
standard
requirements
once
they
are
published
as
final
regulations.

4b(
i)
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
Data
items
required
by
the
final
rule
are
gathered
for
either
record
keeping
or
reporting
purposes.
There
are
several
data
items
that
are
collected
only
during
the
year(
s)
prior
to
the
beginning
of
each
permit
cycle,
and
others
that
are
required
to
be
collected
on
an
annual
basis.

Reporting
Requirements
The
proposed
section
316(
b)
new
facility
regulations
would
not
require
the
Director
to
prepare
or
submit
any
reports,
beyond
what
is
currently
required
of
them
under
the
NPDES
program.
However,
Directors
would
need
to
review,
maintain
records
of,
and
make
permitting
determinations
based
upon
all
documents
and
reports
submitted
to
them
by
new
facilities.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
21
At
the
time
a
new
facility
submits
its
NPDES
application
(
180
days
prior
to
operation),

the
final
rule
would
require
the
facility
to
submit
information
demonstrating
that
it
is
employing
BTA
for
its
cooling
water
intake
structure
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
in
compliance
with
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA.
The
information
would
be
used
to
identify
which
of
the
requirements
in
today's
rulemaking
apply
to
the
facility,
how
the
facility
is
meeting
these
requirements,
and
whether
the
facility
is
meeting
the
goal
of
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Four
types
of
information
would
be
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
applications
for
all
new
facilities:
(
1)
source
water
physical
data,
(
2)
intake
structure
data,
(
3)

source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data,
and
(
4)
source
waterbody
flow
data.

Additional
types
of
information
would
be
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
applications
for
new
facilities,
depending
on
which
of
two
alternative
permitting
tracks
they
choose
to
comply
with.
The
additional
types
of
information
that
would
be
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
applications
for
facilities
choosing
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
I
are:
(
1)
flow
reduction
data,
(
2)
velocity
data,
and
(
3)
design
and
construction
technology
data.

Facilities
choosing
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
II
must
perform
a
comprehensive
demonstration
study.
The
additional
types
of
information
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
application
as
part
of
this
study
are:
(
1)
an
information
collection
proposal
plan,
(
2)
a
source
water
biological
study,
(
3)
an
evaluation
of
potential
cooling
water
intake
structure
effects,
and
(
4)
a
verification
monitoring
plan.

Information
Requirements
for
All
New
Facilities
Source
Water
Physical
Data
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
source
water
information
to
evaluate
potential
impact
to
the
water
body
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
placed.
Typically,
intake
structures
are
located
offshore,
at
the
shoreline
or
at
the
end
of
an
approach
intake
canal.
The
intake
structure
would
be
affecting
different
species
or
life
stages
depending
on
its
location
in
the
source
water
and
source
water
type.
For
example,
intakes
located
at
the
shoreline
could
affect
spawning
and
nursery
areas
and
intake
located
offshore
could
affect
migratory
routes.
In
addition,
the
proximity
of
the
intake
structures
to
sensitive
aquatic
ecological
areas
may
result
in
potential
environmental
impact.

Specific
source
water
physical
data
items
include:
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
22
°
a
narrative
description
and
scale
drawings
showing
the
physical
configuration
of
all
source
water
bodies
used
by
the
facility,
including
areal
dimensions,
depths,
salinity
and
temperature
regimes,
and
other
documentation
that
supports
the
determination
of
the
water
body
type
where
each
CWIS
is
located
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
2))

°
identification
and
characterization
of
source
waterbody
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features,
and
methods
used
to
conduct
any
physical
studies
to
determine
the
intake's
area
of
influence
within
the
waterbody
and
the
results
of
such
studies
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
2))

°
locational
maps
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
2)).

Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Data
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
information
on
the
intake
structure
and
the
facility's
water
balance
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
impingement
and
entrainment
of
aquatic
organisms.

Information
on
the
design
of
the
intake
structure
and
its
location
in
the
water
column
allows
EPA
to
evaluate
which
species
or
life
stages
would
potentially
be
subject
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
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
would
provide
a
picture
of
the
total
flow
in
and
out
of
the
facility,
allowing
EPA
to
evaluate
compliance
with
the
flow
reduction
requirements.
Specific
intake
structure
data
items
include:

°
a
narrative
description
of
the
configuration
of
each
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
where
it
is
located
in
the
water
body
and
in
the
water
column
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
3))

°
latitude
and
longitude
in
degrees,
minutes,
and
seconds
for
each
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
3))

°
a
narrative
description
of
the
operation
of
each
of
the
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
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
3))

°
a
flow
distribution
and
water
balance
diagram
that
includes
all
sources
of
water
to
the
facility,
recirculating
flows,
and
discharges
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
3))

°
engineering
drawings
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
3)).
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
23
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
use
this
information
in
subsequent
permit
renewal
proceedings
to
determine
if
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
should
be
revised.
Supporting
information
must
include
existing
data
(
if
available),
which
may
be
supplemented
using
actual
field
studies.
Specific
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data
items
include:

°
a
list
of
the
data
that
are
not
available
and
efforts
made
to
identify
sources
of
the
data
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
4))

°
a
list
of
species
(
or
relevant
taxa)
for
all
life
stages
and
their
relative
abundance
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
4))

°
identification
of
the
species
and
life
stages
that
would
be
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
Species
evaluated
should
include
the
most
important
in
terms
of
significance
to
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
and
the
forage
base.
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
4))

°
identification
and
evaluation
of
the
primary
period
of
reproduction,
larval
recruitment,
and
period
of
peak
abundance
for
relevant
taxa
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
4))

°
data
representative
of
the
seasonal
and
daily
activities
of
biological
organisms
(
for
example
feeding
and
water
column
migration)
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
4))

°
identification
of
all
threatened
and
endangered
species
that
might
be
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
intake
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
4))

°
documentation
of
any
public
participation
or
consultation
with
Federal
or
State
agencies
undertaken
in
development
of
the
plan
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
4))

°
if
the
above
information
is
supplemented
with
data
collected
using
actual
field
studies,
a
description
of
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
data
collection,
sampling,

and
analysis
including
a
description
of
the
study
area;
identification
of
the
biological
assemblages
to
be
sampled
and/
or
evaluated;
data
collection,
sampling,
and
analysis
methods.
The
sampling
and/
or
data
analysis
methods
used
must
be
appropriate
for
a
quantitative
survey
and
based
on
a
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.
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
4))
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
24
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
information
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
is
complying
with
proportional
flow
(
i.
e.,
intake
flow
may
not
exceed
a
certain
proportion
of
source
water
body
flow)
requirements.
Specific
source
water
body
flow
data
items
are:

°
if
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
the
annual
mean
flow
and
any
supporting
documentation
and
engineering
calculations
to
show
that
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
meets
the
flow
requirements
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
3)

and
§
125.36(
c)(
1))

°
if
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
an
estuary
or
tidal
river,
the
mean
low
water
tidal
excursion
distance
and
any
supporting
documentation
and
engineering
calculations
to
show
that
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
facility
meets
the
flow
requirements
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
3)
and
§
125.36(
c)(
1))

°
if
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
lake
or
reservoir,
a
narrative
description
of
the
water
body
thermal
stratification,
and
any
supporting
documentation
and
engineering
calculations
to
show
that
the
stratification
will
not
be
altered
by
the
total
design
intake
flow
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
3)
and
§
125.36(
c)(
1)).

Additional
Information
Requirements
for
Track
I
Flow
Reduction
Information
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
information
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
has
reduced
its
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
water
system.
Specific
flow
reduction
data
items
include:

°
a
narrative
description
of
the
system
that
has
been
designed
to
reduce
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
achieved
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
water
system
and
any
engineering
calculations,
including
documentation
demonstrating
that
make­
up
and
blowdown
flows
have
been
minimized
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
1))

°
if
the
flow
reduction
requirement
is
met
entirely,
or
in
part,
by
reusing
or
recycling
water
withdrawn
for
cooling
purposes
in
subsequent
industrial
processes,
documentation
that
the
amount
of
cooling
water
that
is
not
reused
or
recycled
has
been
minimized
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
1)).
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
25
Velocity
Information
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
information
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
is
complying
with
the
requirement
to
meet
a
maximum
through­
screen
design
intake
velocity
of
no
more
than
0.5
ft/
s
at
each
cooling
water
intake
structure.
Specific
velocity
data
items
are:

°
a
narrative
description
of
the
design,
structure,
equipment,
and
operation
used
to
meet
the
velocity
requirement
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
2))

°
design
calculations
showing
that
the
velocity
requirement
will
be
met
at
minimum
ambient
source
water
surface
elevations
(
based
on
best
professional
judgement
using
available
hydrological
data)
and
maximum
head
loss
across
the
screens
or
other
device
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
2)).

Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
information
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
has
implemented
the
design
and
construction
technologies
necessary
to
minimize
impingement
and
entrainment
and
maximize
survival
of
impinged
organisms
in
cases
where
such
technologies
are
required.
The
plan
must
contain
information
on
the
technologies
that
the
facility
will
implement
based
on
the
results
of
the
Source
Water
Biological
Baseline
Characterization.
Specific
design
and
construction
technology
plan
data
items
include:

°
a
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
the
design
and
construction
technologies,
including
fish­
handling
and
return
systems,
that
the
facility
will
use
to
maximize
the
survival
of
those
species
expected
to
be
most
susceptible
to
impingement.

This
description
should
include
species­
specific
information
that
demonstrates
the
efficacy
of
the
technology
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
4))

°
a
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
the
additional
design
and
construction
technologies
that
the
facility
will
use
to
minimize
entrainment
of
those
species
expected
to
be
the
most
susceptible
to
entrainment
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
5))

°
design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
above
descriptions
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
4)).
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
26
Additional
Information
Requirements
for
Track
II
Track
II
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
information
in
the
form
of
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
to
characterize
the
source
water
baseline
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake,
characterize
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake,
and
confirm
that
proposed
technologies
reduce
the
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish
to
levels
comparable
to
those
that
would
be
achieved
by
implementing
the
flow
reduction,
velocity
and
technology
requirements
of
Track
I.
The
facility
must
develop
and
submit
a
plan
to
the
Director
containing
a
proposal
of
how
information
will
be
collected
to
support
the
study.
Documentation
of
the
results
of
the
study
must
also
be
submitted
to
the
Director.
Specific
Track
II
comprehensive
demonstration
study
data
items
include:

°
a
description
of
the
proposed
technologies
to
be
evaluated
in
the
study
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2))

°
a
list
and
description
of
any
historical
studies
characterizing
the
physical
and
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
proposed
or
actual
intakes
and
their
relevancy
to
the
proposed
study.
If
the
facility
proposes
to
rely
on
existing
source
water
body
data,
it
must
be
no
more
than
5
years
old,
and
the
facility
must
demonstrate
that
the
existing
data
are
sufficient
to
develop
a
scientifically
valid
estimate
of
potential
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts,
and
provide
documentation
showing
that
the
data
were
collected
using
appropriate
quality
assurance
procedures.
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2))

°
any
public
participation
or
consultation
with
Federal
or
State
agencies
undertaken
in
development
of
the
plan
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2))

°
a
sampling
plan
for
data
that
will
be
collected
using
actual
field
studies
in
the
source
water
body.
The
sampling
plan
must
document
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
data
collection,
sampling,
and
analysis.
The
proposed
sampling
and
data
analysis
methods
must
be
appropriate
for
a
quantitative
survey
and
based
on
a
consideration
of
methods
used
in
other
studies
performed
in
the
source
water
body.
The
sampling
plan
must
include
a
description
of
the
study
area
(
which
must
include
the
area
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
at
least
100
meters
beyond);
identification
of
the
biological
assemblages
to
be
sampled
(
including
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish);
data
collection,

sampling,
and
analysis
methods.
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2))

°
Source
Water
Biological
Characterization.
This
must
include:


a
taxonomic
identification
and
characterization
of
aquatic
biological
resources
to
provide:
a
summary
of
historic
and
contemporary
aquatic
biological
resources;

determination
and
description
of
the
target
populations
of
concern
(
those
species
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
27
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
life
stages
that
would
be
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment);
and
a
description
of
the
abundance
and
temporal/
spatial
characterization
of
the
target
populations
based
on
the
collection
of
multiple
years
of
data
to
capture
the
seasonal
and
daily
activities
(
for
example
feeding
and
water
column
migration)
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2))


an
identification
of
all
threatened
and
endangered
species
that
might
be
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2))


a
description
of
additional
chemical,
water
quality,
and
other
anthropogenic
stresses
on
the
source
waterbody
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2)).

°
Evaluation
of
Potential
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Effects.
This
must
include:


a
statement
of
the
baseline
against
which
the
comparative
analyses
described
below
will
be
made.
Impingement
and
entrainment
baselines
must
be
calculated
for
the
facility
assuming
a
design
of
a
once­
through
cooling
water
system
and
a
shoreline
cooling
water
intake
structure
employing
a
trash
rack
and
traveling
screens.
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2))


an
engineering
estimate
of
efficacy
for
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
in
minimizing
impingement
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
to
maximize
survival
of
impinged
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.

The
facility
must
demonstrate
that
the
proposed
technologies
reduce
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish
to
levels
comparable
to
those
expected
to
be
achieved
by
meeting
Track
I
requirements
at
a
shoreline
intake
at
that
site.
This
may
be
done
by
showing
either
(
i)
that
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
have
been
reduced
to
90
%
or
greater
of
the
reduction
that
would
be
achieved
through
Track
I,
or
(
ii)
if
the
demonstration
includes
consideration
of
impacts
other
than
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
that
the
measures
taken
will
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
at
a
substantially
similar
level
as
would
be
achieved
under
Track
I.
The
efficacy
projection
must
include
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
technology
suitability
for
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
based
on
the
Source
Water
Biological
Study.
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2))


a
characterization
of
impingement
and
entrainment
estimates
of
the
proposed
alternative
technology
based
on
case
studies
in
the
vicinity
of
the
CWIS
and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2)).

°
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
The
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
must
include
a
plan
to
conduct,
at
a
minimum,
annual
monitoring
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
alternative
technologies.
The
plan
must
describe
the
frequency
of
monitoring,
the
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
28
parameters
to
be
monitored,
and
the
measures
that
the
facility
will
take
if
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
do
not
achieve
a
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
mortality
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
equivalent
to
the
level
documented
in
the
efficacy
projection
described
above.
Verification
monitoring
must
begin
during
the
first
year
of
operation
of
the
CWIS
and
continue
for
a
sufficient
period
of
time
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
is
reducing
the
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish
to
levels
comparable
to
those
that
would
be
achieved
by
implementing
the
flow
reduction
and
velocity
requirements
in
Track
I.

Annual
Reporting
Requirements
In
addition
to
the
one­
time
reporting
requirements,
operators
would
be
required
to
provide
the
following
information
in
a
yearly
status
report:

°
biological
monitoring
records
for
each
CWIS
as
required
by
§
125.87(
a)
(
40
CFR
§
125.88(
b))

°
velocity
and
head
loss
monitoring
records
for
each
CWIS
as
required
by
§
125.87(
b)
(
40
CFR
§
125.88(
b))

°
records
of
visual
or
remote
inspections
as
required
in
§
125.87(
c)
(
40
CFR
§
125.88(
b)).

Record
Keeping
Requirements
All
operators
of
new
facilities
would
be
required
to
keep
records
and
to
report
information
and
data
to
the
permitting
authority
to
show
compliance
with
any
requirements
they
are
subject
to.
Records
would
be
required
to
be
maintained
for
a
period
of
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
of
permit
issuance
unless
extended
by
the
request
of
the
Director.
Each
operator
would
be
required
to
maintain
records
of:

°
all
the
data
used
to
complete
the
permit
application
and
show
compliance
(
40
CFR
§
125.88(
a))

°
any
supplemental
information
developed
under
§
125.86
(
40
CFR
§
125.88(
a))

°
compliance
monitoring
data
submitted
under
§
125.87
(
40
CFR
§
125.88(
a)).
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
29
The
final
rule
would
add
several
items
to
the
list
of
records
currently
maintained
by
Directors
for
the
NPDES
permit
program.
The
additional
record
keeping
items
include:

°
records
of
all
narrative
descriptions,
scale
drawings,
location
maps,
schematic
diagrams,

and
engineering
calculations
submitted
by
new
facilities
°
records
of
source
waterbody
physical
and
flow
information
submitted
by
facilities
°
records
of
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data
submitted
by
facilities
°
records
of
design
and
construction
technology
plans
submitted
by
facilities
°
records
of
comprehensive
design
study
plans
and
study
results
submitted
by
new
facilities
°
records
of
source
water
biological
studies
submitted
by
facilities
°
records
of
evaluations
of
potential
cooling
water
intake
structure
effects
submitted
by
facilities
°
records
of
verification
monitoring
plans
and
monitoring
results
submitted
by
facilities
°
a
record
of
all
yearly
status
reports
°
a
list
of
determinations
made
for
each
facility
°
a
list
of
facilities
required
to
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
°
a
list
of
monitoring
requirements
for
each
system
°
a
list
of
all
facilities
applying
for
a
reduction
in
their
monitoring
requirements
°
records
of
any
other
facility­
by­
facility
and
case­
by­
case
decisions
made
by
that
Director
under
the
rule.

4b(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
As
mentioned
above,
respondents
would
include
both
new
facilities
and
NPDES
permit
program
Directors.
Their
information
collection
activities
are
described
below.

Permit
Application
Activities
All
facilities
and
Directors
will
need
to
perform
start­
up
activities
such
as:
reading
the
rule,

planning
for
the
implementation
of
the
rule,
and
training
staff
to
perform
various
tasks
necessary
to
comply
with
the
rule.
Activities
performed
during
the
permit
application
process
are
performed
only
once
during
each
ICR
period.
However,
these
application
activities
are
repeated
again
during
the
fifth
year
of
the
permit
cycle
as
part
of
the
permit
renewal
process.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
30
General
Information
Before
new
facilities
can
begin
operation
of
the
CWIS,
they
must
first
perform
several
data
gathering
activities
as
part
of
the
permit
application
process.
Under
the
final
rule,
all
facilities
would
be
required
to
gather
source
water
physical,
flow
and
baseline
biological
characterization
information
and
intake
structure
information
so
that
the
Director
can
evaluate
potential
impact
to
the
water
body
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
placed.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
source
water
physical
characteristics
include:

°
describing
and
drawing
the
physical
configuration
of
the
source
water
body
where
the
CWIS
is
located,
including
areal
dimensions,
depths,
salinity
and
temperature
regimes
°
characterizing
and
documenting
the
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features
of
the
source
waterbody
and
the
intake's
area
of
influence
within
the
waterbody
°
creating
locational
maps
of
the
source
waterbody
°
maintaining
copies
of
these
documents
as
well
as
copies
of
any
information
used
in
their
development
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
source
waterbody
flow
include:

°
developing
a
narrative
describing
the
annual
mean
flow
of
the
waterbody
if
the
CWIS
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
the
mean
low
water
tidal
excursion
distance
if
the
CWIS
is
located
in
an
estuary
or
tidal
river,
or
the
waterbody
thermal
stratification
if
the
CWIS
is
located
in
a
lake
or
reservoir
°
gathering
and
producing
supporting
documentation
°
performing
engineering
calculations
°
maintaining
a
record
of
pertinent
documents
for
three
years
after
submittal.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
source
waterbody
baseline
biological
characterization
include:

°
collecting
existing
information
to
develop
a
list
of
species
(
or
relevant
taxa)
for
all
life
stages
and
their
relative
abundance
in
the
vicinity
of
the
CWIS
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
31
°
identifying
which
species
and
life
stages
would
be
most
susceptible
to
impingement
or
entrainment
°
identifying
and
evaluating
the
primary
period
of
reproduction,
larval
recruitment,
and
period
of
peak
abundance
for
relevant
taxa
°
collecting
data
that
are
representative
of
the
seasonal
and
daily
activities
of
biological
organisms
(
for
example
feeding
and
water
column
migration)
in
the
vicinity
of
the
CWIS
°
identifying
all
threatened
and
endangered
species
that
might
be
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
CWIS
°
documenting
data
that
are
not
available
and
efforts
made
to
identify
sources
of
data
°
documenting
public
participation
or
consultation
with
Federal
or
State
agencies
°
if
existing
data
are
supplemented
with
data
collected
using
actual
field
studies,
developing
a
narrative
description
of
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
data
collection,

sampling,
and
analysis,
including
a
description
of
the
study
area
and
the
biological
assemblages
to
be
sampled
and/
or
evaluated
°
maintaining
a
copy
of
the
characterization
and
the
materials
required
to
produce
it
for
three
years
after
submittal.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
intake
structure
characteristics
include:

°
preparing
a
narrative
description
of
the
configuration
of
the
CWIS
and
its
location
within
the
waterbody
and
in
the
water
column
°
measuring
and
documenting
the
latitude
and
longitude
of
the
CWIS
°
developing
a
flow
distribution
and
water
balance
diagram
for
the
facility
that
includes
all
sources
of
water
to
the
facility,
recirculating
flows,
and
discharges
°
developing
a
narrative
that
describes
the
operation
of
the
CWIS,
including
design
flows,

daily
hours
of
operation,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation,
and
seasonal
changes
if
any
°
creating
engineering
drawings
and
locational
maps
in
support
of
the
CWIS
descriptions
mentioned
°
maintaining
copies
of
these
documents
as
well
as
copies
of
any
information
used
in
their
development
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

Additional
Information
for
Track
I
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
32
New
facilities
would
be
required
to
gather
additional
information,
depending
on
which
of
two
alternative
permitting
tracks
they
choose.
Facilities
choosing
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
I
would
be
required
to
gather
flow
reduction
information,
velocity
information,
and
design
and
construction
technology
information.

Flow
Reduction
Information
Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
flow
reduction
include:

°
developing
a
narrative
description
of
the
system
that
has
been
designed
to
reduce
the
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
water
system
°
producing
the
necessary
engineering
calculations
to
demonstrate
that
the
CWIS
meets
the
flow
reduction
requirement
°
developing
documentation
to
demonstrate
that
make­
up
and
blowdown
flows
have
been
minimized
°
if
the
flow
reduction
requirement
is
met
entirely,
or
in
part,
by
reusing
or
recycling
water
withdrawn
for
cooling
purposes
in
subsequent
industrial
processes,
developing
documentation
that
the
amount
of
cooling
water
that
is
not
reused
or
recycled
has
been
minimized
°
maintaining
a
record
of
pertinent
documents
for
three
years
after
submittal.

Velocity
Information
Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
velocity
include:

°
developing
a
narrative
description
of
the
design,
structure,
equipment,
and
operation
used
to
meet
the
velocity
requirement
°
producing
the
necessary
engineering
calculations
to
show
the
velocity
requirement
will
be
met
°
maintaining
a
record
of
pertinent
documents
for
three
years
after
submittal.

Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
Information
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
33
In
cases
where
additional
design
and
construction
technologies
or
other
operational
measures
are
required,
the
facility
must
submit
information
to
demonstrate
that
it
will
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
that
meet
the
impingement
and
entrainment
requirements.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
design
and
control
technology
include:

°
providing
narrative
descriptions
of
the
design
and
operation
of
the
technologies
that
will
be
used
to
maximize
survival
of
those
species
expected
to
be
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
minimize
entrainment
of
those
species
expected
to
be
the
most
susceptible
to
entrainment
°
collecting
species­
specific
information
to
demonstrate
the
efficacy
of
the
technology
°
producing
the
necessary
design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
narrative
descriptions
°
maintaining
records
of
all
materials
used
to
develop
the
narrative
descriptions
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

Additional
Information
for
Track
II
Facilities
choosing
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
II
would
be
required
to
gather
comprehensive
demonstration
study
information,
including
a
source
water
biological
study,

an
evaluation
of
potential
CWIS
effects,
and
a
verification
monitoring
plan.

Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Information
The
facility
must
develop
and
submit
a
plan
for
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
to
characterize
the
source
water
baseline
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,

characterize
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intakes,
and
confirm
that
technologies
proposed
and/
or
implemented
at
the
CWIS
achieve
comparable
reductions
in
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish
as
those
that
would
be
achieved
were
the
facility
to
implement
the
flow
reduction,
velocity
and
technology
requirements
of
Track
I.
The
facility
must
also
develop
and
submit
documentation
of
the
results
of
the
study.
Tasks
include:

°
developing
and
submitting
a
plan
containing
a
proposal
for
how
information
will
be
collected
to
support
the
study
°
developing
a
description
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
to
be
evaluated
in
the
study
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
34
°
developing
a
list
and
description
of
any
historical
studies
characterizing
the
physical
and
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
CWIS
and
their
relevancy
to
the
study
°
documenting
any
public
participation
or
consultation
with
Federal
or
State
agencies
undertaken
in
development
of
the
plan
°
developing
a
sampling
plan
for
data
that
will
be
collected
using
actual
field
studies
in
the
source
water
body,
documenting
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
data
collection,
sampling,
and
analysis.
The
sampling
plan
must
include
a
description
of
the
study
area
(
which
must
include
the
area
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
at
least
100
meters
beyond);
identification
of
the
biological
assemblages
to
be
sampled
(
both
nekton
and
meroplankton);
data
collection,
sampling,
and
analysis
methods.

°
documenting
and
submitting
the
results
of
the
study
°
maintaining
records
of
all
materials
used
to
develop
the
study
plan
and
document
study
results
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

In
documenting
the
results
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
the
facility
must
also
develop
a
Source
Water
Biological
Study
to
identify
chemical
and
biological
considerations
as
they
relate
to
the
facility's
CWIS
operations.
Tasks
include:

°
identifying
and
characterizing
the
taxonomy
of
aquatic
biological
resources
°
developing
a
summary
of
historic
and
contemporary
aquatic
biological
resources
°
determining
and
describing
the
target
populations
of
concern
(
those
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
life
stages
that
would
be
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment)

°
determining
and
describing
the
abundance
and
temporal/
spatial
characterization
of
the
target
populations
based
on
the
collection
of
multiple
years
of
data
to
capture
the
seasonal
and
daily
biological
activity
in
the
vicinity
of
the
CWIS
°
identifying
all
threatened
and
endangered
species
that
might
be
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
CWIS
°
identifying
and
evaluating
additional
chemical,
water
quality,
and
other
anthropogenic
stresses
on
the
source
waterbody
°
maintaining
a
copy
of
the
characterization
and
the
materials
required
to
produce
it
for
three
years
after
submittal.

In
documenting
the
results
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
the
facility
must
also
develop
an
Evaluation
of
Potential
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Effects.
Tasks
include:
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
35
°
developing
a
statement
of
the
baseline
against
which
comparative
analyses
will
be
made
°
calculating
and
documenting
the
impingement
and
entrainment
baselines,
assuming
a
baseline
design
of
a
once­
through
cooling
water
system
and
a
shoreline
CWIS
employing
a
trash
rack
and
traveling
screens
°
developing
an
engineering
estimate
of
the
efficacy
of
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
in
minimizing
impingement
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
to
maximize
survival
of
impinged
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish,
and
in
reducing
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish
to
levels
comparable
to
those
expected
to
be
achieved
by
implementing
Track
I
requirements.
The
efficacy
projection
must
include
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
technology
suitability
for
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
based
on
the
Source
Water
Biological
Characterization.

°
characterizing
impingement
and
entrainment
estimates
of
the
alternative
technology
based
on
case
studies
in
the
vicinity
of
the
CWIS
and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies
°
maintaining
a
copy
of
the
evaluation
and
the
materials
required
to
produce
it
for
three
years
after
submittal.

As
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
the
facility
must
also
develop
a
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
to
conduct,
at
a
minimum,
annual
monitoring
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
alternative
technologies.
The
facility
must
perform
verification
monitoring
beginning
during
the
first
year
of
operation
of
the
CWIS.
Tasks
include:

°
developing
a
monitoring
plan,
including
descriptions
of
the
frequency
of
monitoring,
the
parameters
to
be
monitored,
and
the
measures
that
the
facility
will
take
if
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
do
not
achieve
a
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
mortality
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
equivalent
to
the
level
documented
in
the
efficacy
projection
described
above
°
performing
and
document
verification
monitoring
°
maintaining
copies
of
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
and
verification
monitoring
records,
along
with
the
materials
required
to
produce
them
for
three
years
after
submittal.

Annual
Activities
Biological
Monitoring
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
36
All
new
facilities
affected
by
the
rule
would
need
to
perform
biological
monitoring
of
the
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
and
the
forage
base
species
identified
in
either
the
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
or
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
for
a
minimum
of
two
years
after
permit
issuance.
The
Director
may
approve
a
request
for
less
frequent
sampling
in
the
remaining
years
of
the
permit
term,
following
review
of
supporting
data.

Biological
monitoring
includes
both
monitoring
of
impingement
and
entrainment.

Impingement
monitoring
involves
collecting
data
on
aquatic
organisms
trapped
on
the
outer
part
of
an
intake
structure
or
against
screening
devices
during
periods
of
cooling
water
withdrawal,
to
determine
the
taxa
and
abundance
of
impinged
organisms.
Specific
monitoring
tasks
include:

°
collecting
impingement
samples
over
a
24­
hour
period
no
less
than
once
per
month
when
the
CWIS
is
in
operation
°
identifying
and
enumerating
impinged
organisms
°
performing
statistical
analyses
to
summarize
rates
°
maintaining
records
of
impingement
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.

Entrainment
monitoring
involves
the
collection
of
data
on
eggs,
larvae,
and
other
plankton
incorporated
with
cooling
water
flow
(
entering
and
passing
through
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
into
a
cooling
water
system),
to
determine
the
taxa
and
abundance
of
entrained
organisms.
Specific
tasks
include:

°
collecting
entrainment
samples
over
a
24­
hour
period
no
less
than
biweekly
during
the
primary
period
of
reproduction,
larval
recruitment,
and
peak
meroplankton
abundance
when
the
CWIS
is
in
operation
°
identifying
and
enumerating
entrained
organisms
°
performing
statistical
analyses
to
summarize
entrainment
rates
°
maintaining
records
of
entrainment
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.

CWIS
Operational
Monitoring
Under
the
proposed
section
316(
b)
New
Facilities
Rule,
all
affected
facilities
would
need
to
monitor
the
operation
of
their
CWISs.
The
first
type
of
operational
monitoring
is
the
monitoring
of
the
system's
velocity,
performed
during
initial
facility
startup
and
thereafter
at
a
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
37
frequency
specified
in
the
facility's
NPDES
permit,
but
no
less
than
once
per
quarter.
The
second
form
of
operational
monitoring
is
through
either
visual
inspections
conducted
on
at
least
a
weekly
basis
or
through
the
use
of
remote
monitoring
equipment.
Specific
operational
monitoring
tasks
include:

°
if
the
facility
uses
intake
screen
systems,
monitoring
head
loss
across
the
screens
(
measured
at
the
minimum
ambient
source
water
surface
elevation)
and
correlating
the
measured
value
with
the
design
intake
velocity
°
if
the
facility
uses
devices
other
than
intake
screens,
monitoring
velocity
at
the
point
of
entry
through
the
device
°
analyzing
data
to
determine
if
the
CWIS
is
meeting
the
velocity
requirements
°
visually
inspecting
all
installed
technologies
or,
alternatively,
inspecting
remote
monitoring
devices
to
confirm
that
the
impingement
and
entrainment
technologies
are
functioning
as
designed
°
maintaining
records
of
operational
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.

Yearly
Status
Report
All
new
facilities
subject
to
the
rule
would
be
required
to
prepare
and
submit
an
annual
report
that
details
compliance
with
requirements
set
by
the
rule
and
with
any
additional
provisions
specified
within
the
permit.
Preparation
of
the
report
requires:

°
compiling
biological
monitoring
records
for
each
CWIS
°
compiling
velocity
and
head
loss
monitoring
records
for
each
CWIS
°
compiling
records
of
visual
or
remote
inspections
°
maintaining
a
copy
of
the
report
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
its
submission.

Director
Activities
NPDES
program
Directors
will
act
to
ensure
the
implementation
of
the
final
rule.
To
successfully
meet
their
responsibilities,
EPA
anticipates
that
Directors
will
be
involved
in
the
following
activities:

°
reading
and
understanding
the
rule
°
mobilization
and
planning
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
38
°
training
facility
and
consultant
staff.

The
Director
should
review
materials
submitted
by
the
applicant
during
the
initial
permit
application
process
and
prior
to
each
renewal
period
thereafter
to
determine
if
there
have
been
any
changes
in
facility
operations
or
physical
and
biological
attributes
of
the
source
waterbody.

Any
changes
should
be
evaluated
to
determine
the
need
for
additional
or
more
stringent
conditions
in
the
permit.

Section
316(
b)
requirements
are
imposed
on
a
facility
through
an
NPDES
permit.
The
Director
must
determine,
based
on
the
information
submitted
by
the
new
facility
in
its
permit
application,
the
appropriate
requirements
and
conditions
to
include
in
the
permit
based
on
the
track
(
Track
I
or
Track
II)
the
new
facility
has
chosen
to
comply
with.
Specific
activities
include:

°
analyzing
and
reviewing
facility
data
°
making
determinations
concerning
facilities
such
as:


after
receiving
the
initial
permit
application,
Directors
must
determine
applicable
standards
in
§
125.84
to
apply
to
the
new
facility
and
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
standards

for
each
subsequent
permit
renewal,
Directors
must
review
the
application
materials
and
monitoring
data
to
determine
whether
additional
requirements
for
design
and
construction
technologies
should
be
included
in
the
permit
if
they
are
reasonably
necessary
to
minimize
impingement
and
entrainment
as
a
result
of
the
effects
of
multiple
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
same
body
of
water;

seasonal
variations
in
the
aquatic
environment
affected
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
controlled
by
the
permit;
or
the
presence
of
regionally
important
species
or
threatened
and
endangered
species

for
Track
II
facilities,
the
Director
may
review
the
information
collection
proposal
plan
required
by
§
125.86(
c)(
2)(
I).
The
facility
may
initiate
sampling
and
data
collection
activities
prior
to
receiving
comment
from
the
Director.


Directors
must
develop
permit
conditions
that,
at
a
minimum,
include
the
performance
standards
that
implement
the
requirements
of
§
125.84(
b)(
1),
(
2),
(
3)

and
(
4)
or
§
125.84(
c)(
1),
(
2)
and
(
3).
In
determining
compliance
with
proportional
flow
requirement
in
§
§
125.84(
b)(
2)
and
(
3),
the
Director
must
consider
anthropogenic
factors
unrelated
to
the
new
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
can
influence
the
occurrence
and
location
of
the
thermocline,

including
source
water
inflows,
other
water
withdrawals,
managed
water
uses,

wastewater
discharges,
and
flow/
level
management
practices.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
39

for
a
facility
that
chooses
Track
I,
the
Director
must
review
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
if
required
under
§
125.84(
b)(
4),
to
evaluate
the
suitability
and
feasibility
of
the
technology
proposed
to
minimize
impingement
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish,
or
to
maximize
survival
of
impinged
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
A
condition
requiring
the
facility
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
commensurate
with
the
implementation
of
the
technologies
must
be
placed
in
the
permit.
In
addition,
Directors
must
consider
whether
more
stringent
conditions
are
reasonably
necessary
in
accordance
with
§
125.84(
d).


for
a
facility
that
chooses
Track
II,
the
Director
must
review
the
information
submitted
with
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
information
required
in
§
125.86(
c)(
2),
evaluate
the
proposed
suitability
for
the
proposed
technologies
at
the
site,
and
determine
whether
the
technologies
achieve
comparable
levels
of
reduction
in
impacts
to
fish
and
shellfish
as
the
facility
would
if
it
complied
with
§
125.84(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
and
used
a
shoreline
intake.
A
condition
requiring
the
facility
to
implement
the
Technology
Proposal
Plan
and
to
reduce
their
impingement
and
entrainment
to
the
level
that
can
be
achieved
by
employing
the
implemented
technologies
must
be
placed
in
the
permit.
In
addition,
the
Director
must
review
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
in
§
125.86(
c)(
2)(
ii)(
C)
and
require
that
the
proposed
monitoring
be
performed
within
the
first
year
of
operations
at
the
facility.


Directors
must
determine
frequency
of
the
monitoring
subject
to
minimum
requirements.
The
Director
may
modify
the
monitoring
program
when
the
permit
is
reissued
and
during
the
term
of
the
permit
based
on
changes
in
physical
or
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
CWIS.
The
Director
may
require
continued
monitoring
based
on
the
results
of
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
in
§
125.86(
c)(
2)(
iii)(
C).


Directors
must
determine
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
each
facility
subject
to
minimum
requirements

Directors
would
have
the
discretion
to
include
more
stringent
requirements
in
the
NPDES
permits
than
those
specified
in
the
proposed
regulations
if
they
determine
that
more
stringent
conditions
are
reasonably
necessary
to
ensure
the
minimization
of
impingement
and
entrainment
as
a
result
of
the
effects
of
multiple
CWISs
in
the
same
water
body;
seasonal
variations
in
the
aquatic
environment
effected
by
the
presence
of
the
permitted
CWIS;
or
the
presence
of
regionally
important
species
°
facility
compliance
tracking
°
record
keeping
for
all
reports,
documents,
and
supporting
materials
submitted
by
facilities
in
fulfilment
of
their
cooling
water
intake
requirements
of
their
NPDES
permit.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
40
5
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION,
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
The
following
sections
describe
EPA
activities
related
to
analyzing,
maintaining,
and
distributing
the
information
collected.

5a
Agency
Activities
EPA
is
responsible
for
promulgating
this
rule
and
overseeing
its
implementation.

Implementation
of
reporting
and
monitoring
requirements
would
rely
extensively
on
State
governments
in
those
States
that
have
authorization
under
CWA
Section
402(
b)
to
implement
the
NPDES
permit
program.
In
States
that
do
not
have
NPDES
permitting
authority,
EPA
is
responsible
for
administering
the
program.
Under
these
circumstances,
EPA
performs
the
same
activities
as
those
outlined
for
Directors
in
Section
4.

EPA
would
also
be
involved
in
the
review
of
State­
issued
NPDES
permits
for
compliance
with
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Regulation
requirements.
EPA
typically
reviews
NPDES
permits
in
the
early
stages
of
implementation
of
new
regulations.
As
such,
EPA
assumes
that
it
will
perform
a
detailed
review,
make
comments,
and
follow
up
on
comments
for
the
316(
b)

portions
of
State
issued
NPDES
permits,
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.

5b
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
The
final
rule
provides
minimum
requirements
regarding
the
type
of
information
collected.

Directors
of
NPDES
programs
would
be
primarily
responsible
for
determining
which
collection
method
and
information
management
strategy
is
most
appropriate.
EPA
will
maintain
some
of
the
compliance
data
in
its
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database.
PCS
is
the
national
computerized
management
information
system
that
automates
entry,
updating,
and
retrieval
of
NPDES
data
and
tracks
permit
issuance,
permit
limits
and
monitoring
data,
and
other
data
pertaining
to
facilities
regulated
under
NPDES.
This
technology
reduces
the
burden
to
the
permitting
authority
of
gathering,
analyzing,
and
reporting
national
permit
and
water
quality
data.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
41
Permitting
authorities
are
responsible
for
reviewing
permit
applications,
permits,

monitoring
reports,
etc.
to
verify
the
accuracy
of
the
data.
Permitting
authorities
are
also
responsible
for
entering
that
data
into
PCS.
Different
authorities
have
different
approaches
for
entering
the
data
into
PCS
and
different
approaches
for
checking
data
quality.
This
includes
the
use
of
coding
forms,
double­
entry,
technical
review,
etc.
Many
states
have
developed
state
databases
that
are
tailored
to
individual
state
needs
with
the
system
formatted
for
uploads
directly
to
PCS
from
the
state
system.
Permit
data
can
be
accessed
by
the
public
in
one
of
two
ways:

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

$
via
an
on­
line
query
using
EPA's
Envirofacts
Data
Warehouse
and
Applications
website
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
enviro/
index_
java.
html.
Accessing
data
via
Envirofacts
provides
a
method
to
combine
PCS
data
with
other
EPA
databases
and
mapping
tools.

5c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
final
rule's
minimum
intake
requirements
would
exclude
most
new
small
entities
from
the
compliance
requirements.
As
a
result,
the
final
rule
is
expected
to
affect
only
a
small
absolute
number
of
facilities
owned
by
small
entities.
EPA
estimated
that
only
one
facility
within
the
scope
of
this
regulation
and
owned
by
a
small
entity
will
be
incur
costs
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation
of
the
rule
(
i.
e.,
the
period
of
this
ICR).
This
facility
is
a
manufacturing
facility
and
constitutes
0.4
percent
of
all
new
manufacturing
facilities
projected
to
be
owned
by
small
entities.

Over
the
next
20
years,
11
facilities
owned
by
small
entities
are
projected
to
be
subject
to
the
final
316(
b)
regulation.
Of
these,
8
are
estimated
to
be
electric
generators
and
3
will
be
manufacturing
facilities.

EPA
considers
the
proposed
information
collection
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
the
minimum
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
Section
316(
b)
goal
of
"
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact"
is
met.
Because
small
entities
constitute
a
very
small
share
of
the
potentially
affected
facilities,
providing
them
greater
flexibility
such
as
less
frequent
data
collection
and
reporting
requirements
would
not
have
a
large
effect
on
their
overall
burden,
but
could
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
proposed
rule.
Furthermore,
because
the
proposed
reporting
requirements
differ
by
water
type
and
permitting
track,
entities
of
all
sizes
have
the
flexibility
to
minimize
their
total
compliance
costs
including
the
costs
and
burden
of
information
collection
requirements.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
42
5d
Collection
Schedule
EPA
anticipates
that
18
new
facilities
will
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
final
rule
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.
The
permitting
process
is
anticipated
to
take
less
than
one
year
to
complete
for
those
facilities
following
Track
I,
while
it
will
take
approximately
three
years
for
those
facilities
opting
to
take
Track
II.
A
single
Track
I
facility
scheduled
to
begin
operation
during
the
first
year
after
promulgation
will
be
on
a
compressed
schedule,
so
it
is
assumed
that
it
will
not
experience
delays
in
commencing
operations
as
a
result
of
the
permitting
process.
All
eight
Track
II
facilities
planning
to
begin
operation
during
the
ICR
approval
period
will
begin
operating
as
scheduled
as
well.
All
18
facilities
will
undergo
initial
start­
up
activities
and
submit
information
on
CWIS
design.
Of
the
18
facilities
that
begin
the
application
process
during
the
ICR
approval
period,
nine
will
begin
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.
Table
6
provides
the
estimated
implementation
schedule
for
these
18
facilities,
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

Table
6.
Number
of
Facilities
Assumed
to
Comply
with
Information
Collection
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
Type
of
Activity
ICR
Approval
Period
9/
2001­
8/
2002
9/
2002­
8/
2003
9/
2003­
8/
2004
Track
I
Facilities
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
1
0
2
Track
II
Facilities
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
9
4
2
Total
Facilities
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
10
4
4
Track
I
Facilities
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
of
Operations
0
1
1
Track
II
Facilities
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
of
Operations
0
6
1
Total
Facilities
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
of
Operations
0
7
2
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
43
6
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
The
following
sections
present
proposed
rationale
and
results
of
EPA's
estimation
of
burden
and
costs
for
the
implementation
of
the
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule.

6a
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
This
section
describes
the
burden
estimates
for
facilities
and
Directors,
as
well
as
the
methods
used
to
derive
them.
Respondent
activities
are
separated
into
those
activities
associated
with
the
NPDES
permit
application
and
those
activities
associated
with
monitoring
and
reporting
after
the
permit
is
issued.
The
reason
for
this
is
that
the
permit
cycle
is
every
five
years
while
ICRs
must
be
renewed
every
three
years.
Therefore,
the
application
activities
occur
only
once
per
facility
during
an
ICR
approval
period,
and
so
they
are
considered
one­
time
burden
for
the
purpose
of
this
ICR.
By
contrast,
the
monitoring
and
reporting
activities
that
occur
after
issuance
of
the
permit
occur
on
an
annual
basis.
For
estimates
of
re­
permitting
burdens
see
Exhibits
A.
12
and
A.
13
in
Appendix
A.

Facility
Burdens
Information
collection
would
require
in­
scope
facilities
to
devote
time
(
i.
e.,
as
measured
by
staff
hours)
and
resources
(
e.
g.,
copies
of
documents
and
report
mailings)
to
produce
the
necessary
NPDES
permit
applications,
implementation
plans,
and
annual
status
reports.
Some
facilities
EPA
expects
that
facility
employees,
including
managers,
engineers,
engineering
technicians,
statisticians,
draftsmen,
and
clerical
staff,
will
devote
time
toward
gathering,

preparing,
and
submitting
the
various
documents.
To
develop
representative
profiles
of
each
employee's
relative
contribution,
EPA
assumed
burden
estimates
that
reflect
the
staffing
and
expertise
typically
found
in
manufacturing
facilities
and
power
generating
plants.
In
doing
this,

EPA
considered
the
time
and
qualifications
necessary
to
complete
a
variety
of
tasks:
reviewing
instructions,
planning
responses,
researching
data
sources,
gathering
and
analyzing
data,
typing
or
writing
the
information
requested,
reviewing
results,
conferring
with
permitting
authorities
and
expert
consultants,
and
sending
documents.

EPA
anticipates
that
facilities
will
use
the
contracted
services
to
perform
many
of
their
required
sampling
and
analyzing
tasks.
The
contracted
staff
are
likely
to
include
project
managers,
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
44
biologists,
statisticians,
and
biological
technicians.
The
work
done
by
these
contracted
employees
will
be
done
on­
site
on
a
regular
basis.
Therefore,
the
hourly
burdens
associated
with
their
work
are
included
in
the
overall
burden
estimates
for
each
facility.

For
each
activity
burden
assumption,
EPA
selected
time
estimates
to
reflect
the
expected
effort
necessary
to
carry
out
these
activities
under
normal
conditions
and
reasonable
labor
efficiency
rates.
EPA
assumed
that
the
majority
of
the
actual
work
performed
by
facility
staff,

such
as
researching,
collecting,
and
analyzing
data,
as
well
as
writing
the
documents,
will
be
carried
out
by
junior
technical
staff.
Burdens
associated
with
managerial
and
senior
engineering
staff
include
time
for
actions
such
as
occasional
or
seasonal
visits
to
supervise
sampling
efforts,
as
well
as
periodic
review
of
lab
results
and
documentation.
EPA
assumed
that
the
facilities
will
employ
a
drafter
to
perform
computer
aided
drafting
(
CAD)
operations.
For
contracted
employees,
EPA
assumes
that
the
majority
of
the
work
will
be
carried
out
by
the
biologists
and
the
biological
technicians.

Tables
7
and
8
provide
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
facilities
performing
the
NPDES
permit
application,
annual
monitoring,
and
annual
reporting
activities
associated
with
the
final
rule.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
hourly
burdens
for
facilities
see
Exhibits
A.
1
and
A.
2
in
Appendix
A.

The
activities
listed
in
the
first
column
of
both
Tables
7
and
8
correspond
to
the
facility
respondent
activities
outlined
earlier
in
Section
4b(
ii).
Start­
up
burdens
account
for
reading
the
published
regulations,
sample
permits,
and
any
guidance
materials
associated
with
the
rule;

determining
the
required
staff
and
resources
necessary
to
successfully
complete
the
application
process,
and
meet
all
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
requirement;
and
training
staff
to
perform
tasks
that
they
would
not
be
required
to
conduct
if
the
rule
were
not
implemented.
General
information
activities
refer
to
the
development
and
submittal
of
documentation
on
source
waterbody
characteristics
and
CWIS
location
and
design.

As
part
of
the
permit
application
process,
facilities
will
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
proportional
flow
(
i.
e.,
intake
flow
may
not
exceed
a
certain
proportion
of
source
water
body
flow)
requirements.
Facilities
will
also
collect
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
to
evaluate
the
condition
of
the
biological
community
prior
to
operation
of
the
new
facility
and
prior
to
each
permit
renewal
application.
The
level
of
effort
needed
for
the
study
may
vary
considerably
from
one
facility
to
another,
depending
on
the
availability
of
existing
background
information
and
the
characteristics
of
the
waterbody
that
the
CWIS
will
be
located
in.
For
the
purpose
of
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates,
it
is
assumed
that
there
is
sufficient
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
45
existing
data
for
facilities
to
develop
a
baseline
characterization
of
the
contributing
waterbody's
biological
community.

If
a
facility
chooses
Track
I
for
meeting
its
permit
obligations,
the
facility
also
needs
to
comply
with
flow
reduction,
velocity
and
technology
requirements.
Under
the
final
rule,
new
facilities
choosing
Track
I
must
provide
information
to
the
permitting
authority
demonstrating
that
they
are
in
compliance
with
the
flow
reduction,
velocity
and
technology
requirements
that
are
applicable
to
their
CWISs.
The
facility
hourly
burdens
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
these
requirements
include
developing
and
submitting
narrative
descriptions,
supporting
documentation,

and
engineering
calculations.
Facility
burden
for
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plans
is
comparable
to
the
burden
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
one
of
the
CWIS
requirements.

Under
Track
II,
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
evaluates
the
condition
of
the
biological
community
prior
to
operation
of
the
new
facility
and
prior
to
each
permit
renewal
application.
The
study
entails
plan
development,
a
source
water
biological
study,
projections
of
anticipated
impacts,
and
verification
monitoring.
As
with
the
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization,
the
required
effort
level
for
the
Track
II
source
water
biological
study
is
likely
to
vary
considerably
depending
on
the
availability
of
existing
data
and
the
complexity
of
the
habitat
that
the
CWIS
will
be
located
in.

For
the
purpose
of
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates
it
is
assumed
that
each
Track
II
facility
will
perform
sampling
to
develop
the
Source
Water
Biological
Study
for
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
EPA
estimates
that
the
sampling
for
the
study
will
occur
over
a
three
year
period.
Therefore,
the
entire
application
process
will
take
at
least
three
years
to
complete.
EPA
assumes
that
start­
up
activities
and
general
information
activities
are
accomplished
during
the
first
year
of
the
permitting
process.
The
Source
Water
Biological
Study
activities
will
be
performed
over
the
three
years
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
NPDES
permit
to
Track
II
facilities.

The
study
to
evaluate
CWIS
impacts
will
be
conducted
the
year
just
prior
to
operation
of
the
CWIS
to
allow
the
facility
time
to
incorporate
information
from
the
Source
Water
Biological
Study
already
underway.
For
those
Track
II
facilities
beginning
operation
during
the
first
year
of
the
ICR
approval
period,
EPA
assumes
that
they
do
not
actually
begin
operating
the
CWIS
until
the
end
of
the
year,
allowing
them
enough
time
to
conduct
the
pilot
study.

EPA
anticipates
that
start­
up,
general
information,
and
the
Track
I
activities
will
be
performed
by
facility
staff.
For
those
facilities
taking
Track
II,
EPA
assumes
that
the
sampling
and
statistical
analyses
will
be
conducted
by
the
contracted
employees,
although
some
of
the
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
46
taxonomic
identification,
enumeration,
and
characterization
will
be
performed
by
a
sub­
contracted
laboratory.

After
both
Track
I
and
II
facilities
receive
their
NPDES
permits
and
commence
operations,
they
have
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
as
well.
Velocity
monitoring
and
the
inspection
of
installed
technology
will
be
carried
out
by
facility
staff.
For
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring,
EPA
assumes
that
the
actual
monitoring
will
be
conducted
by
the
contracted
employees,
while
the
facility
manager
and
junior
technical
staff
will
spend
some
time
reviewing
the
results
in
preparation
for
the
yearly
status
report.

In
the
first
year
of
permitted
operation,
Track
II
facilities
are
required
to
use
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
data
to
perform
a
verification
study,
confirming
that
the
CWIS
technology
is
achieving
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
commensurate
to
that
obtained
through
closed­
cycle
recirculation
technology.
EPA
assumes
that
each
year
approximately
25%
of
the
Verification
Studies
will
show
that
the
facilities
have
not
achieved
the
required
impingement
and
entrainment
level
that
they
predicted
in
their
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Studies.
As
a
result,
EPA
assumes
that
these
facilities
will
take
measures
to
improve
their
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
and
submit
another
Verification
Study
the
following
year.

Director
Burdens
The
proposed
changes
to
the
NPDES
permit
process
will
require
Directors
to
devote
time
and
resources
to
review
and
respond
to
the
NPDES
permit
applications;
proposal,
study
and
sampling
plans;
and
annual
status
reports
submitted
to
them.
EPA
assumed
that
all
NPDES
permit
program
Directors
will
also
undergo
start­
up
activities
in
preparation
for
administering
the
provisions
of
the
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule.
As
part
of
these
start­
up
activities,
Directors
are
expected
to
train
junior
technical
staff
on
how
to
review
materials
submitted
by
facilities,
and
then
use
these
materials
to
determine
the
specific
conditions
of
each
facility's
NPDES
permit
with
regard
to
its
CWIS.

Each
Director's
actual
burden
associated
with
reviewing
submitted
materials,
writing
permits,
and
tracking
compliance
will
depend
on
the
number
of
new
in­
scope
facilities
that
will
be
built
in
the
Director's
State
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
EPA
expects
that
State
senior
technical,
junior
technical,
and
clerical
staff
will
devote
time
toward
gathering,
preparing,
and
submitting
the
various
documents.
EPA
assumed
burden
estimates
that
reflect
the
staffing
and
expertise
used
by
States
for
the
NPDES
permit
administration
process.
In
doing
this,
EPA
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
47
considered
the
time
and
qualifications
necessary
to
complete
various
tasks
such
as:
reviewing
submitted
documents
and
supporting
materials,
verifying
data
sources,
planning
responses,

determining
specific
permit
requirements,
writing
the
actual
permit,
conferring
with
facilities
and
the
interested
public,
and
entering
the
permit
information
into
the
PCS
database.
Table
9
provides
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
Directors
performing
various
activities
associated
with
the
final
rule.
EPA
assumes
that
the
directors
will
spend
a
significant
amount
of
time
reviewing
the
Sourcewater
Biological
Characterization
Studies.
The
additional
effort
devoted
to
reviewing
the
study
is
due
to
the
fact
that
the
studies
cover
three
years
worth
of
data
collected
at
the
site.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
Director
hourly
burdens
see
Exhibit
A.
3
in
Appendix
A.

6b
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
This
section
describes
the
cost
estimates
for
facilities
and
Directors,
as
well
as
the
methods
used
to
derive
them.
For
estimates
of
re­
permitting
costs
see
Exhibits
A.
12
and
A.
13
in
Appendix
A.

6b(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
The
costs
to
the
respondent
facilities
associated
with
these
time
commitments
can
be
estimated
by
multiplying
the
time
spent
in
each
labor
category
by
an
appropriately
loaded
hourly
wage
rate.
All
base
wage
rates
used
for
facility
labor
categories
were
derived
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistic's
(
BLS)
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
2000­
2001
(
BLS,
2000).
These
reported
labor
rates
were
based
upon
data
from
the
year
1998,
and
required
adjustment
for
inflation.
An
inflation
factor
of
10.5%,
derived
from
the
BLS
Employment
Cost
Index
(
BLS,

2001),
was
used
to
adjust
the
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
labor
rates
to
reflect
labor
rates
for
December
of
2000.
A
compensatory
loading
factor
of
either
35%
or
39%
depending
on
the
labor
category,
was
used
to
account
for
any
paid
leave,
supplemental
pay,
insurance,
retirement
and
savings,
and
required
and
nonrequired
benefits
received
by
employees
(
BLS,
2001b).
EPA
assumed
an
additional
loading
factor
of
15%
to
account
for
general
overhead
costs
directly
attributable
to
facility
employees
performing
work
in
support
of
the
permit
process.
Expenses
for
contracted
employees,
typically
include
higher
overhead
costs,
as
well
as
fee
to
ensure
profit
for
the
contracting
company.
EPA
assumes
that
the
overhead
for
the
contracted
employees
will
be
50%
and
the
fee
will
be
8%.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
48
To
represent
the
base
labor
rate
for
facility
management,
EPA
used
the
average
national
salary
for
an
industrial
manager
of
$
56,320
per
year.
This
figure
was
divided
by
2,080
hours
to
derive
the
hourly
managerial
wage
rate
of
approximately
$
27
per
hour.
After
adjusting
this
rate
for
inflation,
compensation,
and
overhead
the
rate
is
approximately
$
48
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
of
$
35,970
for
an
engineering
technician
was
used
to
represent
the
base
labor
rate
junior
technical
staff.
After
determining
the
hourly
wage
rate
and
adjusting
for
inflation
and
other
factors
this
labor
rate
was
approximately
$
31
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
for
a
drafter
performing
CAD
work
was
reported
to
be
$
16
per
hour,
and
after
adjusting
and
loading
the
rate
it
is
approximately
$
28.
The
reported
average
annual
salary
for
clerical
workers
was
$
19,580
and
the
fully
adjusted
and
loaded
hourly
rate
is
$
18
per
hour.

The
base
labor
rate
for
contracted
manager
of
monitoring
work
done
on­
site
EPA
assumes
to
be
the
same
as
that
for
the
facility
manager,
with
a
fully
loaded
rate
of
$
67
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
for
a
statistician
was
$
48,540
per
year,
with
an
adjusted
hourly
rate
of
approximately
$
56
per
hour.
Biologists
and
biological
technicians
have
an
average
hourly
pay
of
$
22
and
$
15,
and
a
fully
loaded
rate
of
$
55
and
$
37,
respectively.

Director
Labor
Costs
For
Director
costs,
all
of
the
base
labor
rates
and
compensation
factors
were
derived
from
published
employment
cost
trends
for
State
and
local
government
workers
for
the
first
quarter
of
1999
(
BLS,
1999).
These
labor
rates
were
adjusted
to
reflect
labor
rates
for
the
final
quarter
of
the
year
2000
(
BLS,
2000a).
EPA
chose
the
BLS
labor
category
of
white­
collar
professional
specialist
to
represent
the
senior
administrative
and
technical
staff
that
will
oversee
and
manage
the
NPDES
permit
program.
The
base
hourly
rate
for
this
category
was
approximately
$
29
per
hour,
and
after
adjusting
for
compensation
and
inflation
it
is
approximately
$
45
per
hour.

Similarly,
EPA
chose
the
BLS
labor
category
of
white­
collar
professional
technical
to
represent
the
junior
technical
staff
that
EPA
expects
to
perform
the
majority
of
the
actual
NPDES
permitting
work.
The
reported
base
pay
for
this
category
was
approximately
$
17.50
per
hour,

which
becomes
approximately
$
29
per
hour
after
being
adjusted
for
compensation,
overhead,
and
inflation.
The
hourly
wage
for
State
government
clerical
workers
was
$
13
per
hour
before
adjustment,
and
approximately
$
22
afterward.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
49
6b(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
Facility
O&
M
Costs
A
facility
incurs
capital/
start­
up
costs
when
it
purchases
equipment
or
builds
structures
that
are
needed
for
compliance
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
that
the
facility
will
not
use
otherwise.
EPA
assumed
that
the
facilities
would
not
incur
capital/
startup
costs
as
a
result
of
this
rule.

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

or
supplies
needed
to
comply
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
that
the
facility
will
not
use
otherwise.
Any
cost
for
the
operation
and
upkeep
of
capital
equipment
is
considered
O&
M
costs.
Another
type
of
O&
M
cost
is
for
the
purchase
of
contracted
services
such
as
laboratory
analyses.
The
purchase
of
supplies
such
as
filing
cabinets
and
services
such
as
photocopying
or
boat
rental,
are
also
considered
O&
M
costs,
and
are
referred
to
as
other
direct
costs
(
ODCs).

EPA
assumes
that
samples
taken
for
the
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
will
be
analyzed
by
a
contracted
laboratory.
The
outside
laboratories
will
perform
taxonomic
classification,
data
tabulation,
and
then
deliver
the
data
back
to
the
facility.

For
the
three
years
of
monitoring
estimated
for
the
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study,
this
service
is
estimated
to
cost
$
118,500
for
facilities
located
adjacent
to
freshwater
waterbodies
and
$
198,830
for
facilities
drawing
from
either
estuaries
or
the
Great
Lakes.

For
the
evaluation
of
CWIS
effects,
EPA
anticipates
that
facilities
will
perform
pilot
studies
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
the
technology
they
will
be
using
to
minimize
impingement
and
entrainment.
EPA
assumes
that
the
facility
will
be
willing
to
spend
approximately
10%
of
the
anticipated
costs
of
installing
and
operating
the
proposed
technology.

For
costing
purposes,
EPA
is
assuming
that
a
pilot
study
will
be
performed
using
a
Gunderboom
system.
The
range
of
costs
for
a
floating
Gunderboom
system
for
a
150
MGD
intake
structure
is
$
1.8
to
$
2.5
million
in
capital
costs,
and
$
150
to
$
300
thousand
in
annual
O&
M
costs
(
Campbell,

George,
&
Strong,
2001).
Using
10%
of
the
high
end
of
this
range,
EPA
estimates
the
Track
II
facility
spends
$
250,000
to
purchase
and
install
a
pilot
Gunderboom
system,
and
$
30,000
to
operate
and
maintain
it
for
the
study.
EPA
assumes
the
pilot
study
impingement
samples
will
be
analyzed
on­
site
by
the
biologists
due
to
the
difficulty
of
preserving
impingement
samples
for
shipment
to
an
outside
laboratory.
Entrainment
analysis
of
pilot
study
monitoring
samples
will
be
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
50
performed
by
an
outside
laboratory,
at
a
cost
of
$
41,600
for
facilities
drawing
from
freshwater,

and
$
70,200
for
facilities
drawing
from
estuaries
and
the
Great
Lakes.

For
annual
O&
M
costs,
EPA
assumes
again
that
the
analysis
of
impingement
monitoring
samples
will
be
done
on­
site,
while
entrainment
monitoring
samples
will
be
performed
by
an
outside
laboratory.
Entrainment
samples
are
estimated
to
cost
$
8,300
per
year
for
freshwater
facilities,
and
an
estimated
$
10,640
per
year
for
facilities
drawing
from
estuaries
or
the
Great
Lakes.

In
general,
the
labor
costs
and
O&
M
costs
reported
in
this
analysis
are
assumed
to
represent
typical
average
national
cost
estimates
that
are
likely
to
be
incurred
by
new
facilities
and
by
permitting
authorities.
EPA
attempted
to
take
into
account
various
factors
such
as
decreases
in
labor
efficiency
that
occur
during
extreme
climate
conditions,
equipment
down
time,
and
the
occasional
sample
that
might
need
to
be
replaced
because
it
was
lost
or
spoiled
during
transport.

The
Tables
7
and
8
provide
a
summary
of
both
the
estimated
labor
costs
and
ODCs
per
facility.

For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
all
compliance
costs
for
facilities
see
Exhibits
A.
1
and
A.
2
in
Appendix
A.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
51
Table
7.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
($)
ODC
($)

Start­
up
Activities
43
$
1,585
$
50
Permit
Application
Activities
146
$
4,598
$
500
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
104
$
3,010
$
100
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
265
$
8,975
$
750
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
I)
108
$
3,261
$
400
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
I)
138
$
4,428
$
1,000
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
I)
85
$
2,840
$
50
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
II)
383
$
13,563
$
1,000
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
­
Freshwater
(
Track
II)*
4,217
$
221,819
$
7,800
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
­
Estuary
(
Track
II)*
5,178
$
274,845
$
13,000
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
­
Freshwater
(
Track
II)*
2,142
$
112,150
$
500
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
­
Estuary
(
Track
II)*
2,578
$
135,141
$
500
*
This
activity
also
has
contracted
service
costs
associated
with
it.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
52
Table
8.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
($)
ODC
($)

Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement)
­
Freshwater
307
$
15,847
$
500
Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement)
­
Estuary
388
$
20,240
$
650
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment)
­
Freshwater
614
$
32,370
$
4,000
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment)
­
Estuary
776
$
41,035
$
4,000
Velocity
Monitoring
163
$
4,993
$
100
Visual
Inspection
of
Installed
Technology
and
Remote
Monitoring
Equipment
253
$
8,159
$
100
Verification
Monitoring
­
Freshwater
(
Track
II)
92
$
3,804
$
500
Verification
Monitoring
­
Estuary
(
Track
II)
122
$
5,146
$
500
Yearly
Status
Report
Activities
348
$
13,071
$
750
Director
O&
M
Costs
EPA
does
not
anticipate
any
operation
and
maintenance
costs
other
than
ODCs
for
Directors
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule.
Table
9
provides
estimates
of
Director
ODCs
and
labor
costs.
For
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
Director
costs
see
Exhibit
A.
3.

Table
9.
Estimating
Director
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
($)
ODC
($)

Director
Start­
up
Activities
(
per
State/
Territory)
100
$
3,514
$
50
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
(
per
Facility)
723
$
29,128
$
350
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
$
1,670
$
50
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
53
6c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
As
mentioned
previously,
there
are
44
States
and
Territories
authorized
to
administer
the
NPDES
permitting
program.
For
new
in­
scope
facilities
applying
for
permits
in
the
12
unauthorized
States
and
Territories,
EPA
will
incur
the
costs
and
burdens
similar
to
those
incurred
by
States
with
permitting
authority.
This
analysis,
however,
assumes
that
facilities
complying
with
the
rule
during
the
ICR
approval
period
will
be
in
NPDES
authorized
States.

EPA
typically
reviews
NPDES
permits
in
the
early
stages
of
implementation
of
new
regulations.
Based
on
historical
reports
submitted
for
316(
b)
demonstrations,
EPA
assumes
that
it
will
take
approximately
37
hours
to
perform
a
detailed
review,
make
comments,
and
follow
up
on
comments
for
the
316(
b)
portions
of
a
State
issued
NPDES
permit.
Table
10
summarizes
Federal
burden
and
cost
estimates.
Further
detail
is
provided
in
Exhibit
A.
4.

Table
10.
Estimating
Federal
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
($)
ODC($)

Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
Activities
(
per
Permitted
Facility)
52
$
1,737
$
50
6d
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
During
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation,
there
are
an
estimated
18
facilities
along
with
44
States
and
Territories
that
the
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
will
affect.
The
rule
would
require
each
respondent
to
comply
with
one
or
more
provisions.
In
turn,
each
provision
has
numerous
activities
associated
with
it.
Exhibits
A.
5
and
A.
6
in
Appendix
A
provide
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
respondents
and
responses
expected
for
each
provision
of
the
rule
during
each
year
of
the
ICR
approval
period.
The
annual
estimates
are
based
on
the
compliance
schedule
used
to
estimate
the
cost
of
the
final
rule.
In
addition,
Exhibits
A.
7­
A.
10
provide
a
summary
of
the
respondent
burdens
and
costs
for
each
year
of
the
ICR
approval
period.
These
estimates
were
calculated
by
multiplying
facility
and
Director
level
burden
and
cost
estimates
in
A.
1­
A.
3
by
the
number
of
respondents
in
A.
5.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
54
6e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
This
section
provides
a
description
of
bottom
line
data
collection
and
record
keeping
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
implementation
of
the
final
rule.

6e(
i)
Respondent
Tally
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
for
facilities
and
Directors
are
the
total
annual
hours
and
costs
collectively
incurred
for
all
activities
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Table
11
provides
a
summary
of
the
average
annual
number
of
respondents,
burden
hours,
and
costs.
A
more
detailed
summary
can
be
found
in
Exhibit
A.
11.

Table
11.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Responses,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Average
Annual
Respondents*
Average
Annual
Burden
(
hours)
Average
Annual
Labor
Costs
(
2000$)
Average
Annual
O&
M
Costs
(
2000$)
Total
Average
Annual
Costs
(
2000$)

Facilities
14
37,104
$
1,930,941
$
1,762,814
$
3,693,755
State
Directors
24
3,271
$
159,820
$
2,967
$
162,787
Totals
38
40,375
$
2,090,761
$
1,765,781
$
3,856,542
*
Average
respondent
total
does
not
match
the
reported
number
of
respondents
due
to
a
rounding
discrepancy.

6e(
ii)
Agency
Tally
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
for
the
federal
agency
are
the
total
annual
hours
and
costs
collectively
incurred
for
all
activities
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Table
12
provides
a
summary
of
the
average
annual
agency
burden
hours,
and
costs.
A
more
detailed
summary
can
be
found
in
Exhibit
A.
11.
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
55
Table
12.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Responses,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Average
Annual
Burden
(
hours)
Average
Annual
Labor
Costs
(
2000$)
Average
Annual
O&
M
Costs
(
2000$)
Total
Average
Annual
Costs
(
2000$)

Agency
Totals
160
$
6,495
$
300
$
6,795
6f
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
The
change
in
burden
results
from
proposed
regulatory
changes
that
require
information
collection
and
record
keeping
activities.
These
proposed
regulatory
changes
partially
fulfill
EPA's
obligation
to
comply
with
the
consent
agreement
entered
in
Cronin
v.
Browner,
93
Civ.
0314
(
AGS)
S.
D.
N.
Y.,
filed
Oct.
10,
1995,
and
amended
in
Riverkeeper,
Inc.
v.
Whitman,
filed
November
21,
2000.
These
agreements
require
that
EPA
propose
and
finalize
regulations
that
implement
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
by
specified
dates.
The
final
rule
is
a
direct
result
of
the
consent
agreement
requirements.

6g
Burden
Statement
The
annual
average
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
collection
of
information
by
facilities
responding
to
the
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
is
estimated
to
be
2,650
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
37,104
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
annual
average
of
14
facilities).
The
Director
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
review,

oversight,
and
administration
of
the
rule
is
estimated
to
average
136
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
3,271
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
24
States
on
average
per
year).

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
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
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
November
2001
Final
 
New
Facility
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
56
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
number
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.