Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0027-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-02-22T05:00Z

U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
FOR
COOLING
WATER
INTAKE
STRUCTURES
NEW
FACILITY
(
RENEWAL)

EPA
ICR
NUMBER
1973.03
February
2005
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
2b
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
3
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3a
Nonduplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3c
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3e
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3f
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3g
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4a
Respondents/
SIC/
NAICS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4b
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
4b(
i)
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
4b(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
5
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION,
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
5a
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
5b
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
5c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
5d
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
6
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
6a
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
6b
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
6b(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
6b(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
6c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
6d
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
6e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
6e(
i)
Respondent
Tally
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
6e(
ii)
Agency
Tally
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
6f
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
6g
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
ii
APPENDIX
A
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Analysis
Spreadsheets
­
ICR
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
New
Facility
Final
Rule
APPENDIX
B
NAICS
and
SIC
Codes
for
Nonutility
Power
Producers
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
4­
1.
Industry
Categories
and
SIC
and
NAICS
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
Table
5­
1.
Number
of
Facilities
Assumed
to
Begin
Compliance
with
Information
Collection
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
Table
6­
1.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
Table
6­
2.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
.
.
.
.
42
Table
6­
3.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
NPDES
Permit
Renewal
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
Table
6­
4.
Estimating
Director
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
Table
6­
5.
Estimating
Federal
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
Table
6­
6.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Responses,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
Table
6­
7.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Responses,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Federal
Agency
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
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:
1973.03
1b
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
The
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
Clean
Water
Act
(
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
rule
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
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
January
17,
2002;
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
basis)
of
the
water
it
2
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
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
requires
several
distinct
types
of
information
collection
as
part
of
the
NPDES
application.
In
general,
the
information
is
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
°
cooling
water
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
information
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
flow
reduction
and
velocity
requirements
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
level
of
impingement
and
entrainment
mortality
to
the
same
level
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
this
rule
are
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
are
required
to
maintain
records
of
all
submitted
documents,
supporting
materials,
and
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.

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

The
first
ICR
approval
period
expires
in
February
of
2005.
This
Supporting
Statement
is
for
the
renewal
ICR
being
submitted
to
OMB
for
re­
approval
of
the
Section
316b
New
Facility
4
Rule
information
collection.
For
the
second
ICR
approval
period
after
rule
promulgation,
the
information
collection
required
by
the
rule
will
involve
responses
from
an
estimated
total
of
45
facilities
and
46
States
and
Territories
and
cost
approximately
$
17.1
million
(
including
labor
costs,
capital
costs,
and
operation
and
maintenance
costs),
with
an
annual
average
of
69
respondents,
76,268
burden
hours,
and
$
5.7
million
per
year
(
including
labor
costs,
capital
costs,

and
operation
and
maintenance
costs).
The
total
annual
average
cost
(
including
capital
costs
and
operation
and
maintenance
costs)
is
$
1.9
million
per
year
(
see
Exhibit
A11
in
Appendix
A).
5
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2a
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
requires
the
collection
of
information
from
new
facilities
that
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
information
requirements
in
this
ICR
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
new
facilities
are
complying
with
the
rule's
provisions,
and
thereby
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
resulting
from
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
due
to
the
withdrawal
of
cooling
water.

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
continued,
under
this
rule,
to
be
included
in
NPDES
permits
issued
under
section
402
of
the
CWA.

2b
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
This
ICR
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
Notice
of
Intent
(
NOI)
information
6
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
permit
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
reapplication
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.
7
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
EPA
has
examined
all
other
reporting
requirements
contained
in
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
40
CFR
parts
122,
123,
124,
125,
403,
501,
and
503.
The
Agency
also
has
consulted
the
following
sources
of
information
to
determine
if
similar
or
duplicate
information
is
available
elsewhere:
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
In
compliance
with
the
1995
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA),
any
agency
developing
a
non­
rule­
related
ICR
must
solicit
public
comments
prior
to
submitting
the
ICR
to
OMB.
These
comments,
which
are
used
partly
to
determine
realistic
burden
estimates
for
respondents,
must
be
considered
when
completing
the
Supporting
Statement
that
is
submitted
to
OMB.

This
ICR
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
(
69
FR
52883)
on
August
30,
2004.
The
notice
included
a
request
for
comments
on
the
content
and
impact
of
the
information
collection
on
the
respondent
universe.
No
comments
were
received.

3c
Consultations
EPA
finalized
the
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
after
conducting
outreach
activities
and
considering
comments
from
the
public
and
the
regulated
community.
EPA
Headquarters
staff
responsible
for
program
oversight
were
contacted
to
provide
revised
information
and
data
for
this
ICR.
8
3d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Permitted
facilities
must
reapply
for
NPDES
permits
before
their
existing
permits
expire,

generally
once
every
five
years.
The
CWA
prohibits
NPDES
permits
from
having
terms
longer
than
five
years.
Less
frequent
permit
applications
would
not
provide
the
permitting
authority
with
sufficiently
current
data
to
establish
effective
limitations
or
conditions
when
reissuing
permits
and
to
identify
in
a
timely
manner,
adverse
environmental
impact
resulting
from
the
operation
of
new
CWISs.
In
addition,
less
frequent
collection
would
also
hinder
the
ability
of
EPA,
States,
and
facility
operators
to
take
advantage
of
technological
improvements
in
impingement
and
entrainment
technologies
as
they
occur,
or
to
track
long­
term
trends.

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.
9
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4a
Respondents/
SIC/
NAICS
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
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
January
17,
2002;
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
and
NAICS
Codes
associated
with
facilities
that
may
use
a
CWIS
are
provided
in
Table
4­
1.
A
more
detailed
accounting
of
SIC
and
NAICS
codes
for
nonutility
power
producers
is
provided
in
Appendix
B.
10
Table
4­
1.
Industry
Categories
and
SIC
and
NAICS
Codes
Respondent
Industry
Categories
SIC
Codes
NAICS
Codes
Traditional
Steam
Electric
Utilities
SIC
codes
4911
and
493
221111,
221112,
221113,
221119,

221121,
221122
Steam
Electric
Nonutility
Power
Producers:

1)
Industrial
Self­
Generators;
and
2)
Nonindustrial
See
Appendix
B
SIC
Major
Group
49
See
Appendix
B
Other
Industries:

Agricultural
production
0133
111991,
11193
Metal
mining
1011
21221
Oil
and
gas
extraction
1311,
1321
211111,
211112
Mining
and
quarrying
of
nonmetallic
minerals
1474
212391
Food
and
kindred
products
2046,
2061,
2062,
2063,

2075,
2085
311221,
311311,
311312,
311313,

311222,
311225,
31214
Tobacco
products
2141
312229,
31221
Textile
mill
products
2211
31321
Lumber
and
wood
products,
except
furniture
2415,
2421,
2436,
2493
321912,
321113,
321918,
321999,
321212,
321219
Paper
and
allied
products
2611,
2621,
2631,
2676
3221,
322121,
32213,
322121,

322122,
32213,
322291
Chemical
and
allied
products
28
(
except
2895,
2893,

2851,
and
2879)
325
(
except
325182,
32591,

32551,
32532)

Petroleum
refining
and
related
industries
2911,
2999
32411,
324199
Rubber
and
miscellaneous
plastics
products
3011,
3069
326211,
31332,
326192,
326299
Stone,
clay,
glass,
and
concrete
products
3241
32731
Primary
metal
industries
3312,
3313,
3315,
3316,

3317,
3334,
3339,
3353,
3363,
3365,
3366
324199,
331111,
331112,
331492,

331222,
332618,
331221,
22121,
331312,
331419,
331315,
331521,

331524,
331525
Fabricated
metal
products,
except
machinery
and
transportation
equipment
3421,
3499
332211,
337215,
332117,
332439,

33251,
332919,
339914,
332999
Industrial
and
commercial
machinery
and
computer
equipment
3523,
3531
333111,
332323,
332212,
333922,

22651,
333923,
33312
Transportation
equipment
3724,
3743,
3764
336412,
333911,
33651,
336416
Measuring,
analyzing,
and
controlling
instruments;

photographic,
medical,
and
optical
goods;
watches
and
clocks
3861
333315,
325992
Electric,
gas,
and
sanitary
services
4911,
4931,
4939,
4961
221111,
221112,
221113,
221119,

221121,
221122,
22121,
22133
Educational
services
8221
61131
11
4b
Information
Requested
The
following
sections
provide
details
on
data
items
requested
and
associated
activities
that
the
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
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
in
the
rule.

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
45
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.

4b(
i)
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
Data
items
required
by
the
rule
are
gathered
for
either
record
keeping
or
reporting
purposes.
There
are
several
data
items
that
are
collected
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
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
regulations
do
not
require
the
Director
to
prepare
or
submit
any
reports,
beyond
what
is
currently
required
of
them
under
the
NPDES
program.

However,
Directors
need
to
review,
maintain
records
of,
and
make
permitting
determinations
based
upon
all
documents
and
reports
submitted
to
them
by
new
facilities.

At
the
time
a
new
facility
submits
its
NPDES
application
(
180
days
prior
to
operation),

the
final
rule
requires
the
facility
to
submit
information
demonstrating
that
it
is
employing
best
technology
available
for
its
cooling
water
intake
structure
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
in
compliance
with
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA.
The
information
is
used
to
identify
which
of
the
requirements
in
the
rule
apply
to
the
facility,
how
the
facility
is
meeting
these
requirements,
12
and
whether
the
facility
is
meeting
the
goal
of
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Four
types
of
information
are
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
applications
for
all
new
facilities:
(
1)
source
water
physical
data,
(
2)
cooling
water
intake
structure
data,
(
3)
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data,
and
(
4)
source
waterbody
flow
data.

Additional
types
of
information
are
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
are
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
applications
for
facilities
choosing
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
I
are:

(
1)
flow
reduction
information,
(
2)
velocity
information,
and
(
3)
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan.

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
The
final
rule
requires
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:

°
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)(
i))

°
identification
and
characterization
of
source
waterbody
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features,
and
methods
used
to
conduct
any
physical
studies
to
13
determine
the
intake's
area
of
influence
within
the
waterbody
and
the
results
of
such
studies
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
2)(
ii))

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

Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Data
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
requires
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)(
i))

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

°
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)(
iii))

°
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)(
iv))

°
engineering
drawings
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
3)(
v)).

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:
14
°
a
list
of
the
data
that
are
not
available
and
efforts
made
to
identify
sources
of
the
data
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
r)(
4)(
i))

°
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)(
ii))

°
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)(
iii))

°
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)(
iv))

°
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)(
v))

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

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

°
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)(
viii))

Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
requires
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)(
i)

and
§
125.86(
c)(
1)(
i))
15
°
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)(
ii)
and
§
125.86(
c)(
1)(
ii))

°
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)(
iii)
and
§
125.86(
c)(
1)(
iii)).

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
TRACK
I
Flow
Reduction
Information
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
requires
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)(
i))

°
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)(
ii)).

Velocity
Information
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
requires
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)(
i))

°
design
calculations
showing
that
the
velocity
requirement
will
be
met
at
minimum
ambient
source
water
surface
elevations
(
based
on
best
professional
judgement
using
available
16
hydrological
data)
and
maximum
head
loss
across
the
screens
or
other
device
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
2)(
ii)).

Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
requires
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.
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)(
iii)(
A))

°
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)(
4)(
iii)(
B))

°
design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
above
descriptions
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
b)(
4)(
iii)(
C)).

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
TRACK
II
Track
II
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
requires
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
level
of
impingement
and
entrainment
mortality
to
the
same
level
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:
17
°
a
description
of
the
proposed
technologies
to
be
evaluated
in
the
study
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2)(
iii)(
A))

°
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)(
iii)(
B))

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

°
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)(
iii)(
D))

°
Source
Water
Biological
Study.
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
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)(
iv)(
A)(
1))


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)(
iv)(
A)(
2))


a
description
of
additional
chemical,
water
quality,
and
other
anthropogenic
stresses
on
the
source
waterbody
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2)(
iv)(
A)(
3)).

°
Evaluation
of
Potential
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Effects.
This
must
include:
18

calculations
of
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
would
need
to
be
achieved
by
the
technologies
the
facility
has
selected
to
implement
to
meet
requirements
under
Track
II.
To
do
this,

the
facility
must
determine
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
be
achieved
by
implementing
the
requirements
of
§
125.84(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
Track
I
at
the
site.
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2)(
iv)(
B)(
1))


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
impingement
losses
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
to
the
same
levels
expected
to
be
achieved
by
meeting
Track
I
requirements
at
a
shoreline
intake
at
that
site.
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)(
iv)(
B)(
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)(
iv)(
B)(
2)).

°
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
This
must
include,
at
a
minimum,
annual
monitoring
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
alternative
technologies.
The
plan
must
describe
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.

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
level
of
impingement
and
entrainment
to
the
same
level
that
would
be
achieved
by
implementing
the
flow
reduction,
velocity
and
technology
requirements
in
§
125.84(
c)(
1).
(
40
CFR
§
125.86(
c)(
2)(
iv)(
D))

ANNUAL
REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
In
addition
to
the
one­
time
reporting
requirements,
operators
are
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)
91))
19
°
velocity
and
head
loss
monitoring
records
for
each
CWIS
as
required
by
§
125.87(
b)
(
40
CFR
§
125.88(
b)(
2))

°
records
of
visual
or
remote
inspections
as
required
in
§
125.87(
c)
(
40
CFR
§
125.88(
b)(
3)).

RECORDKEEPING
REQUIREMENTS
All
operators
of
new
facilities
are
required
to
keep
records
and
to
report
information
and
data
to
the
permitting
authority
to
show
compliance
with
any
requirements
they
are
subject
to
in
the
rule.
Records
are
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
is
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)).

The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
added
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
20
°
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
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.

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
are
required
to
gather
source
water
physical,
flow
and
baseline
biological
characterization
information
and
cooling
water
intake
structure
information
so
that
the
Director
can
evaluate
potential
impact
to
the
water
body
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
placed.

Activities
that
are
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
are
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
21
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
are
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
°
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
are
required
to
report
on
cooling
water
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
22
°
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
New
facilities
are
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
are
required
to
gather
flow
reduction
information,
velocity
information,
and
design
and
construction
technology
information.

Flow
Reduction
Information
­
Activities
that
are
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
are
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
­
The
facility
must
submit
information
to
demonstrate
that
it
will
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
that
meet
the
23
impingement
and
entrainment
requirements.
Activities
that
are
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
are
required
to
gather
comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
including
a
Source
Water
Biological
Study,
an
evaluation
of
potential
CWIS
effects,
and
a
verification
monitoring
plan.

Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
­
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
the
same
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
mortality
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
°
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
24
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:

°
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
impingement
losses
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
to
the
same
levels
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.
25
°
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
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
26
°
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
section
316(
b)
New
Facilities
Rule,
all
affected
facilities
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
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.
27
Yearly
Status
Report
All
new
facilities
subject
to
the
rule
are
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.
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:

(
1)
analyzing
and
reviewing
facility
data
(
2)
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
28
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)(
iiiI).
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.


for
a
facility
that
chooses
Track
I,
the
Director
must
review
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
required
in
§
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
the
same
level
of
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
as
the
facility
would
if
it
complied
with
§
125.84(
b)(
1),
(
2)
and
(
4)
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)(
iv)(
D)
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
29
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)(
iv)(
D).


Directors
must
determine
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
each
facility
subject
to
minimum
requirements

Directors
have
the
discretion
to
include
more
stringent
requirements
in
the
NPDES
permits
than
those
specified
in
the
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
(
3)
facility
compliance
tracking
(
4)
record
keeping
for
all
reports,
documents,
and
supporting
materials
submitted
by
facilities
in
fulfilment
of
their
cooling
water
intake
requirements
of
their
NPDES
permit.
30
5
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION,
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
The
following
sections
describe
EPA
activities
related
to
analyzing,
maintaining,
and
distributing
the
information
collected.

5a
Agency
Activities
EPA
is
responsible
for
overseeing
implementation
of
this
rule.
Implementation
of
reporting
and
monitoring
requirements
would
rely
extensively
on
State
governments
in
those
States
that
have
authorization
under
CWA
Section
402(
b)
to
implement
the
NPDES
permit
program.
In
States
that
do
not
have
NPDES
permitting
authority,
EPA
is
responsible
for
administering
the
program.
Under
these
circumstances,
EPA
performs
the
same
activities
as
those
outlined
for
Directors
in
Section
4.

EPA
is
also
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
three
years
after
the
renewal
of
the
ICR.

5b
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
The
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule
provides
minimum
requirements
regarding
the
type
of
information
collected.
Directors
of
NPDES
programs
are
primarily
responsible
for
determining
which
collection
method
and
information
management
strategy
is
most
appropriate.

EPA
maintains
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.

Permitting
authorities
are
responsible
for
reviewing
permit
applications,
permits,

monitoring
reports,
etc.
to
verify
the
accuracy
of
the
data.
Permitting
authorities
are
also
31
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.
In
2001,
EPA
estimated
that
over
the
next
20
years
eleven
facilities
owned
by
small
entities
are
projected
to
be
subject
to
the
final
316(
b)
regulation.

Of
these,
8
are
estimated
to
be
electric
generators
and
3
will
be
manufacturing
facilities.

EPA
considers
the
information
collection
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
the
minimum
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
Section
316(
b)
goal
of
"
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact"
is
met.
Because
small
entities
constitute
a
very
small
share
of
the
potentially
affected
facilities,

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
rule.
Furthermore,
because
the
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.
1
EPA
estimated
that
18
new
facilities
fell
within
the
scope
of
the
final
rule
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.
However,
during
the
development
of
Phase
II,
section
316b
regulations,
EPA
made
the
assumption
that
freshwater
facilities
will
only
take
two
years
instead
of
three
years
to
conduct
biological
characterization
monitoring.
As
a
result,
two
Phase
I
freshwater
Track
II
facilities
did
not
begin
the
permitting
process
during
the
first
ICR
approval
period.
EPA
now
assumes
that
only
16
new
facilities
fell
within
the
scope
of
the
final
rule
during
the
first
ICR
approval
period
instead
of
the
18
new
facilities,
as
assumed
previously.

2
As
described
under
footnote
1,
based
on
the
assumption
that
freshwater
Track
II
facilities
will
only
take
two
years
instead
of
three
years
to
conduct
biological
characterization
monitoring,
two
of
the
18
new
facilities
will
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
final
rule
during
the
second
ICR
approval
period.
Hence
only
16
of
the
initial
facilities
will
perform
annual
activities
listed
in
Section
4
during
this
second
ICR
approval
period.

32
5d
Collection
Schedule
EPA
estimates
that
18
new
facilities1
fell
within
the
scope
of
the
final
rule
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.
EPA
also
estimates
that
an
additional
29
facilities
will
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
rule
during
the
second
ICR
approval
period.
The
permitting
process
is
assumed
to
take
less
than
one
year
to
complete
for
those
facilities
following
Track
I
requirements.
For
those
facilities
opting
for
Track
II,
EPA
assumes
it
takes
approximately
two
years
for
facilities
with
intakes
drawing
from
freshwater
sources,
and
three
years
for
those
facilities
drawing
from
marine
waters
to
complete
the
permitting
process.
EPA
assumes
that
16
of
the
initial
facilities2
will
perform
annual
activities
listed
in
Section
4
during
the
second
ICR
approval
period.
EPA
assumes
that
four
of
the
facilities
that
began
the
permitting
process
during
the
first
ICR
approval
period
will
receive
their
permits
during
the
second
ICR
approval
period
and
seven
facilities
will
begin
the
process
of
renewing
their
permits
during
the
second
ICR
approval
period.

The
29
expected
new
facilities
will
undergo
initial
start­
up
activities
and
submit
information
on
CWIS
design.
Table
5­
1
provides
the
estimated
implementation
schedule
for
permit
application
process
for
these
29
facilities
during
the
second
ICR
approval
period.
There
are
23
new
facilities
that
are
expected
to
begin
annual
monitoring
activities
during
the
second
ICR
approval
period.
Of
the
23
facilities
that
begin
annual
monitoring,
seven
facilities
began
their
permit
application
process
during
the
previous
ICR
approval
period,
and
16
facilities
will
complete
their
permit
applications
during
this
second
ICR
approval
period.
Table
5­
1
also
provides
the
estimated
implementation
schedule
for
monitoring
activities
for
these
facilities
during
the
second
ICR
approval
period.
33
Table
5­
1.
Number
of
Facilities
Assumed
to
Begin
Compliance
with
Information
Collection
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
Type
of
Activity
ICR
Approval
Period
12/
2004­
11/
2005
12/
2005­
11/
2006
12/
2006­
11/
2007
Track
I
Facilities
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
5
9
8
Track
II
Facilities
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
3
2
2
Total
Facilities
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
8
11
10
Track
I
Facilities
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
of
Operations
2*
5**
9**

Track
II
Facilities
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
of
Operations
1*
4*
2**

Total
Facilities
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
of
Operations
3
9
11
*
:
These
seven
facilities
began
their
permit
application
process
during
the
previous
ICR
approval
period.
**
:
These
16
facilities
will
complete
their
permit
applications
during
this
second
ICR
approval
period.
34
6
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
The
following
sections
present
rationale
and
results
of
EPA's
estimation
of
burden
and
costs
for
the
implementation
of
the
section
316(
b)
New
Facility
Rule.
The
burden
hours
and
cost
in
this
section
are
calculated
by
first
estimating
the
annual
burden,
labor
cost,
and
other
direct
cost
(
ODC)
per
facility
or
Director
for
each
activity.
(
See
Tables
6­
1
through
6­
5).
The
number
of
facilities
or
Directors
required
to
conduct
each
of
the
activities
per
year
are
then
estimated
and
used
to
calculate
the
yearly
burden
hours
and
costs.
Not
all
facilities
are
required
to
conduct
all
the
activities,
and
not
all
activities
occur
during
all
years
of
the
ICR.
The
total
yearly
burden
hours
and
costs
are
then
summed
and
averaged
to
compute
the
bottom
line
average
annual
burden
hours
and
costs
shown
in
Table
6­
6.
See
Appendix
A
for
a
more
detailed
calculation.

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.

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

statisticians,
draftsmen,
and
clerical
staff,
will
devote
time
toward
gathering,
preparing,
and
submitting
the
various
documents.
To
develop
representative
profiles
of
each
employee's
relative
contribution,
EPA
assumed
burden
estimates
that
reflect
the
staffing
and
expertise
typically
found
in
manufacturing
facilities
and
power
generating
plants.
In
doing
this,
EPA
considered
the
time
and
qualifications
necessary
to
complete
a
variety
of
tasks:
reviewing
instructions,
planning
responses,
researching
data
sources,
gathering
and
analyzing
data,
typing
or
writing
the
35
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,
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
6­
1
and
6­
2
provide
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
facilities
performing
the
NPDES
permit
application,
annual
monitoring,
and
annual
reporting
activities
associated
with
the
final
rule.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
hourly
burdens
for
facilities
see
Exhibits
A.
1
and
A.
2
in
Appendix
A.

The
activities
listed
in
the
first
column
of
both
Tables
6­
1
and
6­
2
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
36
Data
to
evaluate
the
condition
of
the
biological
community
prior
to
operation
of
the
new
facility
and
prior
to
each
permit
renewal
application.
The
level
of
effort
needed
for
the
study
may
vary
considerably
from
one
facility
to
another,
depending
on
the
availability
of
existing
background
information
and
the
characteristics
of
the
waterbody
that
the
CWIS
will
be
located
in.
For
the
purpose
of
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates,
it
is
assumed
that
there
is
sufficient
existing
data
for
facilities
to
develop
a
baseline
characterization
of
the
contributing
waterbody's
biological
community.

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

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

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

For
the
purpose
of
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates
it
is
assumed
that
each
Track
II
facility
will
perform
sampling
to
develop
the
Source
Water
Biological
Study
for
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
The
sampling
required
for
the
study
is
expected
to
take
two
years
for
facilities
with
intakes
drawing
from
freshwater
sources,
and
three
years
for
facilities
drawing
from
marine
sources.
Therefore,
the
entire
application
process
can
take
up
to
three
years
to
complete.
EPA
assumes
that
start­
up
activities
and
general
information
activities
are
accomplished
during
the
first
year
of
the
permitting
process.
The
Source
Water
Biological
Study
activities
will
be
performed
over
the
three
years
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
NPDES
permit
to
Track
II
facilities.
The
study
to
evaluate
CWIS
impacts
will
be
conducted
the
year
just
prior
to
operation
of
the
CWIS
to
allow
the
facility
time
to
incorporate
information
from
the
Source
Water
Biological
Study
already
underway.
For
those
Track
II
facilities
beginning
operation
during
the
first
year
of
the
ICR
approval
period,
EPA
assumes
that
they
do
not
actually
begin
37
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
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.

Approval
periods
for
ICRs
are
for
three
years
while
NPDES
permits
are
renewed
on
a
five
year
cycle.
Due
to
the
shorter
time
frame
for
the
ICR
approval
period,
there
were
no
permit
renewals
during
the
first
ICR
approval
period.
However,
EPA
anticipates
that
seven
currently
permitted
facilities
will
renew
their
permits
during
the
second
ICR
approval
period.
EPA
assumes
that
for
Track
I
facilities,
all
of
the
activities
performed
during
the
initial
permitting
process
will
be
repeated
for
the
permit
renewal.
Track
II
facilities
will
need
to
revise
their
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
and
repeat
the
Sourcewater
Baseline
Characterization
Study.
They
do
not
have
to
perform
another
Evaluation
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Effects
or
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
EPA
anticipates
that
the
level
of
effort
required
to
repeat
many
of
these
tasks
will
be
considerably
less
than
what
was
initially
required.
Facilities
will
be
able
to
rely
on
much
of
the
information
gathered
during
the
first
permitting
process.
As
a
result
the
hourly
burden
38
estimates
for
activities
are
assumed
to
be
50%
to
70
%
less
than
those
for
the
initial
permitting
process.

Table
6­
3
provides
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
facilities
performing
the
NPDES
permit
renewal
activities
associated
with
the
rule.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
hourly
burdens
for
facilities
see
Exhibit
A.
12
in
Appendix
A.

Director
Burdens
Each
Director's
actual
burden
associated
with
reviewing
submitted
materials,
writing
permits,
and
tracking
compliance
will
depend
on
the
number
of
new
in­
scope
facilities
that
will
be
built
in
the
Director's
State
during
the
ICR
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
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
6­
4
provides
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
Directors
performing
various
activities
associated
with
the
final
rule.
EPA
assumes
that
the
directors
will
spend
a
significant
amount
of
time
reviewing
the
Sourcewater
Biological
Characterization
Data.
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
Exhibits
A.
3
and
A.
13
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.

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
2004­
2005
(
BLS,
2004a).
These
39
reported
labor
rates
were
based
upon
data
from
the
year
1998,
and
required
adjustment
for
inflation.
Inflation
factors
ranging
from
1.8%
to
5.4%,
depending
on
the
labor
category,
were
derived
from
the
BLS
Employment
Cost
Index
(
BLS,
2004b)
for
adjusting
the
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
labor
rates
to
reflect
labor
rates
as
of
June
of
2004.
A
compensatory
loading
factors
ranging
from
34%
or
56%,
depending
on
the
labor
category,
was
used
to
account
for
any
paid
leave,
supplemental
pay,
insurance,
retirement
and
savings,
and
required
and
non­
required
benefits
received
by
employees
(
BLS,
2004c).
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%.

To
represent
the
base
labor
rate
for
facility
management,
EPA
used
the
average
national
salary
for
a
utilities
general
operations
manager
of
$
86,486
per
year.
This
figure
was
divided
by
2,080
hours
to
derive
the
hourly
managerial
wage
rate
of
approximately
$
42
per
hour.
After
adjusting
this
rate
for
inflation,
compensation,
and
overhead
the
rate
is
approximately
$
77
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
of
$
41,280
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
$
37
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
$
33.
The
reported
average
annual
salary
for
clerical
workers
was
$
22,280
and
the
fully
adjusted
and
loaded
hourly
rate
is
$
19
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
$
91.90
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
for
a
statistician
was
$
57,080
per
year,
with
an
adjusted
hourly
rate
of
approximately
$
63
per
hour.
Biologists
and
biological
technicians
have
an
average
hourly
pay
of
$
24
and
$
17,
and
a
fully
loaded
rate
of
$
55
and
$
39,
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
second
quarter
of
2003
(
BLS,
2004d).
These
labor
rates
were
adjusted
to
reflect
labor
rates
for
the
second
quarter
of
the
year
2004
(
BLS,
2004b).
EPA
chose
the
BLS
labor
category
of
white­
collar
General
Operations
Manager
to
represent
the
senior
administrative
and
technical
staff
that
will
oversee
and
manage
the
NPDES
permit
program.
The
base
hourly
rate
for
this
category
was
40
approximately
$
36
per
hour,
and
after
adjusting
for
compensation
and
inflation
it
is
approximately
$
59
per
hour.
Similarly,
EPA
chose
the
BLS
labor
category
of
mechanical
engineering
technician
to
represent
the
junior
technical
staff
that
EPA
expects
to
perform
the
majority
of
the
actual
NPDES
permitting
work.
The
reported
base
pay
for
this
category
was
approximately
$
20.92
per
hour,
which
becomes
approximately
$
34
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
$
24
afterward.

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
some
facilities
would
incur
capital/
startup
costs
as
a
result
of
this
rule.

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

or
supplies
needed
to
comply
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
that
the
facility
will
not
use
otherwise.
Any
cost
for
the
operation
and
upkeep
of
capital
equipment
is
considered
O&
M
costs.
Another
type
of
O&
M
cost
is
for
the
purchase
of
contracted
services
such
as
laboratory
analyses.
The
purchase
of
supplies
such
as
filing
cabinets
and
services
such
as
photocopying
or
boat
rental,
are
also
considered
O&
M
costs,
and
are
referred
to
as
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
two
to
three
years
of
monitoring
required
by
the
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study,
this
service
is
estimated
to
cost
$
78,000
for
facilities
located
adjacent
to
freshwater
waterbodies
and
$
198,000
for
facilities
drawing
from
either
estuaries,
oceans,
or
the
Great
Lakes.

For
the
evaluation
of
CWIS
effects,
EPA
anticipates
that
facilities
will
perform
pilot
studies
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
the
technology
they
will
be
using
to
minimize
impingement
and
entrainment.
EPA
assumes
that
the
facility
will
be
willing
to
spend
approximately
10%
of
the
anticipated
costs
of
installing
and
operating
the
proposed
technology.
41
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
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
visual
inspections,
EPA
assumes
that
the
Track
I
facilities
will
employ
remote
monitoring
devices
to
monitor
the
equipment
performance.
The
cost
for
the
remote
monitoring
device
includes
$
33,250
(
Haught
and
Panguluri,
1998)
for
purchase
of
equipment
and
$
16,750
for
installation
and
testing
of
equipment.

For
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
$
7,800
per
year
for
freshwater
facilities,
and
an
estimated
$
10,140
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
6­
1
and
6­
2
provide
a
summary
of
both
the
estimated
labor
costs
and
ODCs
per
facility.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
all
compliance
costs
for
facilities
see
Exhibits
A.
1
and
A.
2
in
Appendix
A.
42
Table
6­
1.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
($)
ODC
($)

Start­
up
Activities
43
$
2,236
$
50
General
Information
Activities
146
$
5,903
$
500
CWIS
Flow
Requirement
104
$
3,689
$
100
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
265
$
12,086
$
750
CWIS
Velocity
Requirement
(
Track
I)
138
$
5,810
$
1,000
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirement
(
Track
I)
108
$
4,110
$
400
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
I)
108
$
4,696
$
50
Comprehensive
Study
Plan
(
Track
II)
271
$
12,920
$
750
Source
Water
Biological
Characterization
­
Freshwater
(
Track
II)*
5,196
$
254,410
$
5,200
Source
Water
Biological
Characterization
­
Estuary
&
Great
Lake
(
Track
II)*
9,290
$
447,315
$
13,000
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
­
Freshwater
(
Track
II)*
1,626
$
85,084
$
1,000
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
­
Estuary
&
Great
Lake
(
Track
II)*
1,950
$
99,968
$
1,000
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
128
$
6,247
$
400
*
This
activity
also
has
contracted
service
costs
associated
with
it.

Table
6­
2.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
($)
ODC
($)

Verification
Monitoring­
Freshwater
(
Track
II)
92
$
5,302
$
500
Verification
Monitoring­
Estuary
(
Track
II)
122
$
7,096
$
500
Biological
Monitoring
(
impingement)
Freshwater
379
$
19,029
$
500
Biological
Monitoring
(
entrainment)
Freshwater*
482
$
24,226
$
650
Biological
Monitoring
(
impingement)
Estuary
614
$
31,241
$
1,000
Biological
Monitoring
(
entrainment)
Estuary*
776
$
39,155
$
1,150
Velocity
Monitoring
163
$
6,087
$
100
Visual
Inspection
of
CWIS
Technology
253
$
10,279
$
100
43
Yearly
Status
Report
Activities
348
$
18,644
$
750
*
This
activity
also
has
contracted
service
costs
associated
with
it.

Table
6­
3.
Burden
and
Costs
per
Facility
for
NPDES
Permit
Renewal
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
($)
ODC
($)

Start­
up
Activities
13
$
715
$
50
General
Information
Activities
72
$
3,097
$
500
CWIS
Flow
Requirement
31
$
1,087
$
100
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
79
$
3,655
$
750
CWIS
Velocity
Requirement
(
Track
I)
75
$
3,124
$
1,000
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirement
(
Track
I)
108
$
4,110
$
400
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
I)
43
$
1,855
$
50
Comprehensive
Study
Plan
(
Track
II)
80
$
3,775
$
750
Source
Water
Biological
Characterization
­
Freshwater
(
Track
II)*
2,808
$
134,840
$
3,120
Source
Water
Biological
Characterization
­
Estuary
&
Great
Lake
(
Track
II)*
5,222
$
248,145
$
7,800
*
This
activity
also
has
contracted
service
costs
associated
with
it.

Director
O&
M
Costs
EPA
does
not
anticipate
any
operation
and
maintenance
costs
for
Directors
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule.
Table
6­
4
provides
estimates
of
Director
ODCs
and
labor
costs.
For
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
Director
costs
see
Exhibit
A.
3.

Table
6­
4.
Estimating
Director
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
($)
ODC
($)

Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
for
Track
I
Facility
188
$
8,398
$
300
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
for
Track
II
Facility
646
$
33,742
$
300
Verification
Study
Review
(
per
Facility)
21
$
847
$
50
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
$
2,049
$
50
Director
Repermitting
Activities
for
Track
I
Facility
55
$
2,519
$
300
44
Director
Repermitting
Activities
for
Track
II
Facility
143
$
7,336
$
300
6c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
As
mentioned
previously,
there
are
46
States
and
Territories
authorized
to
administer
the
NPDES
permitting
program.
For
new
in­
scope
facilities
applying
for
permits
in
the
10
unauthorized
States
and
Territories,
EPA
will
incur
the
costs
and
burdens
similar
to
those
incurred
by
States
with
permitting
authority.
This
analysis,
however,
assumes
that
facilities
complying
with
the
rule
during
the
ICR
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
32
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
6­
5
summarizes
Federal
burden
and
cost
estimates.
Further
detail
is
provided
in
Exhibit
A.
4.

Table
6­
5.
Estimating
Federal
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
($)
ODC($)

Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
Activities
for
Track
I
Permitted
Facility
28
$
1,123
$
50
Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
Activities
for
Track
II
Permitted
Facility
42
$
1,719
$
50
6d
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
During
the
three
years
of
the
second
ICR
approval
period,
there
are
an
estimated
45
facilities
along
with
46
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
45
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.

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
6­
6
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
6­
6.
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
(
2004$)
Average
Annual
Capital
Costs
(
2004$)
Average
Annual
O&
M
Costs
(
2004$)
Total
Average
Annual
Costs
(
2004$)

Facilities
34
71,645
$
3,555,443
$
1,152,448
$
789,478
$
5,497,369
State
Directors
35
4,623
$
218,210
$
0
$
0
$
218,210
Totals
69
76,268
$
3,773,653
$
1,152,448
$
789,478
$
5,715,579
*
Average
respondent
total
does
not
match
the
reported
number
of
respondents
due
to
a
rounding
discrepancy.

Facilities
for
each
year
are
21,
36,
and
46
(
103/
3=
34.3).
State
Director
for
each
year
are
22,
36,
and
46
(
104/
3=
34.7).

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
6­
7
provides
a
summary
of
the
average
annual
agency
burden
hours,
and
costs.
A
more
detailed
summary
can
be
found
in
Exhibit
A.
11.
46
47
Table
6­
7.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Responses,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Federal
Agency
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Average
Annual
Burden
(
hours)
Average
Annual
Labor
Costs
(
2004$)
Average
Annual
O&
M
Costs
(
2004$)
Total
Average
Annual
Costs
(
2004$)

Agency
Totals
323
$
13,035
­­
$
13,035
6f
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
The
respondent
average
annual
burden
increased
from
40,376
to
76,268
hours
which
represents
a
88.9%
increase
and
the
total
average
annual
number
of
respondents
increased
from
38
to
69
respondents,
for
a
82%
increase.
The
increase
is
due
to
the
addition
of
the
newly
built
facilities,
as
well
as
the
continued
performance
of
annual
activities
by
facilities
that
received
their
permit
during
the
first
ICR
approval
period.
In
addition,
this
ICR
includes
repermitting
burdens
and
costs
which
were
not
in
the
original
ICR
because
none
of
the
new
facilities
required
repermitting
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

EPA
also
revised
the
labor
rates
and
the
labor
burden
for
several
activities
in
this
ICR.

Some
of
the
labor
burdens
were
revised
because
many
of
requirements
for
the
section
316(
b)

New
Facility
Rule
are
similar
to
the
section
316(
b)
Existing
Facility
Rule
and
EPA
received
several
comments
during
the
section
316(
b)
Existing
Facility
Rule
development
regarding
burden
estimates.
Therefore,
for
this
ICR,
where
the
requirements
for
the
two
rules
were
identical
or
very
similar,
EPA
compared
the
burden
estimates
used
and
revised
them.
One
significant
change
was
the
reduction
in
the
time
estimated
for
the
Sourcewater
Baseline
Characterization
Study.
The
time
period
for
this
activity
was
reduced
from
three
to
two
years
for
freshwater
facilities
but
left
unchanged
for
marine
facilities.
Another
change
was
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
It
was
given
a
higher
burden
requirement.

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
2,107
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
71,645
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
annual
average
of
34
facilities).
The
Director
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
review,

oversight,
and
administration
of
the
rule
is
estimated
to
average
132
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
4,623
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
35
States
on
average
per
year).
48
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
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.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
Number
OW­
2004­
0027,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,

Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
2426.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
When
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
Docket
ID
Number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,

DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
Number
OW­

2004­
0027
and
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0241
in
any
correspondence.

Part
B
of
the
Supporting
Statement
This
part
is
not
applicable
because
no
statistical
methods
were
used
in
collecting
this
information.
49
Exhibit
A.
5
Respondents
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
by
Activity
Facilities
[
1]
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Initial
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Start­
up
Activities
8
11
10
10
Permit
Application
Activities
8
11
10
10
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
8
11
10
10
Use
Existing
Data­
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
8
11
10
10
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
Freshwater
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
5
4
4
4
Estuary
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
2
1
1
1
Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
for
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
Submit
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
4
2
3
3
Freshwater
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
Estuary
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
1
0
1
1
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
NPDES
Repermitting
Activities
Start­
up
Activities
1
4
2
2
Permit
Application
Activities
1
4
2
2
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
1
4
2
2
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
1
4
2
2
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
1
4
1
2
Freshwater
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
0
3
4
2
Estuary
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
1
2
2
2
Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
for
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
1
4
1
2
Submit
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
0
0
4
1
Annual
Freshwater
Verification
Study
(
Track
2)
4
2
0
2
Estuary
Verification
Study
(
Track
2)
2
0
1
1
Biological
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Freshwater)
9
16
26
17
Biological
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Estuary)
3
5
6
5
Biological
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Freshwater)
9
16
26
17
Biological
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Estuary)
3
5
6
5
Velocity
Monitoring
12
21
32
22
50
Visual
Inspection
of
Installed
Technologies
9
13
15
12
Yearly
Status
Report
Activities
12
21
32
22
Respondents
21
36
46
34
Directors
[
2]
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
Reviewing
Facility
General
Permit
Application
Information
8
11
10
10
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
8
11
10
10
Determine
Compliance
with
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
8
11
10
10
Review
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Review
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
4
2
3
3
Review
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
4
2
3
3
Determining
Facility
Requirements
and
Issuing
Permit
9
11
11
10
Verification
Study
Review
6
2
1
3
Director
Permit
Reissuance
Activities
Reviewing
Facility
General
Permit
Application
Information
1
4
2
2
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
1
4
2
2
Determine
Compliance
with
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
1
4
2
2
Review
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Review
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
1
4
1
2
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
0
0
4
1
Determining
Facility
Requirements
and
Issuing
Permit
0
0
5
2
Annual
Director
Activities
Review
of
Yearly
Report
12
21
32
22
Compliance
Tracking
12
21
32
22
Determination
on
Monitoring
Scope
Reduction
12
21
32
22
Record
Keeping
12
21
32
22
Respondents
2
2
36
48
35
Sum
for
Facilities
and
Directors
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2007
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2007
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Facilities
21
36
46
34
51
Directors
22
36
48
35
Yearly
Total*
43
72
94
70
[
1]
Each
facility
is
one
respondent.
One
respondent
may
be
involved
in
more
than
one
activity;
however,
in
order
to
avoid
double­
counting,
the
maximum
number
of
respondents
expected
to
be
involved
in
the
rule
activities
annually
is
assumed
to
be
the
number
of
respondents
for
that
year.
*
Total
doesn't
add
due
to
rounding.

Exhibit
A.
6
Responses
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
by
Activity
Facilities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Initial
Permitting
Start­
up
Activities
8
11
10
10
Permit
Application
Activities
8
11
10
10
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
8
11
10
10
Use
Existing
Data­
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
8
11
10
10
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
Freshwater
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
5
4
4
4
Estuary
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
2
1
1
1
Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
for
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
Submit
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
4
2
3
3
Freshwater
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
Estuary
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
1
0
1
1
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
NPDES
Repermitting
Activities
0
0
0
0
Start­
up
Activities
1
4
2
2
Permit
Application
Activities
1
4
2
2
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
1
4
2
2
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
1
4
2
2
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
1
4
1
2
Freshwater
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
0
3
4
2
Estuary
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
1
2
2
2
Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
for
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
1
4
1
2
Submit
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
0
0
4
1
52
Annual
0
0
0
0
Freshwater
Verification
Study
(
Track
2)
4
2
0
2
Estuary
Verification
Study
(
Track
2)
2
0
1
1
Biological
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Freshwater)
9
16
26
17
Biological
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Estuary)
3
5
6
5
Biological
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Freshwater)
9
16
26
17
Biological
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Estuary)
3
5
6
5
Velocity
Monitoring
12
21
32
22
Visual
Inspection
of
Installed
Technologies
9
13
15
12
Yearly
Status
Report
Activities
12
21
32
22
Responses
141
214
248
201
Directors
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
Reviewing
Facility
General
Permit
Application
Information
8
11
10
10
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
8
11
10
10
Determine
Compliance
with
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
8
11
10
10
Review
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
5
9
8
7
Review
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
3
2
2
2
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
4
2
3
3
Review
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
4
2
3
3
Determining
Facility
Requirements
and
Issuing
Permit
9
11
11
10
Verification
Study
Review
6
2
1
3
Director
Permit
Reissuance
Activities
Reviewing
Facility
General
Permit
Application
Information
1
4
2
2
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
1
4
2
2
Determine
Compliance
with
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
1
4
2
2
Review
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
0
0
1
0
Review
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
1
4
1
2
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
0
0
4
1
Determining
Facility
Requirements
and
Issuing
Permit
0
0
5
2
Annual
Director
Activities
Review
of
Yearly
Report
12
21
32
22
Compliance
Tracking
12
21
32
22
Determination
on
Monitoring
Scope
Reduction
12
21
32
22
Record
Keeping
12
21
32
22
Responses
117
179
221
172
53
Sum
for
Facilities
and
Directors
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Facilities
141
214
248
201
Directors
117
179
221
172
Yearly
Total*
258
393
469
373
54
Exhibit
A.
7
Hourly
Burden
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
for
Facilities
Facility
Activities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annua
l
Avera
ge
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Start­
up
Activities
A1a
344
473
430
416
Permit
Application
Activities
A1b
1,168
1,606
1,460
1,411
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
A1c
832
1,144
1,040
1,005
Use
Existing
Data­
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
A1d
2,120
2,915
2,650
2,562
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
A1e
540
972
864
792
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
A1f
690
1,242
1,104
1,012
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
A1g
540
972
864
792
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
A1h
813
542
542
632
Freshwater
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A1i
11,098
8,878
8,878
9,618
Estuary
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A1i
5,689
2,844
2,844
3,792
Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
for
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A1i
1,119
746
746
870
Submit
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A1i
1,536
768
1,152
1,152
Freshwater
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
A1j
4,878
3,252
3,252
3,794
Estuary
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
A1j
1,950
0
1,950
1,300
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
(
Track
2)
A1k
384
256
256
299
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
Total
31,366
26,354
25,826
27,849
NPDES
Repermitting
Activities
Start­
up
Activities
A12a
13
52
26
30
Permit
Application
Activities
A12b
72
288
144
168
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
A12c
31
124
62
72
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
A12d
79
316
158
184
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
A12e
0
0
108
36
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
A12f
0
0
75
25
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
A12g
0
0
43
14
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
A12h
80
320
80
160
Freshwater
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A12i
0
3,870
5,160
3,010
Estuary
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
A12i
1,665
3,329
3,329
2,774
55
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
for
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A12i
113
452
113
226
Submit
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A12i
0
0
460
153
NPDES
Repermitting
Activity
Total
2,053
8,751
9,758
6,854
Annual
Activities
Freshwater
Verification
Study
(
Track
2)
A2a
368
184
0
184
Estuary
Verification
Study
(
Track
2)
A2b
244
0
122
122
Biological
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Freshwater)
A2c
3,411
6,064
9,854
6,443
Biological
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Estuary)
A2d
1,445
2,408
2,890
2,247
Biological
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Freshwater)
A2e
5,526
9,824
15,964
10,438
Biological
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Estuary)
A2f
2,328
3,880
4,656
3,621
Velocity
Monitoring
A2g
1,956
3,423
5,216
3,532
Visual
Inspection
of
Installed
Technologies
A2h
2,277
3,289
3,795
3,120
Yearly
Status
Report
Activities
A2i
4,176
7,308
11,136
7,540
Annual
Activity
Yearly
Labor
Total
21,119
36,196
53,511
36,942
Yearly
Labor
Total
54,538
71,302
89,095
71,645
56
Exhibit
A.
8
Hourly
Burden
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
for
Directors
and
Federal
Government
Director
Activities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
A3a
3,420
2,984
3,338
3,247
Verification
Study
Review
A3b
126
42
21
63
Director
Permit
Reissuance
Activities
A13
31
124
534
230
Annual
Director
Activities
A3c
600
1,050
1,600
1,083
Yearly
Total
4,177
4,200
5,493
4,623
Federal
Activities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
Activities
A4a
295
336
337
323
Yearly
Total
295
336
337
323
57
Exhibit
A.
9
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
for
Facilities
Facility
Activities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Start­
up
Activities
A1a
$
17,889
$
24,597
$
22,361
$
21,616
Permit
Application
Activities
A1b
$
47,221
$
64,929
$
59,026
$
57,058
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
A1c
$
29,510
$
40,577
$
36,888
$
35,658
Use
Existing
Data­
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
A1d
$
96,686
$
132,943
$
120,857
$
116,828
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
A1e
$
20,552
$
36,994
$
32,883
$
30,143
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
A1f
$
29,049
$
52,288
$
46,478
$
42,605
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
A1g
$
23,482
$
42,268
$
37,571
$
34,440
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
A1h
$
38,760
$
25,840
$
25,840
$
30,147
Freshwater
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A1i
$
531,805
$
425,444
$
425,444
$
460,897
Estuary
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A1i
$
270,418
$
135,209
$
135,209
$
180,278
Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
for
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A1i
$
68,189
$
45,459
$
45,459
$
53,036
Submit
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A1i
$
75,835
$
37,918
$
56,876
$
56,876
Freshwater
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
A1j
$
255,253
$
170,168
$
170,168
$
198,530
Estuary
Evaluation
of
Potential
CWIS
Effects
(
Track
2)
A1j
$
99,968
$
0
$
99,968
$
66,645
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
(
Track
2)
A1k
$
18,742
$
12,494
$
12,494
$
14,577
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
Total
$
1,623,358
$
1,247,127
$
1,327,524
$
1,399,33
6
NPDES
Repermitting
Activities
Start­
up
Activities
A12a
$
715
$
2,858
$
1,429
$
1,667
Permit
Application
Activities
A12b
$
3,097
$
12,387
$
6,194
$
7,226
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
A12c
$
1,087
$
4,348
$
2,174
$
2,536
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
A12d
$
3,655
$
14,620
$
7,310
$
8,528
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
A12e
$
0
$
0
$
4,110
$
1,370
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
A12f
$
0
$
0
$
3,124
$
1,041
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
A12g
$
0
$
0
$
1,855
$
618
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
A12h
$
3,775
$
15,098
$
3,775
$
7,549
Freshwater
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A12i
$
0
$
183,271
$
244,361
$
142,544
Estuary
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A12i
$
78,495
$
156,990
$
156,990
$
130,825
Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
for
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A12i
$
6,941
$
27,765
$
6,941
$
13,882
Submit
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
A12i
$
0
$
0
$
22,874
$
7,625
NPDES
Repermitting
Activity
Total
$
97,764
$
417,336
$
461,136
$
325,412
Annual
Activities
Freshwater
Verification
Study
(
Track
2)
A2a
$
21,207
$
10,604
$
0
$
10,604
Estuary
Verification
Study
(
Track
2)
A2b
$
14,193
$
0
$
7,096
$
7,096
Biological
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Freshwater)
A2c
$
171,261
$
304,464
$
494,754
$
323,493
58
Biological
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Estuary)
A2d
$
72,678
$
121,130
$
145,356
$
113,055
Biological
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Freshwater)
A2e
$
281,171
$
499,859
$
812,271
$
531,100
Biological
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Estuary)
A2f
$
117,466
$
195,776
$
234,931
$
182,724
Velocity
Monitoring
A2g
$
73,045
$
127,829
$
194,787
$
131,887
Visual
Inspection
of
Installed
Technologies
A2h
$
92,510
$
133,626
$
154,184
$
126,773
Yearly
Status
Report
Activities
A2i
$
223,733
$
391,532
$
596,621
$
403,962
Annual
Activity
Yearly
Labor
Total
$
1,067,263
$
1,784,820
$
2,640,000
$
1,830,69
4
Yearly
Labor
Total
$
2,788,385$
3,449,283
$
4,428,660
$
3,555,44
3
Facility
O&
M
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
NPDES
Application
Purchase
and
Installation
of
Remote
Monitoring
Device
A.
1k
$
260,369
$
468,664
$
416,590
$
381,874
Purchase
&
Installation
of
Pilot
Study
Technology
A.
1j
$
1,024,943
$
512,472
$
768,707
$
768,707
Operation
&
Maintenance
of
Pilot
Technology
A.
1j
$
120,000
$
60,000
$
90,000
$
90,000
Biological
Study
Laboratory
Analysis
(
Freshwater)
A.
1i
$
195,000
$
156,000
$
156,000
$
169,000
Biological
Study
Laboratory
Analysis
(
Estuary)
A.
1i
$
131,820
$
65,910
$
65,910
$
87,880
Pilot
Study
Entrainment
Laboratory
Analysis
(
Freshwater)
A.
1j
$
18,000
$
12,000
$
12,000
$
14,000
Pilot
Study
Entrainment
Laboratory
Analysis
(
Estuary)
A.
1j
$
7,800
$
0
$
7,800
$
5,200
Other
Direct
Costs
A.
1a­
k
$
52,567
$
56,483
$
53,633
$
54,228
Repermitting
Biological
Study
Laboratory
Analysis
(
Freshwater)
A.
12i
$
0
$
70,200
$
93,600
$
54,600
Biological
Study
Laboratory
Analysis
(
Estuary)
A.
12i
$
39,546
$
79,092
$
79,092
$
65,910
Other
Direct
Costs
A.
12a­
i
$
4,750
$
18,480
$
16,440
$
13,223
Annual
Operation
of
Remote
Sensing
Device
A.
2f
$
600
$
1,600
$
3,400
$
1,867
Identify
&
Enumerate
Entrained
Freshwater
Biota
A.
2f
$
70,200
$
124,800
$
202,800
$
132,600
Identify
&
Enumerate
Entrained
Estuary
Biota
A.
2f
$
30,420
$
50,700
$
60,840
$
47,320
Other
Direct
Costs
A.
2a­
f
$
33,150
$
53,550
$
79,850
$
55,517
Equipment
Capital
Cost
Subtotal
$
1,285,912
$
982,735
$
1,188,697
$
1,152,44
8
Equipment
O&
M
Cost
Subtotal
$
120,000
$
60,000
$
90,000
$
90,000
Laboratory
Analysis
Subtotal
$
492,786
$
558,702
$
678,042
$
576,510
Other
Direct
Costs
Subtotal
$
90,467
$
128,513
$
149,923
$
122,968
Yearly
O&
M
Total
$
1,989,165$
1,729,951
$
2,106,663
$
1,941,92
6
59
Exhibit
A.
10
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
for
Directors
and
Federal
Government
Director
Activities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
A3a
$
172,356
$
143,062
$
163,807
$
159,742
Verification
Study
Review
A3b
$
5,083
$
1,694
$
847
$
2,542
Director
Permit
Reissuance
Activities
A13
$
1,380
$
5,520
$
27,721
$
11,541
Annual
Director
Activities
A3c
$
24,583
$
43,021
$
65,555
$
44,386
Yearly
Total
$
203,403
$
193,298
$
257,930
$
218,210
Director
O&
M
(
Other
Direct
Costs)

Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Start­
Up
&
NPDES
Application
Other
Direct
Costs
A3a­
b
$
3,000
$
3,400
$
3,350
$
3,250
Annual
Other
Direct
Costs
A3c
$
600
$
1,050
$
1,600
$
1,083
Yearly
O&
M
Cost
Total
$
3,600
$
4,450
$
4,950
$
4,333
Federal
Labor
Activities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
Activities
A4b
11,955
13,546
13,604
$
13,035
Yearly
Total
$
11,955
$
13,546
$
13,604
$
13,035
Federal
O&
M
(
Other
Direct
Costs)

Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
ODCs
A4a
$
450
$
550
$
550
$
517
Yearly
Total
$
450
$
550
$
550
$
517
60
Exhibit
A.
11
Summary
of
the
Burden,
Respondents,
Responses,
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
and
Annual
Averages
Facilities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Three
Year
Total
Source
(
Exhibit)*
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Burden
(
hours)
A7
54,538
71,302
89,095
71,645
214,935
Respondents
(
number)
A5
21
36
46
34
45
Responses
(
number)
A6
141
214
248
201
603
Costs
(
labor)
A9
$
2,788,385
$
3,449,283
$
4,428,660
$
3,555,443
$
10,666,328
Costs
(
capital)
A9
$
1,285,912
$
982,735
$
1,188,697
$
1,152,448
$
3,457,345
Costs
(
equipment
O&
M)
A9
$
120,000
$
60,000
$
90,000
$
90,000
$
270,000
Costs
(
lab
analysis)
A9
$
492,786
$
558,702
$
678,042
$
576,510
$
1,729,530
Costs
(
other
direct
costs)
A9
$
90,467
$
128,513
$
149,923
$
122,968
$
368,903
Total
Costs
$
4,777,550
$
5,179,234
$
6,535,323
$
5,497,369
$
16,492,106
Directors
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Three
Year
Total
Source
(
Exhibit)*
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Burden
(
hours)
A8
4,177
4,200
5,493
4,623
13,870
61
Respondents
(
number)
A5
22
36
46
35
46
Responses
(
number)
A6
117
179
221
172
517
Costs(
labor)
A10
$
203,403
$
193,298
$
257,930
$
218,210
$
654,631
Costs
(
other
direct
costs)
A10
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Total
Costs
$
203,403
$
193,298
$
257,930
$
218,210
$
654,631
Federal
Government
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Three
Year
Total
Source
(
Exhibit)
Dec.
2004
­
Nov.
2005
Dec.
2005
­
Nov.
2006
Dec.
2006
­
Nov.
2007
Annual
Average
Burden
(
hours)
A8
295
336
337
323
968
Costs(
labor)
A10
$
11,955
$
13,546
$
13,604
$
13,035
$
39,104
Costs
(
other
direct
costs)
A10
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Total
Costs
$
11,955
$
13,546
$
13,604
$
13,035
$
39,104
Totals
for
Respondents
(
Facilities
and
Directors)*
Annual
Average
Three
Year
Total
Total
Respondent
Burden
(
hours)
76,268
228,805
Total
Respondents
(
number)
69
91
Total
Respondent
Labor
Costs
$
3,773,653
$
11,320,959
Total
Respondent
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
$
1,941,926
$
5,555,778
Total
Respondent
Cost
for
All
Activities
$
5,715,579
$
17,146,737
*
Totals
for
annual
averages
may
not
match
exactly
due
to
rounding
discrepancies
62
Exhibit
A.
12
Facility
Cost
and
Burden
Estimates
for
NPDES
Permit
Renewal
Activities
Exhibit
A.
12a
Start­
up
Activities
Facilities
(
Responde
nts)
Facili
ty
Mana
ger
Junior
Techni
cal
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
cted
Manag
er
Biolo
gist
Statistic
ian
Biolog
ical
Techni
cian
Cleri
cal
Totals
Per
Facility
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$
Burde
n
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Total
Costs**

Ye
ar
1
Y
e
a
r
2
Y
e
a
r
3
Tot
al
$
77
$
37
$
33
$
92
$
55
$
63
$
39
$
19
Capital
Costs
Activity
A
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
E
C+
D+
E
A*
B
A*(
C+
D)

Read
and
Understand
Rule
1
4
2
7
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
$
452
$
0
$
0
56
$
3,164
Mobilization/
Planning
1
4
2
7
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
$
150
$
0
$
0
21
$
1,047
Training
1
4
2
7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
$
113
$
0
$
0
14
$
791
Other
Direct
Costs
1
4
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
50
­
$
350
Totals
1
4
2
7
13
$
715
$
0
$
50
$
765
91
$
5,352
Exhibit
A.
12b
Permit
Application
Activities
Facilities
(
Responde
nts)
Facili
ty
Mana
ger
Junior
Techni
cal
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
cted
Manag
er
Biolo
gist
Statistic
ian
Biolog
ical
Techni
cian
Cleri
cal
Totals
Per
Facility
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$
Burde
n
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Total
Costs**

Ye
ar
Y
e
Y
e
Tot
al
$
77
$
37
$
33
$
92
$
55
$
63
$
39
$
19
Capital
Costs
63
1
a
r
2
a
r
3
Activity
A
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
E
C+
D+
E
A*
B
A*(
C+
D)

Detailed
Source
Water
Body
Characterization
1
4
2
7
1
5
12
0
0
0
0
0
18
$
649
$
0
$
0
126
$
4,543
Description
of
CWIS
Configuration
and
Location
1
4
2
7
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
$
69
$
0
$
0
14
$
483
Facility
Water
Balance
Diagram
1
4
2
7
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
$
146
$
0
$
0
21
$
1,019
Operational
Characteristics
Narrative
1
4
2
7
12
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
$
2,013
$
0
$
0
294
$
14,091
Submit
Materials
for
Review
by
State
1
4
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
$
56
$
0
$
0
21
$
393
Recordkeeping
1
4
2
7
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
4
$
164
$
0
$
0
28
$
1,149
Other
Direct
Costs
1
4
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
500
­
$
3,500
Totals
1
4
2
7
72
$
3,097
$
0
$
500
$
3,597
504
$
25,178
Water
balance
diagram
is
assumed
to
be
taken
from
the
facility
design
report.
The
hours
reported
here
are
for
incorporation
of
the
diagram(
s)
in
the
permit.

Exhibit
A.
12c
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
Facilities
(
Responde
nts)
Facili
ty
Mana
ger
Junior
Techni
cal
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
cted
Manag
er
Biolo
gist
Statistic
ian
Biolog
ical
Techni
cian
Cleri
cal
Totals
Per
Facility
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$
Burde
n
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Total
Costs**

Ye
ar
1
Y
e
a
r
2
Y
e
a
r
3
Tot
al
$
77
$
37
$
33
$
92
$
55
$
63
$
39
$
19
Capital
Costs
Activity
A
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
E
C+
D+
E
A*
B
A*(
C+
D)

Gather
Information
Characterizing
Flow
1
4
2
7
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
$
365
$
0
$
0
70
$
2,555
64
Perform
Engineering
Calculations
1
4
2
7
2
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
$
518
$
0
$
0
84
$
3,626
Submit
Data
and
Analysis
for
Review
1
4
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
$
94
$
0
$
0
35
$
655
Recordkeeping
1
4
2
7
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
$
110
$
0
$
0
28
$
773
Other
Direct
Costs
1
4
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
100
­
$
700
Totals
1
4
2
7
31
$
1,087
$
0
$
100
$
1,187
217
$
8,308
Exhibit
A.
12d
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
Facilities
(
Responde
nts)
Facili
ty
Mana
ger
Junior
Techni
cal
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
cted
Manag
er
Biolo
gist
Statistic
ian
Biolog
ical
Techni
cian
Cleri
cal
Totals
Per
Facility
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$
Burde
n
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Total
Costs**

Ye
ar
1
Y
e
a
r
2
Y
e
a
r
3
Tot
al
$
77
$
37
$
33
$
92
$
55
$
63
$
39
$
19
Capital
Costs
Activity
A
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
E
C+
D+
E
A*
B
A*(
C+
D)

Identify
Available
Data
and
Document
Efforts
1
4
2
7
12
24
0
0
0
0
0
2
38
$
1,831
$
0
$
0
266
$
12,820
Compile
and
Analyze
Existing
Data
1
4
2
7
10
18
6
0
0
0
0
1
35
$
1,636
$
0
$
0
245
$
11,450
Submit
Data
for
Review
by
State
1
4
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
$
37
$
0
$
0
14
$
262
Recordkeeping
1
4
2
7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
$
150
$
0
$
0
28
$
1,053
Other
Direct
Costs
1
4
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
750
­
$
5,250
Totals
1
4
2
7
79
$
3,655
$
0
$
750
$
4,405
553
$
30,834
Exhibit
A.
12e
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
65
Requirements
(
Track
1)
Facilities
(
Responde
nts)
Facili
ty
Mana
ger
Junior
Techni
cal
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
cted
Manag
er
Biolo
gist
Statistic
ian
Biolog
ical
Techni
cian
Cleri
cal
Totals
Per
Facility
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$
Burde
n
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Total
Costs**

Ye
ar
1
Y
e
a
r
2
Y
e
a
r
3
Tot
al
$
77
$
37
$
33
$
92
$
55
$
63
$
39
$
19
Capital
Costs
Activity
A
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
E
C+
D+
E
A*
B
A*(
C+
D)

Develop
Narrative
0
0
1
1
8
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
$
1,196
$
0
$
0
24
$
1,196
Perform
Engineering
Calculations
0
0
1
1
4
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
$
744
$
0
$
0
16
$
744
Document
Minimization
of
Blow
Down
and
Flows
Not
Recycled
0
0
1
1
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
6
46
$
1,572
$
0
$
0
46
$
1,572
Submit
Data
and
Analysis
for
Review
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
$
150
$
0
$
0
8
$
150
Recordkeeping
0
0
1
1
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
8
14
$
449
$
0
$
0
14
$
449
Other
Direct
Costs
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
400
­
$
400
Totals
0
0
1
1
108
$
4,110
$
0
$
400
$
4,510
108
$
4,510
Exhibit
A.
12f
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
Facilities
(
Responde
nts)
Facili
ty
Mana
ger
Junior
Techni
cal
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
cted
Manag
er
Biolo
gist
Statistic
ian
Biolog
ical
Techni
cian
Cleri
cal
Totals
Per
Facility
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$
Burde
n
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Total
Costs**

Ye
ar
1
Y
e
a
Y
e
a
Tot
al
$
77
$
37
$
33
$
92
$
55
$
63
$
39
$
19
Capital
Costs
66
r
2
r
3
Activity
A
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
E
C+
D+
E
A*
B
A*(
C+
D)

Develop
Narrative
0
0
1
1
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
$
748
$
0
$
0
15
$
748
Perform
Engineering
Calculations
0
0
1
1
8
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
$
1,780
$
0
$
0
40
$
1,780
Submit
Data
and
Analysis
for
Review
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
$
150
$
0
$
0
8
$
150
Revise
Based
on
State
review
0
0
1
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
$
259
$
0
$
0
6
$
259
Recordkeeping
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
$
188
$
0
$
0
6
$
188
Other
Direct
Costs
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
1,000
­
$
1,000
Totals
0
0
1
1
75
$
3,124
$
0
$
1,000
$
4,124
75
$
4,124
Exhibit
A.
12g
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
Facilities
(
Responde
nts)
Facili
ty
Mana
ger
Junior
Techni
cal
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
cted
Manag
er
Biolo
gist
Statistic
ian
Biolog
ical
Techni
cian
Cleri
cal
Totals
Per
Facility
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$
Burde
n
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Total
Costs**

Ye
ar
1
Y
e
a
r
2
Y
e
a
r
3
Tot
al
$
77
$
37
$
33
$
92
$
55
$
63
$
39
$
19
Capital
Costs
Activity
A
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
E
C+
D+
E
A*
B
A*(
C+
D)

Delineate
Hydraulic
Zone
of
Influence
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
$
215
$
0
$
0
5
$
215
Develop
Narrative
Description
0
0
1
1
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
$
748
$
0
$
0
15
$
748
Perform
Engineering
Calculations
0
0
1
1
3
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
$
668
$
0
$
0
15
$
668
67
Submit
Data
and
Analysis
for
Review
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
$
56
$
0
$
0
3
$
56
Recordkeeping
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
$
169
$
0
$
0
5
$
169
Other
Direct
Costs
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
50
­
$
50
Totals
0
0
1
1
43
$
1,855
$
0
$
50
$
1,905
43
$
1,905
Exhibit
A.
12h
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
Facilities
(
Responde
nts)
Facili
ty
Mana
ger
Junior
Techni
cal
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
cted
Manag
er
Biolo
gist
Statistic
ian
Biolog
ical
Techni
cian
Cleri
cal
Totals
Per
Facility
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$
Burde
n
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Total
Costs**

Ye
ar
1
Y
e
a
r
2
Y
e
a
r
3
Tot
al
$
77
$
37
$
33
$
92
$
55
$
63
$
39
$
19
Capital
Costs
Activity
A
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
E
C+
D+
E
A*
B
A*(
C+
D)

Description
of
Historical
Studies
that
will
be
Used
1
4
1
6
6
12
0
0
0
0
0
1
19
$
916
$
0
$
0
114
$
5,494
Description
of
Proposed
and/
or
Implemented
Technologies
1
4
1
6
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
$
372
$
0
$
0
48
$
2,232
Develop
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Sampling
Plan
1
4
1
6
12
18
2
2
0
0
0
1
35
$
1,843
$
0
$
0
210
$
11,055
Submit
Data
and
Plans
for
Review
1
4
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
$
75
$
0
$
0
24
$
449
Revise
Based
on
State
Review
1
4
1
6
2
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
9
$
387
$
0
$
0
54
$
2,320
Recordkeeping
1
4
1
6
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
5
$
183
$
0
$
0
30
$
1,097
Other
Direct
Costs
1
4
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
750
­
$
4,500
Totals
1
4
1
6
80
$
3,775
$
0
$
750
$
4,525
480
$
27,148
68
Exhibit
A.
12i
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
Facilities
(
Responde
nts)
Facili
ty
Mana
ger
Junior
Tech
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
cted
Manag
er
Biolo
gist
Statistic
ian
Biolog
ical
Techni
cian
Cleri
cal
Totals
Per
Facility
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$
Burde
n
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Total
Costs**

Ye
ar
1
Y
e
a
r
2
Y
e
a
r
3
Tot
al
$
77
$
37
$
33
$
92
$
55
$
63
$
39
$
19
Capital
Costs
Activity
A
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
E
C+
D+
E
A*
B
A*(
C+
D)

Implement
Freshwater
Sampling
0
3
4
4
2
16
0
36
124
8
20
1248
10
2580
$
122,180
$
0
0
6,020
$
427,631
Other
Direct
Costs
for
Implement
Freshwater
Sampling
0
3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
3,120
$
10,920
Implement
Estuary
Sampling
1
2
2
2
3
30
0
48
243
4
30
2434
15
4994
$
235,485
$
0
0
8,323
$
392,475
Other
Direct
Costs
for
Implement
Estuary
Sampling
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
7,800
$
13,000
Biological
Study
Laboratory
Analysis
(
Freshwater)
0
3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
0
$
46,800
­
$
163,800
Biological
Study
Laboratory
Analysis
(
Estuary)
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
0
$
118,638
­
$
197,730
Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
1
4
1
6
10
6
0
10
18
0
6
2
52
$
3,155
$
0
$
0
312
$
18,932
Identification
of
Critical
Species
1
4
1
6
10
6
0
6
12
0
0
1
35
$
2,208
$
0
$
0
210
$
13,249
Description
of
Additional
Stresses
1
4
1
6
5
3
0
5
9
0
3
1
26
$
1,578
$
0
$
0
156
$
9,466
Write
Study
based
on
Results
and
Submit
for
Review
by
State
0
0
4
4
24
48
0
5
2
2
0
2
83
$
4,320
$
0
$
0
332
$
17,280
Recordkeeping
0
0
4
4
2
4
0
2
0
0
0
7
15
$
614
$
0
$
0
60
$
2,455
Finalize
study
based
on
State
review
0
0
4
4
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
2
17
$
785
$
0
$
0
68
$
3,140
69
Freshwater
Totals
4
2,808
$
134,840
$
46,800
$
3,120
$
184,760
$
7,503
$
647,272
Marine
Totals
2
5,222
$
248,145
$
118,638
$
7,800
$
374,583
8,666
$
622,806
Average
Labor
Burden
and
Costs
for
All
NPDES
Application
Activities
Facilities
(
Respondents)
Avera
ge
Burde
n
Per
Facilit
y
Average
Facility
Labor
$
Average
Capital
$
Average
O&
M
$
Average
Facility
Cost
$

Ye
ar
1
Y
e
a
r
2
Y
e
a
r
3
Total
Track
1
Freshwater
421
$
17,642
$
0
$
2,850
$
20,492
Track
1
Estuary
421
$
17,642
$
0
$
2,850
$
20,492
Track
2
Freshwater
3083
$
147,168
$
46,800
$
5,270
$
199,238
Track
2
Estuary
5497
$
260,473
$
118,638
$
9,950
$
389,061
Total
Burden
and
Costs
for
All
NPDES
Application
Activities
Total
Burden
(
hrs.)
Total
Initial
Cost
Totals
18,240
$
1,377,436
*
The
ODC
estimate
was
not
estimated
for
each
activity,
but
rather
as
a
lump
sum
for
each
provision
of
the
rule.
70
Exhibit
A.
13
Director
Burden
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Permit
Renewal
Exhibit
A.
13
Director
Permit
Reissuance
Activities
Senior
Technical
Junior
Technical
Clerical
Burden
Per
Permit
Labor
Cost
per
Permit
ODCs
lump
sum*
Total
Cost
Per
Permit
Assumed
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
$

59
34
24
Activity
Level
of
Effort
(
hrs)
B
C
D
C+
D
Reviewing
CWIS
location
and
design
data
2
5
0
7
$
287
Determine
Compliance
with
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
1
2
0
2
$
96
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
6
6
0
12
$
554
Review
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
Track
1)
7
2
0
10
$
503
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Velocity
Requirements
(
Track
1)
1
2
0
2
$
96
Determine
Compliance
with
CWIS
Flow
Reduction
Requirements
(
Track
1)
2
2
0
5
$
222
Review
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Plan
(
Track
2)
5
5
0
10
$
443
Review
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
Track
2)
80
15
0
95
$
5,194
Determine
Monitoring
Frequency
1
2
0
2
$
96
Determine
Record
keeping
and
Reporting
Frequency
1
2
0
2
$
96
Considering
Public
Comments
5
5
0
10
$
443
Issuing
Permit
0
2
0
2
$
85
Permit
Record
Keeping
0
0
1
1
$
42
Totals
110
50
1
160
$
8,156
$
300
$
8,456
71
ASSUMPTIONS
Respondents
and
Compliance
Schedule
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
8
Facility
#
5
2
2
3
9
11
11
8
7
6
9
6
6
6
5
6
4
5
RCFreshwater
1
0
0
2
4
8
7
5
6
4
4
5
3
4
4
5
2
3
RC­
Estuary
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
OTFreshwater
3
1
2
0
3
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
OT­
Estuary
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
check
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
yr
total
9
Total
Assumption
States
56
3
number
of
years
required
for
Track
2
Sourcewater
Biological
Characterization
Study
NPDES
Auth.
46
0
0
0
Labor
Assumptions
Facility
Contracted
Company
State
Labor
Categories*
Facility
Manag
e­
ment
Junior
Techni
cal
CAD
Operat
or
Contra
c­
ted
Manag
er
Biologi
st
Biologic
al
Technici
an
Statistici
an
Clerical
Labor
Categories**
Senior
Techni
cal
Junior
Techni
cal
Clerical
Labor
Rates
$/
hr
$
41.58
$
19.85
$
17.68
$
39.54
$
23.74
$
16.98
$
27.44
$
10.71
Labor
Rates
$/
hr
$
36.01
$
20.92
$
12.91
Compensation
Factor***
1.535
1.535
1.535
1.3566
1.3566
1.3566
1.3566
1.3456
Compensation
Factor
1.389
1.373
1.565
Indirect
Costs(
overhead)
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.15
Indirect
Cost(
Overhead)
1.15
1.15
1.15
72
Fee
1
1
1
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
Inflation
Factors****
1.042
1.042
1.042
1.057
1.044
1.044
1.044
1.045
1.018
1.02
1.023
Loaded
Rate
$/
hr/
01
$
76.50
$
36.50
$
32.50
$
91.90
$
54.50
$
39.00
$
63.00
$
18.70
Loaded
Rate
$/
hr/
01
$
59
$
34
$
24
*
All
labor
rates
are
from
the
BLS
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
2004­
2005
http://
stats.
bls.
gov/
ocohome.
htm
**
All
labor
rates
and
compensation
factors
are
from
the
BLS
Employment
Cost
Trends,
as
of
March
2001.

http://
stats.
bls.
gov/
news.
release/
ecec.
t04.
htm
***
Compensation
factors
are
from
the
BLS
Employment
Cost
Trends
Tables
4
and
10
reflect
June
2004,
as
of
September
2004.
http://
stats.
bls.
gov/
news.
release/
ecec.
t04.
htm
&
http://
stats.
bls.
gov/
news.
release/
ecec.
t10.
htm
****
Inflation
Factors
Labor
ratesw
from
BLS
Occupational
Handbook
were
adjusted
for
inflation
using
the
Employment
Cost
Index
(
ECI)

http://
data.
bls.
gov/
labjava/
outside.
jsp?
survey=

ec
73
Employment
Wage
and
Salary
Indexes
Dec­
02
Jun­
04
Private
Industry
1.057
Executive,
administrative,
and
managerial
occupations
1.044
Professional,
specialty,
and
technical
occupations
1.045
Administrative
support,
including
clerical,
occupations
1.042
Manufacturing;
White­
collar
occupations,
excluding
sales
occupations
Jun­
03
Jun­
04
State
and
Local
Government
1.018
Executive,
administrative,
and
managerial
occupations
1.02
Professional,
specialty,
and
technical
occupations
1.023
Administrative
support,
including
clerical,
occupations
For
the
adjustment
of
Remote
Monitoring
Device
and
Pilot
Study
Technology
from
1999
to
June
2004
ODC
Inflation
Factor
1998
8/
1/
200
4
2001
8/
1/
04
CPI
Seasonally
Adjusted
130.2
135.6
132.3
135.6
Item
:
Commodities
items
less
food
and
beverages
4.15%
2.49%
Appendix
B
NAICS
and
SIC
Codes
for
Nonutility
Power
Producers
73
Steam
Electric
Nonindustrial
Nonutility
Power
Producers1
This
industrial
sector
contains
various
reported
NAICS
and
SIC
codes2.
The
following
table
documents
the
specific
industry
sectors
covered
and
their
associated
NAICS
and
SIC
code.

3
to
6
Digit
NAICS
Code
2
Digit
SIC
Code
3
or
4
Digit
SIC
Code
Industry
Sector
111­­­
01
0100
Agriculture
Production
­
crops
112­­­
02
0200
Agriculture
Production
­
livestock
2122­­
10
1000
Metal
Mining
211­­­
13
1300
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
2123­­
14
1400
Nonmetallic
minerals,
except
fuels
311­­­,
312­­­
3115­­
3113­­
20
2000
202­
206­
Food
and
Kindred
Products
3122­­
21
2100
Tobacco
Manufacturers
313­­­,
315­­­
22
2200
Textile
and
Mill
Products
3152­­,
3159­­,
314­­­
23
2300
Apparel
and
other
textile
products
321­­­
3211­­,
3219­­
24
2400
242­
Lumber
and
Wood
Products,
Except
Furniture
337­­­
3371­­­,
3372­­­
25
2500
251­
Furniture
and
fixtures
3
to
6
Digit
NAICS
Code
2
Digit
SIC
Code
3
or
4
Digit
SIC
Code
Industry
Sector
74
322­­­
32212­
322130
26
2600
2621
2631
Paper
and
Allied
Products
Paper
Mills,
Except
Building
Paper
Paperboard
Mills
325­­­
32541­
3251­­
3251­­
325211
325­­­
325311
28
2800
283­
286­
2819
2821
2869
2873
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products
Industrial
Inorganic
Chemicals
Plastic
Materials
and
Resins
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals
Nitrogenous
Fertilizers
324­­­
32411­
324110
29
2900
291­
2911
Petroleum
Refining
and
Related
Industries
Petroleum
Refining
3
to
6
Digit
NAICS
Code
2
Digit
SIC
Code
3
or
4
Digit
SIC
Code
Industry
Sector
75
326­­­,
339­­­
32622­,
33999­
30
3000
305­
Rubber
and
miscellaneous
plastics
316­­­
31
3100
Leather
and
leather
products
327­­­
327310
32
3200
3241
Stone,
Clay,
Glass,
and
Concrete
Products
Cement,
Hydraulic
331­­­
331­­­
331111,
331221,
324199
331312
33
3300
331­
3312
3334
Primary
Metals
Industries
Blast
Furnaces
and
Steel
Mills
Primary
Aluminum
332­­­,
333­­­,
336­­­
34
3400
Fabricated
metal
products
333­­­,
332­­­,
334­­­,
336­­­
35
3500
Industrial
machinery
and
equipment
334­­­,
335­­­
36
3600
Electrical
and
electronic
equipment
336­­­
37
3700
Transportation
equipment
334­­­,
339­­­
38
3800
Instruments
and
related
products
339­­­,
332­­­
39
3900
Miscellaneous
manufacturing
industries
482­­­
40
4000
Rail
transportation
483­­­,
488­­­
44
4400
Water
transportation
481­­­,
488­­­
45
4500
Transportation
by
air
488­­­
47
4700
Transportation
services
221­­­,
562­­­
2213­­,
562­­­
49
4900
495­
Electric,
Gas,
and
Sanitary
Services
(
except
4911)

221310
4941
Water
Supply
221320
4952
Sewerage
System
56221­
4953
Refuse
System
3
to
6
Digit
NAICS
Code
2
Digit
SIC
Code
3
or
4
Digit
SIC
Code
Industry
Sector
76
531­­­
65
6500
Real
estate
561­­­,
532­­­,
541­­­,
711­­­,
812­­­
73
7300
Business
services
621­­­,
622­­­,
623­­­
80
8000
Health
Services
611­­­
6112­­,
6113­­
82
8200
822­
Educational
Services
624­­­,
813­­­
83
8300
Social
services
541­­­
87
8700
Engineering
and
management
services
814­­­
88
8800
Private
households
541­­­
89
8900
Miscellaneous
services
921­­­
91
9100
Public
Administration
1
Source
of
data
is
Form
EIA­
867
2
In
changing
from
an
SIC
code­
based
system
to
an
NAICS
code­
based
one,
all
industries
were
restructured
and
redefined
.
As
a
result,
there
may
not
be
a
direct
conversion
of
some
industries,
as
portions
of
an
industry
may
be
restructured
to
another
category.
This
table
identifies
the
primary
NAICS
codes
for
the
listed
industry
sectors,
but
EPA
notes
that
the
NAICS
codes
for
some
industries
may
not
be
included.