Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/12/26/02-32610/national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system-amendment-of-final-regulations-addressing-cooling
Timestamp: 2018-12-10 11:22:59
Document Index: 543133258

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009125', '§\u2009125', '§\u2009125', '§\u2009125', '§\u2009125', '§\u2009125', 'art\n4', '§\u2009125', '§\u2009125', '§\u2009125', '§\u2009125']

This direct final rule is effective on March 26, 2003 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by January 27, 2003. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.
78947-78955 (9 pages)
FRL-7430-4
II. Legal Authority, Purpose and Scope of Today's Direct Final Rule
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-32610 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-32610
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 78948
Today's direct final rule makes minor changes to EPA's final rule published December 18, 2001 implementing section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for new facilities that use water withdrawn from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans or other waters of the United States for cooling. The December 2001 rule established national technology-based performance requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at new facilities. The national requirements establish the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact associated with the use of these structures. EPA is making several minor changes to the December 2001 rule because, in several instances, the final rule text does not reflect the Agency's intent.
This direct final rule applies to new greenfield and stand-alone facilities that use cooling water intake structures to withdraw water from waters of the U.S. and that have or require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued under section 402 of the CWA. New facilities subject to this regulation include those that have a design intake flow of greater than two (2) million gallons per day (MGD) and that use at least twenty-five (25) percent of water withdrawn for cooling purposes. Today's rule does not apply to existing facilities, major modifications to existing facilities that would be “new sources” under 40 CFR 122.29(b) as that term is used in the effluent guidelines and standards program, or facilities that employ cooling water intake structures in the offshore oil and gas extraction point source category as defined under 40 CFR 435.10 and 40 CFR 435.40.
Federal, State and Local Government Operators of steam electric generatingpoint source dischargers that employ cooling water intake structures 4911 and 493 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122, 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122
Industry Operators of industrial point source dischargers that employ cooling water intake structures. See below See below
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact Start Printed Page 78950information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2002-0052. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit 1.A.1.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send information identified as CBI by mail only to the following address: Office of Science and Technology, Mailcode 4303T, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Martha Segall/Docket ID No. OW-2002-0052.
On December 18, 2001, EPA published a final rule implementing section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for new facilities that use water withdrawn from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans or other waters of the United States for cooling purposes. EPA often refers to the final rule implementing section 316(b) for new facilities as the “Phase I rule” (this term is used to avoid confusion with other phases of the section 316(b) rulemaking that cover existing facilities). The legal authority, background, and basis for the Phase I rule are discussed in the Federal Register notice and in the record for the rule. See 66 FR 65256, December 18, 2001. EPA reviewed the final rule text and believes that the regulatory language did not correctly reflect its intent with respect to three issues. EPA is, therefore, making several minor changes to the regulatory text. This document does not reopen the final rule in any respect other than the changes discussed here. EPA does not solicit comment on any issues except for the three discrete ones discussed here.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment since we are correcting technical errors and not otherwise amending the regulatory text of the December 2001 Phase I final rule. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to amend the Phase I final rule if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on March 26, 2003 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by January 27, 2003. If EPA receives adverse comment on one or more distinct amendment(s), paragraph(s), or section(s) of this rulemaking, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions will become effective and which provisions are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. Any distinct amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rulemaking for which we do not receive adverse comment will become effective on the date set in this direct final rule, notwithstanding any adverse comment on any other distinct amendment, paragraph or section of today's rule. If adverse comment is received, we will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
The first revision to the regulatory text relates to velocity monitoring. In the final rule for cooling water intake Start Printed Page 78951structures at new facilities, EPA required monitoring velocity at cooling water intake structures at least once per quarter. In monitoring velocity, facilities that employ surface intake screens are required to monitor head loss across the intake screens at the “minimum ambient source water surface elevation.” EPA qualified that language in the requirement by adding a parenthetical phrase that would allow the minimum ambient source water surface elevation to be determined using the Director's best professional judgment based on available hydrological data. See 40 CFR 125.87(b). However, EPA also defined “minimum ambient source water surface elevation” at 40 CFR 125.83 to mean “the elevation of the 7Q10 flow for freshwater streams or rivers; the conservation pool level for lakes or reservoirs; or the mean low tidal water level for estuaries or oceans.” EPA further defined each of these low flows in terms of a temporal and hydrological basis. See 66 FR 65339, December 18, 2001.
EPA understands that ambient source water surface elevations fluctuate through time, and it would be difficult, if not unfeasible, to coordinate the measurements of head loss to the time when these minimum ambient source water surface elevations were occurring in the waterbody. It was EPA's intent that the velocity be measured at a time that is predicted, based on knowledge of the hydrology of the waterbody, to be a time of reasonable low flow representative of the low surface elevations that might occur during the months that comprise each quarter. For example, in tidal waters the velocity measurement should be taken at a low tide. If tide tables and/or other records indicate that the surface elevations in a particular month are typically lower than in other months, the facility should measure intake velocity at one of the lowest predicted tides during that particular month. In reservoirs where water levels are drawn down at certain parts of the year, the facility should measure intake velocity immediately after a drawdown or release has occurred. In freshwater rivers and streams, the facility should measure intake velocity during the month that typically has the lowest flows. Such monitoring should occur at a time when flows are not temporarily elevated due to recent storm events. The Director should determine and specify the appropriate time of measurement in the facility's NPDES permit based on available existing hydrological information and information submitted by the owner of the facility with its permit application. Accordingly, to conform the regulatory text to EPA's intent, EPA believes that the regulatory language at 40 CFR 125.87 is sufficient and that the definition of “minimum ambient source water surface elevation” is no longer needed. Therefore, today's action will only delete the definition of “minimum ambient source water surface elevation” at 40 CFR 125.83.
The second set of revisions to the regulatory text relate to the Director's authority to require additional design and construction technologies or operational measures in Track I. There are five provisions at issue: 40 CFR 125.84(b)(4)(ii), (b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(ii), (c)(3)(ii), and (c)(3)(iii). Four of these provisions specify circumstances where design and construction technologies or operational measures for minimizing impingement mortality of fish and shellfish are required. At 40 CFR 125.84(b)(4)(ii) and (c)(3)(ii), facilities are required to select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures for minimizing impingement mortality of fish and shellfish if “There are migratory and /or sport or commercial species of impingement concern to the Director or any fishery management agency(ies), which pass through the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure.” The language should have read, “Based on information submitted by any fishery management agency(ies) or other relevant information, there are migratory and/or sport or commercial species of impingement concern to the Director that pass through the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure.” Paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) and (c)(3)(iii) require a facility to select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures for minimizing impingement mortality if “It is determined by the Director or any fishery management agency(ies)...” The language should have read, “It is determined by the Director, based on information submitted by any fishery management agency(ies) or other relevant information, that....” The fifth provision, paragraph (b)(5)(ii), addresses circumstances where design and construction technologies or operational measures are required for minimizing entrainment of entrainable life stages of fish and shellfish. The language used in this provision was similar to that in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii), (b)(4)(iii), (c)(3)(ii), and (c)(3)(iii) and therefore requires similar corrections.
The third issue relates to drafting errors in the alternative requirements section of the rule. The regulation at 40 CFR 125.85 in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) currently refers to local water resources “not addressed under § 125.84(d)(1)(i)” intending to refer to local water resource issues other than impingement or entrainment. Cross-referencing this other section of the regulations is not technically correct, however, because subsection (d) of § 125.84 is part of Track II while the alternative requirements provision applies to either Track I or Track II. Therefore, this action deletes the reference to 40 CFR 125.84(d)(1)(i) and substitutes language referencing “significant adverse impacts on local water resources other than impingement or entrainment.” Similarly, to eliminate any uncertainty regarding applicability of the alternative requirements provision at § 125.85 to the Track II performance requirements at § 125.84(d), this action deletes § 125.84(d)(ii) because it is unnecessary and confusing.
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector or the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; Start Printed Page 78952
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule merely makes three minor technical revisions to the December 2001 Phase I final regulations for cooling water intake structures. These minor changes will clarify the Agency's intent on velocity monitoring, authority to require additional design and construction technologies, and procedures for seeking less stringent alternative requirements. It would affect the same facilities as the December 2001 rule, would have no additional costs or benefits beyond those already projected, and would not reduce the level of environmental protection projected.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year. This rule merely makes three minor technical revisions to the December 2001 Phase I final regulations for cooling water intake structures. These minor changes will clarify the Agency's intent on velocity monitoring, authority to require additional design and construction technologies, and procedures for seeking less stringent alternative requirements. It would affect the same facilities as the December 2001 rule, would have no additional costs or benefits beyond those already projected, and would not reduce the level of environmental protection projected. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same reasons, EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
After considering the economic impact of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule does not substantively change the December 18, 2001 Phase I final rule (66 FR 65256), nor does it impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule merely makes three minor technical revisions to the December 2001 rule for cooling water intake structures. These minor changes will clarify the Agency's intent on velocity monitoring, authority to require additional design and construction technologies, and procedures for seeking less stringent alternative requirements. It would affect the same facilities as the December 2001 rule, would have no additional costs or benefits beyond those already projected, and would not reduce the level of environmental protection projected.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure Start Printed Page 78953“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule merely makes three minor technical revisions to the December 2001 Phase I final regulations for cooling water intake structures. These minor changes will clarify the Agency's intent on velocity monitoring, authority to require additional design and construction technologies, and procedures for seeking less stringent alternative requirements. It would affect the same facilities as the December 2001 rule, would have no additional costs or benefits beyond those already projected, and would not reduce the level of environmental protection projected. Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
This direct final rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule merely makes three minor technical revisions to the final regulations for cooling water intake structures. These minor changes will clarify the Agency's intent on velocity monitoring, authority to require additional design and construction technologies, and procedures for seeking less stringent alternative requirements. It would affect the same facilities as the December 2001 rule, would have no additional costs or benefits beyond those already projected, and would not reduce the level of environmental protection projected. This rule does not affect Tribes in any way in the foreseeable future. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe might have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866 and does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This rule merely makes three minor technical revisions to the final regulations for cooling water intake structures. These minor changes will clarify the Agency's intent on velocity monitoring, authority to require additional design and construction technologies, and procedures for seeking less stringent alternative requirements. It would affect the same facilities as the December 2001 rule, would have no additional costs or benefits beyond those already projected, and would not reduce the level of environmental protection projected. Therefore, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (“NTTAA”) of 1995 (Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This direct final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
EPA does not expect that this final rule would have an exclusionary effect, deny persons the benefit of the NPDES program or subject persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. This rule merely makes three minor technical revisions to the final regulations for cooling water intake structures. These minor changes will clarify the Agency's intent on velocity monitoring, authority to require additional design and construction technologies, and procedures for seeking less stringent alternative requirements. It would affect Start Printed Page 78954the same facilities as the December 2001 rule, would have no additional costs or benefits beyond those already projected, and would not reduce the level of environmental protection projected.
Today's direct final rule will not enhance or expand protection nor reduce the level of environmental protection of existing marine protected areas. This rule merely makes three minor technical revisions to the December 2001 Phase I final regulations for cooling water intake structures. These minor changes will clarify the Agency's intent on velocity monitoring, authority to require additional design and construction technologies, and procedures for seeking less stringent alternative requirements. It would affect the same facilities as the December 2001 rule, would have no additional costs or benefits beyond those already projected, and would not reduce the level of environmental protection projected.
Executive Order 12866 encourages agencies to write all rules in plain language. EPA has written this direct final rule in plain language to make this rule and the final rule at 66 FR 65256, December 18, 2001 easier to understand.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective March 26, 2003.
Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 125.83, remove the definition for “Minimum ambient source water surface elevation.”
3. Section 125.84 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4)(ii), (b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(ii), (c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(iii), and (d)(1) to read as follows:
(ii) Based on information submitted by any fishery management agency(ies) or other relevant information, there are or would be undesirable cumulative stressors affecting entrainable life stages of species of concern to the Director and the Director determines that the proposed facility, after meeting the technology-based performance requirements in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, would contribute unacceptable stress to these species of concern;
(iii) It is determined by the Director, based on information submitted by any fishery management agency(ies) or other relevant information, that the proposed facility, after meeting the technology-based performance requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, would contribute unacceptable stress to the protected species, critical habitat of those species, or species of concern;
(1) You must demonstrate to the Director that the technologies employed will reduce the level of adverse environmental impact from your cooling water intake structures to a comparable level to that which you would achieve were you to implement the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. This demonstration must include a showing that the impacts to fish and shellfish, including important forage and predator species, within the watershed will be comparable to those which would result if you were to implement the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. This showing may include consideration of impacts other than impingement mortality and entrainment, including measures that will result in increases in fish and shellfish, but it must demonstrate comparable performance for species that the Director identifies as species of concern. In identifying such species, the Director may consider information provided by national, state, or tribal fishery management agencies with responsibility for fisheries potentially affected by your cooling water intake structure along with data and information from other sources.
Start Printed Page 78955 Start Amendment Part
4. Section 125.85 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) to read as follows:
5. Section 125.89 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
§ 125.89
As the Director, what must I do to comply with the requirements of this subpart?
(2) Monitoring conditions. At a minimum, the permit must require the permittee to perform the monitoring required in § 125.87. [For facilities required to perform the velocity monitoring in § 125.87(b), you should determine and specify the appropriate time of measurement in the permit based on available existing hydrological information and information submitted by the owner of the facility with its permit application.] You may modify the monitoring program when the permit is reissued and during the term of the permit based on changes in physical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure. The Director may require continued monitoring based on the results of the Verification Monitoring Plan in § 125.86(c)(2)(iv)(D).
[FR Doc. 02-32610 Filed 12-24-02; 8:45 am]