ML061420188
| ML061420188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 07/09/2004 |
| From: | Environmental Protection Agency |
| To: | Office of New Reactors |
| Shared Package | |
| ML061380814 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML061420188 (110) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:41576 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION sell it to another entity for transmission. mail address for the above contacts is AGENCY The national requirements, which will rule.316b epa.gov. Qa 40 CFR Parts 9,122,123,124, and 125 be implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, are based on the best SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information (~ FRL-7625-91 technology available to minimize the RIN 2040-AD62 adverse environmental impact A. What EntitiesAre Regulatedby This associated with the use of cooling water Action? National Pollutant Discharge intake structures. This final rule applies to Phase II Elimination System-Final Regulations Today's final rule establishes existing facilities that are point sources; to Establish Requirements for Cooling performance standards that are as their primary activity both generate Water Intake Structures at Phase II projected to reduce impingement and transmit electric power or generate Existing Facilities mortality by 80 to 95 percent and, if electric power for sale to another entity AGENCY: Environmental Protection applicable, entrainment by 60 to 90 for transmission; use or propose to use Agency (EPA). percent. With the implementation of one or more cooling water intake today's final rule, EPA intends to structures with a total design intake ACTION: Final rule. minimize the adverse environmental flow of 50 million gallons per day
SUMMARY
- Today's final rule implements impact of cooling water intake (MGD) or more to withdraw water from section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act structures by reducing the number of waters of the United States; and use 25 (CWA) for certain existing power aquatic organisms lost as a result of percent of water withdrawn exclusively producing facilities that employ a water withdrawals associated with these for cooling water purposes. This rule cooling water intake structure and are structures. defines "existing facility" as any facility designed to withdraw 50 million gallons DATES: This regulation is effective that commenced constructions on or per day (MGD) or more of water from September 7,2004. For judicial review before January 17, 2002, and any rivers. str0 ms, lakes, reservoirs, purposes, this final rule is promulgated modification of, or anv addition of a estuaries, oceans, or other waters of the as of 1lp.m. Eastern Standard Time unit at such a facility that does not meet United States for cooling purposes. This (EST) on July 23, 2004, as provided in the definition of a new facility at final rule constitutes Phase II of EPA's 40 CFR 23.2. § 125.83.
section 316(b) regulation development ADDRESSES: The docket for today's final This rule defines the term "cooling and establishes national requirements, rule is available for public inspection at water intake structure" to mean the total and procedures for implementing those the Water Docket in the EPA Docket physical structure and any associated requirements, applicable to the location, Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room constructed waterways used to design, construction, and capacity of B102,1301 Constitution Ave., NW., withdraw cooling water from waters of
- cooling water intake structures at these Washington, DC. the United States. The cooling water AK facilities. The rule applies to existing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For intake structure extends from the point 6" facilities that, as their primary activity, additional technical information contact at which water is withdrawn from the both generate and transmit electric Martha Segall at (202) 566-1041 or surface water source up to, and power or generate electric power but Debra Hart at (202) 566-6379. The e- including, the intake pumps.
Stanard ndutr~a Clasi- North American Industry Category Examples of regulated entities Standard Industial Classl- Classification Sytem _________ __(SIC)__codes__(NAICS) codes Federal, State, and Local Government ... Steam electric generating point source 4911 and 493 ..................... 221112, 221113,2211t19, dischargers that employ cooling water 221121,221122 Intake structures. Industry ................................................. Steam electric generating Industrial point 491 and 493 .221112,221113,221119, source dischargers that employ cool- 221121, 221122 ing water Intake structures (this In-dudes utilities and nonutilities). This exhibit is not intended to be preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION information claimed as Confidential exhaustive, but rather provides a guide CONTACT section. Business Information (CBI) or other for readers regarding entities likely to be Information the disclosure of which is regulated by this action. This exhibit B. How Can I Get Copies of This restricted by statute. The official public lists the types of entities that EPA is Document and Other Related docket is the collection of materials that Information? is available for public viewing at the now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 1. Docket Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, entities not listed in the exhibit could (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 also be regulated. To determine whether EPA has established an official public Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, your facility is regulated by this action, docket for this action under Docket ID DC The EPA Docket Center Public you should carefully examine the No. OW 2002-0049. The official public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to applicability criteria in § 125.91 of the docket consists-of the documents 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, rule. If you have questions regarding the specifically referenced in this action, excluding legal holidays. The telephone any public comments received, and number for the Public Reading Room is ( applicability of this action to a other information related to this action. (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
' ,articularentity, consult the person Although a part of the official docket, number for the Water Docket is (202) listed for technical information in the the public docket does not include 566-2426. To view docket materials,
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41577 please call ahead to schedule an B. How Can I Get Copies Of This Document G. Are Permits for Existing Facilities appointment. Every user is entitled to and Other Related Information? Subject to Requirements Under Other copy 266 pages per day before incurring C. Supporting Documentation Federal Statutes? D. Table of Contents H. Alternative Site-Specific Requirements a charge. The Docket may charge 15 'f.i cents for each page over the 266-page limit plus an administrative fee of H. Scope and Applicability of the Final Rule A. What is an "Existing Facility" for Purposes of the Section 316(b) Phase II X. Engineering Cost Analysis A. Technology Cost Modules B. Model Facility Cost Development 0
$25.00. Rule C Facility Flow Modifications P. What is "Cooling Water" and What is a XI. Economic Analysis
- 2. Electronic Access "Cooling Water Intake Structure?" A. Final Rule Costs You may access this Federal Register C. Is My Facility Covered if it Withdraws B. Final Rule Impacts document electronically through the from Waters of the United States? XII. Benefits Analysis D. Is My Facility Covered if it is a Point A. Introduction EPA Internet under the "Federal B. Regional Study Design Register" listings at http:// Source Discharger?
E. What Cooling Water Use and Design C. The Physical Impacts of Impingement www.ega.gov/fedrgstr/. Intake Flow Thresholds Result in an and Entrainment Ane eltonic version of the public Existing Facility Being Subject to This D. National Benefits of Rule docket is available through EPA's Rule? E. Other Considerations electronic public docket and comment m. Legal Authority, Purpose, and XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Background of Today's Regulation A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Dockets at http.//www.epa.gov/edocketl A. Legal Authority Planning and Review B. Purpose of Today's Regulation B. Paperwork Reduction Act to view public comments, access the C. Regulatory Flexibility Act index listing of the contents of the C Background IV. Environmental Impacts Associated With D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act official public docket, and to access Cooling Water Intake Structures E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism those documents in the public docket V. Description of the Final Rule F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation that are available electronically. VI. Summary of Most Significant Revisions to and Coordination With Indian Tribal Although not all docket materials may the Proposed Rule Governments be available electronically, you may still A. Data Updates- - -. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of access any of the publicly available B. Regulatory Approach, Calculation Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks docket materials through the docket Baseline, and Measuring Compliance VII. Basis for the Final Regulation H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that facility identified in section I.B.1. Once Significantly Affect Energy Supply, in the system, select "search," then key A. Why is EPA Establishing a Multiple Distribution, or Use Compliance Alternative Approach for in the appropriate docket identification Determining Best Technology Available 1.National Technology Transfer and number. Advancement Act for Minimizing Adverse Environmental J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions C. SupportingDocumentation Impact? to Address Environmental Justice in B. Why and How Did EPA Establish the Minority Populations and Low-Income ( > The final regulation is supported by Performance Standards at These Levels? '. three major documents: 1L Economic and Benefits Analysis for C What Is the Basis for the Five Compliance Alternatives That EPA Populations K Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas 0) the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Selected for Establishing Best L. Congressional Review Act Existing Facilities Rule (EPA-821-R- Technology Available? 04-005), hereafter referred to as the D. How Has EPA Assessed Economic H. Scope and Applicability of the Final Economic and Benefits Analysis. This Practicability? Rule E. What are the Major Options Considered This rule applies to owners and document presents the analysis of for the Final Rule and Why did EPA compliance costs, closures, energy Reject Them? operators of existing facilities, as supply effects, and benefits associated F. What is the Role of Restoration and defined in § 125.93 of today's rule that with the final rule. Trading Under Today's Final Rule? meet all of the following criteria:
- 2. Regional Analysis for the Final VIII. Summary of Major Comments and
- The facility's primary activity is to Section 316(b) Phase H Existing Responses to the Proposed Rule and generate electric power. The facility Facilities Rule (EPA-821-R-04-006), Notice of Data Availability (NODA) either transmits the electric power itself, hereafter referred to as the Regional A. Scope and Applicability or sells the electric power to another Analysis Document or the Regional B. Environmental Impact Associated with entitv for transmission; Study(ies) Document. This document Cooling Water Intake Structures *The facility is a point source that C. Performance Standards uses or proposes to use one or more examines cooling water intake structure D. Site-Specific Approach impacts and regulatory benefits at the E. Implementation cooling water intake structures, regional level. including a cooling water intake F. Restoration
- 3. Technical Development Document G. Costs structure operated by an independent for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II H. Benefits supplier that withdraws water from Existing Facilities Rule (EPA-821-R- 1.EPA Legal Authority waters of the United States and provides 04-007), hereafter referred to as the IX. Implementation cooling water to the facility by any sort Technical Development Document. This A. When Does the Final Rule Become of contract or other arrangement;.
document presents detailed information Effective?
- The cooling water intake on the methods used to develop unit B. What Information Must I Submit to the structurets) withdraw(s) cooling water Director When I Apply for My Reissued from waters of the United States and at costs and describes the set of NPDES Permit?
technologies that may be used to meet C How Will the Director Determine the least twenty-five (25) percent of the. the final rule's requirements. Appropriate Cooling Water Intake water withdrawn is used exclusively for Structure Requirements? cooling purposes measured on an D. Table of Contents D. What Will I Be Required to Monitor? average annual basis; 1.General Information E. How Will Compliance Be Determined? *The facility is a point source; and A. What Entities Are Regulated By This F. What Are the Respective Federal, State,
- The cooling water intake structures Action? and Tribal Roles? have a total design intake flow of 50
41578 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations million gallons per day (MGD) or A. What Is an "Existing Facility"for The preamble to the final Phase I rule greater. Purposesof the Section 316(b) Phase II discusses this definition at 66 FR 65256; In the case of a Phase I existing Rule? 65258-65259; 65285-65287, December 18, 2001. l(*, acility that is co-located with a In today's rule, EPA is defining the EPA included in its Phase UI proposed
~"manufacturing facility, only that portion term "existing facility" to include any rule a freestanding definition of of the cooling water flow that is used by facility that commenced construction as "existing facility." That definition read the Phase I facility to generate described in 40 CFR 122.29(b)(4) 1 on or as follows:
electricity for sale to another entity will before January 17, 2002. EPA "Existing facility means any facility be considered when determining established January 17, 2002 as the date that commenced construction before whether the 50 MGD and 25 percent for distinguishing new facilities from January 17, 2002; and criteria are met. Facilities subject to this existing ones because that is the (1)Any modification of such a final rule are referred to as "Phase II effective date of the Phase I new facility facility; existing facilities." Existing facilities rule. In addition, EPA is defining the (2) Any addition of a unit at such a with design flows below the 50 MGD' term "existing facility" in this rule to facility for purposes of the same threshold, as well as most existing include modifications and additions to industrial operation; manufacturing facilities, offshore such facilities, the construction of (3) Any addition of a unit at such a which commences after January 17, facility for purposes of a different seafood processors, and offshore and 2002, that do not meet the definition of coastal oil and gas extraction facilities industrial operation, if the additional a new facility at 40 CFR 125.83, the unit uses an existing cooling water are not subject to this rule. Those definition used to define the scope of facilities have different characteristics intake structure and the design capacity the Phase I rule. That definition states: of the intake structure is not increased; as compared to the large, power-generating facilities subject to today's "Newfacilitymeans any building, or structure, facility, or installation that meets (4) Any facility constructed in place rule. If an existing facility is a point the definition of a 'new source' or anew of such a facility, if the newly source and has or is required to have an discharger' in [other NPDES regulations) and constructed facility uses an existing NPDES permit, but does not meet the is a greenfield or stand-alone'facility; cooling water intake structure whose applicability thresholds in today's rule, commences construction after January 17, design intake flow is not increased to it is subject to permit conditions 2002; and uses either a newly constructed cooling water intake structure, or an existing accommodate the intake of additional implementing section 316(b) of the cooling water." 67 FR 17221. cooling water intake structure whose design CWA set by the permit director on a capacity is increased to accommodate the Upon further consideration, EPA has case-by-case basis, using best intake of additional cooling water. New decided that it would be clearest to professional judgment. EPA expects to facilities include only 'greenfield' and 'stand- define existing facility primarily by address at least some of these facilities alone' facilities. A greenfield facility is a stating that any facility that is not a new tin a separate rulemaking, referred to as facility that is constructed at a site at which facility under 40 CFR 125.83 is an kPhase in. no other source is located or that totally existing facility for purposes of this replaces the process or production subpart. Accordingly, the language in In the preamble to the proposed rule equipment at an existing facility (see 40 CFR EPA indicated that its intent was to 122.29(b)(1)(ij and (ii). A stand-alone facility this final rule is intended to be clear and exclude from regulation under the Phase is a new, separate facility that is constructed consistent with EPA's definition of new I rule existing facilities whose primary on property where an existing facility is facility in the Phase I rule at 40 CFR locatetd and whose processes are 125.83. In addition, the definition in business is manufacturing. See, e.g., 67 substantially independent of the existing today's regulation is also intended to FR 17124 (April 9, 2002). At the same facility at the same site (see 40 CFR ensure that sources excluded from the time, in § 125.91(a)(3) of the proposed 122.29(b)(1)(iii). New facility does not definition of new facility in the Phase I rule, the applicability criteria covered include new units that are added to a facility rule are captured by the definition of facilities that both generate and transmit for purposes of the same general industrial existing facility for the purposes of electric power, or generate electric operation (for example, a new peaking unit at an electrical generating station)." 2 today's rule. At the same time, EPA power but sell it to another entity for believes that the approach taken in transmission. Numerous commenters 1 Construction is commenced if the owner or indicated concerns that, as proposed, operator has undertaken certain installation and site independent industrial operation. The cooling
§ 125.91(a)(3) would not clearly exclude preparation activities that are part of a continuous water intake structure used by the original facility all existing manufacturing facilities on-site construction program, and it includes is modified by constructing a new intake bay for the entering into certain specified binding contractual use of the newly constructed facility or Is otherwise from the Phase 1[ rule since some obligations as one criterion (40 CFR 122.29(b)(4)). modified to increase the intake capacity for the new facilities generate electric power facility.
a The Phase I rule also listed examples of facilities (2)Examples of facilities that would not be primarily for their own use, but transmit that would be "new" facilities and facilities that or sell any surplus. Therefore, for the considered a 'new facility' indude, but are not would "not be considered a 'new facility' in two limited to, the following scenarios: : final rule, EPA revised § 125.91 so that numbered paragraphs. These read as follows: (I)A facility in commercial or industrial it reaches only those existing facilities "(1) Examples of 'new facilities' include, but are operation is modified and either continues to use not limited to: the following scenarios: I its original cooling water Intake structure or uses a that generate and transmit or sell (i) A new facility Is constructed on a site that has new or modified cooling water intake structure. electric power as their primary activity. never been used for industrial or commercial (ii) A facility has an existing intake structure. The final rule does not apply to existing activity. It has a new cooling water intake structure Another facility (a separate and independent manufacturing facilities, including for its own use. industrial operation), is constructed on the same (ii) A facility Is demolished and another facility property and connects to the facility's cooling water manufacturing facilities that generate is constructed in Its place. The newly-constructed intake structure behind the intake pumps, and the power for their own use and transmit facility uses the original facility's cooling water design capacity of the cooling water intake structure any surplus power, or sell it for intake structure, but modifies it to increase the has not been increased. This facility would not be transmission, provided the primary design capacity to accommodate the intake of considered a 'new facility' even if routine additiona cooling water. maintenance or repairs that do not increase the activity of the facility is not electric (iii) A facility Is constructed on the same property design capacity were performed on the intake power generation. as an existing facility, but is a separate and structure."
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41579 today's rule is identical in terms of
- An existing power generating with a new facility accompanied by an effect to the approach in the proposed facility completely rebuilds its process increase in design capacity of the rule. Thus, the approach taken in but uses the existing cooling water cooling water intake structure. As the 6 > today's final rule is in no way intended intake structure with no increase in preamble explained: "The definition of K.M to change the scope of the rule as design capacity. a new facility in the final rule applies compared with the proposal as far as the Phase II existing facilities subject to to a facility that is repowered only if the facilities treated as "existing" facilities today's rule include point sources that existing facility has been demolished under the rule. The change is in drafting do not presently use, but propose to use, and another facility is constructed in its technique, not in meaning. cooling water intake structures and do place, and modifies the existing cooling The facility encompassed by today's not meet the definition of new facility water intake structure to increase the regulation is the point source that uses at § 125.83. This is appropriate because design intake capacity." Id.2a By a cooling water intake structure to there may be some cases in which an contrast, the Phase I rule treated the generate electric power. This is because existing facility historically withdrew addition of a new unit for purposes of the requirements of CWA section 316(b) its cooling water from a municipal or a different industrial operation as an are implemented through NPDES other source, but then decides to existing facility only if it used an permits, which are issued only to point withdraw cooling water from a water of existing cooling water intake structure source dischargers of pollutants to the United States. In these cases, the whose design intake flow was not waters of the United States. A point facility may not previously have met all increased.
source generating electric power would of the criteria applicable to an existing The Phase II proposed rule continued be subject toPhase I or Phase 11 even if facility under today's rule (i.e., the this approach in its definition of the cooling water intake structure it uses facility did not previously withdraw "existing facility." It continued to treat is located elsewhere. Similarly, cooling waters from a water of the all changes to existing facilities for modifications or additions to the United States) but may make changes purposes of the same industrial cooling water intake structure (or even that would place the facility within the operation as an existing facility unless the total replacement of an existing scope of today's rule. A comparable the change was a complete demolition cooling water intake structure with a situation would be when a facility. and replacement of the facility. new one) does not convert an otherwise previously relied on units that do not accompanied by an increase in cooling unchanged existing facility into a new require cooling water, and then adds or water intake design capacity. It also facility, regardless of the purpose of modifies a unit for purposes of the same continued to treat the addition of new such changes (e.g., to comply with industrial operation (i.e., power units for purposes of a different today's rule or to increase capacity). generation) such that cooling water is industrial operation differently, only Rather, the determination as to whether subsequently required. For example, an allowing them to be "existing facilities" a facility is new or existing focuses on existing power generating facility that if they used an existing cooling water the power-generating point source itself, adds a new generating unit at the same intake structure and did not increase its site for purposes of repowering i.e., whether it is a greenfield facility or concurrently increases the design and design intake flow. 67 FR 17221. In a stand-alone facility. This focus on the capacity of its existing cooling water putting forth this proposed definition, () EPA noted that it had collected data point source discharger is consistent intake structure(s), or adds a new intake from a variety of sources, including with section 316(b), which by its structure where it did not previously survey data, specifically relating to express terms applies only to point need one, for example when converting repowering facilities. Id. at 17131-sources. a gas turbine to a combined cycle unit, 17135. It also made a point of Under this rule, an existing power would be considered an existing facility. explaining the wide variety of generating facility that uses a cooling In the preamble to the Phase I rule, repowering activities that an existing water intake structure and repowers by EPA noted that it had defined "existing facility could undertake under the either replacing or modifying an facility" in a manner consistent with proposed rule-anything short of existing generating unit would remain existing NPDES regulations with a demolition of an existing facility and its subject to regulation as a Phase II limited exception. EPA noted that it had replacement with a new facility existing facility, unless the existing generally deferred regulation of new combined with increasing the design facility were completely demolished sources constructed on a site at which capacity of a cooling water intake and another facility constructed in its an existing source is located until the structure-while still being regulated as place that used either a new intake Agency had completed analysis of its an "existing facility" rather than a "new structure or the existing structure with survey data on existing facilities. 66 FR facility." Id. at 17128. an increased design capacity. For 65286. Accordingly, the Phase I rule On the basis of the analysis of the example, the following facility treated almost all changes to existing survey data and other information in the modifications or additions would result facilities for purposes of the same record, the Agency now has concluded in a facility being characterized as an industrial operation as existing that it should adhere to its provisional existing facility under today's rule: facilities. These included the addition of
- An existing power generating new generating units at the same site, zaBecause they are part of the same "industrial facility undergoes a modification of its even where they required an increase in operation," such units are not "stand-alone" process short of total replacement of the cooling water intake structure design facilities for purposes of the "new facility" definition. As the fifth sentence of the definition of process and concurrently increases the capacity or the construction of a new "new facility" explains, they are categorically design capacity of its existing cooling cooling water intake structure, as well treated as "existing facilities" regardless of any water intake structures: as the complete demolition of an other considerations unless they completely replace an existing facility and its cooling water design
- An existing power generating existing facility and its replacement intake capacity is increased. Accordingly, there is facility builds a new process at its site with a new facility, so long as it did not thus no need to make a determination whether they for purposes of the same industrial increase the design capacity of the are "substantially independent" of the existing operation and concurrently increases cooling water intake structure. The only facility at the same site under the fourth sentence of the definition in order to determine whether they the design capacity of its existing exception was the demolition of an are "existing" or "new facilities." The fifth sentence cooling water intake structures; existing facility and its replacement alone controls that question.
41580 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations decision generally giving wide latitude applies to new facilities. A cooling the capacity (i.e., dynamic capacity) of to existing facilities to make changes or water intake structure is defined as the the intake. These pumps, which bring in additions to their facilities at the same total physical structure and any water, are an essential component of the site. In particular, new units that are associated constructed waterways used cooling water intake structure since
) added to a facility for purposes of the to withdraw cooling water from waters without them the intake could not work same general industrial operation of the United States. Under the as designed.
should be treated as existing facilities definition in today's rule, the cooling C. Is My FacilityCovered if It Withdraws because limitations associated with an water intake structure extends from the From Waters of the United States? existing site make it inappropriate to point at which water is withdrawn from subject such units to new facility the surface water source up to, and The requirements finalized today requirements. These limitations include including, the intake pumps. Today's apply to cooling water intake structures space, existing location on a waterbody, rule adopts the new facility rule's that have the design capacity to location in already congested areas definition of "'coolingwater": Water withdraw amounts of water equal to or which could affect (if Phase 1 used for contact or noncontact cooling, greater than the specified intake flow requirements were applied) visibility including water used for equipment threshold from "waters of the United impairment, highway and airport safety cooling, evaporative cooling tower States." Waters of the United States issues, noise abatement issues, salt drift makeup, and dilution of effluent heat include the broad range of surface and corrosion problems and additional content. The definition specifies that the waters that meet the regulatory energy requirements. Moreover, power intended use of cooling water is to definition at 40 CFR 122.2, which generation facilities should not be absorb waste heat rejected from the includes lakes, ponds, reservoirs, discouraged from making any upgrade, processes used, or auxiliary operations nontidal rivers or streams, tidal rivers, modification, or repowering that would on the facility's premises. The definition estuaries, fjords, oceans, bays, and increase energy efficiency or supply out also indicates that water used in a coves. These potential sources of of concern that they would be manufacturing process either before or cooling water may be adversely affected considered a new facility for purposes after it is used for cooling is process, by impingement and entrainment. of-section, 316(b). Additional benefits water for both cooling and non-cooling Some facilities discharge heated water will be realized in terms of reducing purposes and would not be considered to cooling ponds, then withdraw water industrial sprawl if incremental power cooling water for purposes of from the ponds for cooling purposes. generation is not discouraged at existing EPA recognizes that cooling ponds may, determining whether 25 percent or more in certain circumstances, constitute part power generation sites. These of the flow is cooling water. This considerations counsel in favor of clarification is necessary because of a closed-cycled cooling system. See, treating new units locating at existing cooling water intake structures typically e.g., 40 CFR 125.83. However, EPA does sites as existing rather than new not intend this rule to change the bring water into a facility for numerous Qt facilities. EPA also noted when it promulgated the Phase I rule (see 66 FR 65286) that it is not feasible for the purposes, including industrial processes; use as circulating water, service water, or evaporative cooling regulatory status of cooling ponds. Cooling ponds are neither categorically included nor categorically excluded permit authority to judge whether the from the definition of "waters of the tower makeup water; dilution of effluent United States" at 40 CFR 122.2. EPA facility could have been located heat content; equipment cooling; and air elsewhere for the purpose of interprets 40 CFR 122.2 to give permit conditioning. EPA notes that this writers discretion to regulate cooling determining whether the facility is clarification does not change the fact subject to the new facility rules. ponds as "waters of the United States" that only the intake water used where cooling ponds meet the definition Accordingly, EPA has decided to retain exclusively for cooling purposes is the Phase I definition's provision that a of "waters of the United States." The new facility does not include new units counted when determining whether the determination whether a particular that are added to a facility for purposes 25 percent threshold in § 125.91(a)(4) is cooling pond is or is not a water of the of the same general industrial operation. met. United States is to be made by the As noted above, this decision is fully This definition of "cooling water permit writer on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the approach to this intake structure" differs from the informed by the principles enunciated issue laid out in the proposed Phase II definition provided in the 1977 Draft in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook rule. Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps The final rule definition of "existing Impact of Cooling Water Intake of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). facility" is sufficiently broad that it Structures on the Aquatic Environment: Therefore, facilities that withdraw encompasses facilities that will be Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500 (U.S. EPA, cooling water from cooling ponds that addressed under the Phase m rule (e.g.,, 1977). The final rule definition clarifies are waters of the United States and that existing power generating facilities with that the cooling water intake structure meet today's other criteria for coverage design flows below the 50 MGD includes the physical structure that- (including the requirement that the threshold, certain existing extends from the point at which water facility has or will be required to obtain manufacturing facilities, seafood is withdrawn from the surface water up an NPPES permit) are subject to today's processors, and offshore and coastal oil to and including the intake pumps. rule. The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps and gas extraction facilities). EPA notes, Inclusion of the term "associated of Engineers have jointly issued however, that these facilities are not constructed waterways" in today's rule jurisdictional guidance concerning the covered under this rule because they do is intended to clarify that the definition term "waters of the United States" in not meet the requirements of § 125.91. includes those canals, channels, light of the Supreme Court's decision in connecting waterways, and similar Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook B. What Is "Cooling Water" and What structures that may be built or modified County v. U.S. Army Corps of Is a "Cooling Water Intake Structure?" to facilitate the withdrawal of cooling Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) IToday's rule adopts for Phase II water. The explicit inclusion of the (SWANCC). A copy of that guidance existing facilities the same definition of intake pumps in the definition reflects was published as an Appendix to an a "cooling water intake structure" that the key role pumps play in determining Advanced Notice of Proposed
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41581 Rulemaking on the definition of the States. Section 125.91(c) of today's rule determining whether the 50 MGD and phrase "waters of the U.S.," see 68 FR addresses such a situation. It provides 25 percent criteria have been exceeded. 1991 (January 15, 2003), and may be that use of a cooling water intake EPA chose the 50 MGD threshold to C. obtained at (http.//www.epa.gov/owow/ structure includes obtaining cooling focus the rule on the largest existing 4 - wetlands/ANPRM-FR.pdf). Section 125.91(d) also provides, similar to the new facility rule, that facilities that water by any sort of contract or arrangement with one or more independent suppliers of cooling water power generating facilities. EPA estimates that the 50 MGD threshold U will subject approximately 543 of 902 obtain cooling water from a public water if the supplier or suppliers withdraw (60 percent) existing power generating system or use treated effluent are not water from waters of the United States facilities to this final rule and will deemed to be using a cooling water but that is not itself a Phase I existing address approximately 90 percent of the intake structure for purposes of this facility. This provision is intended to total flow withdrawn by these facilities. rule. prevent facilities from circumventing EPA established the 50 MGD threshold D. Is My FacilityCovered if It Is a Point the requirements of today's rule by because the regulation of existing SourceDischarger? creating arrangements to receive cooling facilities with flows of 50 MGD or water from an entity that is not itself a greater in Phase UI will address those Today's rule applies only to facilities Phase I existing facility. that are point sources (i.e., have an In addressing facilities that have or existing power generating facilities with NPDES permit or are required to obtain are required to have an NPDES permit the greatest potential to cause or one) because they discharge or might that do not directly control the intake contribute to adverse environmental discharge pollutants, including storm structure that supplies their facility with impact. In addition, EPA has limited water, from a point source to waters of cooling water, section 125.91(d) also data on impacts at facilities the Unifes States. This is the same provides, similar to the new facility withdrawing less than 50 MGD. requirement EPA included in the Phase rule, that facilities that obtain cooling Deferring regulation of such facilities to I new facility rule at 40 CFR water from a public water system or use Phase HI provides an additional 125.81(a)(1). Requirements for treated effluent are not deemed to be opportunity for the Agency to collect complying with section 316(b) will using a cooling water intake structure impingement and entrainment data for continue to be applied through NPDES for purposes of this rule. these smaller facilities. permits. As EPA stated in the preamble to the Similarly, because Phase U existing Based on the Agency's review of final Phase I rule (66 FR 65256 facilities typically use far more than 25 potential Phase 1 existing facilities that December 18, 2001), the Agency percent of the water they withdraw for employ cooling water intake structures, encourages the Director to closely cooling purposes, EPA established the the Agency anticipates that most examine scenarios in which a facility 25 percent threshold to ensure that existing power generating facilities that withdraws significant amounts of nearly all cooling water and the largest C-C_ will be subject to this rule will control
. the intake structure that supplies them with cooling water, and discharge some cooling water from waters of the United States but is not required to obtain an NPDES permit. As appropriate, the existing facilities using cooling water intake structures are addressed by today's requirements. As in the Phase I combination of their cooling water, Director should apply other legal rule, water used for both cooling and wastewater, and storm water to a water requirements, such as section 404 or 401 non-cooling purposes does not count of the United States through a point of the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone towards the 25 percent threshold. Thus, source regulated by an NPDES permit. Management Act, the National the rule does not discourage the reuse In this scenario, the requirements for the Environmental Policy Act, the of cooling water as process water or vice cooling water intake structure will be Endangered Species Act, or similar State versa. Water that serves as cooling water specified in the facility's NPDES permit. or Tribal authorities to address adverse but is either previously or subsequently In the event that a Phase I existing environmental impact caused by cooling used as process water is not considered facility's only NPDES permit is a general water intake structures at those cooling water for purposes of permit for storm water discharges, the facilities. determining the percentage of the water Agency anticipates that the Director withdrawn that is used for cooling and would write an individual NPDES E. What Cooling Water Use and Design Intake Flow Thresholds Result in an whether that percentage equals or permit containing requirements for the exceeds 25 percent. Water withdrawn facility's cooling water intake structure. Existing FacilityBeing Subject to This Rule? for non-cooling purposes includes water Alternatively, requirements applicable - withdrawn for warming by liquified to cooling water intake structures could This final rule applies to existing natural gas facilities and water be incorporated into general permits. If facilities that are point sources and use withdrawn for public water systems by requirements are placed into a general cooling water intake structures that (1) desalinization facilities.
permit, they must meet the criteria set withdraw cooling water from waters of out at 40 CFR 122.28. the United States and use at least HI. Legal Authority, Purpose, and The Agency also recognizes that some twenty-five (25) percent of the water Background of Today's Regulation facilities that have or are required to- withdrawn exclusively for cooling A. Legal Authority have an NPDES permit might not own purposes, and (2) have a total design and operate the intake structure that intake capacity of 50 MGD or more Today's final rule is issued under the supplies their facility with cooling measured on an average annual basis authority of sections 101,301, 304, 308, water. For example, electric power- (see § 125.91). Today's rule further 316, 401, 402, 501, and 510 of the Clean generating facilities operated by provides that where a Phase U existing Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, separate entities might be located on the facility is co-located with a 1314, 1318, 1326, 1341, 1342, 1361, and same, adjacent, or nearby property(ies); manufacturing facility, only that portion 1370. This rule partially fulfills the one of these facilities might take in of the cooling water intake flow that is obligations of the U.S. Environmental cooling water and then transfer it to other facilities prior to discharge of the cooling water to a water of the United used by the Phase U facility to generate electricity for sale to another entity will be considered for purposes of Protection Agency (EPA) under a consent decree in Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Leavitt, No. 93 Civ. 0314, (S.D.N.Y). C)
41582 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations B. Purpose of Today's Regulation United States for cooling and that use a Sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Q Section 316(b) of the CWA provides that any standard established pursuant to section 301 or 306 of the CWA and cooling water intake structure to do so. Section 402 of the CWA provides authority for EPA or an authorized State or Tribe to issue an NPDES permit to CWA require that EPA develop technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards that are used as the basis for (i)applcable to a point source must any person discharging any pollutant or technology-based minimum discharge require that the location, design, combination of pollutants from a point requirements in wastewater discharge construction, and capacity of cooling source into waters of the United States. permits. EPA issues these effluent water intake structures reflect the best Forty-five States and one U.S. territory imitations guidelines and standards for technology available (BTA) for are authorized under section 402(b) to categories of industrial dischargers minimizing adverse environmental administer the NPDES permitting based on the pollutants of concern impact. Today's rule establishes program. NPDES permits restrict the discharged by the industry, the degree requirements reflecting the best types and amounts of pollutants, of control that can be attained using technology available for minimizing including heat, that may be discharged various levels of pollution control adverse environmental impact, from various industrial, commercial, technology, consideration of various applicable to the location, design, and other sources of wastewater. These economic tests appropriate to each level construction, and capacity of cooling permits control the discharge of of control, and other factors identified water intake structures at Phase II pollutants primarily by requiring in sections 304 and 306 of the CWA existing power generating facilities that dischargers to meet effluent limitations (such as non-water quality have the design capacity to withdraw at established pursuant to section 301 or environmental impacts including energy least fifty (50) MGD of cooling water section 306. Effluent limitations may be impacts). EPA has promulgated from waters of the United States and use based on promulgated Federal effluent regulations setting effluent limitations at least twenty-five (25) percent of the limitations guidelines, new source guidelines and standards under sections water they withdraw exclusively for performance standards, or the best 301, 304, and 306 of the CWA for more cooling purposes. professional judgment of the permit than 50 industries. See 40 CFR parts 405 C. Backgrdond ~writer. Limitations based on these through 471. EPA has established guidelines, standards, or best effluent limitations guidelines and
- 1. The Clean Water Act professional judgment are known as standards that apply to most of the The Federal Water Pollution Control technology-based effluent limits. Where industry categories that use cooling Act, also known as the Clean Water Act technology-based effluent limits are water intake structures (e.g., steam (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., seeks to inadequate to ensure attainment of electric power generation, iron and steel "restore and maintain the chemical, water quality standards applicable to manufacturing, pulp and paper the receiving water, section 301(b)(1)(C) manufacturing, petroleum refining, and physical, and biological integrity of the of the Clean Water Act requires permits chemical manufacturing).
- nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The to include more stringent limits based (SCWAestablishes a comprehensive Section 316(b) states, in full:
DIregulatory program, key elements of on applicable water quality standards. Any standard established pursuant to which are (1) a prohibition on the NPDES permits also routinely include section 301 or section 306 of [the Clean monitoring and reporting requirements, Water] Act and applicable to a point source discharge of pollutants from point standard conditions, and special shall require that the location, design, sources to waters of the United States, conditions. In addition, NPDES permits construction, and capacity of cooling water except as authorized by the statute; (2) contain conditions to implement the intake structures reflect the best technology authority for EPA or authorized States requirements of section 316(b). Section available for minimizing adverse or Tribes to issue National Pollutant 301 of the CWA prohibits the discharge environmental impact. Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of any pollutant by any person, except The phrase "best technology permits that regulate the discharge of in compliance with specified statutory available" in CWA section 316(b) is not pollutants; (3) requirements for requirements, including section 402. defined in the statute, but its meaning limitations in NPDES permits based on Section 510 of the Clean Water Act can be understood in light of similar effluent limitations guidelines and provides, that except as provided in the phrases used elsewhere in the CWA. See standards and water quality standards. Clean Water Act, nothing in the Act Pdverkeeperv. EPA, slip op. at 11 (2nd Today's rule implements section shall (1) preclude or deny the right of Cir. Feb. 3, 2004) (noting tat the cross-316(b) of the CWA as it applies to any State or political subdivision reference in CWA section 316(b) to "Phase II existing facilities" as defined thereof to adopt or enforce any CWA section 306 "is an invitation to in this rule. Section 316(b) addresses the requirement respecting control or look to section 306 for guidance in adverse environmental impact caused abatement of pollution; except that if a discerning what factors Congress by the intake of cooling water, not limitation, prohibition or standard of intended the EPA to consider in discharges into water. Despite this performance is in effect under the Clean determining the 'best technology special focus, the requirements of Water Act, such State or political available"' for new sources). section 316(b) are closely linked to subdivision may not adopt or enforce In sections 301 and 306, Congress several of the core elements of the any other limitation prohibition or directed EPA to set effluent discharge NPDES permit program established standard of performance which is less standards for new sources based on the under section 402 of the CWA to control stringent than the limitation prohibition "best available demonstrated control discharges of pollutants into navigable or standard of performance under the technology" and for existing sources waters. For example, while effluent Act. EPA interprets this to reserve for based on the "best available technology limitations apply to the discharge of the States authority to implement economically achievable." For new pollutants by NPDES-permitted point requirements that are more stringent sources, section 306(b)(1)(B) directs EPA ({ (JL sources to waters of the United States, section 316(b) applies to facilities than the Federal requirements under state law. PUDNo. I of Jefferson to establish "standards of performance." The phrase "standards of performance"
%tsubjectto NPDES requirements that County. Washington Dep't ofEcology, under section 306(a)(1) is defined as withdraw water from waters of the 511 U.S. 700, 705 (1994). being the effluent reduction that is
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41583 "achievable through application of the Section 316(b) expressly refers to 2. Consent Decree best available demonstrated control section 301, and the phrase "best Today's final rule partially fulfills technology, processes, operating technology available" is very similar to EPA's obligation to comply with a methods or other alternatives * * *" This is commonly referred to as "best available demonstrated technology" or "best technology available" in that section. These facts, coupled with the brevity of section 316(b) itself, consent decree, as amended. The Second Amended Consent Decree, which is relevant to today's rule, was U
"BADT." For existing dischargers, prompted EPA to look to section 301 filed on November 25, 2002, in the section 301(b)(1)(A) requires the and, ultimately, section 304 for United States District Court, Southern establishment of effluent limitations guidance in determining the "best District of New York, in Riverkeeper, based on "the application of best technology available to minimize Inc. v. Leavitt, No. 93 Civ 0314, a case practicable control technology currently adverse environmental impact" of brought against EPA by a coalition of available." This is commonly referred to cooling water intake structures for individuals and environmental groups.
as "best practicable technology" or existing Phase II facilities. The original Consent Decree, filed on "BPT." Further, section 301(b)(2)(A) By the same token, however, there are October 10, 1995, provided that EPA directs EPA to establish effluent significant differences between section was to propose regulations limitations for certain classes of 316(b) and sections 301 and 304. See implementing section 316(b) by July 2, pollutants "which shall require the Riverkeeper, Inc. v. United States 1999, and take final action with respect application of the best available Environmental Protection Agency, slip to those regulations by August 13, 2001. technology economically achievable." Under subsequent interim orders, the op. at 13, (2nd Cir. Feb. 3, 2004) ("not This is commonly referred to as "best Amended Consent Decree filed on every statutory directive contained [in available technology" or "BAT." sections 301 and 306 1 is applicable" to November 22, 2000, and the Second Section 301 specifies that both BPT and Amended Consent Decree, EPA has BAT limitations must reflect a section 316(b) rulemaking). Section 316(b) requires that cooling water intake divided the rulemaking into three determinations made by EPA under phases and is working under new Clean Water Act section 304. Under structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse deadlines. As required by the Second these provisions, the discharge of Amended Consent Decree, on November pO'iutants from painit sources is based environmental impact. In contrast to the effluent limitations provisions, the 9, 2001, EPA took final action on a rule not on the impact of the discharge on governing cooling water intake the receiving waters, but instead upon object of the "best technology available" is explicitly articulated by reference to structures used by new facilities (Phase the capabilities of the equipment or I). 66 FR 65255 (December 18, 2001).
"control technologies" available to the receiving water: To minimize adverse environmental impact in the The Second Amended Consent Decree control those discharges. requires that EPA take final action by The phrases "best available waters from which cooling water is withdrawn. This difference is reflected February 16,2004, with respect to Phase
, demonstrated technology"; and "best 11 regulations that are "applicable to, at available technology"-like "best technology available" in CWA section in EPA's sections past 301, practices 304, and in implementing 316(b). While a minimum: (1)Existing utilities (i.e., () 316(b)-are not defined in the statute. EPA has established effluent limitations facilities that both generate and transmit - guidelines based on the efficacy of one electric power) that employ a cooling However, section 304 of the CWA water intake structure, and whose intake specifies factors to be considered in or more technologies to reduce pollutants in wastewater in relation to flow levels exceed a minimum establishing the best practicable control threshold to be determined by EPA technology currently available, and best cost without necessarily considering the during the Phase I rulemaking process; available technology. impact on the receiving waters, EPA has previously considered the costs of and (2) existing nonutility power For best practicable control producers (i.e., facilities that generate technology currently available, the CWA technologies in relation to the benefits of minimizing adverse environmental electric power but sell it to another directs EPA to consider entity for transmission) that employ a impact in establishing 316(b) limits the total cost of application of technology in which historically have been done on a cooling water intake structure, and relation to the effluent reduction benefits to case-by case basis. In Re Public Service whose intake flow levels exceed a be achieved from such application, and shall Co. of New Hamnpshire, 10 ERC 1257 minimum threshold to be determined by also take into account the age of the equipment and facilities involved, the (June 17, 1977); In Re PublicService Co. EPA during the Phase II rulemaking process." The consent decree further process employed, the engineering aspects of of New Hampshire, 1 EAD 455 (Aug. 4, the application of various types of control 1978); SeacoastAnti-Pollution League v. requires governing that EPA propose regulations cooling water intake techniques, process changes, non-water Costle, 597 F. 2d 306 (1st Cir. 1979). quality environmental impact (including structures used, at a minimum, by energy requirements), and such other factors For this Phase H rulemaking, EPA smaller-flow power plants and facilities as [EPA] deems appropriate. therefore interprets CWA section 316(b) in four industrial sectors (pulp and as authorizing EPA to consider not only paper making, petroleum and coal 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(b). technologies but also their effects on products manufacturing, chemical and For "best available technology," the and benefits to the water from which the allied manufacturing, and primary metal CWA directs EPA to consider: cooling water is withdrawn. Based on manufacturing) by November 1, 2004, the age of equipment and facilities involved, these two considerations, EPA has and take final action by June 1,2006 the process employed, the engineering established in today's rule national (Phase III). aspects * *
- of various types of control requirements for facilities to install techniques, process changes, the cost of technology that is technically available, 3. What Other EPA Rulemakings and achieving such effluent reduction, non-water economically practicable, and cost- Guidance Have Addressed Cooling quality environmental impacts (including effective while at the same time Water Intake Structures?
energy requirements), and such other factors authorizing a range of technologies that In April 1976, EPA published a final as [EPA] deems appropriate. achieve comparable reductions in rule under section 316(b) that addressed 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). adverse environmental impact. cooling water intake structures. 41 FR
41584 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 17387 (April 26, 1976), see also the available for minimizing adverse five (25) percent of the water they proposed rule at 38 FR 34410 (December environmental impact. The 1977 section withdraw solely for cooling purposes. In 13, 1973). The rule added a new 316(b) draft guidance states, "The the new facility rule, EPA adopted a
§ 401.14 to 40 CFR Chapter I that environmental-intake interactions in two-track approach. Under Track I, for reiterated the requirements of CWA question are highly site-specific and the facilities with a design intake flow more section 316(b). It also added a new part decision as to best technology available than 10 MGD, the intake flow of the 402, which included three sections: (1) for intake design, location, construction, cooling water intake structure is § 402.10 (Applicability), (2) § 402.11 and capacity must be made on a case- restricted, at a minimum, to a level (Specialized definitions), and (3) by-case basis." (Section 316(b) Draft commensurate with that which could be §402.12 (Best technology available for Guidance, U.S. EPA, 1977, p. 4). This attained by use of a closed-cycle, cooling water intake structures). Section case-by-case approach was also recirculating cooling system. For 402.10 stated that the provisions of part consistent with the approach described facilities with a design intake flow more 402 applied to "cooling water intake in the 1976 Development Document than 2 MGD, the design through-screen structures for point sources for which referenced in the remanded regulation. intake velocity is restricted to 0.5 ft/s effluent limitations are established The 1977 section 316(b) draft and the total quantity of intake is pursuant to section 301 or standards of guidance suggested a general process for restricted to a proportion of the mean performance are established pursuant to developing information needed to annual flow of a freshwater river or section 306 of the Act." Section 402.11 support section 316(b) decisions and stream, or to maintain the natural defined the terms "cooling water intake presenting that information to the- thermal stratification or turnover structure," "location," "design," permitting authority. The process patterns (where present) of a lake or "construction," "capacity," and involved the development of a site- reservoir except in cases where the "Development Document." Section specific study of the environmental disruption is beneficial, or to a 402.12 included the following language: effects associated with each facility that percentage of the tidal excursions of a The information contained in the uses one or more cooling water intake tidal river or estuary. If certain Development Document shall be considered structures, as well as consideration of environmental conditions exist, an in determining whether the location, design, that study by the permitting authority in applicant with intake capacity greater construction, and capacity of a cooling water determining whether the facility must than 10 MGD must select and intake structure of a point source subject to make any changes for minimizing implement appropriate design and standards established under section 301 or adverse environmental impact. Where construction technologies for 306 reflect the best technology available for adverse environmental impact is minimizing impingement mortality and minimizing adverse environmental impact. present, the 1977 draft guidance entrainment. (Applicants with 2 to 10 In 1977, fifty-eight electric utility suggested a stepwise approach that MGD flows are not required to reduce companies challenged those regulations, considers screening systems, size, intake flow to a level commensurate arguing that EPA had failed to comply location, capacity, and other factors. with a closed-cycle, recirculating with the requirements of the Although the draft guidance described cooling system, but must install Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the information that should be technologies for reducing impingement promulgating the rule. Specifically, the developed, key factors that 'should be mortality at all locations.) Under Track utilities argued that EPA had neither considered, and a process for supporting HI,the applicant has the opportunity to published the Development Document section 316(b) determinations, it did not demonstrate that impacts to fish and in the Federal Register nor properly establish uniform technology-based shellfish, including important forage incorporated the document into the rule national standards for best technology and predator species, within the by reference. The United States Court of available for minimizing adverse watershed will be comparable to the Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed environmental impact. Rather, the reduction in impingement mortality and and, without reaching the merits of the guidance left the decisions on the entrainment it would achieve were it to regulations themselves, remanded the appropriate location, design, capacity, implement the Track I intake flow and rule. AppalachianPower Co. v. Train, and construction of cooling water intake velocity requirements.
566 F.2d 451 (4th Cir. 1977). EPA later structures to the permitting authority. With the new facility rule, EPA withdrew part 402. 44 FR 32956 (June Under this framework, the Director promulgated national minimum 7, 1979). The regulation at 40 CFR determined whether appropriate studies requirements for the design, capacity, 401.14, which reiterates the statutory have been performed, whether a given and construction of cooling water intake requirement, remains in effect. facility has minimized adverse structures at new facilities. EPA believes Since the Fourth Circuit remanded environmental impact, and what, if any, that the final new facility rule EPA's section 316(b) regulations in technologies may be required. establishes a reasonable framework that 1977, NPDES permit authorities have creates certainty for permitting of new made decisions implementing section 4. Phase I New Facility Rule facilities, while providing significant 316(b) on a case-by-case, site-specific On November 9, 2001, EPA took final flexibility to take site-specific factors basis. EPA published draft guidance action on regulations governing cooling into account. addressing section 316(b) water intake structures at new facilities. implementation in 1977. See Draft 66 FR 65255 (December 18, 2001). On 5. Proposed Rule for Phase 11 Existing Guidancefor Evaluating the Adverse December 26, 2002, EPA made minor Facilities Impact of Cooling Water Intake changes to the Phase I regulations. 67 On April 9, 2002, EPA published Structures on the Aquatic Environment: FR 78947. The final Phase I new facility proposed requirements for cooling water Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500 (U.S. EPA, rule (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart I) intake structures at Phase II existing 1977). This draft guidance described the establishes requirements applicable to facilities to implement section 316(b) of studies recommended for evaluating the the location, design, construction, and the Clean Water Act. EPA proposed to impact of cooling water intake capacity of cooling water intake establish requirements that gave structures on the aquatic environment structures at new facilities that facilities three different compliance and recommended a basis for withdraw at least two (2) million gallons options for meeting performance determining the best technology per day (MGD) and use at least twenty- standards that vary based on waterbody
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41585 type, the percentage of the source representatives of industry and issues relating to the definition and waterbody withdrawn, and the facility environmental groups. assessment of adverse environmental capacity utilization rate. 67 FR 17122. In the months leading up to impact under section 316(b) of the A received numerous comments and publication of the proposed Phase I rule, CWA.
. data submissions concerning the EPA conducted a series of stakeholder meetings to review the draft regulatory During development of the Phase I proposal. final rule and Phase 11 proposed rule, framework for the proposed rule and
- 6. Notice of Data Availability invited stakeholders to provide their EPA coordinated with the staff from the On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, EPA recommendations for the Agency's Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Proposed Rule Notice of consideration. EPA managers have met to ensure that there would not be a Data Availability (NODA). 68 FR 13522. with the Utility Water Act Group, conflict with NRC safety requirements.
This notice presented a summary of the Edison Electric Institute, representatives NRC staff reviewed the proposed Phase data EPA had received or collected from an individual utility, and with 11 rule and did not identify any apparent since proposal, an assessment of the representatives from the petroleum conflict with nuclear plant safety. NRC relevance of the data to EPA's analysis, refining, pulp and paper, and iron and licensees would continue to be revisions to EPA's estimate of the costs steel industries. EPA conducted several obligated to meet NRC requirements for and benefits of the proposed rule, new meetings with environmental groups design and reliable operation of cooling proposed compliance alternatives, and attended by representatives from 15 systems. NRC staff recommended that potential modifications to EPA's organizations. EPA also met with the EPA consider adding language which proposed regulatory approach. As part Association of State and Interstate Water states that in cases of conflict between of the NODA, EPA also reopened the Pollution Control Administrators an EPA requirement under this rule and comment period on the complete (ASIWPCA) and, with the assistance of an NRC safety requirement, the NRC contents of the proposed rule. ASIWPCA, conducted a conference call safety requirement take precedence.
- 7. Public Participation in which representatives from 17 States EPA added language to address this or interstate organizations participated. concern in this final rule, EPA has worked eatensively with ,After publication of the proposed Phase stakeholders fiojiWtp indiisiby, public In a concerted effort to respond to a I rule, EPA continued to meet with multitude of questions concerning the' interest groups, State agencies, and stakeholders at their request. Summaries other Federal agencies in the of these meetings are in the docket. data and analyses that EPA developed development of this final rule. These EPA received many comments from as part of the Phase I proposal, EPA public participation activities have industry stakeholders, government held a number of conference calls with focused on various section 316(b) agencies, and private citizens on the multiple stakeholders to clarify issues issues, including issues relevant to Phase I proposed rule 65 FR 49059 and generally provide additional information. To supplement these C-- development of the Phase I rule and Phase II rule.
EPA conducted outreach to industry (August 10, 2000). EPA received additional comments on the Phase I Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 66 verbal discussions, EPA drafted three supporting documents: one that groups, environmental groups, and FR 28853 (May 25, 2001). These explained the methodology EPA used to other government entities in the comments informed the development of calculate entrainment rates; and two development, testing, refinement, and the Phase II proposal. others that provided specific examples completion of the section 316(b) survey, In January, 2001, EPA also attended of how EPA applied this methodology to which has been used as a source of data technical workshops organized by the calculate benefits for the proposed rule. for the Phase II rule. The survey is Electric Power Research Institute and In addition, EPA prepared written entitled "Information Collection the Utilities Water Act Group. These responses to all questions submitted by Request, Detailed Industry workshops focused on the presentation the stakeholders involved in the initial Questionnaires: Phase II Cooling Water of key issues associated with different conference calls. Intake Structures & Watershed Case regulatory approaches considered under Finally, EPA sponsored a Symposium Study Short Questionnaire," September the Phase I proposed nile and on Cooling Water Intake Technologies to 3, 1999. In addition, EPA conducted two alternatives for addressing section ProtectAquatic Organisms,held on May public meetings on section 316(b) 316(b) requirements. 6-7, 2003, at the Hilton Crystal City at issues. In June of 1998, in Arlington, On May 23, 2001, EPA held a day- National Airport in Arlington, Virginia. Virginia, EPA conducted a public long forum to discuss specific issues meeting focused on a draft regulatory This symposium brought together associated with the development of professionals from Federal, State, and framework for assessing potential regulations under section 316(b) of the adverse environmental impact from Clean Water Act. 66 FR 20658 (April 24, Tribal regulatory agencies; industry; impingement and entrainment. 63 FR environmental organizations; 2001). At the meeting, 17 experts from engineering consulting firms; science 27958 (May 21, 1998). In September of industry, public interest groups, States, 1998, in Alexandria, Virginia, EPA and academia reviewed and discussed and research organizations; academia; conducted a public meeting focused on and others concerned with mitigating the Agency's preliminary data on- harm to the aquatic environment by technology, cost, and mitigation issues. cooling water intake structure 63 FR 40683 (July 30, 1998). In addition, technologies that are in place at existing cooling water intake structures. Efficacy in September of 1998, and April of facilities and the costs associated with and costs of various technologies to 1999, EPA staff participated in technical the use of available technologies for mitigate impacts to aquatic organisms workshops sponsored by the Electric reducing impingement and entrainment. from cooling water intake structures, as Power Research Institute on issues Over 120 people attended the meeting. well as research and other future needs, relating to the definition and assessment In August 21, 2001, EPA staff were discussed. of adverse environmental impact. EPA participated in a technical symposium These coordination efforts and all of staff have participated in other industry conferences, met upon request on numerous occasions with sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute in association with the American Fisheries Society on the meetings described in this section are documented or summarized in the docket established for this rule. C()
41586 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations IV. Environmental Impacts Associated Geological Survey estimates that the use subsequently as the individual With Cooling Water Intake Structures of water by the thermoelectric power succumbs to the damage from the With the implementation of today's industry accounted for 47 percent of all stresses encountered as it passed final rule, EPA intends to minimize the combined fresh and saline withdrawals through the cooling water system once adverse environmental impacts of from waters of the United States in it is discharged back into the waterbody. cooling water intake structures by 1995.3 The withdrawal of such large The environmental impacts minimizing the number of aquatic quantities of cooling water in turn has attributable to impingement mortality organisms lost as a result of water the potential to affect large quantities of and entrainment at individual facilities withdrawals associated with these aquatic organisms including include losses of early life stages of fish structures or through restoration phytoplankton (tiny, free-floating and shellfish, reductions in forage measures that compensate for these photosynthetic organisms suspended in species, and decreased recreational and losses. In the Phase I new facility rule the water column), zooplankton (small commercial landings. EPA estimates and proposed Phase II existing facility aquatic animals, including fish eggs and that the current number of fish and rule, EPA provided an overview of the larvae, that consume phytoplankton and shellfish, expressed as age I magnitude and type of environmental other zooplankton), fish, and shellfish. equivalents, that are killed from impacts associated with cooling water Aquatic organisms drawn into cooling impingement and entrainment from intake structures, including several water intake structures are either cooling water intake structures at the illustrative examples of documented impinged on components of the cooling facilities covered by this Phase IUrule is environmental impacts at existing water intake structure or entrained in over 3.4 billion annually. Expressing facilities (see 65 FR 49071-4; 66 FR the cooling water system itself. impingement mortality and entrainment 65262-5; and 67 FR 17136-40). Impingement takes place when losses as age 1 equivalents is an For the same reasons set forth in the organisms are trapped against intake accepted method for converting losses preamble to the Phase I rule (66 FR screens by the force of the water being of all life stages into individuals of an 65256,65291-65297), EPA has drawn through the cooling water intake equivalent age and provides a standard determined that there are multiple types structure. The velocity of the water metric for comparing losses among of undesirable and unacceptable - withdrawal by the cooling water intake species, years, and facilities. The largest environmental impacts that may be structure may prevent proper gill losses are in the mid-Atlantic, where. associated with Phase II existing movement, remove fish scales, and EPA estimates 1.7 billion age 1 facilities, depending on conditions at cause other physical harm or death of equivalents are lost annually due to the individual site. These types of affected organisms through exhaustion, impingement and entrainment.4 impacts include entrainment and starvation, asphyxiation, and descaling. Although the number of age 1 impingement; reductions of threatened Death from impingement equivalent fish killed by Impingement and endangered species; damage to ("impingement mortality") can occur and entrainment is very large, precise critical aquatic organisms, including immediately or subsequently as an quantification of the nature and extent important elements of the food chain; individual succumbs to physical of impacts to populations and 1~/diminishment of a population's damage upon its return to the ecosystems is difficult. Population compensatory reserve; losses to waterbody. dynamics and the physical, chemical, populations including reductions of Entrainment occurs when organisms and biological processes of ecosystems indigenous species populations, are drawn through the cooling water are extremely complex. While generally commercial fisheries stocks, and intake structure into the cooling system. accepted as a simple and transparent recreational fisheries; and stresses to Organisms that become entrained are method for modeling losses, the overall communities and ecosystems as typically relatively small, aquatic proportional methodology that EPA uses evidenced by reductions in diversity or organisms, including early life stages of to estimate impingement and other changes in system structure and fish and shellfish. Many of these small, entrainment nationwide has function. Similarly, based on the 'fragile organisms serve as prey for larger uncertainties that may result in under or analyses and for the same reasons set organisms higher on the food chain over estimating actual impingement and forth in the preamble to the new facility which are commercially and entrainment rates. rule (66 FR 65256, 65291-65297), EPA recreationally desirable species. As Decreased numbers of aquatic has selected reductions in impingement entrained organisms pass through a organisms can disrupt aquatic food and entrainment as a quick, certain, and facility's cooling system they may be webs and alter species composition and consistent metric for determining subject to mechanical, thermal, and at overall levels of biodiversity. For performance at Phase II existing times, chemical stress. Sources of such example, a model that examined the facilities. Further, EPA considered the stress include physical impacts in the effect of large entrainment losses of non-impingement and entrainment pumps and condenser tubing, pressure forage fish, such as bay anchovy, environmental impacts for this rule and changes caused by diversion of the predicted subsequent reductions in found them to be acceptable at a - cooling water into the plant or by the predator populations (including national level. This section describes hydraulic effects of the condensers, commercially and recreationally the environmental impacts associated sheer stress, thermal shock in the important species such as striped bass, with cooling water withdrawals and condenser and discharge tunnel, and weakfish, and blue fish) as high as why they are of concern to the Agency. chemical toxic effects from antifouling 25%.5 This is because forage species, agents such as chlorine. Similar to EPA estimates that facilities under the impingement which comprise a majority of scope of today's final rule withdraw on mortality, death from average more than 214 billion gallons of entrainment can occur immediately or 4For more information, please see Chapter D2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the cooling water a day from waters of the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mid-Atlantic Region in the Section 316(b) Existing United States.2 A report by the U.S. Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C. OMB Facilities Regional Studies, Part D: Mid-Atlantic. Control No. 2040-0213. 5Summers, J.K 1989. Simulating the indirect (ki EPA 1999. Detailed Industry Questionnaires: 3 Solley, W.B., R.R. Pierce and H.A. Pernman. effects of power plant entrainment losses on an Phase U Cooling Water Intake Structures & 1998. Estimated Use of Water in the United States estuarine ecosystem. Ecological Modelling, 49: 31-Watershed Case Study Short Questionnaire. U.S. in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. 47.
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41587 entrainment losses at many facilities, is concerned about potential impacts to specific species higher on the food are often a primary food source for such species. chain.13 The multiple facilities on the predator species. Examples of Environmental Impacts Hudson River act cumulatively on the EPAis so concerned about the Caused by Cooling Water Intakes entire aquatic community. New York potential impacts of cooling water State's 2002 section 316(b) report lists intake structures located in or near 1. Hudson River the Hudson River downstream from the habitat areas that support threatened, The power generation facilities on the Federal dam at Troy, New York, as endangered, or other species of concern Hudson River in New York are some of impacted by cooling water use by power (those species that might be in need of the most extensively studied in the plants due to the loss each year of a conservation actions, but are not nation. The fish populations in the substantial percentage of annual fish currently listed as threatened or Hudson River have also been studied production. The FEIS estimates, from endangered under State or Federal extensively to measure the impacts of samples collected between 1981 and law). 6 In the San Francisco Bay-Delta these power plants. Studies of 1987, that the average annual Estuary, California, in the vicinity of the entrainment at five Hudson River power entrainment losses from these three Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants plants during the 1980s predicted year- facilities includes 16.9 million several fish species (e.g., Delta smelt, class reductions ranging from six American shad, 303.4 million striped Sacramento splittail, chinook salmon, percent to 79 percent, depending on the bass, 409.6 million bay anchovy, 468 and steelhead) are now considered fish species.l0 A Draft Environmental million white perch, and 826.2 million threatened or endangered by State and/ Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by river herring.24 In addition, related or Federal authorities. EPA evaluated industry of entrainment at three Hudson studies have found a small long-term facility data on impingement and River facilities (Roseton, Bowline, and decline in both species richness and entrainment rates for these species and Indian Point) predicted year-class diversity within the resident fish estimated that potential losses of special reductions of up to 20 percent for community. A commenter on the DEIS status fish species at the two facilities striped bass, 25 percent for bay cited further evidence that Atlantic may average 8,386 age 1 equivalents per anchovy, and 43 percent for Atlantic tomcod, Atlantic sturgeon, bluefish, year resulting from impingement and tomcod.11 The New York State weakfish, rainbow smelt, white perch 169 age I equivalents per year due to Department of Environmental and white catfish are showing long-term entrainment. 7 In another example, EPA Conservation (NYSDEC) concluded that trends of declining abundance of 5 to is aware that from 1976 to 1994, any "compensatory responses to this 8% per annum.1 5 Declines in approximately 3,200 threatened or level of power plant mortality could abundances of several species and endangered sea turtles entered enclosed seriously deplete any resilience or changes in species composition have cooling water intake canals at the St. compensatory capacity of the species raised concerns about the overall health Lucie Nuclear Generating Plant in needed to survive unfavorable of the community. The FEIS concluded (7 Florida.8 The facility developed a environmental conditions." 1 2 In the capture-and-release program in response DEIS, the facilities argue that their to these events. Most of the entrapped that additional technology was necessary to minimize the adverse environmental impact from these three operation has not harmed the local turtles were captured and released alive; aquatic communities, because all once-through systems.26 however, approximately 160 turtles did observed population changes are The FEIS further concluded that not survive. An incidental take limit attributable to causes other than the entrainment at these facilities has established by NMFS in a 2001 operation of the power plants, such as diminished the forage base for each biological opinion for this facility has water chestnut growth, zebra mussel species so there is less food available for been set at no more than 1,000 sea invasion, changes in commercial the survivors. This disruption of the turtles captured in the intake, with less fishing, increases in salinity and food chain compromises the health of than one percent killed or injured as a improved water quality in the New York the entire aquatic community. The FEIS result of plant operations (only two of used, as a simplified hypothetical those killed or injured may be Kemp's Harbor. example, the loss of an individual bay In contrast, the Final Environmental Ridley sea turtles and none may be Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared by anchovy that would ordinarily serve as hawksbill or leatherback sea turtles).9 NYSDEC for these three facilities prey for a juvenile striped bass. If this Although the extent to which concludes that impacts are associated individual bay anchovy is killed via threatened, endangered, and other with the power plants and notes that entrainmnent and disintegrated upon special status species are taken by these impacts are more like habitat cooling water intake structures more degradation than the "selective 13 New York State Department of Environmental generally is yet to be determined, EPA Conservation (NYSDECQ. 2003. Final Environmental cropping" of fish that occurs during Impact Statemente Concerning the Applications to regulated fishing because the entire Renew NYSPDES Permits for the Roseton 1 &2,
' For more information, please see Chapter A12:
community is impacted rather than Bowling I &2 and Indian Point 2 &3 Steam Electric Threatened &Endangered Species Analysis Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland and Methods in the Regional Studies for the Final 10 Westchester Counties. Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. Boreman J.and P. Goodyear. 1988. Estimates of 241bid.
'Impingement and entrainment data were entrainment mortality for striped bass and other t I Henderson, P.A. and R.M. Seaby. 2000.
obtained from the 2000 Draft Habitat conservation fish species inhabiting the Hudson River Estuary. Technical comments on the Draft Environmental Plan for the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities. American FisheriesSociety Monograph 4:152-160. Impact Statement for the State Pollution Discharge Please see EPA's Regional Studies for the Final itConsolidated Edison Company of New York. Elimination System Permit Renewal for Bowline Section 316(b) Phase 11Existing Facilities Rule for 2000. Draft environmental impact statement for the Point I &2, Indian Point 2 &3, and Roseton 1 & detailed information on EPA's evaluation of state pollutant discharge elimination system 2 Steam Generating Stations. Pisces Conservation impingement and entrainment at these facilities. permits for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 &3, and Ltd.
"Florida Power and Light Company. 1995. Roseton steam electric generating stations. 6 Now York State Department of Environmental Assessment of the Impacts at the St. Lucie Nuclear 2ZNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003. Final Environmental Generating Plant on sea turtle species found In the Conservation (NYSDEC). 2000. Internal Impact Statement. Concerning the Applications to inshore waters of Florida. memorandum provided to the USEPA on NYDEC's Renew NYSPDES Permits for the Roseton I &2, (,
9Florida Power and Light Company, 2002. position on SPDES permit renewals for Roseton. Bowline 2 &2 and Indian Point 2 &3 Steam Electric Florida Power &Light Company St. Lucie Plant Bowline Point I a 2, and Indian Point 2 &3 Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland and Annual Environmental Operating Report 2002. generating stations. Westchester Counties.
41588 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations passage through a CWIS, it is no longer upgrades. The facility currently 4. Missouri River available as food to a striped bass, but withdraws nearly one billion gallons of In contrast to these examples, rather it is only useful as food to lower water each day and the average annual facilities sited on waterbodies trophic level organisms, such as losses of aquatic organisms due to previously impaired by anthropogenic detritivores (organisms that feed on impingement and entrainment are activities such as channelization dead organic material). Further, the bay estimated in the trillions, including 251 demonstrate limited entrainment and anchovy would no longer be available to million winter flounder, 375 million impingement losses. The Neal consume phytoplankton, which upsets windowpane flounder, 3.5 billion tautog Generating Complex facility, located the distribution of nutrients in the and 11.8 billion bay anchovy. A near Sioux City, Iowa, on the Missouri ecosystem. 17 dramatic change in the fish populations River is coal-fired and utilizes once-The Hudson River, like many in Mount Hope Bay is apparent after through cooling systems. According to a waterbodies in the nation, has 1984 with a decline by more than 87 ten-year study conducted from 1972-82, undergone many changes in the past percent, which coincides with a 45 the Missouri River aquatic environment few decades. These changes, which percent increase in cooling water near the Neal complex was previously have affected fish populations either withdrawal from the bay due to the heavily impacted by channelization and positively or negatively, include modification of Unit 4 from a closed- very high fow raes meant to enhance improvements to water quality as a cycle recirculating system to a once- barge traffic and navigation. These result of upgrades to sewage treatment through cooling water system and a anthropogenic changes to the natural plants, invasions by exotic species such similar increase in the facility's thermal river system resulted in significant as zebra mussels, chemical discharge.20 22 The downward trend of losses of fish habitat. At this facility, contamination by toxins such as PCBs finfish abundance in Mount Hope Bay is there was found to be little and heavy metals, global climate shifts significantly greater than declines in impingement and entrainment by such as increases in annual mean cooling water intakes. temperatures and higher frequencies of adjacent Narragansett Bay that is not influenced by the operation of Brayton Studies like those described in this extreme weather events (e.g., the El Nifio-Southern Oscillation), and strict Point Station. 2 2 Despite fishing section provide only a partial picture of restrictions, fish stocks have not the rangerof environmental impacts management of individual species associated with cooling water intake stocks such as striped bass.s In recovered. structures. Although numerous studies addition, there are dramatic natural 3. Southern California Bight were conducted to determine the changes in fish populations on an environmental impacts caused by annual basis and in the long term due At the San Onofre Nuclear Generating impingement and entrainment at to natural phenomena because the Station (SONGS), in a normal (non-El existing facilities, many of them are Hudson River, like many waterbodies, is Nifio) year, an estimated 57 tons of fish based on limited data that were a dynamic system with many - were killed per year when all units were collected as long as 25 years ago. EPA's (' fundamental, fluctuating environmental in operation. 2 3 The amount lost per year review of available facility impingement parameters-such as flow, temperature, included approximately 350,000 and entrainment studies identified a salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, juveniles of white croaker, a popular substantial number of serious study and disease-that cause natural sport fish; this number represents design limitations, including data variation in fish populations each 33,000 adult equivalents or 3.5 tons of collections for only one to two years or year.29 The existence of these adult fish. In shallow water, densities of limited to one season and for a subset interacting variables makes it difficult to queenfish and white croaker decreased of the species affected by cooling water determine the exact contribution of 60 percent within one kilometer of intakes; limited taxonomic detail (i.e., impingement and entrainment losses on SONGS and 35 percent within three many losses not identified to the species a population's relative health. kilometers from SONGS as compared to level); a general lack of statistical Nonetheless, as described later in this densities prior to facility operations. information such as inclusion of section, EPA is concerned about the Densities of local midwater fish variance measures in impingement and potential for cumulative impacts decreased 50 to 70 percent within three entrainment estimates; and the lack of resulting from multiple facility intakes kilometers of the facility. In contrast, standard methods and metrics for that collectively impinge and/or entrain relative abundances of some bottom- quantifying impingement and aquatic organisms within a specific dwelling species in the same areas were entrainment, which limits the potential waterbody. higher because of the enriched nature of for evaluating cumulative impacts
- 2. Mount Hope Bay the SONGS discharge, which in turn across multiple facilities. Further, in supported elevated numbers of prey many cases it is likely that facility Environmental impacts were also items for bottom-dwelling fish. operating conditions and/or the state of studied in another recent permit the waterbody itself has changed since reissuance for the Brayton Point Station 201bid. these studies were conducted. Finally, in Somerset, Massachusetts, where EPA Zs T Gibson, M. 1995 (revised 1996). Comparison the methods for monitoring is the permitting authority. EPA of trends In the finfish assemblages of Mt. Hope Bay impingement and entrainment used in determined that, among other things, and Narragansett Bay in relation to operations for the 1970s and 1980s, when most section the facility's cooling water system had the New England Power Brayton Point station.
Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, Marine 316(b) evaluations were performed, contributed to the collapse of the fishery Fisheries Office. were often inconsistent and incomplete, and inhibited its recovery despite 22 EPA-New England. 2002. Clean Water Act making quantification of impacts stricter commercial and recreational NPDES Permitting Determinations for Thermal difficult in some cases. Recent advances fishing limits and improved water Discharge and Cooling Water Intake from Brayton quality due to sewage treatment Point Station in Somerset, MA (NPDES Permit No. in environmental assessment techniques MA 0003654). July 22, 2002. 23 Murdoch, W.W., RC. Fay, and B.J. Mechalas. 24Tondreau, R.. J. Hey and E. Shane. Morningside
'1Ibid. 1989. Final Report of the Marine Review Committee College. 1982. Missouri River Aquatic Ecology
_ 8lbid. to the California Coastal Commission. August 1989, Studies: Ten Year Summary (1972-1982). Prepared 191bid. MRC Document No. 89-02. for Iowa Public Service Company, Sioux City, Iowa.
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41589 provide new and in some cases better potential cumulative impacts of evidence that cooling water intakes tools for monitoring impingement and multiple intakes on Atlantic menhaden alone reduce a population's entrainment and quantifying the current stock re which range along most of the compensatory reserve, the multitude of ( magnitude of the impacts. 25 26 U.S. Atlantic coast with a focus on stressors experienced by a species can k ? EPA is also concerned about the revising existing fishery management potentially adversely affect its ability to potential for cumulative impacts related models so that they accurately consider recover. 2 9 Moreover, EPA notes that the to cooling water withdrawal. and account for fish losses from opposite effect or "depensation" Cumulative impacts may result from (1) multiple intake structures. Results from (decreases in recruitment as stock size multiple facility intakes impinging and/ these types of studies, although declines3 0 ) may occur if a population's or entraining aquatic organisms within currently unavailable, will provide size is reduced beyond a critical a specific waterbody, watershed, or significant insight into the degree of threshold. Depensation can lead to along the migratory pathway of specific impact attributable to intake species; (2) the existence of multiple withdrawals from multiple facilities. further decreases in population stressors within a waterbody/watershed, EPA also considered information abundances that are already seriously including cooling water intake suggesting that impingement and depleted and, in some cases, recovery of withdrawals; and (3)long-term entrainment, in conjunction with other the population may not be possible even occurrences of impingement and/or factors, may be a nontrivial stress on a if the stressors are removed. In fact, entrainment losses that may result in waterbody. EPA recognizes that cooling there is some evidence that depensation the diminishment of the compensatory water intake structures are not the only may be a factor in some recent fisheries reserve of a particular fishery stock. source of human-induced stress on collapses.31 32 33 Historically, environmental impacts aquatic systems. Additional stresses to Another problem associated with related to cooling water intake aquatic systems include, but are not assessing the environmental impact of structures have been evaluated on a limited to, nutrient, toxics, and cooling water intakes is that existing facility-by-facility basis. These historical sediment loadings; low dissolved fishery resource baselines may be evaluations do not consider the oxygen; habitat loss; and stormwater inaccurate. 3 4 There is much evidence pOteniial for a fish or shellfish species runoff. Although rPA recognizes that a that the world's fisheries are in general to be concomitantly impacted by nexus between a particular stressor and decline,35 36 however, many fishery cooling water intake structures adverse environmental impact may be belonging to other facilities that are difficult to establish with certainty, EPA stocks have not been adequately located within the same waterbody or believes stressors that cause or assessed. According to a 2002 study, watershed in which the species resides contribute to the loss of aquatic only 23 percent of U.S. managed fish or along the coastal migratory route of organisms and habitat such as those stocks have been fully assessed and of a particular species. The potential described above, may incrementally these, over 40 percent are considered depleted or are being fished beyond C cumulative effects of multiple intakes located within a specific waterbody or along a coastal segment are difficult to impact the viability of aquatic resources. EPA analyses suggest that over 99 percent of all existing facilities with sustainable levels.37 Another study estimated that more than 70 percent of quantify and are not typically assessed. cooling water withdrawal that EPA commercial fish stocks are fully (One relevant example is provided for surveyed in its section 316(b) survey of the Hudson River; see discussion earlier existing facilities are located within two 29Hutchings. J.A. and RA. Myers. 1994. What can in this section.) Nonetheless, EPA miles of waters that are identified as be learned from the collapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Godus morhus, of analyses suggest that almost a quarter of impaired by a State or Tribe (see 66 FR Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of all Phase H existing facilities are located 65256, 65297). Thus, the Agency is Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:2126-2146. , on a waterbody with another Phase H concerned that to the extent that many 39Goodyear. C.P.1977. Assessing the impact of existing facility (DCN 4-4009). Thus, of the aquatic organisms subject to the power plant mortality on the compensatory reserve EPA is concerned that although the effects of cooling water withdrawals of fish populations. Pages 186-195 in W. Van Winkle, ed.. Proceedings of the Conference on potential for aquatic species to be reside in impaired waterbodies, they are Assessing the Effects of Power Plant Induced affected by cooling water withdrawals potentially more vulnerable to Mortality on Fish Populations. Pergamon Press, from multiple facility intakes is high, cumulative impacts from an array of New York. NY. 3t this type of cumulative impact is largely physical and chemical anthropogenic Myers, RA., N.J. Barrowman, J.A. Hutchings, and A.A. Rosenburg. 1995. Population dynamics of unknown and has not adequately been stressors. exploited fish stocks at low population levels. accounted for in evaluating impacts. Finally, EPA believes that an aquatic Science 26:1106-1108. However, recently the Atlantic States population's potential compensatory 3 ZHutchings, J.A. and RA. Myers. 1994. What can Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) ability-the capacity for a species to be learned from the collapse of a renewable was requested by its member States to increase its survival, growth, or resource? Atlantic cod, Gadus morhus. of reproduction in response to reductions Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of investigate the cumulative impacts on Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:2126-2146. commercial fishery stocks, particularly sustained to its overall population 33 Liermann, M. and R Hilborn. 1997. overutilized stocks, attributable to size-may be compromised by Depensation in fish stocks: A hierarchic Bayesian cooling water intakes located in coastal impingement and entrainment losses in meta-analysis. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic. Sci. 54:1976-regions of the Atlantic.27 Specifically, conjunction with all the other stressors 1985. 34 Watson, R and D. Pauly. 2001. Systematic the ASMFC study will evaluate the encountered within a population's distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature natural range, as well as impingement 414:534-536. 25 Schmitt, R.J. and CW. Osenberg. 1996. and entrainment losses occurring 35 Ibid. 3 Detecting Ecological Impacts. Academic Press, San consistently over extended periods of -Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's Diego, CA. time. As discussed in the Phase I new Living Oceans: Charting a course for sea change. 26EPRI 1999. Catalog of Assessment Methods for Summary Report' May 2003. Pew Oceans Z Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant Operations on facility rule (see 66 FR 65294), EPA is Commission, Arlington, VA. Aquatic Communities. TR-112013, EPRI, Palo Alto, concerned that even if there is little 37 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. iOo2. CA. Developing a National Ocean Policy: Mid-Term 27 Personal communication, D. Hart (EPA) and L 28Personal communication, D. Hart (EPA) and L. Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Kline (ASMFC), 2001. Kline (ASMFCQ, 2003. Washington, DC.
41590 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131/ Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations exploited, overfished or collapsed.3 8 pursuant to section 301 or section 306 mortality by 80 to 95 percent and/or Another estimated that large predatory of the CWA and applicable to a point entrainment by 60 to 90 percent). These fish stocks are only a tenth of what they source shall require that the location, performance standards reflect the best were 50 years ago.3 9 Most studies of fish design, construction, and capacity of technology available for minimizing L ) populations last only a few years, do not cooling water intake structures reflect adverse environmental impacts W encompass the entire life span of the the best technology available for determined on a national categorical species examined, and do not account minimizing adverse environmental basis. The type of performance standard for cyclical environmental changes such impact. Today's final rule establishes applicable to a particular facility (i.e., as ENSO events, and other long term national performance requirements for reductions in impingement only or cycles of oceanographic productivity. 4 0 Phase II existing facilities that ensure impingement and entrainment) is based Although a clear and detailed picture such facilities fulfill the mandate of on several factors, including the of the status of all our fishery resources section 316(b). facility's location (i.e., source does not exist, 41 it is undisputed that This rule applies to Phase II existing waterbody), rate of use (capacity fishermen are struggling to sustain their facilities that use or propose to use a utilization rate), and the proportion of livelihood despite strict fishery cooling water intake structure to the waterbody withdrawn. Exhibit V-1 management restrictions which aim to withdraw water for cooling purposes summarizes the performance standards rebuild fish populations. EPA shares the from waters of the United States and based on waterbody type. concerns expressed by expert fishery that have or are required to have a In most cases, EPA believes that these scientists that historical overfishing has National Pollutant Discharge performance standards can be met using increased the sensitivity of aquatic Elimination System (NPDES) permit design and construction technologies or ecosystems to subsequent disturbance, issued under section 402 of the CWA. operational measures. However, under making them more vulnerable to other Phase II existing facilities include only the rule, the performance standards also stressors, including cooling water intake those facilities whose primary activity is can be met, in whole or in part, by using structures. to generate and transmit electric power restoration measures, following In conclusion, EPA's mission includes ensuring the sustainability of and who have a design intake flow of 50 consideration of design and communities and ecosystems. Thus, MGD or greater, and that use at least 25 Y` construction technologies or operational EPA must comprehensively evaluate all percent of the water withdrawn measures and provided such measures potential threats to resources and work exclusively for cooling purposes (see meet restoration requirements (see towards eliminating or reducing § 125.91). Applicability criteria for this § 125.94(c)). identified threats. As discussed in this rule are discussed in detail in section If As noted earlier in this section, section, EPA believes that impingement of this preamble. today's rule generally requires that and entrainment losses attributable to Under this final rule, EPA has impingement mortality of all life stages cooling water intakes do pose a threat to established performance standards for of fish and shellfish must be reduced by (~ aquatic organisms and through today's the reduction of impingement mortality and, when appropriate, entrainment (see 80 to 95 percent from the calculation baseline; and for some facilities, (Vrule is seeking to minimize that threat.
§ 125.94). The performance standards entrainment of all life stages of fish and V. Description of the Final Rule consist of ranges of reductions in shellfish must be reduced by 60 to 90 Clean Water Act section 316(b) impingement mortality and/or percent from the calculation baseline requires that any standard established entrainment (e.g., reduce impingement (see § 125.94(b)).
EXHIBIT V-1.-PERFORMANCE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Waterbody type ' Capacity utilization rate l Design intake flow T performa Freshwater River or Stream ........................................... Less than 15%............ ; IWA Impingement mortality NA. 1 .................................. only. Equal to or greaterthan I 5%or less mean annual Impingement mortality 15%. flow. only. Greater than 5% of mean Impingement mortality and annual flow. entrainment. Tidal river, Estuary or Ocean ................... Less than 15% - . N/A i .................................. Impingement mortality only. Equal to or greater than' N/A ................................. Impingement mortality and 15%., I entrainment. Great Lakes ................................................................... Less than 15%. .......; WIA ...................................... Impingement mortality only. Equal to or greater than :WA .................................. Impingement mortality and 15%. entrainment. 38 Broad, W.J. and A.C. Revkin. 2003. Has the Sea
- 4Jackson, J.B.C.. M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, V-A. the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science Given Up its Bounty? The New York Times. July 29, Bjomdal. L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. 293(5530):629-638.
(003. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. 41 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 3 Myers, R.A. and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange. H.S. Lenihan, J.M. 2002. Annual Report to Congress on the Status of worldwide depletion of predatory fish Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, RS. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, U.S. Fisheries-2001. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA. communities. Nature 423: 280-283. and R.R Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD, 142 pp.
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations '41591 EXHIBIT V-i .-PERFORMANCE STANDARD REQUIREMENTs-Continued I I I Naterbody type Capacity utilization rate Design intake flow Type of performance standard
. lI e o e I Lakes or Reservoirs ............ I............................................ N/A ..................................... Increase in design intake Impingement mortality flow must not disrupt only.
thermal stratification ex-cept where It does not adversely affect the management of fisheries. I Determination of appropriate compliance reductions is not applicable. This final rule identifies five Facilities that meet the velocity and information and data sufficient to alternatives a Phase D1existing facility requirements would only need to demonstrate that all facilities under the may use to achieve compliance with the submit application studies related to jurisdiction of the Director can meet the requirements for best technology determining entrainment reduction, if relevant impingement mortality and available for minimizing adverse subject to the performance standards for entrainment performance standards in environmental impacts associated with entrainment. § 125.94(b) if the applicable design cooling water intake structures. Four of Under § 125.94(a)(2) and (3), a Phase criteria and site characteristics and these are based on meeting the H existing facility may demonstrate to conditions are present at the facility. A applicable performance standards and the Director, either that its current Director may only approve an the fifth allows the facility to request a cooling water intake structure alternative technology following public site-specific determination of best configuration meets the applicable notice and opportunity for comment on technology available for minimizing performance standards, or that it has the approval of the technology adverse environmental impacts under selected design and construction (§ 125.99(b)). certain circumstances. EPA has technologies, operational measures, Under § 125.94(a)(5) (i) or (ii), if the established these compliance and/or restoration measures that, in Director determines that a facility's alternatives for meeting the performance combination with any existing design costs of compliance would be standards to provide a significant degree and construction technologies, significantly greater than the costs of flexibility to Phase HIexisting operational measures, and/or restoration considered by the Administrator for a facilities, to ensure that the rule measures, meet the specified like facility to meet the applicable requirements are economically performance standards in § 125.94(b) performance standards, or that the costs practicable, and to provide the ability and/or the requirements in § 125.94(c). of compliance would be significantly for Phase II existing facilities to address Under § 125.94(a)(4), a Phase II greater than the benefits of meeting the unique site-specific factors. Application existing facility may demonstrate to the applicable performance standards at the - requirements vary based on the Director that it has installed and is facility, the Director must make a site-compliance alternative selected and, for properly operating and maintaining a specific determination of best some facilities, include development of rule-specified and approved design and technology available for minimizing a Comprehensive Demonstration Study. construction technology in accordance adverse environmental impact. Under Application requirements are discussed with § 125.99(a). Submerged cylindrical this alternative, a facility would either later in this section. The five. wedgewire screen technology is a rule- compare its projected costs of compliance alternatives are described in specified design and construction compliance using a particular the following paragraphs. technology that may be used in technology or technologies to the costs Under § 125.94(a)(1)(i) and (ii), a instances in which a facility's cooling the Agency considered for a like facility Phase II existing facility may water intake structure is located in a in establishing the applicable demonstrate to the Director that it has freshwater river or stream and meets performance standards, or compare its already reduced its flow commensurate other criteria specified at § 125.99(a). projected costs of compliance with the with a closed-cycle recirculating system, In addition, under this compliance projected benefits at its site of meeting or that it has already reduced its design alternative, a facility or other interested the applicable performance standards of intake velocity to 0.5 ft/s or less. If a person may submit a request to the today's rule (see section IX.H). If in facility can demonstrate to the Director Director for approval of a different either case costs are significantly that it has reduced, or will reduce, flow technology. If the Director approves the greater, the technology selected by the commensurate with a closed-cycle technology, it may be used by all Director must achieve an efficacy level recirculating system, the facility is facilities with similar site conditions that comes as close as practicable to the deemed to have met the performance under his or her jurisdiction if allowed applicable performance standards standards to reduce impingement under the State's administrative without resulting in significantly greater mortality and entrainment (see § 125.94 procedures. Requests for approval of a costs. (a)(1)(i)). Those facilities would not be technology must be submitted to the During the first permit term, a facility required to submit a Comprehensive Director and include a detailed that chooses compliance alternatives in Demonstration Study with their NPDES description of the technology; a list of § 125.94(a)(2), (3), (4), or (5) may request application. If the facility can design criteria for the technology and that compliance with the requirements demonstrate to the Director that is has site characteristics and conditions that of this rule be determined based on the reduced, or will reduce maximum each facility must possess in order to implementation of a Technology through-screen design intake velocity to ensure that the technology can Installation and Operation Plan 0.5 ft/s or less, the facility is deemed to consistently meet the appropriate indicating how the facility will installV have met the performance standards to impingement mortality and entrainment and ensure the efficacy, to the extent reduce impingement mortality only. performance standards in § 125.94(b); practicable, of design and construction
41592 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 I Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations technologies and/or operational drawings showing the physical water balance diagram that includes all measures, and/or a Restoration Plan configuration of all source waterbodies sources of water to the facility, (§ 125.95(b)(5)). The Technology used by the facility, including areal recirculating flows, and discharges; and Installation and Operation Plan must be dimensions, depths, salinity and engineering drawings of the cooling developed and submitted to the Director temperature regimes, and other water intake structure. in accordance with § 125.95(b)(4)(ii). documentation that supports your
- Cooling Water System Data: A The Restoration Plan must be developed determination of the waterbody type narrative description of the operation of in accordance with § 125.95(b)(5). where each cooling water intake each cooling water system, its During subsequent permit terms, if the structure is located; identification and relationship to the cooling water intake facility has been in compliance with the characterization of the source structures, proportion of the design construction, operational, maintenance, waterbody's hydrological and intake flow that is used in the system, monitoring, and adaptive management geomorphological features, as well as the number of days of the year the requirements in its TIOP and/or the methods used to conduct any system is in operation, and seasonal Restoration Plan during the preceding physical studies to determine the changes in the operation of the system, permit term, the facility may request intake's area of influence and the results if applicable; and engineering that compliance during subsequent of such studies; and locational maps. calculations and supporting data to permit terms be based on its remaining
- Cooling Water Intake Structure support the narrative description.
in compliance with its TIOP and/or Data: A narrative description of the In addition to the specified data Restoration Plan, revised in accordance configuration of each of its facility's facilities are require to submit, some with applicable adaptive management cooling water intake structures and facilities are also required to conduct a requirements if the applicable where it is located in the waterbody and Comprehensive Demonstration Study. performance standards are not being in the water column; latitude and Specific requirements for the met. longitude in degrees, minutes, and Comprehensive Demonstration Study Three sets of data are required to be seconds for each of its cooling water vary based on the compliance submitted 180 days prior to expiration intake structures; a narrative description alternative selected. Exhibit II of a facility's existing permit by all of the operation of each of its cooling rsummarizes the Comprehensive facilities regardless of compliance water intake structures, including Demonstration Study requirements for lltArnativa Al p-tmri fRRp a 122-21 Irlr2Vf dAR.qiun intalrc fInwv dlailv hmirn nf Rarh rnmnnlianrn altarnativu Rnnarfir
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41593 EXHIBIT V-2.-
SUMMARY
OF COMPREHENSIVE DEMONSTRATION STUDY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES-Continued A--- . Compliance alternative (§ 125.94(b)) Comprehensive demonstration study requirements (§ 125.95(b)) i 5-Demonstrate that a site-specific determination of BTA is appropriate Proposal for Information Collection. Source Waterbody Flow Information. Impingement Mortality andlor Entrainment Characterization Study (as appropriate). Technology Installation and Operation Plan. Restoration Plan (ifappropriate). Information to Support Site Specific Determination of BTA including:
-Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study (cost-cost test and cost-ben-efit test);
-Valuation of Monetized Benefits of Reducing IM&E (cost-benefit test only);
-Site-Specific Technology Plan (cost-cost test and cost-benefit test);
Verification Monitoring Plan. The requirements in today's final rule were used in the analyses in support of data. Facilities that provided responses are implemented through NPDES this final rule. to the detailed questionnaire were permits issued under section 402 of the 1. Number of Phase II Facilities unaffected, as the Agency collected CWA. Permit applications submitted maximum design intake flows directly after the effective date of the rule must Since publishing the NODA, EPA through the detailed questionnaire. fulfill rule requirements. However, continued to verify design flow facilities whose existing permit expires information for facilities that had been 2. Technology Costs before [insert four years after date of classified as either Phase II (large, Since publishing the NODA, EPA publication in the FR], may request a existing power production) or Phase m used new information to revise the schedule for submission of application (smaller, power producing or capital and operation and maintenance materials that is as expeditious as manufacturing) facilities. This (O&M) costs for several compliance practicable but does not exceed [insert verification resulted in the following technologies, including those used as three years and 180 days after date of changes: One facility that was classified the primary basis for the final rule. as a Phase II facility at proposal was Overall, the cost updates resulted in the Cpublication in the FR], to provide sufficient time to perform the required information collection requirements. reclassified as being out of scope of the section 316(b) regulation, as it ceased following changes: total capital costs decreased by 5 percent and total Phase II existing facilities must comply operating. Four facilities that were operation and maintenance costs (4%m) with this final rule when they become classified as Phase m11 facilities at decrease by 3 percent. These I subject to an NPDES permit containing proposal based on projected design comparisons are based on the raw costs, these requirements. intake flow were reclassified as Phase U adjusted to year-2002 dollars, which facilities. As a result, the overall number have not been discounted or Finally, today's rule preserves each of Phase 11 facilities increased from 540 annualized.43 The revised costing State's right to adopt or enforce more to 543 facilities.42 For the final rule, all assumptions are discussed in detail in stringent requirements (see § 125.90(d)). costs, benefits, and economic analyses section V1.3. It also provides that if a State are based on the updated set of Phase II demonstrates to the Administrator that facilities. 3. Permitting and Monitoring Costs it has adopted alternative regulatory The reason for the change is that the Since proposal, EPA made several requirements in its NPDES program that Agency revised the estimated design corrections and revisions to its burden will result in environmental intake flows for facilities that responded and cost estimates for implementing the performance within a watershed that is to the short-technical questionnaire EPA information collection requirements of comparable to the reductions of used to collect information for this rule. today's rule, based on comments impingement mortality and entrainment The Agency has now adopted a more received and additional analysis. The that would otherwise be achieved under robust set of annual flow data (using all following corrections and revisions
§ 125.94, the Administrator must the years of data collected for the final were made since proposal:
approve such alternative regulatory rule, rather than only flows for 1998 as
- EPA corrected the hourly rates for requirements (§ 125.90(c)). reported at proposal). This change the statistician and biological technician altered the calculated design intake labor categories, which were VI. Summary of Most Significant flows for the facilities that provided Revisions to the Proposed Rule inadvertently transposed at proposal.
responses to the short-technical
- EPA increased the burdens A. Data Updates questionnaire that EPA used to collect associated with impingement and 42 entrainment monitoring for the Based on comments received, Note that these numbers are unweighted. (As Impingement Mortality and Entrainment additional information made available, with many surveys, EPA was able to obtain data Characterization Study.
from most, but not all of the facilities potentially and the results of subsequent analyses, subject to this rule. To estimate the characteristics EPA revised a number of assumptions for those facilities that were not surveyed, EPA 4 3 Based on additional research conducted after that were used in developing the assigned a statistically derived sample weight to NODA publication and prior to issuance of the final ( engineering costs, the information collection costs, the economic analyses, those facilities for which data were collected.) On a sample-weighted basis, the number of Phase II rule, EPA changed the projected compliance response for some facilities. These changes. together facilities increased from 551 to 554. The number of with the increase in the number of in-scope Phase and the benefits analyses. These new Phase it facilities modeled by the Integrated 1 facilities, contributed to the change in total assumptions are presented below and Planning Model (1PM) increased from 531 to 535. compliance costs.
41594 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations
- EPA revised the pilot study costs to B. Regulatory Approach, Calculation of compliance are significantly greater assume that only a subset of facilities Baseline, and Measuring Compliance than those considered by EPA during which are projected to install new the development of the proposed rule or
- 1. Regulatory Approach the facility's costs of compliance would technologies will perform pilot studies, and to be proportional to the projected EPA has largely adopted the proposed be significantly greater than the benefits capital costs for installing these new rule with some restructuring and one of compliance with the proposed significant change: an additional performance standards at the facility. A technologies in order to comply with compliance alternative, the approved the rule. EPA also developed an facility could also use restoration technology option (§ 125.94(a)(4)) which measures in addition to or in lieu of alternative national cost estimate using was discussed in detail in the NODA (68 design and construction technologies slightly different assumptions with FR 13539). The restructuring of the rule and/or operational measures to achieve regard to pilot study costs (see section language now makes the reduction of compliance under any of the XI). flow commensurate with a closed-cycle compliance options.
- EPA adjusted the facility-level costs recirculating system a separate In the NODA, EPA sought comment to account for facilities that were compliance alternative, such that the on a proposed fourth compliance option projected to demonstrate compliance rule now includes five compliance (68 FR 13522, 1359-41). In response to through the installation of a wedge-wire alternatives. In addition, EPA has comments expressing concern that the screen in a freshwater river under the clarified that facilities may comply with proposed Comprehensive compliance alternative in 125.94(a)(4). the rule requirement in section 125.94 Demonstration Study requirements (at by successfully implementing the § 125.95(b)) would impose a significant
- 4. Net Installation Downtime for Non- construction, operational, maintenance, burden on permit applicants, EPA recirculating Cooling Tower Compliance monitoring, and adaptive management examined an additional, more Technologies requirements in a Technology streamlined compliance option under Installation and Operation Plan which a facility could implement In developing the proposal for this developed in accordance with certain specified technologies that have rule, the Agency estimated that § 125.95(b)(4)(ii) and/or a Restoration been predetermined by EPA or the technoltogies other than recirculating - Plan developed in accordance with permitting authority to be highly likely cooling towers would not require § 125.95(b)(5). These plans must be to meet applicable performance installation downtime for construction. designed and adaptively managed to standards, in exchange for not having to However, the Agency amended this meet the applicable performance perform most of the elements of the outlook for the NODA and published standards in § 125.94(b) and (c). The proposed Comprehensive revised estimates of net construction following discussion describes the Demonstration Study.
downtimes for complying facilities regulatory approach of the final rule, as Two variations were offered in the installing a subset of technologies developed through the proposed rule NODA: (1) EPA would evaluate the analyzed and developed as candidates and the NODA. effectiveness of specific technologies in for best technology available (BTA). EPA proposed requirements for the achieving an 80 to 95 percent reduction Based on comments received on the location, design, construction, and in impingement mortality and a 60 to 90 capacity of cooling water intakes based percent reduction in entrainment and NODA, the Agency has conducted on the waterbody type and the volume then specify applicability criteria to further research into the construction of water withdrawn by a facility (67 FR ensure that the technology would meet downtimes that it used in the NODA for 17122). EPA grouped waterbodies into the performance standards at facilities certain technologies. For the final five categories, as in the Phase I satisfying the criteria, or (2) EPA would regulation analysis, the Agency has regulation-freshwater rivers and establish the criteria and a process for adopted minor revisions to the streams, lakes and reservoirs, Great States to pre-approve intake structure construction downtimes for certain Lakes, estuaries and tidal rivers, and control technologies as likely to meet technologies, with the general effect oceans. Ln general, the more sensitive or the performance standards. For facilities being an increase in the net construction biologically productive the waterbody, located on freshwater rivers and streams downtimes for a few technologies that the more stringent were the and meeting specified criteria, the Agency views as candidates for requirements proposed. The proposed wedgewire screens would be expected reducing entrainment. (Net downtime requirements also varied based on the to meet the proposed performance was estimated by subtracting 4 weeks percentage of the source waterbody standards. EPA also recognized that from total downtime, based on an withdrawn and the capacity utilization these two variations are not mutually assumption that facilities will schedule rate. exclusive and either or both could be construction downtime during a 4 week Under the proposed rule, a facility adopted in the final rule. period of normal downtime unrelated to could choose one of three compliance To a large extent, EPA is adopting the the rule, for example, for routine options: (1) Demonstrate that the facility regulatory framework put forth in the maintenance.) As such, the Agency currently meets the specified proposed rule and supplemented by the projects that a significant number of performance standards, (2)select and NODA. To the three compliance facilities expected to comply with the implement design and construction alternatives originally proposed, EPA technologies, operational measures, or has added an approved technology entrainment reduction requirements of restoration measures that will, in the rule will have increased downtime alternative discussed in the NODA and combination with any existing design included reduction of flow costs compared to the NODA and the and construction technologies, proposal analyses. The final costs of this operational measures, or restoration commensurate with closed-cycle cooling as a distinct alternative. rule reflect these changes, which are measures, meet the specified further discussed in Section X and the performance standards, and/or (3) 2. Calculation Baseline Technical Development Document. demonstrate that the facility qualifies Also, in response to comments that for a site-specific determination of best the proposed definition for the technology available, because its costs calculation baseline was overly vague,
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41595 EPA published in the NODA a series of but, rather, would install, operate and mortality and/or entrainment permit additional considerations regarding the maintain the selected control standard. The industry stakeholders C calculation baseline and a new definition of it taking these considerations into account (68 FR technologies to minimize impingement mortality and entrainment. EPA suggested several possible durations for were concerned that using the performance standard to set enforceable performance requirements would . 13522, 13580-81). The specifications this optimization period, and also require facilities to collect and analyze are as follows and the new definition is requested comment on not specifying greater amounts of data than EPA in today's final rule at § 125.93. the duration, but instead leaving it up projected to be able to account for the
. Baseline cooling water intake to the Director. 68 FR 13586 (March 19, variability inherent in biological and structure is located at, and the screen 2003). efficacy data needed to support face is parallel to, the shoreline or For the final rule, EPA adopted the compliance determinations in spite of another depth if this would result in NODA definition of calculation baseline overall good technology performance.
higher baseline impingement mortality with some modifications. More These stakeholders stated that setting and entrainment than the surface. EPA specifically, EPA clarified the enforceable performance standards believes it is appropriate to allow credit calculation baseline to include would lead to greater administrative in reducing impingement mortality from consideration of intake depth other than burdens and delays when determining screen configurations that employ at or near the surface in determining the numeric standards and monitoring angling of the screen face and currents baseline. EPA also adopted the "as requirements to determine compliance. to guide organisms away from the built" approach for the calculation They were also concerned that structure before they are impinged. baseline, which allows facilities to use establishing numeric standards would
- Baseline cooling water intake current levels of impingement mortality stifle innovation because of fears that a structure opening is located at or near and entrainment as the calculation technology would not perform as the surface of the source waterbody. baseline if the facility is configured anticipated. These stakeholders EPA believes it is appropriate to allow similarly to the criteria set up for the suggested that the performance credit in reducing impingement calculation baseline. standards in the ru e serve as a hortality ori entrainment due to Finally, EPA clarified how - consistent basis for setting permit placement of the opening in the water compliance with the requirements in conditions and for identifying column. § 125.94 should be determined. In technologies; installing, operating, and
- Baseline cooling water intake particular, the final rule provides that maintaining the chosen technology; structure has a traveling screen with the compliance during the first permit term performing compliance monitoring; and standard 3/8 inch mesh size commonly (and subsequent permit terms if refining or adjusting operation, used to keep condensers free from specified conditions are met) may be maintenance, or other factors in light of debris. This allows a more consistent determined based on compliance with initial monitoring.
C estimation of the organisms that are
-considered "entrainable" vs.
"impingeable" by specifying a standard the construction, operational, maintenance, monitoring, and adaptive management requirements in an Today's rule allows facilities to develop and implement a Technology Installation and Operation Plan that - v mesh size that can be related to the size approved Technology Installation and would, when used, serve as the primary of the organism that may potentially Operation Plan and/ or an approved mechanism upon which compliance come in contact with the cooling water Restoration Plan, that has been with the performance standard intake structure. developed in accordance with specified requirements of this rule is determined.
- Baseline practices, procedures, and requirements to meet the applicable EPA has established this compliance structural configurations are those that performance standards. mechanism because it will ensure that the facility would maintain in the Phase I existing facilities will absence of any structural or operational 3. Measuring Compliance continually be required to achieve a controls implemented in whole or in EPA has clarified how compliance level of performance that constitutes, for part for the purpose of reducing will be measured. At proposal, EPA them, best technology available for impingement mortality and received comment from the industry minimizing adverse environmental entrainment. This recognizes and that there were uncertainties associated impact. For facilities that choose to provides credit for any structural or with how compliance with the proposed comply with applicable requirements in operational controls, including flow or requirements, particularly the numeric whole or in part through the use of velocity reductions, a facility had impingement mortality and entrainment restoration measures, the Restoration adopted that reduce impingement performance standards, would be Plan would serve a similar function.
mortality or entrainment. determined. Under the proposed rule The Restoration Plan is discussed in EPA also requested comment on and NODA, determining compliance, detail in section IX. allowing an "as built" approach under while obviously dependent on the An existing facility that chooses to which facilities could choose to use the compliance alternative selected, would, use a Technology Installation and existing level of impingement mortality in general, require the development of Operation Plan must (1)select design and entrainment as the calculation waterbody characterization data, and construction technologies, baseline if they did not wish to take including key criteria (species, operational measures, and/or restoration credit for the previously adopted parameters, etc.) to be measured and measures that will meet the measures. This could significantly monitored; a determination of baseline performance standards, and (2) prepare simplify the monitoring and environmental impacts; implementation a Technology Installation and Operation calculations necessary to determine the of cooling water intake technologies Plan documenting what, how and when baseline. (assuming the facility does not already it will install, operate, maintain, In the NODA, EPA also discussed an meet applicable performance standards monitor, assess, and adaptively manage i approach to compliance under which and pursues this alternative); the design and construction facilities would have an "optimization monitoring the selected criteria; and an technologies and operational measures period" during which they would not be evaluation of compliance with the to meet the performance standards, required to meet performance standards applicable numeric impingement including operational parameters and
41596 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations inspection schedules, etc. Each facility The record persuades EPA that there achieve optimum performance and, using a Technology Installation is uncertainty associated with the therefore, an adaptive management Operation Plan must specify key application and long-term efficacy of approach as specified under a plan is parameters regarding monitoring (e.g., these technologies at all facilities under appropriate. See documentation at i S parameters to be monitored, location, the multitude of different site-specific DCN# 1-3019-BE, 4-1830, and 6-5001. and frequency), optimization activities factors and conditions under which EPA understands that adaptive and schedules for undertaking them, these technologies might have to management is going to be necessary for ways of assessing efficacy (including perform. In addition, even at a single a number of facilities because there are adaptive management plan for revising site, there is substantial year-to-year relatively few rigorous evaluations of design and construction technologies or variability in species abundance and efficacy under different site and operational measures) that ensure that composition, as well as other natural operating conditions. The available such technologies and measures are and anthropogenic factors, that may studies may also be limited in the effectively implemented, and revised as affect the performance of a particular numbers and types of species that they needed to meet performance standards. technology installed at the facility and have evaluated and they may not show This plan must be reviewed and it is unclear how this would affect the the long term demonstrated approved by the Director and evaluated efficacy of the technology. The effectiveness (and/or consistency of for sufficiency and/or revised at each Technology Installation and Operation effectiveness) of the technology with the permit term to ensure that the facility is Plan provisions are intended to account added uncertainties associated with the moving expeditiously toward for this. For example, meeting variability of natural biological systems. attainment of the applicable numerical reduction standards may not By requiring facilities to employ performance standards. Once approved, be possible at some sites either because adaptive management principles, EPA each Phase 1I existing facility must hydrological conditions are not assures that the facility will be implement the plan according to its conducive to technological implementing, on an ongoing basis, the terms. Compliance with the final rule's effectiveness, or due to species best array of technologies available to performance standards during the sensitivity. A Technology Installation them. permit term will be assessed based on and Operation Plan allows a facility, As noted above; the Technology the terms of the plan. If a facility does working with the Director, to identify, Installation and Operation Plan not comply with the plan, the Director install, and adaptively manage provisions also simplify implementation has discretion to implement the technologies suited to its particular site because they identify the specific performance standards or requirements conditions. In addition, measuring compliance requirements needed to through specifying numeric impingement mortality and entrainment meet the performance standard ranges impingement mortality and entrainment reduction is difficult and would require and reduce some of the burden requirements or technology prescription a substantial amount of multi-year associated with measuring and (for the site-specific alternative) in the biological data and analysis is enforcing compliance with these ranges (t permit. In addition, a facility that is burdensome for the facility to develop, for both existing facilities and Directors. Directors and facilities may find use of unable to meet the applicable is often well beyond the type of performance standards using the information EPA can expect State a Technology Installation and Operation Technology Installation and Operation Directors to be able to develop when Plan preferable because it is less feasible Plan approach may request in a monitoring compliance. A Technology to develop and accurately evaluate subsequent permit that the Director Installation and Operation Plan biological monitoring data over a make a site-specific determination of simplifies enforcement: if a facility fails relatively short period, as would be best technology available in accordance to meet the schedules and other terms required by measuring compliance with § 125.94(a)(5). of its plan, it is violating its section against a numeric performance 316(b) requirements; there is no need to standard. Rather, the plan provisions Under these provisions, compliance is allow implementation to be adaptive, determined in terms of whether the engage in extensive debate about the meaning of complex biological data. and allow for data development and facility is implementing, in accordance assessment to proceed in a manner that with the Technology Installation and This does not mean that biological is appropriate for the facility, Operation Plan schedule, the monitoring and assessment of success in technology, and waterbody technologies, measures and practices meeting applicable performance : characteristics. determined by the Director to be the standards is not important. If fact, it is EPA has the legal authority-to express best technologies available for : critical to the compliance approach section 316(b) requirements in terms of minimizing adverse environmental adopted in the rule in that it informs design criteria, in addition to or in place impact for that facility. The Section facilities and permit authorities when of enforceable numeric performance 316(b) requirements for the facility are adaptive management, including standards. EPA employed a design expressed non-numerically, which is revisions to the Technology Installation criterion approach in the Phase I rule, analogous to the use of best and Operation Plan, are needed to meet when EPA was able to identify a single management practices under other the performance standards. nationally available and economically provisions of the CWA. See, e.g., The Technology Installation and practicable technology for the category sections 402(a) and 402(p). While EPA Operation Plan provisions also reflect of new facilities as a whole, in that case has been able to calculate ranges for that there is uncertainty about how long closed-cycle recirculating cooling national performance standards based it would take a facility to adaptively technology. In this rule, EPA was not on model technologies, EPA has manage the technology and determine able to identify a uniform set of insufficient data to determine-as it the appropriate operating conditions for technologies that would be available routinely can do in the context of the technology to meet the applicable and economically practicable for all effluent limitations guidelines and performance requirements. Data and existing facilities, but EPA was able to X ;tandards-that use of those model comments available to EPA suggest that articulate a uniform nationally
'~,echnologies will consistently result in it is common for existing facilities to applicable principle in the form of the achievement of those standards. adjust technologies over time in order to performance standards in § 125.94(b), by
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131/ Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41597 which such technologies could be 4. Site-Specific Requirements considered by the Administrator" for identified by the Director and a. Costs Significantly Greater Than Costs comparison with the facility's estimate implemented through the use of a Considered by the Administrator of the costs of compliance with the final Technology Installation and Operation rule, Plan designed to achieve them. While In today's final rule, a facility that a Elimination of the requirement to the technology solution was different in demonstrates to the Director that the submit a Valuation of Monetized Phase I and Phase II, the legal principle costs of compliance with the Benefits of Reducing Impingement and is the same. In addition, EPA has the performance standards and/or Entrainment, and legal authority to identify section 316(b) restoration requirements would be
- Addition of the requirement to requirements as an evolving set of significantly greater than the costs demonstrate that the costs significantly technologies, rather than a single considered by the Administrator for a exceed the costs considered by the technology array fixed in time. Section similar facility, will be given a site- Administrator for a similar facility, 316(b) requires that any technology specific determination of best under the Cost Evaluation Study.
selected under that section must be the technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The b. Costs Significantly Greater Than best available to the facility. This term standards of the rle have not changed Benefits encompasses consideration of since proposal, with the exception of In today's final rule, a facility that effectiveness, costs, non-water quality; demonstrates to the Director that the environmental impacts, feasibility one clarifcation: in the final rule, the issues and a host of other considerations alternative site-specific requirements costs of compliance with the relevant to existing facilities. See established by the Director must achieve performance standards and/or section 304(b)(2)(B). The record an efficacy that is as close as practicable restoration requirements would be to the performance standards and/or significantly greater than the benefits indicates that for some facilities, the restoration requirements specified in will be given a site-specific question of what are available § 125.94(b) and (c). This was not determination of best technology technologies and, among those, what is specified in the proposed rule language. available for minimizing adverse the best technology, may change over environmental impact. The standards of time. A Technoly Installation and IP addition, today',iAnal rule also explains how a facility should calculate the rule have not changed since Operation Plan is intended to assure costs considered by the Administrator proposal, with the exception of one that at all times a facility is for a similar facility, for comparison clarification: in the final rule, the implementing a technology-or a with the costs of compliance for the alternative site-specific requirements technology plan-that reflects the best facility. EPA details these steps in established by the Director must achieve of all technologies consistent with § 125.94(a)(5)(i)(A)-(F). an efficacy that is as close as practicable uniform guiding principles in the form In the proposed rule, submittal to the performance standards and/or of performance standards available to requirements for facilities requesting a restoration requirements specified in L them in light of their site-specific circumstances. Finally, EPA notes that the way in variance based upon a cost-cost test were identical to those for facilities
§ 125.94(b) and (c). This was not specified in the proposed rule language. L In the final rule, as in the proposal, a o
requesting a variance based on a cost-which performance standards guide benefit test. Thus, a facility requesting a facility requesting a site-specific technology selection and site-specific determination based on a determination based on a cost-benefit implementation varies slightly among cost-cost comparison had to submit comparison must submit three studies: the five compliance options. For three studies: the Cost Evaluation Study, the Cost Evaluation Study, the Benefits facilities complying with § 125.94(a)(1), the Valuation of Monetized Benefits of Valuation Study (referred to in proposal the technologies identified are so Reducing Impingement and as Valuation of Monetized Benefits of effective that EPA is confident that any Entrainment, and the Site-Specific Reducing Impingement and facility employing them will meet the Technology Plan. In the final rule, by Entrainment), and the Site-Specific performance standards, so a Technology contrast, a facility must submit only the Technology Plan. The final rule has Installation and Operation Plan and Cost Evaluation Study and the Site- both added and clarified requirements performance monitoring are not Specific Technology Plan. for the first two components relative to required. Because these technologies are Under the Comprehensive Cost the proposal, but has provided no not available to all Phase II existing Evaluation Study detailed at proposal, a substantive changes in the requirements facilities, however, EPA has provided facility must submit detailed for the Site-Specific Technology Plan. alternative compliance options. For engineering cost estimates to document Under the Comprehensive Cost facilities complying in accordance with the costs of implementing the Evaluation Study detailed at proposal, a
§ 125.94(a)(2), (3), or (4), compliance is technologies and/or operational facility must submit detailed generally achieved by implementation measures in the facility's Design and engineering cost estimates to document of a Technology Installation and Construction Plan. In the final rule, the the costs of implementing the Operation Plan designed to meet facility must provide, in addition to the technologies and/or operational applicable performance standards. engineering cost estimates, a measures in the facility's Design and Finally, for facilities that comply in demonstration that the costs Construction Plan. In the final rule, the accordance with § 125.94(a)(5) for significantly exceed the benefits of facility must provide, in addition to the whom even compliance in accordance complying with the applicable engineering cost estimates, a with § 125.94(a)(2), (3), or (4)is not performance standards. EPA did not demonstration that the costs available because of significantly higher make significant changes to the significantly exceed the benefits of costs, compliance is achieved by requirements under the Site-Specific complying with the applicable implementation of a Technology Technology Plan. performance standards.
Installation and Operation Plan that In summary, the major changes in the Additional clarifications are found in f achieves an efficacy as close as cost-cost analysis are as follows: the Benefits Valuation Study. In the practicable to the applicable
- In the final rule, EPA has specified proposed rule, a facility was required to performance standards. how a facility must "calculate costs submit (1) a description of the
41598 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131/ Friday, July 9, 2004/ Rules and Regulations methodology used to estimate the any existing design and construction B. Why and How Did EPA Establish the benefits' value, (2)the basis for technologies, operational measures, PerformanceStandardsat These Levels? assumptions and quantitative estimates, and/or restoration measures, meet the 1. Overview of Performance Standards and (3)an uncertainty analysis. In the applicable performance standards and i.j ;final rule, EPA has retained the three restoration requirements; (4) The final rule establishes two types of
~ submittal requirements. Under the first demonstrate that it will install or has performance standards, one that component, EPA has specified the installed and properly operates and addresses impingement mortality and categories of potential valuation maintains an approved design and one that addresses entrainment. EPA estimates in the final rule, namely construction technology; or (5) used impingement mortality and commercial, recreational and ecological demonstrate that it has selected, entrainment as a metric for performance benefits. EPA has added that a facility installed, and is properly operating and because these are primary and distinct should include non-use benefits if maintaining, or will install and properly types of harmful impacts associated applicable. To the second component, operate and maintain, design and with the use of cooling water intake EPA has added that the basis may construction technologies, operational structures (see also section IV). Both the include a determination of entrainment measures, and/or restoration measures impingement mortality and the survival if the Director approved such a that the Director has determined to be entrainment performance standards study. Requirements for the uncertainty the best technology available for the apply to facilities demonstrating analysis remain unchanged from facility based on application of a compliance under alternatives two, proposal. In the final rule, EPA has specified cost-to-cost test or a cost-to- three, and four, described above added that a facility will be required to benefit test. The basis for each of the (§ 125.94(a)(2), (3), and (4)). In addition, submit peer review of the items five compliance alternatives is the Director's site-specific alternative submitted (upon the Director's request) explained in section VII.C. of this requirements must be as close as and a narrative description of non- preamble. practicable to the applicable monetized benefits that would result at The rule establishes performance performance standards under § 125.94.
the site if the facility was to meet standards for the reduction of Performance standards for entrainment applicable performance standards. impingement mortality and do not apply to facilities with low In summary, the major changes in the entrainment. EPA established these utilization capacity, those with a design cost-benefit analysis are as follows: performance standards in part based on intake flow of five percent or less of the
- Facilities will be required to a variety of technologies, but the rule mean annual flow of a freshwater river achieve an efficacy that is "as close as does not mandate the use of any specific or stream, and those that withdraw practicable" to performance standards technology. These performance cooling water from a lake (other than and/ or restoration requirements, standards vary by waterbody type (i.e., one of the Great Lakes) or reservoir
- Facilities will need to specifically freshwater river/stream, estuary/tidal because such facilities have a low demonstrate that costs are significantly river, ocean, Great Lake, or lake/ propensity for causing significant greater than the benefits of compliance, reservoir) and the capacity utilization entrainment impacts due to limited
.and rate of the facility. They may be met in facility operation, low intake flow, or a Facilities will have additional whole or in part using restoration general waterbody characteristics. The requirements under the Benefits measures after demonstrating, among impingement mortality performance Valuation Study. other things, that the facility has standard requires a Phase II existing evaluated the use of design and facility that complies under VII. Basis for the Final Regulation construction technologies and §125.94(a)(2), (3), and (4) to reduce A. Why Is EPA Establishinga Multiple operational measures at the site. The impingement mortality of all life stages ComplianceAlternative Approach for basis for the performance standards is of fish and shellfish by 80 to 95 percent DeterniningBest Technology Available explained in section VII.B. of this from the calculation baseline.
for Minimizing Adverse Environmental preamble and the basis for the Both an entrainment performance Impact? restoration requirements is explained at standard and an impingement mortality section VII.F. of this preamble. For a standard apply to facilities with a Today's final rule authorizes a Phase more detailed description of the rule, capacity utilization rate of 15 percent or II existing facility to choose one of five see sections V and IX of this preamble. greater and that withdraw cooling water alternatives for establishing the best These requirements reflect the best from a tidal river, estuary, ocean, one of technology available for minimizing technology available for minimizing the Great Lakes, as well as facilities that adverse environmental impacts at the adverse environmental impact from use cooling water from a freshwater facility. A facility may (1) demonstrate cooling water intake structures. river or stream and the design intake that it has reduced or will reduce its EPA adopted this regulatory scheme flow of the cooling water intake cooling water intake flow commensurate because it provides a high degree of structure is greater than five percent of with a closed-cycle, recirculating flexibility for existing facilities to select the mean annual flow because EPA system, and or that it has reduced, or the most effective and efficient believes that these facilities cause more will reduce, the maximum through- approach and technologies for significant entrainment impacts. The screen design intake velocity to 0.5 ftW minimizing adverse environmental entrainment standard, where applicable, s or less; (2) demonstrate that its impact associated with their cooling requires a Phase H facility to reduce existing design and construction water intake structures. This approach entrainment of all life stages of fish and technologies, operational measures, also reflects EPA's judgment that, given shellfish by 60 to 90 percent from the and/or restoration measures meet the, the wide range of various factors that calculation baseline. applicable performance standards and affect the environmental impact posed restoration requirements; (3) by Phase I1existing facilities, different 2. Basis for Performance Standards demonstrate that it has selected design technologies or different combinations Overall, the performance standards (i pmd construction technologies. of technologies can be used and that reflect best technology available
*Woperational measures, and/or restoration optimized to achieve the performance under today's final rule are not based on measures that will, in combination with standards. a single technology but, rather, are
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations ;41599 based on consideration of a range of important factor in addressing adverse intake flow must not disrupt the natural technologies that EPA has determined to environmental impact caused by cooling thermal stratification or turnover pattern C- be commercially available for the industries affected as a whole and have C' 2acceptable non-water quality water intake structures. Because different waterbody types have the potential for different adverse of the source water except in cases where the disruption does not adversely affect the management of fisheries environmental impacts, except for some environmental impacts, the § 125.94(b)(3)(iii)). The natural thermal potential regional energy (reliability) requirements to minimize adverse stratification or turnover pattern of a impacts that will be minimized to the environmental impact vary by lake is a key characteristic that is extent possible through flexible waterbody type. potentially affected by the intake flow compliance options. Because the The reprodifuctive strategies of tidal (which can alter temperature and/or requirements implementing section river and estuarine species, together mixing of cold and warm water layers) 316(b) are applied in a variety of with other physical and biological and location of cooling water intake settings and to Phase H existing facilities characteristics of those waters, make structures within such waterbodies. of different'types and sizes, no single them more susceptible than other Cooling water intake structures technology is most effective at all waterbodies to impacts from cooling withdrawing from the Great Lakes are existing facilities, and a range of water intake structures (66 FR 288857- required to reduce fish and shellfish available technologies has been used to 288859; 68 FR 17140). In contrast, many impingement mortality by 80 to 95 derive the performance standards. aquatic organisms found in non-tidal percent and to reduce entrainment by 60 EPA developed the performance freshwater rivers and streams are less to 90 percent. As described in the Phase standards for impingement mortality susceptible to entrainment due to their I proposed rule (65 FR 49086) and reduction based on an analysis of the demersal (bottom-dwelling) nature and NODA (66 FR 28858), EPA believes that efficacy of the following technologies: the fact that they do not typically have the Great Lakes are a unique system that (1) Design and construction planktonic (free-floating) egg and larval should be protected to a greater extent technologies such as fine and wide- stages (66 FR 28857; 68 FR 17140). than other lakes and reservoirs. Similar mesh wedgewire screens, as well as Comments on the proposed Phase II to oceans, large lakes such as the Great aquatic filter barrier systems, that can existing facility rule also acknowledge Lakes can possess estuarine-like reduce' mortality from impingement by that waterbody type is an important environments in the lower reaches of up to 99 percent or greater compared factor in assessing the impacts of tributary streams. For example, within with conventional once-through cooling water intake structures, the U.S., a total of 1,370 distinct coastal systems; (2) barrier nets that may although some commenters preferred a wetlands fringe the Great Lakes and the achieve reductions of 80 to 90 percent; site-specific approach, and others channels that connect the lakes. (2-and (3j modified screens and fish return maintained that all waters deserve the 016A Herdendorf, C.E. Great Lakes systems, fish diversion systems, and most rigorous technology. A number of estuaries. Estuaries, 13(4): 493-503. fine mesh traveling screens and fish States supported EPA's proposed 1990, pg. 493). The Agency is therefore Ax return systems that have achieved approach. specifying entrainment controls as well reductions in impingement mortality Absent entrainment control as impingement mortality controls for ranging from 60 to 90 percent as technologies, entrainment at a particular the Great Lakes. EPA has not applied compared to conventional once-through site is generally proportional to intake the entrainment performance standard
-systems. flow at that site. As discussed above, to lakes other than the Great Lakes Available performance data for EPA believes it is reasonable to vary because, in general, these waterbodies entrainment reduction are not as performance standards by the potential contain aquatic organisms that tend to comprehensive as impingement data. for adverse environmental impact in a be less impacted by entrainment than However, aquatic filter barrier systems, waterbody type. EPA is limiting the organisms in estuaries or fresh water fine mesh wedgewire screens, and fine requirement for entrainment controls in rivers or streams.
mesh traveling screens with fish return fresh waters to those facilities that The performance standards for systems have been shown to achieve 80 withdraw the largest proportion of water facilities with cooling water intake to 90 percent or greater reduction in from freshwater rivers or streams structures located in a tidal river or entrainment compared with because they have the potential to estuary and with a capacity utilization conventional once-through systems. impinge and entrain larger numbers of rate of 15 percent or greater are to EPA notes that screening to prevent fish and shellfish and therefore have a reduce impingement mortality by 80 to organism entrainment may cause greater potential to cause adverse 95 percent and entrainment by 60 to 90 impingement of those organisms environmental impact. EPA is not percent for fish and shellfish. As instead. requiring entrainment reductions in discussed previously, EPA believes freshwater rivers or streams where estuaries and tidal rivers are more
- 3. Discussion of Key Aspects of facilities withdraw 5 percent or less of susceptible than other waterbodies to Performance Standards the source water annual mean flow adverse impacts from impingement and The performance standards at because such facilities generally have a entrainment.
§ 125.94(b)(1),(2), and (3)are based on low propensity for causing significant The performance standards for the type of waterbody in which the entrainment impacts due to the low facilities with cooling water intake intake structure is located, the volume proportion of intake flow in structures located in an ocean are to of water withdrawn by a facility, and combination with the characteristics of reduce impingement mortality by 80 to the facility capacity utilization rate. the waterbody. 95 percent and entrainment by 60 to 90 Under the final rule, EPA has grouped There are additional performance percent for fish and shellfish. EPA is waterbodies into five categories: (1) standards for facilities withdrawing establishing requirements for facilities Freshwater rivers or streams, (2) lakes or from a lake (other than one of the Great withdrawing from oceans that are reservoirs, (3) Great Lakes, (4)tidal Lakes) or a reservoir. If such a facility similar to those for tidal rivers and rivers and estuaries, and (5) oceans. The Agency considers location, one aspect of proposes to increase the design intake flow of the cooling water intake estuaries because the coastal zone of oceans (from which coastal cooling L) which is waterbody type, to be an structure, the increase in total design water intake structures withdraw water)
41600 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations are highly productive areas for fish and As in the Phase I rule, EPA is setting selection, operation, and maintenance of shellfish. (See the Phase I proposed rule performance standards for minimizing these technologies would serve to (65 FR 45060) and documents in the adverse environmental impact based on increase potential efficiencies of the if record for the Phase I new facility rule a relatively easy to measure and certain technologies. EPA also expects that a S (Docket # W-00-03) such as 2-013A metric-reduction of impingement some facilities may be able to meet these bthrough 0, 2-019A-R11, 2-019A-R12, mortality and entrainment. Although performance requirements by selecting 2-019A-R33, 2-019A-R44, 2-020A, 3- adverse environmental impact and implementing a suite (i.e., more 0059). EPA is also concerned about the associated with cooling water intake than one) of technologies and extent to which fishery stocks that rely structures can extend beyond operational measures and/or, as upon tidal rivers, estuaries and oceans impingement and entrainment, EPA has discussed in this section, by for habitat are overutilized and seeks to chosen this approach because undertaking restoration measures. minimize the impact that cooling water impingement and entrainment are Several additional factors support intake structures may have on these primary, harmful environmental effects EPA's expectation that the impingement species or forage species on which these that can be reduced through the use of mortality and entrainment reduction fishery stocks may depend. Recent data specific technologies. In addition, where reflected in the performance standards demonstrate that approximately 78% of other impacts at the population, can eventually be achieved by all the fish stocks managed by the National community, and ecosystem levels exist, facilities using the design and Oceanic and Atmospheric these will also be reduced by reducing construction technologies and measures Administration's National Marine impingement and mortality. Using on which the standards were based. Fishery Service (NMFS) are fully impingement mortality and entrainment First, a significant portion of the exploited, overfished, or collapsed as a metric provides certainty about available performance data reviewed is (America's Living Oceans: Charting a performance standards and streamlines, from the 1970s and 1980s (when section Course for Sea Change, Pew Oceans and thus speeds, the issuance of 316(b) was initially implemented) and Commission, June 4, 2003). (See also permits. does not reflect recent developments, documents 2-019A-R11, 2-019A-R12, EPA is expressing the performance innovations (e.g., aquatic filter barrier
-Z-O19A-R33, 2-019A-R44, 2-020A, 2- ,standard in the form of ranges rather systems, sound barriers), or experience 024A through 0, and 3-0059 through 3- than a single performance benchmark using these technologies. These data, 0063 in the record of the Final New because of the uncertainty inherent in developed during early implementation Facility Rule (66 FR 65256), Docket # predicting the efficacy of any one of of the CWA, do not fully reflect today's W-00-03). these technologies, or a combination of improved understanding of both how these technologies, across the spectrum the various control technologies work In accordance with the Phase II rule, of facilities subject to today's rule. The and the various factors that reflect what facilities that operate with a capacity lower end of the range is being utilization rate of less than 15 percent constitutes and how to measure healthy established as the percent reduction that aquatic conditions. Second, these are subject to the performance standard EPA, based on the available efficacy conventional barrier and return system
( for impingement mortality only. EPA is data, expects all facilities could technologies have not been optimized i,/not requiring, in today's rule, that these eventually achieve if they were to on a widespread level to date, as would facilities control entrainment. EPA has implement and optimize available be encouraged by this rule. Available several reasons for this. First, EPA has design and construction technologies information indicates that facilities that determined that entrainment control and operational measures on which the use these cooling water intake structure technology is not economically performance standards are based. (See technologies often achieve better results practicable in view of the reduced Chapter 4, "Efficacy of Cooling Water from the technologies through adjusting operating levels of these facilities. These Intake Structure Technologies," of the which technologies are applied and how facilities also tend to operate most often Phase II Existing Facility Technical they are used. Such optimization, which in mid-winter or late summer, which are Development Document, EPA-821-R- also benefits from the advances in times of peak energy demand but 04-007, February 2004. Also, see EPA's understanding noted above, would be periods of generally low abundance of 316(b) technology efficacy database, promoted under this rule as facilities entrainable life stages of fish and DCN 6-5000.) The lower end of the work to achieve the performance shellfish. Finally, the total volume of range also reflects, in part, higher standards. Third, EPA believes that water withdrawn by these facilities is mortality rates at sites where there may some facilities could achieve further significantly lower than for facilities be more fragile species that may not reductions (estimated at 15-30 percent) operating at or near peak capacity, and have a high survival rate after coming in in impingement mortality and as noted above, entrainment at a site is contact with fish protection entrainment by providing for seasonal generally proportional to flow, absent technologies-at the cooling water Intake flow restrictions, variable speed pumps, entrainment controls. Consequently, structure (e.g.,;fine mesh screens). The systems conversions to closed-cycle, EPA determined that it was neither higher end of the range is a percent recirculating systems, and other necessary nor cost-effective for these reduction that available data show many operational measures and innovative facilities to reduce entrainment where facilities can and have achieved with flow reduction alternatives. Such the total volume of water withdrawn the available technologies upon which operational measures could be used to and the number of organisms that would the performance standards are based. supplement design and construction be protected from entrainment is likely In specifying a range, EPA anticipates technologies where necessary to meet to be small. EPA is also allowing , that facilities will select the most cost- the performance standards. Facilities facilities with multiple, distinct cooling effective technologies or operational also could benefit from combining water intakes that are exclusively measures to achieve the performance inexpensive technologies as a "suite." dedicated to different generating units level (within the stated range) based on For additional discussion, see chapter 4 to determine capacity utilization and conditions found at their site, and that in the Phase II Existing Facility AL . plcable performance standards Directors will review the facility's Technical Development Document. _Iseparately for each intake for the same application to ensure that appropriate The calculation baseline used to reasons. alternatives were considered. Proper determine compliance with
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41601 performance standards is defined in baseline) achieved by these existing cycle, recirculating cooling is not one of
§125.93 as an estimate of impingement technologies should be counted toward the technologies on which the -
mortality and entrainment that would compliance with the performance performance standards are based, use of occur at a site assuming (1)the cooling standards. In addition, operationali a closed-cycle, recirculating cooling ( ' L- water system had been designed as a measures such as operation of traveling system would always achieve the once-through system; (2)the opening of screens, employment of more efficient performance standards and therefore, the cooling water intake structure is return systems, and even locational facilities that reduce their flow located at, and the face of the standard choices should be credited for any commensurate with closed-cycle, 3ve-inch mesh traveling screen is corresponding reduction in recirculating cooling systems are oriented parallel to, the shoreline near impingement mortality and deemed to have met performance the surface of the source waterbody; and entrainment. See section IX of this standards. The rule, at § 124.94(a)(1)(i), (3)the baseline practices and preamble for a discussion of how the calculation baseline is used to compare thus establishes a compliance - procedures are those that the facility alternative based on the use of a closed-would maintain in the absence of any facility performance with the rule's performance standards. cycle, recirculating cooling system. operational controls, including flow or While EPA based the requirements of velocity reductions, implemented in C. WhatIstheBasisfortheFive* the new facility rule on the performance whole or in part for the purposes of Compliance Alternatives That EPA standards of closed-cycle recirculating reducing impingement mortality and Selected for EstablishingBest entrainment. In addition, the facility systems, EPA has determined that this Technology Available? technology is not economically may choose to use the current level of impingement mortality and entrainment 1. Meeting Performance Standards practicable for many existing Phase II as the calculation baseline. EPA's Through Reducing Intake Flow facilities. EPA is nonetheless aware that definition also clarifies the range of Commensurate With a Closed Cycle some existing facilities have installed available information sources for the' Recirculating System or Reduced Design this highly effective technology and has baseline. The calculation baseline may Intake Velocity thus provided a streamlined alternative be estimated using: historical Under § 125.94(a)(1)(i), any facility for such facilities. impingement mortality and entrainment that reduces its flow to a level Additionally, EPA established a data from the facility or from another commensurate with a closed-cycle, compliance altemative'that allows facility with comparable design, recirculating cooling system meets the facilities to reduce intake velocity to operational, and environmental performance standards in today's rule meet the impingement mortality conditions; current biological data because such a reduction in flow is performance standards. As EPA collected in the waterbody in the deemed to satisfy any applicable impingement mortality and entrainment discussed in the proposed rule at 67 FR vicinity of the facility's cooling water 17151 and Phase I final rule at 66 FR An- intake structure; or current performance standards for all 65274, intake velocity is one of the key impingement mortality and entrainment waterbodies. Facilities that select this factors that can affect the impingement data collected at the facility. Further, a compliance alternative either through facility may request that the calculation the use of closed-cycle recirculating of fish and other aquatic biota, since in baseline be modified to be based on a system technology at the plant, or by the immediate area of the intake it location of the opening of the cooling retrofitting their facility, will not be exerts a direct physical force against water intake structure at a depth other required to further demonstrate that which fish and other organisms must act than at or near the surface if it can they meet the applicable performance to avoid impingement and entrainment. demonstrate to the Director that the standards. Similarly, under As discussed in that notice, EPA other depth would correspond to a 125.94(a)(1)(ii), any facility that reduces compiled data from three swim speed higher baseline level of impingement its design intake velocity to 0.5 ft/s or studies (University of Washington mortality and/or entrainment. EPA less is deemed to have met the study, Turnpenny, and EPRI) and these decided to use this definition because it performance standards for impingement data indicated that a 0.5 ft/s velocity represents the most common default mortality and is not required to would protect at least 96 percent of the conditions the Agency could identify to demonstrate further that it meets the tested fish. As further discussed, EPA give facilities credit for design and performance standards for impingement also identified federal documents construction technologies, operational mortality. (Boreman, DCN 1-5003-PR; Bell (1990); measures, and/or restoration measures Available data described in Chapter 3 and National Marine Fisheries Service that they have already implemented to of the Phase II Existing Facility (NMFS), (1997)), an early swim speed minimize adverse environmental Technical Development Document and endurance study performed by . impact, while providing a clear and suggest that closed-cycle, recirculating Sonnichsen et al. (1973), and fish screen relatively simple definition. Based on cooling systems (e.g., cooling towers or velocity criteria that are consistent with comments received on the Phase II ponds) can reduce mortality from impingement by up to 98 percent and this approach. NODA, this calculation baseline definition includes additional criteria entrainment by up to' 98 percent when that EPA has added to provide clarity to compared with conventional once- systems. Steam electric generating facilities that the analysis. (Proposed changes to the through systems.44 Although closed- have closed-cycle, recirculating cooling systems calculation baseline were discussed in using salt water can reduce water usage by 70 to 44Reducing the cooling water intake structure's 96 percent when make-up and blowdown flows are the Phase II NODA, see 68 FR 13580). capacity is one of the most effective means of In many cases, existing technologies at minimized. The lower range of water usage would reducing entrainment (and impingement). For the be expected where State water quality standards the site show some reduction in traditional steam electric utility industry, facilities ( impingement and entrainment when compared to this baseline. In such cases, located in freshwater areas that have closed-cycle recirculating cooling water systems can, depending limit chloride to a maximum increase of 10 percent over background and therefore require a 1.1 cycle, on the quality of the make-up water, reduce water of concentration. The higher range should be impingement mortality and entrainment use by 96 to 98 percent from the amount they attainable where cycles of concentration up to 2.0 reductions (relative to the calculated would use if they had once-through cooling water are used for the design.
41602 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations
- 2. Meeting Performance Standards the following year. Improvements and cylindrical wedgewire screen Through the Use of Design and additions were made to the system in technology to treat the total cooling Construction Technologies, Operational 1997, 1998, and 1999, with some water intake flow. There are five f Measures, and/or Restoration Measures adjustments being accepted as conditions that must be met in order to Under the second and third improvements of this vendor's use this technology to comply with the compliance alternatives (§ 125.94(a)(2) technology for all subsequent rule: (1) The cooling water intake and (3)), a facility may either installations at other locations. structure is located in a freshwater river demonstrate to the Director that the Big Bend PowerStation. Situated on or stream; (2) the cooling water intake Tampa Bay, Big Bend is a 1998 MW structure is situated such that sufficient facility's existing design and (coal-fired steam) facility with four construction technologies, operational ambient counter currents exist to measures, and/or restoration measures generating units. The facility first began promote cleaning of the screen face; (3) operations in 1970 and added the through screen design intake already meet the minimum performance generating units in 1973, 1976, and standards specified under § 125.94(b) velocity is 0.5 ft/s or less; (4) the slot 1985. Big Bend supplies cooling water size is appropriate for the size of eggs, and (c), or that it has selected design to its once-through cooling water and construction technologies, larvae, and juveniles of any fish and systems via two intake structures. When shellfish to be protected at the site; and operational measures, and/or restoration the facility added Unit 4 in 1985, measures or some combination thereof (5) the entire main condenser cooling regulators required the facility to install water flow is directed through the that will meet these performance additional intake technologies. A fish standards. technology (small flows totaling less handling and return system, as well as than two MGD for auxiliary plant Available data indicate that, when a fine-mesh traveling screen (used only considered as a suite of technologies, cooling uses are excluded). Directors are during months with potentially high explicitly authorized in § 125.99 to pre-barrier and fish handling technologies entrainment rates), were installed on the are available on a national basis for use approve other technologies for use at intake structure serving both the new facilities with other specified by Phase U existing facilities. These Unit 4 and the existing Unit 3.
technologies exist and are in use at characteristics within their respective Salem GeneratingStation. A 2381 jurisdiction after providing the public various Phase II fabilities and, thus, EPA MW facility (nuclear), Salem is located considers them collectively with a notice and an opportunity to on the Delaware River in Lower comment on the request for approval of technologically achievable. In addition, Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. 50 percent of the potentially regulated the technology. The Director's authority The facility has two generating units, to pre-approve other technologies is not facilities that do not already have both of which use once-through cooling closed-cycle cooling systems have some and began operations in 1977. n 1995, limited to technologies for use by other technology in place that reduces facilities located on freshwater rivers the facility installed modified Ristroph impingement or entrainment. In turn, a and streams. screens and a low-pressure spray wash large subset of these facilities (33 with a fish return system. The facility EPA has adopted this compliance percent) also have fish handling or also redesigned the fish return troughs alternative in response to comments that return systems that reduce the mortality to reduce fish trauma. suggested that EPA provide an of impinged organisms. The fact that Chalk Point GeneratingStation. additional, more streamlined these technologies are collectively Located on the Patuxent River in Prince compliance option under which a available means that one or more George's County, Maryland, Chalk Point facility could implement certain technologies within the suite is has a capacity of 2647 MW (oil-fired specified technologies that are deemed available to each Phase II facility. steam). The facility has four generating highly protective in exchange for EPA finds that the design and units and uses a combination of once- reducing the scope of the construction technologies necessary to through and closed-cycle, recirculating Comprehensive Demonstration Study. meet the requirements are commercially cooling systems (two once-through (See 68 FR 13522, 13539; March 19, available and economically practicable systems serving two generating units 2003). EPA evaluated the effectiveness for existing facilities, because facilities and one recirculating system with a of specific technologies using the can and have installed many of these tower serving the other two generating impingement mortality and entrainment technologies years after a facility began units). In 1983, the facility installed a reduction performance standards as operation. Typically, additional design barrier net, followed by a secondnet in assessment criteria. The technology and construction technologies such as 1985, giving the facility a coarse mesh - selected for the approved technology fine mesh screens, wedgewire screens, (1.25X outer net and a fine mesh (.751 option has a demonstrated ability to fish handling and return systems, and inner net. The barrier nets are anchored reduce impingement mortality by 80 to aquatic filter fabric barrier systems can to a series of pilings at the mouth of the 95 percent for fish and shellfish and, if be installed during a scheduled outage intake canal that supplies the cooling required, reduce entrainment by 60 to (operational shutdown). Referenced water to the facility and serve to reduce 90 percent for any stages of fish and below are examples of facilities that both entrainment and the volume of shellfish at facilities that meet the installed these technologies after they trash taken in at the facility. conditions specified in section initially started operating. 125.99(a). Thus, the technology has a Lovett GeneratingStation. A 495 MW 3. Meeting Performance Standards demonstrated ability to meet the most facility (gas-fired steam), Lovett is Through Use of an Approved Design stringent performance standards that located in Tomkins Cove, New York, and Construction Technology would apply to any facility situated on along the Hudson River. The facility Under the fourth compliance a freshwater river or stream. (See DCN first began operations in 1949 and has alternative, a facility can demonstrate 1-3075, 1-5069, 1-5070, 3-0002, and 4-three generating units with once- that it meets specified conditions and 4002B. Also see, DCN 6-5000 and > .through cooling systems. In 1994, Lovett that it has installed and properly Chapter 3 of the Technical Development to began the testing of an aquatic filter operates and maintains a pre-approved Document.) Because cylindrical
%vbarrier system to reduce entrainment, technology. EPA is approving one wedgewire screens are believed to be with a permanent system being installed technology at this time: submerged effective when deployed under the
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41603 specified conditions and properly requirements based on this cost-cost cost estimates is higher than for an maintained, facilities that select this comparison, see Section VIII. I.). effluent limitations guidelines compliance option are provided a. Basis of the Cost-Cost Test rulemaking. Thus, EPA may not have substantially streamlined requirements anticipated all site-specific costs that a K 1 for completing the Comprehensive For a number of related reasons, EPA facility could incur. In addition, existing Demonstration Study. However, chose to use a comparison of a facility's facilities have less flexibility than new facilities selecting this option are still actual costs to the costs EPA estimated facilities in selecting the location of required to prepare a Technology that facility would incur to meet the their intakes and technologies for Installation and Operation Plan to national performance standards (a "cost- minimizing adverse environmental monitor the effectiveness of the cost test") as a basis for obtaining a site- impact and, therefore, it may be difficult technology at their site in meeting the specific determination of best for some facilities to avoid costs much performance standards. technology available. EPA's record for higher than those EPA considered when
,this rule shows that, for the category of establishing the performance standards
- 4. Site-Specific Determination of Best existing facilities as a whole, today's in the rule. For all of these reasons, EPA Technology Available To Minimize rule is technically achievable and believes that the cost-cost site-specific Adverse Environmental Impact economically practicable. Although EPA compliance alternative is necessary to A facility may comply with the rule collected more information for this ensure that the rule is economically by seeking a site-specific demonstration rulemaking than is typical for an practicable for existing Phase II of the best technology available to effluent limitation guideline facilities. In order to ensure that this minimize adverse environmental impact rulemaking, detailed information on alternative provides only the minimum by demonstrating, to the Director's some factors important to the relaxation of performance standards that satisfaction, that its cost of complying effectiveness and costs of the is needed to make the rule economically with the applicable performance technologies, such as debris loading and practicable, § 125.94(a)(5)(i) requires standards would be significantly greater the presence of navigational channels: that the site-specific requirements than the costs considered 'by EPA for a within the waterbody at which cooling achieve an efficacy that is as dose as like facility when establishing such water intakes are sited, tvasnot apracticable to the applicable performance standards, or that its costs requested. Moreover, the information performance standards without would be significantly greater than the EPA used to develop its costs was in resulting in costs that are significantly benefits of complying with such some cases limited by the fact that, greater than those considered by the performance standards at the facility. while EPA sent surveys to all facilities Administrator for a like facility when (See sections 125.94(a)(5)(i) and (ii)). If covered under today's rule, only 42% establishing the performance standards.
a facility satisfies one of the two cost were sent detailed questionnaires. The remaining 58% only received a short b. Basis of the Cost-Benefit Test tests in § 125.94(a)(5), then the Director technical questionnaire which requested EPA decided to use a comparison of must establish site-specific alternative minimal characterization information. a facility's costs to the benefits of requirements based on design and Also, EPA may not have elicited meeting the performance standards at construction technologies, operational information regarding characteristics of the facility (a "cost-benefit test") as, measures, and/or restoration measures a particular facility that, if known another basis for obtaining a site-that achieve an efficacy that is, in the would have either significantly changed specific determination of BTA to judgment of the Director, as-close as EPA's national cost estimates or minimize adverse environmental practicable to the applicable demonstrated that none of the impact. Section 316(b) authorizes performance standards without technologies on which the categorical consideration of the environmental resulting in costs that are significantly requirements are based are benefit to be gained by requiring that the greater than either the costs considered economically achievable by the facility. location, design, construction, and by the Administrator in establishing the Similarly, existing facilities have less capacity of cooling water intake applicable performance standards, or flexibility than new facilities in structures reflect the best economically the benefits at the facility. selecting the location of their intakes practicable technology available for the In establishing the performance and technologies for minimizing purpose of minimizing adverse standards in 125.94(b) and the adverse environmental impact, and environmental impact. Accordingly, in compliance alternatives in sections therefore it may be difficult for some determining that the technologies on 125.94(a)(1)4), EPA considered several facilities to avoid costs much higher which EPA based the compliance factors, including efficacy, availability, than those EPA considered when alternatives and performance standards ease of implementation, indirect effects, establishing the performance standards. are the best technologies available for the costs that EPA expects all existing The cost-cost site-specific alternative existing facilities to minimize adverse facilities to incur (national costs) and ensures that the overall rule remains environmental impact, EPA considered the benefits if all existing facilities meet economically practicable for facilities the national cost of those technologies the performance standards (national subject to today's rule. In short, for in comparison to the national benefits-benefits). This provision for alternative certain facilities EPA may not have i.e., the reduction in impingement and requirements is included in the rule to anticipated some site-specific costs or entrainment that EPA estimated would give facilities flexibility to demonstrate the costs for retrofit may exceed those occur nationally if all existing facilities that the best technology available to EPA considered. Despite EPA's best selected one of the compliance options minimize adverse environmental impact effort, such costs are difficult to estimate in sections 125.94(a)(1)-{4). While EPA at their particular sites may be less in a national rule. Because of the wide believes that there is considerable value stringent than would otherwise be range of available technologies in promulgating national performance achieved if the facility selected one of considered and a number of site-specific standards under section 316(b) based on the compliance alternatives in sections factors that may significantly affect the what EPA determines, on a national Q 125.94(a)(1H4). (For a discussion of EPA's legal authority to authorize cost and practicability of installing particular technologies at particular basis, to be the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental L_) compliance with alternative sites, the site-specific uncertainty in the impacts, EPA also recognizes that, at
41604 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations times, determining what is necessary to not significantly greater than the E. What Were the Major Options minimize adverse environmental benefits. Section 125.94(a)(5)(i) thus Consideredfor the FinalRule and Why impacts can necessitate a site-specific provides that alternative site-specific Did EPA Reject Them?
'~ inquiry. EPA's comparison of national. requirements must achieve an efficacy ik costs to national benefits may not be that is as close as practicable to the EPA considered a number of options
~' applicable to a specific site due to applicable performance standards for determining the best technology variations in (1) the performance of without resulting in costs that are available to minimize adverse intake technologies and (2) significantly greater than the benefits of environmental impact at Phase H characteristics of the waterbody in meeting the performance standards at existing facilities and assessed these which the intake(s) are sited, including the facility. options based on overall efficacy, the resident aquatic biota. For example, availability, economic practicability, D. How Has EPA Assessed Economic including economic impact and the there may be some facilities where the Practicability?
absolute numbers of fish and shellfish relationship of costs with benefits, and impinged and entrained is so minimal The legislative history of section non-water quality environmental that the cost to achieve the required 316(b) indicates that the term "best impacts, including energy impacts. percentage reductions would be technology available" should be Under the options EPA considered, significantly greater than the benefits of interpreted as "best technology facilities would be allowed to achieving the required reductions at that available commercially at an implement restoration measures to meet particular site. More specifically, economically practicable cost." This 45 the performance standards. Similarly, because of the location of the intake, the position reflects congressional concern any options considered also would characteristics of a particular that the application of best technology allow facilities to request alternative, waterbody, or the behavioral patterns of available should not impose an less stringent, requirements if the the fish or shellfish in that particular impracticable and unbearable economic Director had determined that data waterbody, there may be little or noi burden. Thus, EPA has conducted specific to the facility indicated that impingement mortality or entrairnent extensive analyses of the economic compliance with the relevant occurring at the site (see Neal impacts of this final rule, using an requirement would result in compliance Generating Complex facility example integrated energy market model (the costs significantly greater than those provided in section-IV of this preamble). IPM45). For a complete discussion of EPA considered in establishing the For such a facility, the cost of reducing this analysis, please refer to section applicable requirement, or compliance an already small amount of XI.B.1 of this preamble or Chapter B3 of costs significantly greater than the impingement mortality and entrainment the Economic and Benefits Analysis; benefits of complying with the by 80 to 95 percent and 60 to 90 (EBA) in support of this final rule (DCN applicable performance standards. The percent, respectively, may be 6-0002). alternative requirements would be no significantly greater than the benefits. In EPA believes that the requirements of less stringent than justified by the short, it may not be cost-effective and, this rule reflect the best technology significantly greater cost or the therefore may be economically available at an economically practicable significant adverse impacts on local air quality or local energy markets. EPA impracticable for a facility to achieve cost. EPA examined the effects of the percentage reductions when attempting rule's compliance costs on capacity, also considered several site-specific to save a small number of fish or generation, variable production costs, approaches to establishing best shellfish. Thus, in a waterbody that is prices, net income, and other measures, technology available. These include the already degraded, very few aquatic both at the market and facility levels. In site-specific sample rule discussed at 67 organisms may be subject to addition, the other economic analyses FR 17159, an alternative based on EPA's impingement or entrainment, and the conducted by EPA showed that the costs 1977 Draft Guidance, and alternatives costs of retrofitting an existing cooling for this rule are economically suggested by the Utility Water Act water intake structure may be practicable. Group (UWAG) and Public Service significantly greater than the benefits of Electric and Gas Company (PSEG), doing so. By requiring best technology However, EPA believes that a respectively (see 67 FR 17162). EPA's consideration of the relationship of reasons for not adopting these site available to minimize adverse : costs to environmental benefits is an environmental impact, section 316(b) specific alternatives are discussed in invites a consideration of both -important component of economic section VII.E.5 of this preamble. The practicability. As discussed in section five major technology options EPA technology and of environmental VIII.C of the proposed Phase I rule (65 conditions, including the potential for FR 49094) EPA has long recognized that considered but did not select for the adverse impacts, in the receiving final rule are discussed in greater detail waterbody. EPA believes it is a - there should be some reasonable in the next section. Finally, the costs reasonable interpretation of the statute relationship between the cost of cooling and benefits presented below are those to allow the Director to consider the water intake structure control developed at proposal because these results of meeting the performance technology and the environmental estimates are most useful for purposes standards in terms of reducing benefits associated with its use. As the of comparison. Subsequent analyses, environmental impacts (i.e., the preamble to the 1976 final rule such as those presented in the NODA, implementing section 316(b) stated, have resulted in higher cost estimates in benefits) in cases where the costs of neither the statute nor the legislative installing the technology are history requires a formal or informal general, but did not alter the relative significantly greater than the reduction cost-benefit assessment (41 FR 17387; ranking of these options as EPA made in environmental impacts would April 26, 1976). determinations regarding the final rule. warrant. As with the cost-cost site- Rather, these analyses indicated that the specific provision, EPA also wants to costs for options that would have 45See 118 CONG. REC 33,762 (1972). reprinted in l nsure that any relaxation of the I Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control required more extensive retrofitting
,hwerformance standards be the minimum Act Amendments of 1972, at 264 (1973) (Statement efforts than the final rule are even necessary to ensure that the costs are of Representative Don H. Clausen). higher relative to the costs of the final
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 41605 rule than they were estimated to be at existing facilities would be burning the same amount of coal. For at proposal. approximately $3.5 billion per year. least one nuclear power plant, which It is significant to note, however, that provides 78% of the electricity
- 1. Intake Capacity Commensurate With EPA's estimates did not fully consumed by the State of Vermont, the t< Closed-Cycle, Recirculating Cooling incorporate costs associated with energy penalty associated with System for All Facilities acquiring land needed for cooling converting to cooling towers was EPA considered a regulatory option towers and, therefore, these estimates estimated to be 5.3 percent. Expressed that would have required Phase HI -maynot fully reflect the costs of the differently, DOE estimated that existing facilities with a design intake option. For example, based on a survey nationally, on average 20 additional flow 50 MGD or more to reduce the total conducted by one industry commenter, 400-MW plants might have to be built design intake flow to a level, at a EPA learned that 31 out of 56 plants to replace the generating capacity lost minimum, commensurate with that surveyed said that they would need to by replacing once-through cooling which can be attained by a closed-cycle acquire additional property to systems with wet cooling towers if such recirculating cooling system using accommodate cooling towers, if towers were required by all Phase II minimized make-up and blowdown required by today's rule. EPA recognizes facilities.
flows. In addition, facilities in specified that this could be a significant cost. EPA This energy penalty leads to other circumstances (eg., located where also recognizes that there may be negative consequences. Because this additional protection is needed due to impediments, irrespective of costs, to deficit is predicted to occur during the concerns regarding threatened, acquiring land for cooling towers. Land summer months (when energy demand endangered, or protected species or upon which to construct cooling towers is highest), the net effect would be more habitat; or regarding migratory, sport or may be difficult or impossible to obtain, consumption of fossil fuel, which in commercial species of concern) would especially in urban areas; some facilities turn increases the emission of sulfur have had to select and implement might even turn to displacement of dioxide, NOx, particulate matter, additional design and construction wetlands as a solution. The Agency did mercury and carbon dioxide. Increasing technologies to minimize impingement not include these potential costs in its fuel consumption at existing coal power mortality and entrainment. This option analysis for the NODA or proposal. In plants yields the largest increase in air would not have distinguished between contrast to new facilities, which can emissions because existing systems are facilities on the basis of the waterbody take into account the Phase I less efficient at producing power (and type from which they withdraw cooling requirements when choosing where to therefore burn more coal) and because water. Rather, it would have required situate their structures (including they generally have less air pollution that the same stringent controls be the cooling towers), existing facilities have control equipment in place. EPA nationally applicable minimum for all far less flexibility and incur far greater believes that it is reasonable to consider waterbody types. This is the basic costs. EPA believes that this is a special these non-water quality environmental C- regulatory approach EPA adopted for new facilities at 40 CFR 125.80. EPA did not select a regulatory problem for existing facilities that is relevant to determining whether, as a national categorical matter, closed-cycle impacts and the additional costs associated with controlling these increased emissions in making today's (ttw .1 scheme based on the use of closed- cooling is the best technology available decision. EPA further believes that it is cycle, recirculating cooling systems at for existing facilities for minimizing authorized to do so because of the links existing facilities based on its generally adverse environmental impacts between § 316(b) and sections 301 and high costs (due to conversions), the fact associated with cooling water intake 306, which require EPA to consider both that other technologies approach the structures. EPA received retrofit cost the energy impacts and the air pollution performance of this option, concerns for estimates from a number of commenters impacts of technologies when energy impacts due to retrofitting that indicate that such costs could be at identifying technologies in the effluent existing facilities, and other least twice those projected by EPA. guidelines context. See CWA section considerations. Although closed-cycle, Another issue concerns the energy 304(b)(2)(B) (cross-referenced in § 301); recirculating cooling water systems impacts of cooling towers. EPA CWA section 306(b)(1)(B) (new source serve as the basis for requirements examined the information it received performance standards). applied to Phase I new facilities, for after publication of the proposed rule Some commenters also assert that Phase 11 existing facilities, a national and NODA, and agrees that the energy EPA underestimated the down time that requirement to retrofit existing systems penalty associated with cooling towers, the facility would experience as it is not the most cost-effective approach together with other factors, indicates converts to cooling towers. This, again, and at many existing facilities, retrofits that this technology is not the best is not an impact that would be may be impossible or not economically technology available for existing experienced by new facilities. EPA practicable. EPA estimates that the total facilities for minimizing adverse agrees that such down time can be capital costs for individual high-flow environmental impacts associated with significant. Indeed, one of the four plants (i.e., greater than 2 billion gallons cooling water intake structures. In retrofit case studies EPA developed per day) to convert to wet towers reaching this conclusion, EPA relied on indicated a down time of 10 months, generally ranged from $130 to $200. energy penalty information provided by and EPA believes it is reasonable to million, with annual operating costs in the U.S. Department of Energy. EPA infer that many other facilities would the range of $4 to $20 million (see TDD; worked closely with the U.S. experience the same loss. DCN 6-0004). For purposes of general Department of Energy in preparing EPA also agrees with the commenters comparison, EPA estimated that capital today's rule because of their expertise in who assert that the empirical data base and installation costs for cooling towers power plant operations and engineering. of four retrofit cases to which EPA under the Phase I rule would range from The U.S. Department of Energy pointed compared cooling tower retrofit costs approximately $170,000 to $12.6 out to EPA that existing fossil-fuel and engineering characteristics is not million per plant (annualized), facilities converting from once-through representative of the broader population depending on flow. At proposal, EPA estimated that the total social cost of
,cooling water systems to wet-cooling towers would produce 2.4 percent to 4.0 of facilities and could be too narrow a set from which to develop national costs U
compliance for this option for Phase II percent less electricity even while that would be applicable to a wide range
41606 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/IRules and Regulations of facilities. Of the four retrofits EPA required technology for all existing percent capacity utilization would, as in studied, two were in a single state Phase 11 facilities. today's final rule, only be required to (South Carolina), none were located. EPA further compared the efficacy of have impingement control technology. along a coast, and only one generated closed-cycle, recirculating cooling Facilities that have a closed-cycle, i X more than 500 MW of electricity. EPA systems with that estimated for design recirculating cooling system would have W also recognizes that all of these and construction technologies. required additional design and conversions were performed before Although not identical, the ranges of construction technologies to increase 1992. While it is true that the vast impingement and entrainment the survival rate of impinged biota or to majority of the new, greenfield utility reduction are similar under both further reduce the amount of entrained and non-utility combined cycle plants options, such that the reductions biota if the intake structure was located built in the past 20 years have wet estimated for the design and within an ocean, tidal river, or estuary cooling towers, EPA believes that it is construction technologies, particularly where there are fishery resources of significant that so few existing facilities when optimized, approach those concern to permitting authorities or retrofitted to the technology during the estimated for closed-cycle, recirculating fishery managers. same period. The rarity of this cooling systems. Therefore, the use of Facilities with cooling water intake technology as a retrofit further indicates design and construction technologies as structures located in a freshwater that it is not economically practicable the basis for this rule is supported since (including rivers and streams, the Great for the vast majority of existing they can approach closed-cycle, Lakes and other lakes) would have had facilities. recirculating systems at less cost with 'the same requirements as under today's EPA also considered several fewer implementation problems. EPA final rule. If a facility for which closed-additional points made by commenters considered this similarity in efficacy, cycle recirculating technology was in rejecting this option. Some along with the economic practicability required chose to comply with commenters asserted that certain and availability of each type of alternative requirements, then the facilities with closed-cycle, recirculating technology, in determining that a facility would have had to demonstrate cooling systems often need to address closed-cycle, recirculating cooling that alternative technologies would the 'Imnacts of cooling tower plumes, system is not ther required technology reduce impingement and artkainment to and subsequent fog and icing in for all Phase II existing facilities. levels comparable to those that would metropolitan areas, and noise be achieved with a closed-loop
- 2. Intake Capacity Commensurate With recirculating system (90% reduction). If abatement. Commenters also asserted Closed-Cycle, Recirculating Cooling such a facility chose to supplement its that the costs of retrofitting and Systems Based on Waterbody Type alternative technologies with restoration operating such systems at facilities EPA also considered an alternate measures, it would have had to which do not now have them is technology-based option in which demonstrate the same or substantially disproportionate to the potential closed-cycle, recirculating cooling similar level of protection. (For benefits derived, particularly given the systems would have been required for additional discussion see the Phase I
< similarity in the level of protection all facilities on certain waterbody types. final rule 66 FR 65256, at 65315 provided under this option (all facilities Under this option, EPA would have columns 1 and 2.)
required to reduce flow commensurate grouped waterbodies into the same five At proposal, EPA estimated that there with a closed-cycle, recirculating categories as in today's rule: (1). would be 109 46 facilities located on system) and the final rule. Finally, they Freshwater rivers or streams, (2) lakes or oceans, estuaries, or tidal rivers that do stated that the need for flexibility in a reservoirs, (3) Great Lakes, (4) tidal not have a closed-cycle, recirculating rule pertaining to existing facilities is rivers or estuaries; and (5) oceans. cooling system and would need to critical to allow facility owners a range Because oceans, estuaries and tidal reduce intake flow to a level of options to meet the fish protection rivers contain essential habitat and commensurate with that which can be requirements. EPA does not agree that nursery areas for the vast majority of attained by a closed-cycle, recirculating in all cases the costs of retrofitting a commercial and recreational important cooling system or upgrade design and closed-cycle cooling water system is species of shell and finfish, including construction technology (e.g., screens) disproportionate to the benefits derived. many species that are subject to in order to meet performance standards Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that these intensive fishing pressures, these for reducing impingement mortality and concerns have merit for many facilities waterbody types would have required entrainment. and that the validity and extent of such more stringent controls based on the Although EPA estimated the costs of concerns often must be assessed on a performance of closed-cycle, this option to be less expensive at the case-by-case basis. recirculating cooling systems. EPA national level than an option based on Each of these factors has a cost and an discussed the susceptibility of these closed-cycle, recirculating cooling economic impact that EPA believes is waters in a Notice of Data Availability systems everywhere, EPA did not select appropriate to consider when evaluating (NODA) for the Phase I rule (66 FR this option based on total social costs whether cooling towers are the best 28853, May 25, 2001) and invited estimates of greater than $1 billion per technology available for existing comment on documents that may year and its lack of cost-effectiveness, as facilities for minimizing adverse support its judgment that these waters well as on concerns regarding potential environmental impacts associated with are particularly susceptible to adverse energy impacts. Facilities located on cooling water intake structures. The impacts from cooling water intake -oceans, estuaries, and tidal rivers would capital costs estimated by EPA at structures. In addition, the NODA incur high capital and operating and proposal are already very high; when' presented information regarding the low maintenance costs for conversions of costs reflecting reasonable changes to susceptibility of non-tidal freshwater their cooling water systems. EPA's assumptions are added to them, rivers and streams to impacts from Furthermore, since impacted facilities the total capital cost investment and entrainment from cooling water intake would be concentrated in coastal Kj associated economic impact is simply structures. regions, EPA is concerned that there is
-'too high at this time for EPA to be able Under this alternative option, to justify selecting cooling towers as a facilities that operate at less than 15 46 Sample-weighted.
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41607 the potential for short term energy intake flow to a level commensurate streams, and lakes or reservoirs where impacts and supply disruptions in these with that which can be attained by a EPA has determined in today's final rule areas if multiple facilities retrofit closed-cycle recirculating system. Of the that such controls are not necessary. f(t \.v concurrently or over a relatively short time-frame, as would be required by 58 47 facilities estimated to fall below the applicable flow threshold, 10 Finally, under this alternative, restoration could be used, but only as a I these regulations. facilities already meet these supplement to the use of design and
- 3. Intake Capacity Commensurate With performance standards and would not construction technologies or operational Closed-Cycle, Recirculating Cooling require any additional controls, whereas measures.
System Based on Waterbody Type and 484" facilities would require This option established clear Proportion of Waterbody Flow entrainment or impingement controls, performance-based requirements that or both. Because this option would only were based on the use of available EPA also considered a variation on require cooling tower-based technologies to reduce adverse the above approach that would have performance standards for facilities required only facilities withdrawing environmental impact. Such an located on tidal rivers, estuaries or alternative would be consistent with the very large amounts of water from an oceans where they withdraw saline or focus on use of best technology required estuary, tidal river, or ocean to reduce brackish waters, EPA does not believe their intake capacity to a level under section 316(b). However, as that this option would raise any indicated above, this option lacks the commensurate with that which can be significant water quantity issues. attained by a closed-cycle, recirculating At proposal, EPA estimated the total flexibility of the final rule in applying cooling system, For example, for social cost of compliance for the the necessary and appropriate available facilities with cooling water intake waterbody/capacity-based option to be technology and therefore would be less structures located in a tidal river or approximately $0.9'7 billion per year. effective in addressing the specific estuary, if the intake flow is greater than EPA did not select this option because cooling water intake structure impacts 1 percent of the source water tidal it was not determined tobe the most posed by Phase II facilities in their excursion, then the facility would have cost-effective approach on a national various environmental settings. had to.meet standards.for reducing basis. While thenational costs of this At proposal, total social cost of impingement mortality and entrainment option are slightly lower than those of compliance for this option Was based on the performance of wet cooling requiring wet cooling towers-based estimated at approximately $300 million towers. These facilities would instead performance standard for all facilities per year. EPA did not select this option have had the choice of reducing cooling located on oceans, estuaries and tidal because other options were more cost-water intake flow to a level rivers, the cost for facilities to meet effective, in part because this option commensurate with wet cooling towers these standards are still substantial. requires entrainment controls in or of using alternative technologies to Although EPA would provide an freshwater rivers, streams, and lakes. meet reduction standards based on the opportunity to seek alternative The benefits of the final rule are almost performance of wet cooling towers. If a requirements to address locally the same as those for this option but a 0) ( C facility on a tidal river or estuary had significant air quality or energy impacts, lower cost (since lakes and reservoirs, intake flow equal to or less than 1 EPA does not believe a framework such and for design intake flows below 5% in percent of the source water tidal as this provides sufficient flexibility to freshwater rivers and streams are the excursion, the facility would have only ensure effective implementation and to least likely to provide significant had to meet the same impingement and minimize non-water quality (including benefits). entrainment performance standards as energy) impacts. In addition, as noted in the final Phase I rule. These 5. Site-Specific Options as Best above for the other cooling tower based Technology Available To Minimize standards were developed based on the options that EPA rejected, facilities can performance of technologies such as Adverse Environmental Impact achieve almost the same level of fine mesh screens and traveling screens impingement mortality and entrainment In the proposed rule EPA also with well-designed and operating fish reductions using the technologies on considered several site-specific return systems. The more stringent, which this final rule is based as they approaches to establishing best closed-cycle, recirculating cooling can using cooling towers, but at technology available. These include the system-based requirements would have substantially lower cost. site-specific sample rule discussed at 67 also applied to a facility that has a FR 17159, an alternative based on EPA's cooling water intake structure located in 4. Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Controls Everywhere 1977 Draft Guidance (67 FR 17161), and an ocean with an intake flow greater alternatives suggested by UWAG and than 500 MGD. At proposal, EPA evaluated an option PSEG, respectively (see 67 FR 17162). This option also would impose much that required impingement mortality higher costs on a subset of facilities than and entrainment controls for all EPA did not adopt any of these site-the final rule. Based on an analysis of facilities. This option did not allow for specific regulatory options for several data collected through the detailed the development of best technology reasons. None of these site-specific industry questionnaire and the short available on a site-specific basis. This approaches would have established technical questionnaire, at proposal, alternative based requirements on the national performance standards for best EPA estimated there were potentially percent of source water withdrawn and, technology available to minimize 109 Phase I existing facilities located like today's final rule, also restricted adverse environmental impact. EPA on estuaries, tidal rivers, or oceans disruption of the natural thermal believes that such national performance which would incur capital costs under stratification of lakes or reservoirs. It standards promote the consistent this option. Of these 109 facilities, EPA also imposed entrainment performance application of the best technology estimated that 51 would exceed the requirements on Phase II existing available to minimize adverse applicable flow threshold and be environmental impact. In addition, Q. required to meet performance standards for reducing impingement mortality and facilities located on freshwater rivers or 4'7Not sample-weighted. based on contact with States (see Phase I NODA, 66 FR 28865, Phase II proposal 67 FR 17152-3) and anecdotal 0.) entrainment based on a reduction in 48Not sample-weighted.
41608 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations information 4 9 EPA believes that each of existing facilities to have flexibility in The disparity in costs and operating these site-specific options would have implementing the requirements. efficiency of dry cooling systems resulted in higher administrative 6. Flow Reduction Commensurate With compared with wet cooling systems is burdens being imposed on applicants the Level Achieved by Dry Cooling considerable when viewed on a and permit writers relative to the final nationwide or regional basis. For Systems Based on Waterbody Type rule. As EPA has discussed in the example, under a uniform national preamble to the proposal (see 67 FR EPA conducted a full analysis for the .requirement based on dry cooling, 17167), these administrative burdens Phase I rule and concluded that dry facilities in the southern regions of the can be associated with the need to cooling was not an economically United States would be at an unfair determine in each case whether adverse practicable option for new facilities on competitive disadvantage compared to impacts are occurring, the nature and a national basis. Dry cooling systems those in cooler northern climates level of any such impacts, and which use either a natural or a mechanical air because dry cooling systems operate design and construction technologies draft to transfer heat from condenser more efficiently in colder climates. Even constitute the best technology available tubes to air. In conventional closed- under a regional subcategorization to minimize adverse environmental cycle recirculating wet cooling towers, strategy for facilities in cool climatic cooling water that has been used to cool regions of the United States, adoption of impacts, including a consideration of a minimum requirement based on dry costs and benefits. Further, all of the the condensers is pumped to the top of a recirculating cooling tower; as the cooling would likely impose unfair proposed site-specific options increase competitive restrictions for steam the likelihood that each significant heated water falls, it cools through an evaporative process and warm, moist air electric power generating facilities cooling water intake permitting issue rises out of the tower, often creating a because of the elevated capital and would become a point of contention vapor plume. Hybrid wet-dry cooling operating costs associated with dry between the applicant and permit towers employ both a wet section and cooling. Adoption of requirements writer, which EPA's experience dry section and reduce or eliminate the based on dry cooling for a subcategory indicates slows the permitting process, visible plumes associated with wet of facilities under a particular capacity makes it more resource intensive, and cooling towers. would pose similar comnpetitive. makes it more costly. Finally, because disadvantages for those facilities. the final rule provides facilities with the For the Phase I rule, EPA evaluated zero or nearly zero intake flow As explained in the preamble to the option of selecting from five compliance proposal, EPA does not consider regulatory alternatives, based on the use alternatives, including a site-specific performance standards based on dry compliance alternative, the final rule of dry cooling systems. EPA determined cooling a reasonable option for a that the annual compliance cost to provides facilities with flexibility national requirement, nor for industry for this option would be at subcategorization under this rule, comparable to that of a site-specific rule. least $490 million. EPA based the costs The site-specific alternative in the final because the technology of dry cooling on 121 new facilities having to install carries costs that would potentially ( rule provides clear standards for dry cooling. For the Phase II proposal, V eligibility (the cost-cost and cost-benefit cause significant closures for Phase II EPA estimated that total social costs for existing facilities. Dry cooling tests), and clear standards on which to dry cooling based on waterbody type base the alternative requirements that technology~would also have a were $2.1 billion per year (or roughly significant detrimental effect on they achieve an efficacy as close as double the costs for wet towers). Thus, practicable to the national performance electricity production by reducing the this option would be more expensive energy efficiency of steam turbines. standards without exceeding the cost- than dry cooling for new facilities. The test or benefits-test thresholds. EPA Unlike a new facility that can use direct cost'for Phase II existing facilities to dry cooling, an existing facility that believes that structuring a site-specific install dry cooling would be compliance alternative in this way will retrofits for dry cooling would most significantly higher than the cost for likely use indirect dry cooling which is significantly reduce the potential areas new facilities to do so due to the much less efficient than direct dry of disagreement between permit writer complexities of retrofitting both the dry cooling. In contrast to direct dry and applicant that are inherent in the cooling equipment and components of cooling, indirect dry cooling does not other site-specific approaches that it the cooling system. At proposal, EPA operate as an air-cooled condenser. In rejected, while still providing facilities estimated that 550 Phase II existing other words, the steam is not condensed with appropriate flexibility. Through facilities would be subject to Phase II within the structure of the dry cooling the multiple compliance alternatives regulation. The cost would be tower, but instead indirectly through a specified in this rule, EPA has sought to significantly higher because existing heat exchanger. Therefore, the indirect balance the statutory requirements of facilities have less flexibility, thus dry cooling system would need to section 316(b) and the need for incurring higher compliance costs overcome additional heat resistance in reasonable limits on the administrative (capital and operating) than new the shell of the condenser-compared to burden imposed on both applicants and facilities. For example, existing facilities the direct dry cooling system. permit writers against the need for might need to upgrade or modify Ultimately, the inefficiency (i.e., energy existing turbines, condensers, and/or penalty) of indirect dry cooling systems 49 For example. a site-specific determination for cooling water conduit systems, which will exceed those of direct dry cooling Brayton Point, Rhode Island, has required resources typically imposes greater costs than use systems in all cases. for greater than two full time equivalents (FTs) of the same technology at a new facility. Although the dry cooling option is over three years for permitting and support staff, as well as approximately s400,000 in contractor costs In addition, retrofitting a dry cooling extremely effective at reducing to address technical issues and applicant experts. tower at an existing facility would impingement and entrainment, it is not Similarly, development of a permit for Salem has require shutdown periods during which economically practicable for existing required resources for greater than two full time the facility would lose both production facilities and would cause additional equivalents (FTEs) over three years for permitting d support staff, as well as approximately and revenues, and decrease the thermal adverse environmental impacts and
$340,000 in contractor costs to address technical efficiency of an electric generating serious energy impacts. Although dry issues and applicant experts. facility. cooling technology uses extremely low-
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41609 level or no cooling water intake, thereby in an impacted waterbody or watershed and determined that the use of reducing impingement and entrainment and result in performance substantially restoration measures is appropriate of organisms to extremely low levels, similar to that which would otherwise because meeting the applicable section 316(b) does not require that be achieved through reductions in performance standards or requirements adverse environmental impact be impingement mortality and entrainment through the use of other technologies is completely eliminated, but that it be further the goal of minimizing adverse less feasible, less cost-effective,, or less minimized using the best technology environmental impact while offering environmentally desirable than meeting available. (DOE energy penalty study; additional flexibility to both permitting the standards in whole or in part DCN 4-2512). EPA does not believe that authorities and facilities. Restoration through the use of restoration measures. dry cooling technology is "available" to measures may include such activities as Facilities must also demonstrate that the most Phase HIexisting facilities. removal of barriers to fish migration, restoration measures they plan to Although EPA has rejected dry and reclamation of degraded aquatic implement, alone, or in combination wet cooling tower technologies as a organism habitat, or stocking of aquatic with design and construction national minimum requirement, EPA organisms. These are still technologies, technologies and/or operational does not intend to restrict the use of within the mean ng of that term as used measures, will produce ecological these technologies or to dispute that in section 316(b) and as such are an benefits (production of fish and they may be the appropriate cooling appropriate means for meeting shellfish) at a level that is substantially technology for some facilities. For technology based performance similar to the level that would be example, facilities that are repowering standards. They are not analogous to achieved through compliance with the and replacing the entire infrastructure of water quality based effluent limitations applicable impingement mortality and/ the facility may find that dry cooling is on pollutant discharges because they are or entrainment performance standards an acceptable technology in some cases. not designed to meet water quality under § L25.94(b), or alternative site-This technology may be especially standards or dependent on the specific requirements under appropriate in situations where access condition of the receiving waterbody. § 125.94(a)(5). In other words, to c~ooling water is limited. Wet cooling Rather, they provide an additional restoration measures must replace the tower.technology may be suitable where means to meet the same performance fish and shellfish lost to impingement adverse effects of cooling water intakes standards that guide the selection of mortality and entrainment, either as a are severe -and where screening systems design and construction technologies substitute or as a supplement to are impractical, or where thermal and operational measures. reducing impingement mortality and discharge imnpacts pose serious Restoration measures have been used entrainment through design and control environmental problems. Under Clean at existing facilities as one of many tools technologies and/or operational Water Act section 510, a State may to implement section 316(b) on a case- measures. While the species makeup of Cstandards choose to impose more stringent than required by Federal by-case, best professional judgment basis to compensate for the death and {aregulations. States may continue to use injury of fish and other aquatic the replacement fish and shellfish may not be exactly the same as that of the impingement mortality and entrainment A-this authority to require facilities to use organisms caused by the cooling water losses, the Director must make a dry or wet cooling systems. intake structure. Under today's rule, a determination that the net effect is to Phase II existing facility may utilize produce a level of fish and shellfish in F. What Is the Role of Restoration and restoration either in lieu of or as a Trading Under Todays FinalRule? supplement to design and construction the waterbody that is "substantially technologies and/or operational similar" to that which would result
- 1. What Is the Role of Restoration? from meeting the performance standards measures. For example, a facility may through design and construction EPA is providing facilities with the demonstrate to the Director that velocity option to use restoration for compliance controls are the most feasible technologies and/or operational alternatives § 125.94(a)(2), (3), and (5) technology choice for the facility but measures alone. The final rule requires where the performance of the that, when used on their own, the that a facility use an adaptive restoration measures (the production velocity controls are insufficient to meet management method for implementing and increase of fish and shellfish in the the applicable performance standards at restoration measures because the facility's waterbody or watershed, § 125.94(b). The facility may then, in performance of restoration projects must including maintenance of community conjunction with the use of velocity be regularly monitored and potentially structure and function), is substantially controls, implement restoration adjusted to ensure the projects achieve similar to that which would have been measures to increase the fish and their objectives (see 67 FR 17146-17148 achieved if the facility reduced shellfish productivity of the waterbody and 68 FR 13542).
impingement mortality and entrainment in order to meet the performance The final rule also requires that through the use of design and standards at § 125.94(b). Another facility restoration projects which replace the construction technologies and/or might demonstrate to the Director that lost fish and shellfish with a different operational measures, to meet the restoration measures alone achieve the species mix ("out of kind" restoration) applicable performance standards. (For greatest compliance with the be based on a watershed approach to a complete discussion of the legal performance standards. A facility may restoration planning. The boundaries of analysis supporting restoration, see alternatively request a site-specific a "watershed" should be guided by the section VIII of this preamble.) The role determination of best technology cataloging unit of the "Hydrologic Unit of restoration under this rule is to available under § 125.94(a)(5) and use Map of the United States" (USGS, 1980), provide additional flexibility to restoration measures to meet the although it may be appropriate to use facilities in complying with the rule by alternate requirements. another watershed or waterbody eliminating or significantly offsetting Facilities that propose to use classification system developed at the /the adverse environmental impact restoration measures must demonstrate state or local level if such a system caused by the operation of a coaling water intake structure. Restoration to the Director that they evaluated the use of design and construction measures that increase fish and shellfish technologies and operational measures compares favorably in level of detail. For example, in coastal systems that Uy support migratory fish, a coastal
41610 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 I Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations waterbody that transects a number of community structure, biodiversity, and In § 125.91(a)(3) of today's rule, an watersheds may be the most appropriate genetic diversity of such trades, existing facility is subject to this rule if unit for planning restoration. especially when threatened and/or its primary activity is either to generate i 2. What Is the Role of Trading in endangered species are present. Based and transmit electric power, or to Today's Rule? on the current state of the science in generate electric power that it sells to aquatic community ecology and another entity for transmission. This In § 125.90(c), today's final rule ecological risk assessment, States provision was included in the rule in provides that if a State demonstrates to wishing to develop trading programs response to comments such as those the Administrator that it has adopted within the context of 316(b) would be described previously in this section. alternative regulatory requirements in best off focusing on programs based on EPA believes that this criterion-the its NPDES program that will result in metrics of comparability between fish primary activity being the generation of environmental performance within a and shellfish gains and losses among electric power-sufficiently clarifies watershed that is comparable to the trading facilities, rather than the much and limits the scope of this rule to reductions of impingement mortality more complex metrics that would be existing facilities whose primary and entrainment that would otherwise necessary for comparability among fish business is power generation. As be achieved under § 125.94, the and shellfish losses on the one hand, discussed in Section II of this preamble, Administrator must approve such and pollutant reductions on the other. the final rule does not apply to existing alternative requirements. A trading program could be a part of these VIII. Summary of Major Comments and manufacturing facilities, including manufacturing facilities that generate alternative regulatory requirements. Responses to the Proposed Rule and Notice of Data Availability (NODA) power for their own use and transmit At proposal, EPA sought comment on any surplus power, or sell it for the potential role of trading in the A. Scope and Applicability transmission, provided the primary context of the section 316(b) Phase U activity of the facility is not electric rulemaking and possible approaches for 1. Phase II Existing Facility Definition power generation. For example, in the developing a trading program. Trading Numerous commenters supported case of a facility that operates its own under other EPA programsi has been limiting the scope of the Phase II rule to power generating units and such anits shown to provide opportunities for existing facilities that generate and predominantly support that facility's regulatory compliance at reduced costs. transmit electric power, or generate and manufacturing operation, its primary The EPA Office of Water's Water sell such power to another entity for activity remains manufacturing, even if Quality Trading Policy, published in transmission, but suggested that EPA the facility exports some power. January 2003 JDCN 6-5002], fully has not sufficiently limited the rule to Whether a facility's primary activity is supports trading nutrients and sediment only these facilities. Commenters noted to generate electric power will need to and adopts a case-by case approach to that the proposed definition of "Phase H be determined on a case-by-case basis. evaluating proposals to trade other existing facility" does not adequately Section II also makes clear that a pollutants. exempt existing manufacturing facilities manufacturing facility is not covered by Trading in the context of section that may occasionally transfer power this final rule just because it is co-h_ 316(b) raises many complex issues, for off-site during peak load events. Some located with another Phase II facility. example, how to establish appropriate commenters suggested that EPA clarify EPA considered specifying SIC or units of trade and how to measure these the Phase II rule to specify that it does NAIC codes to clarify the scope of the units effectively given the dynamic not apply to facilities whose primary rule beyond that proposed in nature of the populations of aquatic business is not power generation. Some § 125.91(a)(3), but did not do so because organisms subject to impingement suggested limiting applicability to it believes the changes in the final rule mortality and entrainment. Should a specified SIC codes (e.g., provided that are sufficient to address many issues State choose to propose a trading the rule only applies to facilities in SIC raised in comments and because of program under § 125.90(c), EPA will 4911). Examples of facilities identified concerns that SIC and NAIC codes may evaluate the State's proposal on a case- by conmuenters that they believe should change over time, which could by-case basis to ensure the program be excluded from Phase I include unintentionally alter the scope of the complies with the regulatory manufacturers that produce electricity rule. requirement-that It will result in by co-generation, power generating With regard to repowering, section II environmental performance within a units that predominantly support a of today's notice discusses the scope of watershed that is comparable to the manufacturer, e.g., iron and steel, but the final rule and specifically discusses reductions of impingement mortality also export some power, and facilities the repowering issue. Section II also and entrainment that would otherwise that generate power for internal use. addresses other Phase I versus Phase I be achieved under the requirements Commenters requested that EPA classification issues. established at § 125.94. Some further clarify when repowering is commenters suggested that EPA adopt a subject to existing facility requirements. 2. Thresholds trading program that would allow For example, some commenters viewed Some commenters supported use of trading between aquatic organisms and as inconsistent the fact that the addition the 50 MGD design intake flow pollutant discharges. EPA is concerned of a generating unit at an existing single threshold and the 25 percent cooling that such a program would introduce unit site could increase intake flows by water use criteria in § 125.91(a)(2) and comparability and implementation 100% and meet the existing facility (4). respectively. Some suggested that challenges that would be difficult to definition, while a replacement facility facilities agreeing to limit their actual overcome and therefore, EPA does not that increases intake flows by a much intake to less than 50 MGD should be expect that such a program would work lesser amount (e.g., 25%) would not excluded from the rule's requirements within the framework of today's final meet the existing facility definition. or be allowed to request an exemption. rule. In addition, EPA does not believe These commenters suggested that EPA Other commenters maintained that t that it is possible at this time to quantify consider a facility as an existing facility permitted or actual flows should be
-with adequate certainty the potential unless changes to the facility result in used rather than design flows. Some effects on ecosystem function, new environmental impacts. commenters asked that EPA clarify that,
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41611 when applicable, the lesser design value addressed by these requirements. EPA such as intake capacity or pump design, of an intake facility and conveyance notes that Phase II existing facilities, which individually do not fully structure versus the design volume of which are limited to facilities whose determine total design intake flow. 0 intake pumps should be used to determine the 50 MGD threshold for applicability. Alternatively, others primary activity is power generation, typically use far more than 25 percent of the water they withdraw for cooling. The final rule does not explicitly exclude emergency cooling water and emergency service water intakes from asserted that EPA should provide Yet, as in the new facility rule, cooling consideration in determining which guidance' that a facility's design intake water that is used in a manufacturing facilities are in-scope. Although EPA flow is not necessarily the flow process either before or after it is used does not have detailed data on associated with that of the intake for cooling would not count towards emergency cooling water and emergency pumps. calculating the percentage of a facility's intakes, based on other available data Several commenters stated that intake flow that is used for cooling EPA does not believe that including emergency cooling water and emergency purposes. consideration of emergency intakes service water intakes should be exempt EPA has retained in the final rule the within this rule significantly alters the from the 50 MGD design intake flow 50 MGD threshold based on design scope of the rule. EPA's survey of all threshold. These commenters intake flow, rather than actual flow, for existing electric utilities and non-recommended that EPA distinguish several reasons. Design intake flow is a utilities indicated that 84 percent of between primary cooling water intakes fixed value based on the design of the surveyed facilities have an average flow and emergency service water intakes, for facility's operating system and the that equals or exceeds 50 MGD. These example, at nuclear facilities. They capacity of the circulating and other facilities would by necessity have a reasoned that emergency service water water intake pumps employed at the design intake flow that also equals or systems, which can have a large design facility. This approach provides exceeds 50 MGD. Moreover, EPA capacity (i.e., design capacity greater clarity-the design intake flow does not assumes that this average flow data than 50 MGD), generally use an intake change, except in those limited represent normal operating conditions that normally operates a nominal circumstances when a facility undergoes and does not include emergency cooling amount of time,to ensure that the major modifications or expansion, water use. Consequently, EPA believes system is in working order. Such back- whereas actual flows can vary that relatively few facilities are up systems are required for safety, but significantly over sometimes short potentially affected by this issue. under normal conditions do not periods of time. EPA believes that an Finally, § 125.91(a)(4), which increase the operational capacity of the uncertain regulatory status is describes how a facility must determine facility. Thus, these commenters undesirable because it impedes both whether it meets the 25 percent cooling maintain that rarely used emergency compliance by the permittee and water use criterion has been changed in service water should not count towards regulatory oversight, as well as the final rule and provides that the 50 MGD. achievement of the overall percent of cooling water used be (r With regard to the criterion that a environmental objectives. Further, using measured on an average annual basis. \;_ Phase II existing facility must use at actual flow may result in the NPDES EPA believes this approach is more least 25 percent of the water it permit being more intrusive to facility appropriate than making this withdraws exclusively for cooling, some operation than necessary since facility determination on an average monthly commenters indicated that proposed flow would be a permit condition and basis, primarily because the annual
§ 125.91(d), which describes how to adjustments to flow would have to be average is an easier measurement to measure whether 25 percent of water permissible under such conditions and make. Furthermore, because all Phase H withdrawn is used for cooling, was applicable NPDES procedures. It also existing facilities generate power, most ambiguous. Commenters asserted that would require additional monitoring to of the water will be used for cooling, EPA should not require monthly confirm a facility's status, which rendering monthly evaluation of this determinations of applicability of the imposes additional costs and value unnecessary. The final rule does Phase II rule. One commenter suggested information collection burdens, and it not specify how often the facility must that EPA should assess the 25 percent would require additional compliance measure flow for this annual average.
cooling water use on an annual basis monitoring and inspection methods and The facility is encouraged to consult the calculated once during permit renewal, evaluation criteria, focusing on Permit Director to determine what level since such an approach would provide operational aspects of a facility. of data collection is needed. a high degree of certainty. With regard to intake versus pump As discussed in the proposed rule (67 capacity, EPA notes that under § 125.93 B. EnvironmentalImpact Associated FR 17129-17130), EPA chose the design of the final rule, design intake flow With Cooling Water Intake Structures intake flow 50 MGD threshold to focus means the value assigned (during the Many comments addressed adverse on the largest existing power generating cooling water intake structure design) to environmental impact, questioning the facilities, which the Agency believes are the total volume of water withdrawn definition and quantification of adverse those with the greatest potential to from a source waterbody over a specific environmental impacts. Several cause or contribute to adverse time period. Because numerous aspects suggested defining adverse environmental impact. EPA estimates of a cooling water intake or system can environmental impact exclusively at the that the 50 MGD threshold would limit a facility's intake flow, and population, community, or ecosystem subject approximately 543 of 902 (60 because flow is a critical factor that levels, and believe that numbers of percent) of existing power generating affects the impacts posed by each impinged and entrained organisms facilities to this rule and would address facility's cooling water intake structures, should not be a measure of adverse 90 percent of the total flow withdrawn EPA has determined that it is more environmental impact. Some by existing steam electric power appropriate for the final rule to focus on commenters argued that, if a facility can generating facilities. The 25 percent a facility's total designed volume of + prove it does not cause adverse
- I threshold ensures that nearly all cooling water withdrawn over a period of time, environmental impact at the population \_
water and the most significant facilities rather than to condition applicability of level, then it should be exempt from using cooling water intake structures are the rule on more specific parameters, section 316(b) regulations. Commenters
41612 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131/ Friday, July 9, 2004/ Rules and Regulations cited numerous studies to illustrate technologies, as the most direct means appropriate conditions), several whether cooling water intake structures of reducing fish kills from power plant commenters stated that the technical cause adverse environmental impacts intakes; they assert that reducing intake justification for the performance '~ and claimed that where abundance or by up to 98 to 99 percent would result standards was insufficient and may be biomass falls, it was usually the result in a similarly high reduction of biased towards higher performing W of some other stressor (overfishing, impinged and entrained organisms. examples of each technology. Many pollution, etc). These commenters Other commenters insisted that there is commenters submitted that some asserted that populations are able to no statistically significant relationship technologies will perform at some sites, thrive despite high rates of impingement between catch rate and flow, and the but that no technology will meet the and entrainment because of density- mathematical models that evaluate this standards at all sites. Another dependence and compensation. relationship are inaccurate. commenter supported the concept of the Numerous other commenters EPA believes the record contains performance standards, as long as disagreed with limiting the definition of ample evidence to support the sufficient flexibility was retained adverse environmental impact to the proposition that entrainment is related through the use of restoration measures population, community or ecosystem to flow (see DCN 2-013L-R15 and 2- and cost tests. Some commenters levels, and contended that any measure 013J) while impingement is related to a suggested allowing permit writers the of impingement and entrainment combination of flow, intake velocity and flexibility to create site-specific constitutes adverse environmental fish swim speed (see DCN 2-029). performance standards. impact. They asserted that power plants Larger withdrawals of water may result EPA has selected performance contribute to fish' kills directly by in commensurately greater levels of standards to facilitate a more impingement and entrainment, and entrainment. Entrainment impacts of streamlined permitting process, and to indirectly by habitat loss. These cooling water intake structures are provide consistent national standards. commenters maintained that the results closely linked to the amount of water EPA has chosen to express the targets by of population or ecosystem studies are passing through the intake structure reference to a percentage reduction in highly subjective, and have no place in because the eggs and larvae of some impingement and entrainment because, determining BTA, as once such impact aquatic species are freesfloating and may as discussed above, these losses can levels are reached, recovery is often be drawn with the flow of cooling water easily be traced to cooling water intake impossible. Regardless of the severity of into an intake structure. Swim speeds of structures. Therefore, this is a adverse environmental impact, these affected species as well as intake convenient indicator of the efficacy of commenters argued that section' 316(b) velocity must be taken into account to controls in reducing environmental requires minimization of adverse predict rates of impingement in relation impact. As discussed in more detail environmental impact. They maintained to flow in order to account for the below, it is also a useful basis against that cooling water intake structures ability of juvenile and adult lifestages of which to consider the efficacy of contribute to fishery collapse and vast species to avoid impingement. Due to restoration technologies, which focus on ( "reductions in fish biomass and this relationship, EPA agrees that the replacement of fish and shellfish as L ) abundance that are measurable at the reducing intake by installing flow an alternative means of minimizing species level. These commenters reduction technologies will result in a adverse environmental impact of intake suggested that actual national impacts similarly high reduction of impinged structures. due to cooling water intake structures and entrained organisms, but EPA Additional documentation has been are vastly underestimated due to poor believes that other technologies that do collected and reviewed by EPA to data collection methodologies utilized not necessarily reduce flow but that do further support the percent reductions when the majority of the studies were reduce the number of aquatic organisms contained in the performance standards. performed and because studies impinged and entrained will also EPA has added this information to the performed on impinged and entrained minimize adverse environmental impact Technology Efficacy database (DCN 6-organisms overlooked the vast majority associated with cooling water intake 5000), which EPA has expanded to of affected species. structures. As such, today's rule allow users to query and compare basic In today's final rule, EPA has elected provides for flexibility in meeting the data on technology performance and not to define adverse environmental performance standards. applicability. EPA recognizes that some impact. EPA believes that it is may disagree with basing the reasonable to interpret adverse C.Performance Standards performance standards on the wide environmental impact as the loss of The performance standards range of data available in the database. aquatic organisms due to impingement promulgated today are expressed as While many documents do show a level and entrainment. For a further reductions of impingement and of success in reducing impingement discussion of this issue, see Section IV entrainment measured against a mortality or entrainment, other studies above., calculation baseline. The purpose of a have shown the deployed technology to With regard to the relationship calculation baseline is to properly credit be unsuccessful or at best inconclusive. between intake flow and adverse facilities that have installed control EPA does not view the varying degrees environmental impact, some technologies prior to the promulgation of success with regards to a specific commenters asserted that the of the rule. EPA received numerous technology as indicative that the relationship of impingement and comments on the performance standards performance standards cannot be met, entrainment to flow is such that catch and the calculation baseline. but rather as evidence that some rates increase non-linearly technologies work in some applications (exponentially) in relation to the volume 1. Appropriate Standards but not in others. of water withdrawn, with entrainment Many commenters discussed the It is for this reason that performance rates being more strongly correlated to appropriateness of the performance standards, rather than prescriptive ' flow than impingement. Environmental standards. While many commenters technologies, were chosen. By opting for gommenters advocated for flow acknowledged that the performance performance standards instead of reduction technologies, such as range may be attained at some facilities requiring the deployment of specified retrofitting closed-cycle cooling (using certain technologies and in technologies, EPA maintains a desired
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004/ Rules and Regulations 41613 flexibility in the implementation of the best implemented as a set of goals or as may be substantial natural variability in rule, thus allowing a facility to select a best management practice. These waterbody conditions as well. This measures that are appropriate to the site commenters contended that in view of natural variability and the changes to (7 conditions and facility configuration. the wide variety of environmental species composition over time may k $ EPA believes that there are technologies conditions at facilities, including affect the ability of these technologies to available (including restoration natural fluctuations in populations, perform consistently at a certain level. measures) that can be used to meet the compliance with a national performance This is one reason why EPA has performance standards at the majority of standard will be difficult. They claimed provided a compliance determination facilities subject to the final Phase II that by using the standards as a goal alternative under which facilities rule. EPA believes that it will likely be instead of a condition in the permit, a comply with the construction, the exceptional case where no facility can have greater certainty as to operational, maintenance, monitoring, technology or suite of technologies will its compliance status. Similarly, several and adaptive management requirements be able to achieve the performance commenters suggested that the permit of a Technology Installation and standards. This is not to say, however, contain conditions requiring proper Operation Plan (or Restoration Plan) that the technologies are always technology selection, installation, designed to meet the performance economically practicable to implement; maintenance, and adjustments instead standards, rather than having to there may be situations where the costs of requiring compliance with the demonstrate quantitatively that they are are not justified and it is for those performance standards. consistently meeting them, which may situations that EPA has provided for Commenters were divided over the be difficult in the face of natural site-specific determinations of best concept of a range for the performance variability. Under this approach, if available technology for minimizing standards. Some commenters supported monitoring data suggest that adverse environmental impact. the range, arguing that a facility can performance standards are not being
- 2. Application of the Performance achieve some reduction within the met despite full compliance with the range and still be compliant, and others terms of the Technology Installation and Standards were opposed, claiming that a range of Operations Plan or the Restoration Plan, Cominenters generally noted that the performance promotes uncertainty in the Plan will need to be adjusted to application of the performance determining compliance. Some improve performance.
standards would be very difficult, for a commenters also noted that, by giving a number of site-specific reasons. Several facility a range of performance, EPA is EPA has provided examples of commenters noted that the performance encouraging performance in the lower facilities in different areas of the standards are not sufficiently defined to end of the range and therefore not country sited on different waterbody make a full evaluation of their meeting the definition of "best types that are currently meeting or applicability. For example, EPA has not technology available." exceeding the performance standards defined the performance standards as Several commenters noted that promulgated today. The ability of these facilities to attain similar performance C being measured using all species or selected spees, or by counting individuals versus measuring biomass. consideration of entrainment mortality is important to correctly determine standards suggests that while site-compliance. One commenter also noted specific factors can influence the U. Some commenters noted that each of the that natural events will affect performance of a given technology, it is methods discussed by EPA could have compliance, such as moribund fish the exceptional situation where no merit at a given facility, and that being swept into an intake or heavy design or construction technology is flexibility would be needed to evaluate debris loads following a storm. capable of meeting the performance compliance at a variety of intake As in the Phase I rule, EPA is setting standards. EPA opted for performance configurations. Another commenter performance standards for minimizing ranges instead of specific compliance further noted that it is inappropriate for adverse environmental impact based on thresholds to allow both the permittee EPA to state that the performance a conceptually simple and certain and the permitting authority a certain standards are achievable when the metric-reduction of impingement degree of flexibility in meeting the standards are undefined. One mortality and entrainment. EPA obligations under the final Phase Hrule. commenter suggested that EPA has not recognizes however, that there are EPA does not believe that performance shown that the performance standards challenges associated with measuring ranges promote uncertainty. Instead, can be met at a reasonable cost. Other such reduction due to fluctuations in EPA has selected performance ranges commenters stated that reductions may waterbody conditions (species out of the recognition that precise be achievable for only some species of abundance, composition, etc.) over time. results may not be able to be replicated life stages and that this approach may While it is relatively straightforward to in different waterbody types in different not account for natural fluctuations in measure impingement mortality and areas of the country. EPA disagrees with population. These commenters claim entrainment reductions relative to past the comment that it has not shown that that implementing a uniform, levels, it is more difficult to determine the performance standards can be met at nationwide performance standard reductions relative to what would have a reasonable cost. The cost and would be exceedingly complex and occurred in the absence of control economic impact analysis for the final subject to site-specific factors that could technologies if waterbody conditions rule supports EPA's determination that significantly affect the performance of change after the technologies are the final rule, including the the control technology. Several installed. Data provided with the performance standards, are commenters noted that, for these proposed rule (DCN 4-0003) indicate economically practicable at a national reasons, EPA should strongly consider a that there is substantial variability over level. In addition, the final rule includes site-specific approach to implement time in the numbers and species mix of a site-specific compliance alternative to 316(b), including a risk assessment- impinged and entrained organisms at address any potential situation where based approach as suggested by one any given facility. While changes in meeting the performance standards, \ commenter. operational practices and sampling when evaluated on a facility-specific A number of commenters stated that methods account for some of this basis, would result in costs that are the performance standards would be variability, the data indicate that there significantly greater than the costs
41614 4Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 131 I Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations considered by EPA, for a like facility in the impacts to the population within the those facilities that withdraw the largest establishing the standards, or that are waterbody. For lakes and reservoirs, one proportion of water from freshwater significantly greater than the benefits of commenter opposed the requirement to rivers or streams. EPA has promulgated compliance with the applicable not disturb the thermal stratification of special requirements for facilities i jperformance standards at the facility. the waterbody, stating that the withdrawing from lakes and reservoirs. Thus, the final rule ensures that the requirement has not been defined in Facilities tend to withdraw from the costs of the rule are economically sufficient detail, that EPA has presented deeper portions of lakes and reservoirs, practicable to the extent required by no evidence that the disruption is as these areas hold the coolest water. section 316(b). always detrimental, or presented any The rule specifies that the intake flows In developing the final rule, EPA discussion of technologies that might must not disturb the natural identified and examined a broad range mitigate any thermal disturbances. stratification (thermoclines) in the of cooling water intake structure Some commenters did not support waterbody, as this may disrupt the technologies and determined, at a additional controls on the Great Lakes, composition of dissolved oxygen and national level, that these technologies stating that the Lakes are not unique and adversely affect aquatic species. While support the final performance do not require greater protection. such disruption is often detrimental, standards. EPA notes that, although the Another State commenter suggested that this additional performance standard performance standards address all life additional requirements be does not apply where the disruption stages of fish and shellfish, the Director implemented for any impaired does not adversely affect the has significant discretion as to how the waterbody. management of fisheries. Intake performance standards are applied in EPA considers location to be an location, the volume of water the permit. For example, the Director important factor in addressing adverse withdrawn, and other design may determine that al1 species must be environmental impact and one technologies can be used to address this considered or that only representative expressly included in the language of requirement. Facilities located on the species are to be considered. With section 316(b). When cooling water is Great Lakes are also subject to regard to natural fluctuations in fish and withdrawn from sensitive biological additional requirements because these shellfish populations, and the areas, there is a helightened potential for waterbodies have areas of high Technology Installation and Operation adverse environmental impact, since productivity and sensitive habitat and Plan compliance scheme discussed these areas typically have higher in this respect have an ecological above addresses the concern that natural concentrations of impingeable and significance akin to estuaries. fluctuations could impact the level of entrainable aquatic organisms. 4. Approved Design and Construction impingement mortality and entrainment Therefore, the final rule includes Technology Option at a given facility over time. Further, the performance standards that vary, in Director is given considerable discretion part, by waterbody type. For example, In response to comments on the to determine, based on the facility's estuaries and tidal rivers have a higher burden to facilities and permit writers, Comprehensive Demonstration Study, potential for adverse impact because EPA is including in the final rule an Q the appropriate averaging period and precise metric for determining they contain essential habitat and nursery areas for a majority of approved design and construction technology option (previously referred impingement mortality and entrainment commercial and recreational species of to as a "streamlined technology option" reductions. Generally, averaging over fish and shellfish. Therefore, EPA or "pre-approved technology option") longer time periods (i.e., a full five year believes that these areas warrant a for facilities in certain locations. Under permit term) can substantially reduce higher level of control that includes this option, a facility installing a the impact of natural variability on the both impingement and entrainment specified technology would be subject determination of whether the controls. to reduced application requirements, performance standards are being met. EPA also included performance including a reduced Comprehensive standards for other waterbody types. Demonstration Study. In addition, the
- 3. Requirements by Waterbody Type Facilities withdrawing greater than 5% final rule sets forth criteria that State As stated in section C. 2, different of the mean annual flow from Directors may use to identify and performance standards would apply for freshwater rivers and streams will have z approve additional technologies.
facilities located upon different additional requirements. As described Nearly all commenters supported the waterbody types. Comments were in the Phase I proposed rule (65 FR concept of an approved design and received both in support of and against 49060) and the Phase 11 NODA (66 FR construction technology option as a basing performance standards in part on 28853), the withdrawal threshold is positive step in facilitating waterbody type. Some commenters did based on the concept that absent any implementation of section 316(b). not support the withdrawal threshold of other controls, withdrawal of a unit Several commenters added that this 5 percent of the mean annual flow for volume of water from a waterbody will option should not preclude the use of facilities on freshwater rivers, as the result in the entrainment of an cost tests, restoration measures or the organisms at an intake may not be equivalent unit of aquatic life (such as use of other approaches. One subject to entrainment or may not be eggs and larval organisms) suspended in commenter opposed the approved evenly distributed. Some State that volume of the water column. Thus, design and construction technology commenters supported the withdrawal facilities withdrawing greater than 5% option, arguing that the selection of only threshold for freshwater rivers, and of the mean annual flow from one or two technologies oversimplifies another suggested correlating the intake freshwater rivers and streams may the complexity of waterbodies, and that flow requirements with the total flow of entrain equal proportions of aquatic the approach would not be sufficiently the waterbody to better protect smaller organisms. Freshwater rivers and protective. flow rivers. One State commenter streams are somewhat less susceptible Some commenters agreed that the i generally opposed all of the proposed to entrainment than certain other wedgewire screen should be an effective kJ fhresholds on freshwater rivers as being categories of waterbodies and, therefore, technology in certain situations and "arbitrary and stated that the regulations the final rule limits the requirement for noted that EPA should specify screen would be more effective by considering entrainment control in fresh waters to slot openings in the approved design
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41615 and construction technology option. (2) request a site-specific requirements proposed technologies are suitable for One of the commenters stated that for the remaining performance use as approved design and research on the wedgewire screen standards based on either the cost-cost construction technologies in their suggests that the technology should or cost-benefit test. jurisdictions. However, EPA is requiring easily meet the impingement Some commenters stated that EPA that the Director take public comment requirements, but that further research should specify the wedgewire screen on such determinations prior to may be necessary to confirm the slot opening size. EPA disagrees that it finalizing them. effectiveness for entrainment reductions should specify a uniform screen slot In answer to comments that EPA with varying slot openings. opening size for all facilities that choose should not require facilities choosing Some commenters offered suggestions the approved design and construction the approved design and construction for additional changes to the option, technology alternative. The rule states compliance alternative to demonstrate such as developing scientifically sound, in § 125.99(a)(1)(iv) that the screen slot through monitoring that they meet the peer-reviewed criteria for evaluating size must be appropriate for the size of applicable performance standards, EPA pre-approved technologies, identifying eggs, larvae, and juveniles of all fish and disagrees. EPA believes that verification the technologies in technical guidance shellfish to be protected from monitoring is very important because, documents as opposed to the regulation, entrainment at the site. Because the while the pre-approved technologies are and continuing to allow restoration species to be protected differ among designed to meet the performance measures. Some commenters also locations, the slot sizes will need to be standards in most cases, the actual suggested specifying that any tailored to the sizes of the various efficacy of any technology will be monitoring performed would be assemblages of species at each site. EPA affected by site-specific circumstances informational in nature and not affect therefore has determined that the and conditions, as well as proper the facility's compliance status, or that Director should determine the operation and maintenance of the facilities only be required to appropriate design criteria, such as technology. For this reason, EPA "substantially meet" the stated goals. wedgewire screen slot opening size, on believes that it is necessary and Other commenters suggested expanding a case-by-case basis. Since no appropriate for these facilities to the scope of the approved design and impingement mortality and entrainment prepare a Technology Installation and construction technology option to Characterization Study is required Operation Plan that describes how they include prescribed operational or under this streamlined option, EPA will operate and maintain the restoration measures or preapproved expects that this determination would technology and assess success in technologies for intakes located on man- be based on available information meeting the performance standards, as made cooling reservoirs. regarding species and life-stage well as adaptive management steps they A facility that chooses to comply composition of organisms within the will take if the technology does not under the pre-approved technology receiving waterbodies. Facilities may perform as expected. They must also option should not, in addition, need to wish to assemble available data and propose a Verification Monitoring Plan employ restoration measures. The intent propose a screen slot opening size for to describe the monitoring they will of the pre-approved technology the Director's consideration. perform to support their performance compliance alternative is to provide a Some commenters stated that EPA assessment. EPA notes that facilities means to reduce the application and should develop peer-reviewed criteria that select the approved technology information collection requirements for for evaluating pre-approved alternative have significantly reduced facilities that are able to meet technologies other than the wedgewire application and information collection performance standards through a screen technology described in requirements relative to facilities that technology that is proven to meet § 125.99(a). EPA disagrees that it needs comply under other alternatives. performance standards for impingement to develop specific criteria for One commenter stated that the mortality and entrainment in most evaluating pre-approved technologies. approved design and construction cases. A facility that chooses to comply EPA believes that the Director is best technology alternative will not be by meeting the conditions specified at equipped to determine the most sufficiently protective given the
§ 125.99(a), therefore, should be able to appropriate technologies for approval in complexity of waterbodies. While EPA achieve the performance standards for their jurisdictions, since these Directors does not agree with this comment, EPA both impingement mortality and are most familiar with the site- recognizes that the efficacy of a given entrainment. Facilities that propose an conditions and intake configurations of technology will be affected by site-alternative technology for consideration the facilities within their jurisdictions, specific conditions, such as biological as a pre-approved technology under and have physical access to the and chemical factors in the waterbody. § 125.99(b) are encouraged by EPA to facilities. Under § 125.99, EPA has set Because the efficacy of the technology propose technologies to the Director for forth a broad framework outlining the will be affected by such site-specific approval that are capable of meeting types of information that the permitting conditions, EPA has required all performance standards for both authority would need to evaluate facilities that choose to comply using impingement mortality and entrainment specific technologies, including design the approved design and construction with a high degree of confidence. criteria of the proposed technology, site technology compliance alternative to However, a situation could arise where characteristics and conditions necessary submit a Technology Installation and a pre-approved technology only meets to ensure that the technology will meet Operation Plan and a Verification -
performance standards for impingement the performance standards, and data to Monitoring Plan, and to determine if mortality or entrainment. In such cases, demonstrate that the facilities in the they are meeting the applicable facilities that choose to comply using an Director's jurisdiction with the performance standards through approved design and construction proposed technology and site conditions monitoring, and adjust their operations q technology that only met a subset of applicable performance standards could either employ other (1)design and will be able to meet the performance standards in § 125.94(b). EPA believes that the Directors will be able to accordingly if they are not. EPA believes, based upon extensive research, that the majority of facilities with the construction technologies, operational evaluate the data and make appropriate site conditions, and that measures and/or restoration measures or determinations as to whether the have installed and properly operated
41616 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations and maintained submerged cylindrical threshold utilization rate; some States be an unnecessary cost for these wedgewire screen technology, should be preferred a lower threshold and one facilities because the losses, while they capable of meeting the performance mentioned that it would prefer a higher occur, would have minimal adverse standards set forth in § 125.94(b). For threshold. One State did not support the environmental impact. facilities that fail to meet performance reduced requirements for peaking D. Site-Specific Approach standards through the approved design facilities, noting that the time frame in and technology alternative, the Director which the facility operates may be more Past implementation of section 316(b) may amend the facility's permit to important than the volume withdrawn. often followed the draft guidance require the use of additional design and Another State suggested that restoration document published in 1977, which construction technologies, operational or mitigation also be required of peaking promoted a largely site-specific measures, and/or restoration measures, facilities. approach. In this rulemaking, EPA is in order to meet the performance EPA has identified peaking facilities establishing national performance standards, or if appropriate, issue a site- in the final Phase Urule as those standards for best technology available specific determination of BTA. facilities that operate at an overall for minimizing adverse environmental capacity of less than 15 percent. EPA impacts in connection with cooling
- 5. Capacity Utilization Threshold believes that facilities operating below water intake structures. Many comments In the proposed rule, EPA introduced 15% should be subject to less stringent were received regarding a site-specific reduced requirements for facilities that compliance requirements relative to a approach to implementation.
are typically not operating year-round typical base load facility. The threshold 1. Approach and would therefore bear a of 15% is based on these facilities' proportionately higher cost to comply reduced operating levels, low potential
- Many commenters favored a site-with the rule. EPA proposed that for entrainment impacts, and specific approach in place of national facilities that operate less than 15% of consideration of economic practicability performance standards. Many of the the time (also known as peaking (see, 67 FR 17141). To address commenters cited a need for flexibility facilities) would only be subject to commenter concerns, EPA has modified to comply with the regulations, and impingement reductions, regardless of the capacity utilization definition to say stated that only a site-specific approach.
the waterbody type upon which the' that the capacity utilization rate applies can represent the best framework for facility is located. only to that portion of the facility that addressing site-specific environmental Generally, commenters supported the generates electricity for transmission or impacts in a cost-effective manner. concept of reduced requirements for sale using a thermal cycle employing Commenters also favored an approach peaking facilities. However, commenters the steam water system as the that resembles current practices for stated that EPA must further refine the thermodynamic medium. The Agency implementation of 316(b), in which site-definition of peaking facilities and in has amended the definition of the specific determinations are made many cases suggested that EPA adopt capacity utilization rate threshold to without reference to national the United States Department of remove the term "available" from the performance standards. V%) Energy's definition of capacity
- definition, as requested by comments. Some commenters did not support the utilization. Aspects of EPA's definition Further, the Agency has allowed for concept of a site-specific rule. One on which commenters requested calculation of the capacity utilization commenter stated that it does not fulfill clarification included how to measure rate on an intake basis, when the intake a national standard and allows a more the capacity rate (per intake, per facility. is exclusively dedicated to a subset of lenient application for some facilities.
per generating unit, etc.), the time frame the plant's generating units, and for Another commenter added that a site-for determining historic utilization determination of the capacity utilization specific approach favors industry, as the rates, and the definition of "available" rate based on a binding commitment of resources of the regulators and with respect to how to calculate the future operation below the threshold. interested public groups to respond to capacity utilization rate. One Peaking facilities are typically older, information-intensive site-specific comnmenter further suggested that EPA less efficient generating units. Because determinations are limited. Some States allow an expanded definition (i~e., a the cost of operation Is higher, peaking also expressed concern over a site-higher capacity utilization rate) for facilities are generally employed when specific approach, as it could be less facilities that typically operate in generating demand is greatest and stringent than the present approach, as periods of low abundance of entrainable economic conditions justify their use. well as more burdensome. Some other organisms. One commenter further Such usage is typically a fraction of the States expressed support for site-requested that the reduced requirements unit's overall generating capacity and specific approaches. for peaking facilities be extended to represents significantly less cooling In the final rule, EPA has established account for future operations at the water used when compared to the national performance requirements for plant as well. Another commenter design intake capacity. This would the reduction of impingement mortality expressed concern over the definition of appear to obviate the need for and entrainment that reflect best the threshold, as the operational time entrainment controls for the facility. technology available to minimize for the facility could still coincide with Most peaking facilities are employed adverse environmental impact for Phase periods of high abundances of during te highest electrical demand II existing facilities, and has authorized organisms and therefore still result in period, typically mid-winter or mid- : five different compliance alternatives to significant entrainment. One commenter summer. It is generally accepted that achieve those standards, including a opposed the threshold, stating it could while these seasons Scan sometimes be site-specific alternative. Thus, the encourage facilities to reduce electricity associated with a higher abundance of Agency has provided both clear national production in order to have less aquatic organisms or spawning events, standards of environmental protection stringent requirements and therefore mid-winter and mid-summer are not and sufficient flexibility to allow for the impact energy production, prices, and typically considered to be critical selection of cost-efficient approaches to '(%, energy supply nationwide. periods for aquatic communities. Given compliance and permit administration. State commenters generally supported these operating conditions, generally In addition, under certain compliance the concept, but were divided as to the entrainment controls would appear to alternatives, Phase II existing facilities
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 41617 can use restoration measures, either in commenters suggested that the that indicate this is a common intake lieu of, or in combination with calculation baseline should reflect structure configuration at Phase II technologies and/or operational unrestricted operation at full design existing facilities, EPA designated a 3/s-measures, when design and capacity year-round to avoid inch screen as the standard mesh size construction and/or operational continually changing the baseline, since against which reductions will be () measures alone are less feasible, less maintenance and operational schedules calculated. Similarly, the assumption of Q. cost-effective or less environmentally change over time. Another commenter no impingement or entrainment controls desirable. This provides additional added that the baseline definition must in the definition in the proposed rule flexibility to permittees and permitting specify that data be based upon has been clarified to describe an intake agencies. Finally, as discussed in maximum operation of a given facility, where the baseline operations do not Section VII of this preamble, EPA does to avoid allowing a facility to withdraw take into include any procedures or not agree that all aspects of certain site- more water than it has been permitted technologies to reduce impingement or specific approaches effectively fulfill for (based on an averaged flow). Other entrainment. EPA recognizes that some the requirements of section 316(b). commenters claimed that the use of a facilities may have control technologies calculation baseline was problematic in place that already reduce
- 2. Existing Programs and due to the difficulties of extrapolation impingement or entrainment; the final Determinations between localities and waterbody types. calculation baseline would allow credit Several commenters stated that there One commenter asserted that the for such reductions. Additionally, EPA is already a successful 30-year history of calculation baseline should reflect further clarified the definition to implementing section 316(b). Some current local environmental conditions, include the potential data sources that commenters noted that many States not historical or hypothetical future may be used in defining the calculation currently implement 316(b) using a site- conditions and should specify the level baseline, such as historical data, data specific approach and that these of operation that would be maintained collected at nearby locations, or data programs should be allowed to in the absence of operational controls collected at the facility. EPA is continue, including any restoration or implemented for reducing impingement authorizing the use of existing biological
.enhancement progrA.ns the States have an entrainment. dateo n determining the-calculation established. Others stated that existing Many commenters supported an "As baseline to minimize the impacts to BTA determinations (conducted using a Built" alternative approach where a facilities, provided that the data are site-specific approach) should remain facility would calculate entrainment representative of current facility and/or valid. reduction based on historical waterbody conditions (as applicable)
EPA acknowledges that some States' measurements before installation of new and were collected using appropriate existing programs and determinations technology or sampling immediately in quality control procedures. have been successful in reducing front of the new technology and EPA has further clarified the adverse environmental impacts to enumerating the organisms of a size that definition to provide that the waters of the United States associated will pass through a standard 3/3/4-inch calculation baseline may be based on an with cooling water intake structures. screen. Several commenters agreed that intake structure located at a depth other EPA disagrees, however, that all existing the use of historical data would aid in than a surface intake if the facility can BTA determinations should remain estimating the calculation baseline demonstrate that the standard definition valid. Some historical BTA decisions while others cautioned against the use (i.e., a shoreline surface intake) would may be based on physical, chemical or of historical data that may not be correspond to a higher baseline level of biological conditions that are no longer relevant to the current conditions. One impingement mortality and/or relevant at the site, or reflect BTA commenter disagreed with EPA's entrainment. technology that is outdated and would statement that the baseline could be EPA chose not to incorporate not meet the performance standards set estimated by evaluating existing data operating capacity into the calculation forth in today's final rule. However, the from a nearby facility; the commenter baseline, as the definition is not final rule provides for EPA approval of asserted that site-specific factors dependent upon intake flow volumes. alternative State program requirements determine whether an organism will EPA has chosen to adopt the "as built" where such State NPDES requirements interact with a cooling water intake approach: as stated in § 125.93, a facility will result in environmental structure and/or survive the interaction. may choose to use the current level of performance within a watershed that is Overall, most commenters impingement mortality and entrainment comparable to the reductions of recommended that EPA allow the as the calculation baseline. impingement mortality and entrainment Director broad discretion and flexibility EPA recognizes that this definition that would otherwise be achieved under in evaluating the calculation baseline cannot address the variety of intake
§ 125.94. (see § 125.90(c)). Thus, this due to varying site conditions. configurations and other conditions at The calculation baseline provides a all facilities and therefore cannot define rule provides a reasonable degree of standard intake configuration by which the calculation baseline in all settings.
flexibility for States to implement facilities can determine relative However, EPA believes that the existing effective programs. In reductions in impingement and calculation baseline in the final rule is
§ 125.94(e), States are also allowed to entrainment. EPA acknowledges the clear and straightforward to implement, establish more stringent BTA numerous comments on the proposed and allows for proactive facilities (i.e.,
requirements if necessary to comply definition and has refined the definition those with control technologies, with State, tribal, or other federal law. to provide more clarity in implementing operational procedures, or restoration E. Implementation this concept. For example, the measures already in place) to take credit definition in the proposed rule for existing measures.
- 1. Calculation Baseline Q Numerous commenters indicated that they were unclear as to how to calculate incorporated a shoreline intake structure. In the final rule, the definition has been clarified to specify a 3/s-inch
- 2. How Will Attainment of the Standards Be Measured?
the baseline conditions for impingement mesh traveling screen at a shoreline At the time of the NODA, EPA was V%. mortality and entrainment. Some intake structure. Based on available data evaluating several approaches for
41618 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations measuring success in meeting demonstrations simpler and somewhat location, percentage withdrawal of performance standards. EPA therefore less expensive so long as the taxonomic mean annual flow of rivers or streams, QC requested comments on whether performance should be measured based jon an assessment of the impacts to all identity of collected organisms is not required. The commenter noted that this would not be appropriate, however, in capacity to upset thermal stratification in lakes, a facility's calculation baseline, and the appropriateness of existing or fish and shellfish species ("all-species cases where taxonomic identification is proposed protective technologies or approach") or to fish and shellfish from needed, such as where eggs and larval measures. only a subset of species determined to stages are converted to age-1 EPA agrees that a single approach be representative of all the species that equivalents. may not be optimal in all cases. The have the potential to be impinged or As part of the representative species Agency has therefore not prescribed the entrained ("representative species inquiry, EPA also requested comment methods (including a metric) for approach"). These comments are on whether 10 to 15 species might be an assessing success in meeting addressed under section 2. a below. appropriate number of representative performance standards in today's final Several terms to describe the species to protect all species and rule. Rather, the Director must representative species approach have ecosystem functions at a facility. One determine whether a clearly defined all-been used historically. To avoid commenter responded, stating that 15 species approach or representative confusion among the terms was too large a number. This commenter species approach is appropriate on a "representative indicator species," suggested that a demonstration should case-by case basis, based upon the "representative important species," and focus on the four or five species and add information and proposed methods "critical aquatic organisms," EPA is to the list only if there was another presented by the facility. The Director adopting the term "representative species of special concern. may choose to require evaluation of all species" for the purpose of simplicity in In response to the commenter who species or of certain representative this section. EPA also requested suggested that EPA should evaluate species. comment as to whether enumeration of factors other than reduction in numbers In response to comments regarding organisms or biomass should be used as of organisms impinged or entrained, EPA's suggested number of the metric for measuring success in EPA has selected several means by representative species, the facility will meeting the performance standards. which to determine compliance with propose the number of species to These comments are addressed in section 316(b) requirements. For monitor, as well as decisions regarding section 2. b below. With regard to facilities that choose to demonstrate species and life stages to monitor, for counting absolute numbers of compliance with the performance review and approval by the Director as organisms, EPA also requested comment standards, the metric that will be used part of Verification Monitoring Plan on the option of counting to evaluate compliance with the (125.95(b)(7)), Technology Installation undifferentiated organisms (i.e., performance standards is the facility's and Operation Plan (125.95(b)(4)(ii)), counting without specifying taxonomic reduction of impingement mortality and and, if applicable, the Restoration Plan ( identification). entrainment through the installation of required at 125.95(b)(5). As such, in
'LJ After attempting to select optimal design and control technologies and/or cases where the representative species '~approaches for both the scope and operational measures. For these approach is applied, the Director may metric to use in determining attainment facilities, compliance may then be approve the number of representative of the performance standards, EPA has measured against a facility's calculation species proposed by the facility, based determined site-specific factors such as baseline, which the facility estimates upon the specifics of the waterbody biological assemblage at the site, intake and submits with its permit application from which the facility is withdrawing, location, and waterbody type must be package. The calculation baseline is the percentage volume of water factored into decisions regarding how to defined at § 125.93. For facilities that withdrawn relative to the freshwater evaluate attainment. EPA has therefore choose to use compliance with the river or stream (as applicable), and other decided that, in its Verification terms of a Technology Installation and factors.
Monitoring Plan (125.95(b)(7)), the Operation Plan or Restoration Plan to b. Metric: Absolute Counts vs. Biomass facility must propose, among other determine compliance, the degree of things, the parameters to be monitored success in meeting performance - EPA requested comment as to for determining attainment. The standards is still an important criteria whether species impinged or entrained Director will be best suited to review for determining if adaptive management may be measured by counting the total and approve proposed parameters for is needed, but it would not be the basis number of individual fish and shellfish, each facility on a case-by-case basis. for determining compliance. For - - or by weighing the total wet or dry facilities that choose to use restoration biomass of the organisms. In response to
- a. Scope of Evaluation: All-Species measures, attainment of performance the use of absolute counts of organisms Consideration vs. Representative standards will be based upon whether or biomass (weight) for determining Species the production of fish and shellfish from compliance, commenters offered a Several commenters supported the the restoration measures is substantially variety of views. Regarding the use of use of a representative species - - similar to the level of fish and shellfish biomass as a metric, one commenter evaluation, as opposed to the all-species the facility would achieve by meeting expressed that measuring either biomass evaluation, as the most practical the applicable impingement and/or or total undifferentiated numbers of approach in many cases. Another entrainment requirements. If a facility species would be appropriate for cases commenter stated that even with the has been approved for a site-specific where restoration was the chosen representative species approach, factors determination of best technology option, since restoration will never other than simply numeric reduction in available, the Director will establish result in one-for-one species impingement mortality and entrainment alternate requirements accordingly. EPA compensation. Several commenters
( must be considered when determining expects that a variety of factors will be pointed out a disadvantage of counting \L attainment. On the other hand, one considered in determining the numbers of organisms: early life stages commenter stated that an "all species" appropriate compliance option for a will dominate the numbers and thereby approach could make compliance facility, such as waterbody type, intake dominate the compliance
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41619 determination, even though most of standards are not being met. Other performance standards. EPA disagrees them would have suffered large natural commenters expressed that a facility that a historical determination of the mortality losses even without should be considered in compliance best technology available is appropriate (- entrainment. To correct for this, a few even during occurrences of unavoidable for complying with the requirements set t; 'commenters suggested identifying the episodic impingement and entrainment forth by today's rule. Many historical () organisms and converting them to an events. These commenters stated that in determinations of the best technology equivalent unit to ensure that each life such unusual circumstances, the facility available are less protective of aquatic stage is appropriately weighed. should be provided with an exemption organisms and ecosystems than the Specifically, one commenter suggested from any regulatory actions. standards set by today's rule, and would converting to equivalent juveniles, EPA agrees with commenters that undermine the national performance when measuring organisms by biomass, under certain circumstances, facilities' standards that EPA has determined to correct for the fact that the count will historical data may be sufficient to reflect the current best technology be dominated by later larval stages even verify that they are meeting performance available for minimizing adverse though the number of these organisms standards, as long as the historical data environmental impact. Furthermore, per unit weight will be small compared is reflective of current operation of the biological, chemical and physical to eggs and larvae. This commenter facility and of current biological conditions at the facilities may have continued that this approach would be conditions at the site. For example, changed since the earlier determinations useful for forage species, since biomass under compliance alternative 2, a were made, and the best technology is an appropriate measure of the facility may use historical data to available determinations may no longer organisms that serve as a food source for demonstrate that existing design and apply. Many of the historical best commercial and recreational species. construction technologies, operational technology available determinations are EPA received many comments or restoration measures, meet the twenty years old or older and may not regarding the need for flexibility in performance standards. EPA also correspond with current waterbody or determining the appropriate metric to believes that some historical data may operating conditions. use to determine attainment of be appropriate for determining the The question whether a facility performance standards. Several ,calculation baseline and for should be considered in compliance commenters asserted that the rule characterizing the nature of even during occurrences of unavoidable should allow flexibility in the approach impingement and entrainment at the episodic impingement and entrainment and the choice of metric should factor site, and therefore has given the Director events is left to the Director. At the in whether one is assessing the discretion to determine whether Director's discretion, facilities that are impingement mortality, entrainment or historical data are applicable to current generally in compliance, but that both; species and life stages affected, conditions (see 125.95(b)(1)(ii), experience an unusual peak of and compliance option. 125.95(b)(2)(i), and 125.95(b)(3)(iii)). In impingement mortality and/or EPA has decided to give the Director addition, a facility that proves, using entrainment, may be considered to still (I_ the authority to review and approve methods of determining compliance proposed by the facility as part of the existing data, that it has reduced its intake capacity commensurate with closed-cycle recirculating systems be in compliance on the basis of past good performance. Moreover, the inclusion of a compliance determination " Verification Monitoring Plan. would be considered to be in alternative based on a Technology (125.95(b)(7)), Technology Installation compliance, and therefore would not be Installation and Operations Plan in the and Operation Plan (125.95(b)(4)(ii)), required to meet the performance final rule also addresses these episodic and, if applicable, the Restoration Plan standards for either impingement issues. required at 125.95(b)(5). Thus, the mortality or entrainment. facility will propose, and the Director After the first permit term, facilities d. Monitoring will review and approve, species and may submit a request for reduced One commenter stated that life stages of concern. The Director may information collection activities to their monitoring frequencies should be choose to require evaluation of all Director. Facilities that are able to established to address the inherent species or of certain indicator species; demonstrate that conditions at their variability in the rates in impingement or the Director may elect to verify facility and in the waterbody from and entrainment over the seasons of the attainment of performance standards which their facility withdraws surface year. Monthly or biweekly monitoring is using biomass as a metric. EPA believes water are substantially unchanged since probably appropriate in many cases. that as each situation will be somewhat their previous permit application will The same commenter stated that unique, it should be left to the facility qualify for reduced requirements standard statistical procedures could be to propose and the Director approve the (§ 125.95(a)(3)). In all these cases, followed to establish sample sizes appropriate unit, biomass or actual historical data are used and required to needed to establish appropriate levels of counts. measure success in meeting precision in the estimates (e.g., 95%
- c. Other Means of Determining performance standards. However, confidence intervals within 15-25% of facilities required to submit a the mean). In contrast, another Attainment of Performance Standards Verification Monitoring Plan must still commenter pointed out that weekly Several commenters also suggested submit verification monitoring data for sampling would be necessary to that EPA should allow for the use of at least two years following determine compliance, as had been existing data for measuring attainment implementation of technologies and/or necessary for the Salem facility. Another in lieu of requiring existing facilities to operational measures. commenter suggested that the most cost-collect and develop new data. Other commenters argued that a effective way of conducting studies Commenters also suggested that if a facility that is implementing permit would be over the periods of peak facility currently implements the best conditions reflecting a historical abundance.
technology available to minimize determination of the best technology Some commenters stated that (t v adverse environmental impact, it should be found in compliance even if the available should be considered in compliance with today's final rule even facilities should be allowed to cease monitoring following achievement of () newly promulgated performance if the facility is not meeting the performance standards. Some
41620 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 I Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations suggested that facilities meeting several recommended that a compliance Today's final rule sets performance performance standards through a schedule be written into the permits, to standards for reducing entrainment closed-cycle cooling system should be allow facilities to install and test new rather than reducing entrainment exempt from monitoring. Another equipment. Several commenters agreed mortality. EPA chose this approach commenter disagreed with the two-year that different facilities might require because EPA does not have sufficient monitoring requirement altogether. different amounts of time, as dictated by data to establish performance standards EPA has determined that a uniform where they are in the cycle and what based on entrainment survival for the averaging period would not be their circumstances are. technologies used as the basis for appropriate; rather, the Director will be EPA has provided for time to comply today's rule. If EPA had incorporated best suited to make all such - with permitting requirements. A facility entrainment survival into any of its determinations by evaluating these and whose permit expires more than four other factors for each facility on a case- years after the date of publication of this conclusions regarding the appropriate by-case basis. The Director will be able final rule must submit the required performance standards, then the actual to make determinations regarding information 180 days before the performance standard would most likely averaging periods based upon site-' expiration of their permit. A facility have been higher. specific factors, such as biological whose permit expires within four years Many commenters argued that in assemblage at the site, annual and diel of the date of publication of this final many cases organisms survive fluctuations in concentration and rule may request that the Permit entrainment and the zero percent populations present, and the selected Director establish a schedule for survival assumption was too compliance alternative. EPA disagrees submission of the permit application. conservative. Some commenters that a facility should cease monitoring Such submission should be as suggested that EPA was biased in its once performance standards are expeditiously as practicable, but no later approach to entrainment survival. For achieved, as site-specific conditions at than three and one-half years from the example, one commenter stated that any facility are bound to change with date of publication of this final rule. It EPA was biased as a result of relying time, affecting a facility's ability to is expected that the time that facilities heavily on old gntrainnmept survival 4chieve performance standards. EPA need to comply with permitting agrees that facilities meeting requirements will be variable, ranging literature. performance standards through flow from one year for those not needing to Based on its review of all entrainment reductions commensurate with closed- do an impingement mortality and survival studies available to the Agency, cycle cooling should be exempt from entrainment study to over three years EPA believes that its assumption of zero monitoring (see § 125.94(a)(1)(i)). for those needing to collect more than percent survival in the benefits Finally, EPA believes that the two-year one years worth of impingement and assessment is justified. The primary monitoring requirement is appropriate entrainment data. issue with regard to the studies EPA so that any site-specific variability in EPA has also provided that facilities reviewed is whether the results can impingement and entrainment rates can may opt to comply with the Technology support a defensible estimate of survival be detected. Installation and Operations Plan substantially different from the value compliance scheme that allows facilities zero percent survival assumed by EPA.
- e. Timing who properly implement the Some States favored flexibility in Technology Installation and Operations The review of the studies has shown implementation including delaying the Plan (or Restoration Plan, as applicable) that while organisms are alive in some effective date for permits to be renewed to be considered in compliance with the of the discharge samples, the proportion soon after the rule is finalized. Some requirements of § 125.94. As indicated of the organisms that are alive in the commenters suggested that the above, the final rule provides the samples is highly variable and requirements of the rule must be timed Director the flexibility to establish an unpredictable on a national basis. In so that facilities are not forced into a appropriate averaging period to meet the addition, some studies contain various period of noncompliance because of the particular situation present in the sources of potential bias that may cause time needed to determine, design, and waterbody within which the facility is the estimated survival rates to be higher install new intake technology. located. than the actual survival rates. For these One commenter expresse that reasons, EPA believes the current state implementation schedules are too strict. 3. Entrainment Survival; of knowledge does not support reliable Along the same vein, another EPA invited comment on whether to predictions of entrainment survival that commenter suggested that EPA should allow Phase Hexisting facilities to would provide a defensible estimate for build flexibility into the implementation incorporate estimates of entrainment entrainment survival above zero at a schedule so that facilities are not forced survival when determining compliance national level. However, today's final into periods of noncompliance. with the applicable performance rule does allow facilities to use the Commenters generally wanted to see standards. Commenters responded with results of a well-constructed, sites-flexibility in the averaging periods (time numerous comments regarding survival increments for determining success in specific entrainment survival study, with respect to the performance approved by the Director, in their meeting the percent reduction or standards as well as comments production specified by the - regarding EPA's assumption of zero benefits assessments when seeking site-performance standards and restoration percent entrainment survival (100 specific entrainment requirements. The requirements in § 125.94,) and a way to percent mortality) in the benefits permitting authority must review and tailor the sampling schedules to the assessment for today's rule. ' ; accept the study before the results may needs of the site. These commenters Some commenters opposing the zero be incorporated into the benefits indicated that the monitoring should be percent survival assumption argued that assessments. In cases where there is frequent enough to provide useful in the event a facility can demonstrate uncertainty in the survival rates, information, but not so intensive as to entrainment survival, it should be permitting authorities may want to make the program unnecessarily costly awarded credits towards meeting specify that benefits be presented as a or time-consuming. Furthermore, performance standards. EPA disagrees. range that reflects this uncertainty.
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41621
- 4. Comprehensive Demonstration Study minimal CDS requirements. In addition, NPDES permit. Numerous commenters (CDS) facilities with design intake flow asserted that consultation activities C a. Requirements and Burden a The majority of commenters commensurate with closed-cycle recirculating systems are exempt should occur prior to development of the Comprehensive Demonstration entirely from the CDS; facilities may Study; that schedules and requirements expressed two concerns regarding the CDS: (1)it was too burdensome and only have to submit partial CDS should be specified in the permit for ()
information if they have reduced their various data collection, analysis, and costly, and the volume of information design intake velocity to less than or application submission activities; required was too overwhelming, and (2) equal to 0.5 feet per second and are only implementation schedules are too strict; several components required required to meet requirements as they and monitoring requirements need clarification. These commenters relate to reductions in entrainment. In clarification. Yet another commenter generally suggested that the costs of addition, requiring an early submission suggested to "start the clock" with the such a study were underestimated, and of the Proposal for Information issuance of the renewed permit. many indicated that the cost estimates Collection allows the Director to Commenters also indicated that for completing the CDS contained potentially minimize the amount of anywhere from one year to several years misleading or incorrect information. information required by the facility. might be necessary to verify success in Commenters indicated that the Also, by allowing the use of historical meeting the performance standards. information required for completing the data, EPA has minimized costs for many Several commenters suggested that CDS was similar to the data that would facilities. In the cases where new given the nature of cooling water intake be needed for implementing a purely studies are required, EPA has given the impacts and the proposed requirements, site-specific approach and was therefore permittee and the Director discretion to section 316(b) permit and BTA overly burdensome. Commenters set conditions for the studies which will determinations should not be made suggested that EPA require a more not be overly burdensome. Facilities every five years. Instead, they suggested simplified demonstration study or may also reduce costs incurred through that one-time determinations should waive the requirement for facilities that the information collection process in suffice, or that facilities should be select one of the approved technologies. subsequent permit terms by submitting, -allowed to rely on previous section Some commenters suggested, in general, one year prior to expiration of the 316(b) demonstrations if conditions that costs could be greatly reduced by existing permit, a request for reduced remain essentially unchanged. There streamlining this process, for example, permit application information based on was also some general confusion as to by exempting facilities from certain conditions of their cooling water intake when the rule would actually become components based on (1) facilities that structure and waterbody remaining effective. have proven that they are not harming substantially unchanged since the In response to the comment that EPA the aquatic community, and (2) facilities previous permit issuance. should not request submittal of CDS for which there exists relevant historical One commenter expressed concern components more frequently than every {I data. that historical data should not be five years or more, EPA has included a Several States anticipated that the allowed in the development of the CDS, provision whereby a facility may be majority of their facilities were likely to as it may not accurately reflect current granted reduced CDS submittal choose the site-specific compliance conditions. EPA believes that some requirements if it can prove that alternative, and indicated that a rule historical data may be appropriate for conditions at the facility and in the that requires cost/benefit analyses for determining the calculation baseline waterbody have not substantially many decisions would be difficult to and for characterizing the nature of changed. Facilities will be required to administer and require significant impingement and entrainment at the review whether conditions, such as resources to implement. They claimed site, and therefore has given the Director biological, chemical or physical that the site-specific performance the discretion to determine whether conditions, have substantially changed standards compliance option would historical data are applicable to current at each permit renewal cycle. If impose a substantial review burden and conditions. EPA expects to provide conditions have changed, facilities will would require specialized expertise. guidance to Directors to help them make be required to submit all of the relevant Some States questioned whether determinations about historical data CDS components (those that would be existing permitting staff resources over submitted by facilities. Historical data affected by the changed conditions the first 5 years will be sufficient to will not be used to determine when they submit the application for review material and develop permit attainment of performance standards; permit renewal. requirements. this will be verified through a One commenter stated that the CDS Many commenters suggested that EPA monitoring program approved by the should be a one-time submittal. EPA could lower costs by streamlining the Director. disagrees that all components of the CDS, exempting facilities that are not CDS should only be researched and causing adverse environmental impact b. Timing of Submitting Information submitted a single time for the lifetime or have historical data, and waiving the Commenters submitted a variety of of the facility, regardless of potential monitoring components for facilities opinions about timing. Generally, most changes in the plant and/or waterbody, that have installed approved favored limiting the submittal of CDS because the natural and anthropogenic technologies. components to a frequency equal to or changes that occur in waterbodies over EPA believes that many efficiencies greater than once every five years (one time may affect a facility's ability to have been added to the rule since the permitting cycle) to reduce burden. meet performance standards using the proposal and the NODA to address Another commenter argued that there is current design and construction concerns that the CDS is too no reason to mandate timing, and that technologies, operational measures,, burdensome and costly. First, EPA has approval of the Director should not be and/or restoration measures in place. provided five compliance alternatives to necessary. Other commenters suggested In response to comments that timing choose from, one of which allows a that a time frame is necessary, and that was not clear in previous versions of the facility to install an approved design the information should be submitted rule, EPA agrees, and has clarified ('I. and construction technology with with the renewal application for a timing issues in today's final rule. A
41622 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations facility whose permit expires more than EPA believes that § 125.90(c) in today's commenter argued that past restoration four years after the date of publication rule, by allowing alternative State measures should be considered during a of this final rule must submit the programs, acknowledges the work regulator's determination of whether or ( required information 180 days before already done by States. In response to not adverse environmental impact is the expiration of their permit. A facility the comment that a State should not occurring from a cooling water intake whose permit expires within four years have to prove that its program achieves structure. of the date of publication of this final environmental performance comparable Other commenters felt restoration rule may request that the Permit to those that would be achieved under should have a limited role or no role in Director establish a schedule for §125;94, EPA disagrees. While EPA is the context of section 316(b). One submission of the permit application, giving significant flexibility to commenter wrote that restoration but that such submission should be as permitting agencies at the State level to measures, in the context of section expeditiously as practicable, but no later determine how and what each facility 316(b), are generally unworkable and than three and one-half years from the must protect and monitor, it believes it that the only measurable restoration date of publication of this final rule. It is important to set uniform national method would be offsetting, in which an is expected that the time that facilities performance standards. applicant stops use of an older intake need to comply with permitting facility that does more harm than the F. Restoration proposed one. One commenter stated requirements will be variable, ranging from one year for those not needing to In the proposed rule EPA requested that restoration methods must do an impingement mortality and comments on the use of restoration reproduce the ecological value of lost entrainment study to over three years measures by facilities within scope of organisms and that they have not seen for those needing to collect more than the rulemaking (67 FR 17146). EPA restoration projects adequately one years worth of impingement and received diverse comments. Many successful in this manner in their region entrainment data. commenters supported a role for of the country. Many commenters Some commenters felt that decisions restoration measures. Several pointed out uncertainties associated about the timing of the CDS submittal commenters stated that allowing with compensating for those organisms sfiould be left to the Director, EPA restoration provides additional impacted by a cooling water intake agrees and has provided'only that the flexibility to those who must comply structure through restoration. proposal for information collection. with the section 316(b) requirements, Some commenters suggested that, if should be submitted prior to the start of and may provide a more cost-effective restoration is allowed, there should be information collection activities, but means of minimizing adverse consultation with other State and that the facility may initiate information environmental impact than operational Federal resource agencies to avoid collection prior to receiving comment measures or design and construction inconsistent approaches and to provide from the Permit Director. All other technologies. Other commenters stated useful information on the affected components of the Comprehensive that restoration is a well-accepted waterbody. Demonstration Study must be submitted concept that should have a voluntary Several commenters remarked on IJ 180 days prior to permit expiration role in section 316(b) determinations EPA's proposal to include requirements except as noted above for the first, and constitutes an appropriate means for uncertainty analysis, adaptive permit term following promulgation of for reducing the potential for causing management plans, and peer review in the rule. adverse environmental impact. Several the final rule. Some commenters were in commenters felt that restoration could favor of the requirements and felt that
- 5. State Programs provide significant benefits in addition they would enhance restoration measure Many States requested that existing to compensating for impingement and certainty and performance. Some State section 316(b) programs be entrainment losses. A number of commenters were concerned that the allowed to be used to meet the commenters requested flexibility in the requirements would be overly requirements of Phase II. One implementation of restoration projects. burdensome or would overly restrict the commenter asserted that the Phase II Some commenters stated that restoration measure options available to rule should not overturn past State restoration should not be limited to permit applicants.
section 316(b) decisions at existing supplementing technology or EPA has retained restoration in the facilities that were made on a site- operational measures, but should final rule and believes that the specific basis and that examined the instead be allowed as a complete restoration requirements strike an impacts of the cooling water intake; substitute for such measures. However, appropriate balance between the need structure in relation to the specific other cormmenters stated that restoration for flexibility and the need to ensure biological community. Several measures should only be used once that restoration measures achieve commenters stated that EPA did not every effort has been made to use ecological results that are comparable to sufficiently recognize the -work already technology to avoid impacts. other technologies on which the done by the States in Implementing Commenters further stated that performance standards are based. section 316(b). Several commenters do restoration should not be mandatory Facilities that propose to use restoration not believe that a State should have to and that EPA lacks authority under measures, in whole or in part, must demonstrate that its program is section 316(b) to require it, but also demonstrate to the Director that they "functionally equivalent" to today's rule asserted that it should have an have evaluated the use of design and (i.e., that its alternative regulatory important role in section 316(b) construction technologies and/or requirements achieve environmental permitting decisions. Commenters also operational measures and found them to performance within a watershed that is stated that restoration should not be be less feasible, less cost-effective, or comparable to the reductions of considered the best technology available less environmentally desirable than impingement mortality and entrainment for minimizing adverse environmental meeting the applicable performance that would otherwise be achieved under impact because it is not a technology standards in whole or in part through A§ 125.94). that addresses the location, design, the use of restoration measures. The In response to comments about construction, or capacity of a cooling requirement to look at design and existing State section 316(b) programs, water intake structure. However, one construction technologies and/or
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41623 operational measures in order to ensure as it is based on vendor and engineering rate-based system will be operating in a that facilities give due consideration to firm experience in developing costs for competitive market. Furthermore, EPA the technologies on which the Phase I facilities. does not believe that nonutilities will be \ r > performance standards are based. pi Facilities must also demonstrate that 2. Market-Level Impacts differentially impacted compared to utilities, even in the case that the use of restoration measures achieves Numerous industry commenters deregulation might not have taken effect performance levels that are substantially stated that EPA significantly in all markets by the time this rule is similar to those that would be achieved underestimated the impacts to implemented. Competitive pressures, under the applicable performance generators, consumers, reliability, and even in regulated environments, will standards. To address concerns energy supply. EPA disagrees with these reduce the ability of utilities to pass on regarding the uncertainty of restoration commenters. EPA performed an analysis costs to their consumers. measures, EPA has included, among of facility- and market-level impacts Some commenters stated that small or other things, requirements for (including impacts to generators, publicly owned facilities may be uncertainty analysis, adaptive consumers, reliability, and energy significantly affected. EPA disagrees management plans, monitoring, and supply) using the Integrated Planning with this statement. EPA's SBREFA peer review, if requested by the Model (IPMP), which has been widely analysis showed that this rule will not Director. Finally, EPA does not believe used in air quality regulations and in lead to a significant economic impact on the requirements for restoration other public policy arenas affecting the a substantial number of small entities measures are overly burdensome or electric power generation industry. (See Section Xm.C below). While prescriptive as there is a need to ensure One commenter stated that the IPM municipally owned facilities bear a that these types of measures achieve the analysis does not account for the relatively larger compliance cost per anticipated environmental benefit. economic impacts of other regulatory MW of generating capacity than do Moreover, under the rule, facilities are programs. EPA disagrees with this facilities owned by other types of provided at least three and one-half assertion. The IPM base case accounts entities, EPA's analyses show that these years to submit their restoration plan for costs associated with current federal costs are not expected to lead to iia~imiplete the required studies. ..and state air quality requirements, significant economic impacts for these including future implementation of SO 2 facilities. G. Costs and NOx requirements of Title IV of the Some commenters stated that even a
- 1. Facility-Level Costs Clean Air Act and the NOx SIP call as requirement to convert all facilities to implemented through a cap and trade closed-cycle cooling would not Generally, commenters were split program. Because of its relative significantly affect energy supply and regarding the national costs of the rule. newness, it does not account for costs that the costs to facilities and consumers Industry commenters stated that the cost associated with the Phase I facility is small and in some cases, overstated analysis presented in the proposal regulations. by EPA's analysis. EPA disagrees with r underestimated the compliance costs in One commenter stated that EPA this statement. EPA considered several several facets of the analysis, including justified the rule by using a cost-to- options that would require some or all
~'capital costs of the technology, the site- revenue comparison and that this facilities to install closed-cycle specific contingencies associated with comparison neither measures recirculating systems and rejected them retrofitting, and facility down time. profitability nor represents the most on the basis of economic practicability Several commenters stated that EPA efficient economic solution for each and technological feasibility. See underestimated the costs for the facility. As discussed in Section VII. Section VII.B for more detail on why monitoring requirements for both the above, the economic practicability of the EPA rejected closed-cycle recirculating characterization study in the permit Phase II regulation is based on the systems.
application and for verification electricity market model analyses using monitoring. Other commenters generally the IPM, not the cost-to-revenue ratio. H. Benefits stated the opposite, arguing that EPA The cost-to-revenue ratio is only one of In its analysis for section 316(b) Phase overestimated the compliance costs, several additional measures EPA used to II Proposal, EPA relied on nine case especially for installing cooling towers. assess the magnitude of compliance studies to estimate the potential Some commenters stated that costs costs. economic benefits of reduced should not be a consideration in section Some commenters stated that EPA did impingement and entrainment. EPA 316(b) determinations. not properly take account of differences extrapolated facility-specific estimates The Agency significantly revised the between utilities, which own and to other facilities located on the same approach to developing costs for the operate rate-based facilities, and waterbody type and summed the results NODA. Those revisions incorporated nonutilities, which own and operate for all waterbody types to obtain some of the comments on the costing competitive generating facilities. EPA national estimates. During the comment methodology for technologies that disagrees with this comment. EPA period on the proposed rule EPA reduce impingement and entrainment. believes that in a deregulated market, received numerous comments on the EPA's approach to estimating the costs the distinction between utilities and valuation approaches applied to of the requirements of the final rule nonutilities is no longer relevant. While evaluate the proposed rule, including reflect the NODA comments on the such a distinction may have been commercial and recreational fishing revised methodology, and additional important in the past, when only a few benefits, non-use benefits, benefits to analyses. EPA, however, did not revise unregulated nonutilities competed with threatened and endangered species its estimates for cooling towers regulated utilities, this is no longer the (T&E), as well as on the methods used subsequent to the NODA because it case. The share of Phase II facilities that to extrapolate case study results to the decided not to further pursue this are owned by unregulated entities has national level. EPA tried to address Q regulatory option for the reasons increased from 2 percent in 1997 to 31 concerns raised by commenters on the outlined more specifically in Section VII. EPA believes that our costing of percent in 2001. By the time the final rule will take effect, even more Phase II proposal in the revised methodology presented in the NODA and the final U) cooling tower technology is appropriate facilities that currently operate under a rule analysis.
41624 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
- 1. Benefits Analysis Design (DCN 6-0003). Although most invertebrate species were ignored; A number of commenters expressed commenters agreed that properly ecological value of forage species was concern about EPA's reliance on a few executed benefits transfer is an not considered; non-use benefits were Lcase studies and the extrapolation appropriate method for valuing underestimated; and secondary
_ method used for estimating benefits at nonmarket goods, they pointed out that economic impacts were not included. the national level for the proposed rule original revealed preference studies that Overall these commenters argued that a analysis. The commenters noted that provide site-specific recreational fishing net benefit underestimation could be even within the same waterbody type, benefit estimates provide a superior corrected by (1) assuming that non-use there are important ecological and alternative to benefits transfer. In values were two times the estimated response to these comments, EPA value of recreation, commercial and socioeconomic differences among developed original or used available forage values; and (2) assuming that different regions of the country. To region-specific recreational angler unharvested fish had a value greater address this concem, EPA revised the behavior models, which provide site- than zero. design of its analysis to examine cooling specific estimates of willingness-to-pay In response to public comments water intake structure impacts at the for improvements in recreational fishing regarding the analysis of non-use values regional-scale. The estimated benefits opportunities, to estimate recreational in the proposed rule, EPA considered were then aggregated across all regions fishing benefits from reduced the results of several different to yield the national benefits estimate. impingement and entrainment for seven approaches to quantifying non-use These analytical design changes were of the eight study regions. Chapter All values. The Agency points out that none presented in the NODA. No major of the Regional Analysis document of the available methods for estimating comments were received on EPA's provides detailed discussion of the either use or non-use values of regional benefit approach as described" methodology used in EPA's RUM ecological resources is perfectly in the NODA. analysis (DCN 6-0003). Due to data accurate; all have shortcomings.
- 2. Commercial Fishing Benefits limitations, EPA used a benefit transfer EPA has determined that none of the approach to value recreation fishing methods it considered for assessing non-Puring the comment period on the benefits from reduced impingement and use benefits provided results that were ploposed rule EPA received a number of entrainment in the Inland region. appropriate to include in this final rule, comments on the methods used to and has thus decided to rely on a estimate producer surplus and 4. Non-Use Benefits qualitative discussion of non-use consumer surplus in the commercial Numerous comments were received benefits. The uncertainties and fishing sector. Commenters felt that the on EPA's proposed non-use benefit methodological issues raised in the methods overestimated benefits. The estimates. Most commenters agreed that approaches considered could not be new methods used by EPA assume that non-use values are difficult to estimate resolved in time for inclusion in the producer surplus Is 0% to 40% of gross and that EPA's estimates of non-use rule. EPA continues to evaluate various revenues in the commercial fishing benefits using the 50% rule was approaches for evaluating non-use ksector. EPA also now assumes that the inappropriate because it relies on benefits of CWA rules.
_ Phase II rule will not create increases in outdated studies. Commenters, commercial harvest large enough to however, disagreed as to whether EPA 5. Habitat Replacement Cost (HRC) impact prices. Thus, no consumer had vastly overstated or underestimated Some commenters argued that the surplus impact is estimated. non-use benefits in the proposed Phase HRC methods are not legitimate Commenters on the NODA noted these II rule analysis. valuation methods becausethey concern changes and agreed with them. Some commenters stated that EPA's costs, not benefits. However, other
- 3. Recreational Fishing Benefits approach to estimating non-use benefits commenters argued that although HRC of the proposed rule significantly analysis is not a benefit's analysis in the A number of comments were received overestimates total benefits and that strict economic sense it can provide a on the recreational fishing benefits ecological benefits of the section 316(b) practical approach to capturing the full estimates EPA included in the proposal, regulation are negligible. Other range of ecosystem services and, thus, is which primarily relied on a benefits commenters asserted that EPA's benefits appropriate for evaluating the benefits transfer approach. Benefit transfer estimates significantly undervalued the of this rule. These comnienters further involves adapting research conducted total ecological benefits (including use pointed out that "restoration cost is for another purpose in the available and non-use) of preventing fish kills. used as a measure of damages under literature to address the policy These conimenters indicated that it CERCLA for Superfund sites, under the questions in hand. For more detail on would be imp ossible to claim that the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and le valuation methods used in the final value of the unharvested commercial under the oil spill provisions of the rule analysis, see Chapter A9 of the and recreational and forage species lost Clean Water Act. Use of restoration Regional Analysis document (DCN 6- to impingement and entrainment was costs was explicitly upheld in the 0003). For three of the nine case studies, equal to zero. Reasons some landmark Ohio vs. Interior court this analysis was supplemented by commenters gave for the decision of 1989."
original revealed preference studies. underestimation of total benefits EPA has removed the disputed results Revealed preference methods use included the following: total losses were of the HRC analyses from its benefits observed behavior to infer users' value underestimated by using outdated estimates for the final rule. For the for environmental goods and services. monitoring data for periods when NODA, EPA revised the HRC analysis Examples of revealed preference population levels (and therefore presented in the proposed rule (see 67 methods include travel cost, hedonic impingement and entrainment) were FR 17191). Instead of the costs of habitat pricing, and random utility models much lower than the present; replacement, EPA used estimated 1 '(RUM). For more detail on the revealed cumulative impacts were not willingness-to-pay values for the 9_)preference methods used in the final sufficiently considered; recreational and resource improvements that would be rule analysis, see Chapters A9 and All commercial values were achieved by the habitat replacement/ of the Regional Analysis document underestimated; commercial restoration equivalents.
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41625 During the comment period on the analysis of the final section 316(b) rule authorize EPA to promulgate national NODA, EPA received a number of due to the uncertainties and limitations categorical effluent limitations comments on the revised habitat-based discussed in Section A13-6.1 of the. guidelines and standards for direct valuation method. Specifically, several Regional Study document (see DCN 6- dischargers of pollutants. The reference commenters questioned the appropriateness of using willingness to 0003).
- 7. Timing of Benefits in CWA section 316(b) to these sections indicates that Congress expected that K) pay values for habitat restoration as a CWA section 316(b) requirements, like "proxy" for either the total value or the During the comment period on the those of CWA sections 301 and 306, non-use value of the fishery resources proposed rule, EPA received a number could be applied as a national, that would be preserved due to reduced of comments on the time at which categorical standard. Croninv. Browner, impingement and entrainment. EPA benefits of the rule accrue to society. 898 F. Supp. 1052, 1060 (1995) ("EPA explored this approach to estimating The commenters assert that the was also free to choose, as it did, to non-use values for three case study estimated commercial and recreational implement section 316(b) by issuing one regions: the North Atlantic, Mid- fishing benefits are overstated because overarching regulation that would apply Atlantic, and Great Lakes Regions. timing of benefits was not taken into to all categories of point source subject However, due to limitations and account. Specifically, the commenters to sections 301 and 306 that utilize uncertainties regarding the application argue that benefits could not be fully cooling water intake structures."); see of this methodology, EPA elected not to realized until installation of the cooling also Virginia ElectricPower Co. v.
include benefits based on this approach technology is completed and enough Costle, 566 F. 2d 446 (1977). in the costs and benefits analysis of the years pass after that first year of reduced final section 316(b) rule. 2. Authority To Consider Cost in impingement and entrainment mortality Establishing Performance Standards and
- 6. Benefits to Threatened and such that every fish avoiding Compliance Options Endangered Species. impingement and entrainment in that year can be harvested by commercial Some commenters objected to EPA's Similarly to the HRC approach, and recreational fishermen. In response consideration of costs in the coigrnenters strongly isagreed about to public comments bn the proposed determination of BTA. These the appropriateness of EPA using the rule analysis, EPA revised recreational commenters note that CWA section societal revealed preference (SRP) and commercial fishing benefits 316(b) does not expressly mention method to value benefits from reducing analysis to account for a one-year compliance costs, in contrast to other impingement and entrainment of construction period required to install technology-based provisions of the threatened and endangered species CWIS technology to reduce CWA, which explicitly direct EPA to because these methods concern costs impingement and entrainment, and a consider such costs. If Congress had not benefits. The SRP method uses (1) time lag between impingement and intended that EPA consider costs under evidence of actions taken to benefit a entrainment cessation and the time section 316(b), they argue, it would have resource that were developed, approved, when recreational and commercial fish expressly directed the EPA to do so.
andimplemented voluntarily by government and quasi-government species will be large enough to be harvested. In accounting for a delay in agencies and (2) data on anticipated and benefits, EPA used both a three percent EPA believes that it legitimately considered costs in establishing "best technology available" under CWA C' actual expenditures required to and a seven percent discount rate as section 316(b). Although CWA section complete the actions. EPA has removed recommended by OMB requirements. 316(b) does not define the term the disputed results of the societal "available," it expressly refers to CWA revealed preference analyses from its L EPA Legal Authority sections 301 and 306-both of which benefits estimates for the final rule 1. Authority To Set a National Standard require EPA to consider costs in because the uncertainties and determining the "availability" of a methodological issues raised in the for Cooling Water Intake Structures technology. Specifically, CWA section approaches considered could not be Some commenters challenged EPA's 301(b)(l)(A) requires certain existing resolved in time for inclusion in the authority to set a national standard for facilities to meet effluent limitations rule. cooling water intake structures, arguing based on "best practicable control Some commenters argued that that CWA section 316(b) requires EPA to technology currently available," which benefits transfer is the second best provide a site-specific assessment of requires "consideration of the total cost approach to estimating benefits from "best technology available to minimize of application of technology in relation improved protection of threatened and adverse environmental impact." These to the effluent reduction benefits to be endangered species if conducting an commenters maintain that the language achieved from such application." 33 original stated preference study is not and legislative history of CWA section U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B). Similarly, CWA feasible. Specifically, the commenters 316(b), the objectives of the CWA, and section 301(b)(2)(A) requires application recommended that EPA use benefits prior EPA practice of site-specific of the "best available technology transfer for valuing improved protection application of CWA section 316(b) economically achievable," which in of threatened and endangered species preclude EPA from setting a national turn requires consideration of "the cost instead of the societal revealed standard under this rule. of achieving such effluent reduction." preference method. In response to these EPA is authorized under section 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). Finally, CWA comments, EPA has explored a benefits 501(a) of the Clean Water Act "to section 306(b)(1)(B), which governs the transfer approach to valuing improved prescribe such regulations as are effluent discharge standards for new protection of threatened and endangered necessary to carry out [itsl functions" sources, expressly states that in species due to the final section 316(b) under the Clean Water Act. Moreover, establishing the "best available regulation. For detail, see Chapters A13 EPA interprets CWA section 316(b) to demonstrated control technology" the and B6 of the Regional Analysis authorize national requirements for Administrator shall take into 9 document (DCN 6-0003). EPA, however, cooling water intake structures. CWA consideration "the cost of achieving notes that benefits based on this method section 316(b) applies to sources subject such effluent reduction" 33 U.S.C. were not included in the benefit cost to CWA sections 301 and 306, which 1316(b)(1)(B). Although these standards
41626 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations are somewhat different, each mandates section 316(b) explicitly references Such a case-by-case determination of the consideration of costs in CWA section 301 as the basis for its BTA has been recognized by courts as establishing the technology-based application, indicates legislative intent being consistent with the statute. See
& standard. Because CWA sections 301 and 306 are expressly cross-referenced in CWA section 316(b), EPA believes to equate BTA with BAT and thus requires a national-not site-specific-standard.
Hudson Riverkeeper Fund v. Orange andRockland Util, 835 F. Supp. 160, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("This leaves to the that it reasonably interpreted CWA EPA disagrees. The CWA section permit writer an opportunity to impose section 316(b) as authorizing 316(b) authorizes a site-specific conditions on a case by case basis, consideration of the same factors determination of BTA. Although, the consistent with the statute"). considered under CWA sections 301 CWA section 316(b) authorizes EPA to Some commenters specifically and 306, including cost. EPA's promulgate national categorical challenged EPA's authority to consider interpretation of section 316(b) as requirements, EPA also notes that the costs in its site-specific assessment of authorizing a consideration of costs was variety of factors to be considered in best technology available. However, as explicitly upheld in litigation on the determining these requirements-such discussed earlier, EPA reasonably Phase I new facilities rule. Riverkeeper as location and design-indicate that interprets CWA section 316(b) to
- v. EPA, slip op. at 28 (2nd Cir., Feb. 3, site-specific conditions can be highly authorize it to consider costs of 2004). relevant to the determination of BTA to compliance in determining best EPA's interpretation is supported by minimize adverse environmental technology "available." Therefore, the legislative history of CWA section impact. In addition to specifying "best where EPA fails to consider a facility's 316(b): "'best technology available' technology available" in relation to a unusual or disproportionate costs in should be interpreted as best technology national categorical performance setting the national requirements for available at an economically practicable standard, today's rule also authorizes a "best technology available," it cost." See 118 Cong. Rec. 33,762 (1972), site-specific determination of BTA when reasonably authorizes permit authorities reprintedin I Legislative History of the conditions at the site lead to a more to set site-specific alternative limits to Water Pollution Control Act costly array of controls than EPA had account for these costs. See Riverkeeper Amendments of 1972, 93d Cong., ist expected would be necessary to achieve ,v, EPA, slip op. at 25 (2nd Cir. Feb. 3, Sess.-at 264 (Comm. Print 1973) the applicable performance standards. 2004) (upholding site-specific (Statement of Representative Don H. This site-specific compliance option alternative limits under the Phase I rule Clausen). EPA's interpretation of CWA is similar to the "fundamentally for new facilities where a particular section 316(b) is also consistent with different factors" provision in CWA facility faces disproportionate judicial interpretations of the section. section 301(n), which authorizes compliance costs.)
See, e.g., SeacoastAnti-PollutionLeague alternative requirements for sources In addition, EPA notes that-contrary
- v. Costle,'597 F.2d 306, 311 (1st Cir. subject to national technology-based to some commenters' assertions-the 1979) ("The legislative history clearly standards for effluent discharges, if the rule does not in fact authorize r makes cost an acceptable consideration facility can establish that it is permitting authorities to consider a K)in determining whether the intake fundamentally different with respect to facility's "ability to pay" in its site-design 'reflect[sJ the best technology factors considered by EPA in specific assessment of BTA. It only available' "); Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, promulgating the national standard. The allows consideration of whether the Inc. v. Orange -Rockland Util., Inc. 835 fundamentally different factors facility has unusual or disproportionate F. Supp. 160, 165-66 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). provision was added to the CWA in compliance costs relative to those 1987, but prior to the amendment, both considered in establishing the
- 3. Authority To Allow Site-Specific the Second Circuit and the Supreme performance standards-not whether Determination of BTA To Minimize AEI Court upheld EPA's rules containing the facility has the financial resources to Based on a Cost-Cost Comparison provisions for alternative requirements pay for the required technology.
The final rule allows a facility to as reasonable interpretations of the Moreover, in setting the alternative BTA pursue a site-specific determination of statute. NRDC v. EPA, 537 F.2d 642. 647 requirements, the permit authorities "best technology available to minimize (2d Cir. 1976) ("the establishment of the may depart from the rule's national adverse environmental impact" where variance clause is a valid exercise of the technology-based standards only insofar the facility can demonstrate that its EPA's rulemaking authority pursuant to as necessary to account for the unusual costs of compliance under the section 501(a) which authorizes the circumstances not considered by the compliance alternatives in §125.94(a)(2) Administrator to promulgate regulations Agency during its rulemaking. through (4) would be significantly which are necessary and proper to greater than the costs considered by the implement the Act"); EPA v. National 4. Authority To Allow Site-Specific Administrator for a like facility in CrushedStone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64 (1980) Assessment of BTA Where Facility's establishing the performance standard. (approving EPA's alternative Costs of Compliance Are Significantly Some commenters argue that CWA requirements provision in a standard Greater Than Benefits of Compliance section 316(b) does not authorize EPA to adopted pursuant to CWA section Some commenters objected to the provide for a site-specific assessment of 301(b)(1), even though the statute did second site specific regulatory option-
"best technology available." These not expressly permit a variance.) EPA's authorizing a site-specific determination commenters argued that EPA was alternative site-specific compliance of best technology available where the required under CWA section 316(b) to option in this rule is similarly a facility can demonstrate that its costs of set a national standard for "best reasonable interpretation of section compliance under §125.94(a)(2) through technology available" (BTA), at least as 316(b) and a valid exercise of its (4) would be significantly greater than stringent as the national standard for rulemaking authority under CWA the benefits of complying with the "best available technology" (BAT) section 501. applicable performance requirements at
,i under CWA section 301. These Based on this interpretation, EPA and the facility. These commenters argue \L tommenters asserted that the similar State permitting authorities have been that a cost-benefit decision making Wwording of the BTA and BAT implementing CWA section 316(b) on a criterion is not authorized under the requirements, and the fact that CWA case by case basis for over 25 years. CWA. Many of these commenters assert
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41627 that while it may be reasonable for EPA otherwise be required by the spawning or nursery areas, and creation to exclude technologies if their costs are performance standards will achieve the of a fish hatchery and/or restocking of "wholly disproportionate" to the statutory requirement to "minimize" fish being impinged and entrained with rs C benefits to be achieved, EPA lacks the statutory authority to conduct a formal adverse environmental impact, when considered in light of economic fish that perform a substantially similar function in the aquatic community. cost/benefit analysis to determine the practicability. An extreme example is a While the Phase I rule also authorized ^' best technology available on a site- highly degraded ship channel with few use of restoration measures, today's rule specific basis. fish and shellfish, but such situations includes additional regulatory controls EPA believes that the-Clean Water Act can only be identified and addressed on the use of restoration measures to authorizes a site-specific determination through a site-specific assessment. ensure that they are used appropriately of the best technology available to For these reasons, EPA reasonably to comply with the applicable minimize adverse environmental impact interprets the phrase "minimize adverse performance requirements or site where the costs of compliance with the environmental impact" in section 316(b) specific alternative requirements. For rule's performance standards are to authorize a site-specific consideration example, restoration measures are significantly greater than its benefits. of the benefits of the technology-based authorized only after a facility This authority stems from the statutory standard on the receiving water. EPA demonstrates to the permitting authority language of CWA section 316(b). As continues to believe that any that it has evaluated other design and discussed in Section m above, Section impingement or entrainment would be construction technologies and 316(b) requires that cooling water intake an adverse environmental impact, but operational measures and determined has determined that 316(b) does not that they are less feasible, less cost-structures reflect the best technology effective, or less environmentally available for minimizing adverse require minimization of adverse environmental impact beyond that desirable than meeting the performance environmental impact. The object of the which can be achieved at a cost that is standards or alternative site-specific "best technology available" is explicitly economically practicable. EPA believes requirements in whole or in part articulated by reference to the receiving that the relationship between costs and through the use of restoration measures. water: to minimize adverse benefits is one component of economic .The facility must also demonstrate that envfronmental impact in the waters practicability for purposes of section the proposed restoration-measures will from which cooling water is withdrawn. 316(b), and as noted previously, the produce ecological benefits (i.e., the In contrast, under section 301 the goal legislative history indicates that production of fish and shellfish for the of BAT is explicitly articulated by economic practicability may be facility's waterbody or watershed, reference to a different purpose, to make considered in determining what is best including maintenance of community reasonable further progress toward the technology availablefor purposes of structure and function) at a level that is national goal of eliminating the 316(b). EPA believes that allowing a substantially similar to the level a C discharge of all pollutants (section 301(b)(2)(A)). Similarly, under section 304, the goal of BPT and BCIT is relaxation of the performance standards when costs significantly exceed facility would achieve through compliance with the applicable benefits, but only to the extent justified performance standards or alternative explicitly articulated by reference to the by the significantly greater costs, is a site-specific requirements. Further, the degree of effluent reduction attainable. reasonable way of ensuring that adverse permitting authority must review and (section 304(b)(l)(A) and section environmental impact be minimized at approve the restoration plan to 304(b)(4)(A)). EPA has previously an economically practicable cost. This determine whether the proposed considered the costs of technologies in does not mean that there is a need to restoration measures will meet the relation to the benefits of minimizing make a finding of "adverse applicable performance standards or site adverse environmental impact in environmental impact" before specific alternative requirements. establishing 316(b) limits, which performance standard based CWA Consequently, the restoration provisions historically have been done on a case- section 316(b) requirements would of today's rule are designed to minimize by-case basis. See, e.g., In Re Public apply. Rather, EPA is authorizing an adverse environmental impact to a Service Co. of New Hampshire, 10 ERC exception to performance standard degree that is comparable to the other 1257 (June 17, 1977); In Re Public based requirements on a site-specific technologies on which the rule is based. Service Co. of New Hampshire, 1 EAD basis in limited circumstances: when The use of restoration to meet the 455 (Aug. 4, 1978); SeacoastAnti- the costs of complying with the national requirements of section 316(b) is Pollution League v. Costle, 597 F. 2d performance standards are significantly consistent with the goals of the Clean 306 (1st Cir. 1979). Under CWA section greater than the benefits of compliance Water Act: measures that restore fish 316(b), EPA may consider the benefits at a particular site. and shellfish to compensate for those that the technology-based standard that are impinged and entrained further would produce in a particular 5. Authority To Allow Restoration To the objective of the Clean Water Act "to waterbody, to ensure that it will Comply With the Rule Requirements restore, maintain, and protect the "minimize adverse environmental The final rule authorizes the use of biological integrity of the nation's impact." EPA believes that the restoration measures that produce and waters." 33 U.S.C. 1251(a) (emphasis technology-based standards established result in increases of fish and shellfish added). It is also consistent with EPA's in this final rule will, as a national in a facility's watershed in place of, or and States' past practices in matter, "minimize adverse as a supplement to, installing design implementing section 316(b) in environmental impact." However, the and control technologies and/or individual permit decisions. For at least degree of minimization contemplated by operational measures that reduce twenty years, EPA and States have the national performance standards may impingement mortality and authorized existing facilities to comply not be justified by site-specific entrainment. Restoration measures can with section 316(b) requirements, at conditions. In other words, depending include a wide range of activities least in part, through the use of on the circumstances of the receiving including measures to enhance fish restoration measures. For example, the water, it may be that application of less habitat and reduce stresses on aquatic Chalk Point Generating Station, located stringent controls than those that would life; creation of new habitats to serve as on the Patuxent River in Prince George's
41628 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations County, Maryland constructed a fish quality environmental impacts (including See 40 CFR 230.10. Of particular rearing facility in partial compliance of energy requirements), and such other factors relevance here, the regulations require its 316(b) obligations (DCN-1-5023- as (EPA] deems appropriate. that steps be taken to "minimize t) CPR).Although the United States Court of This list reflects the wide range of facility characteristics and potential adverse effects of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem" 40 CFR Appeals for the Second Circuit recently circumstances that can influence the 230.10(d). EPA has specifically defined remanded the portion of EPA's Phase I feasibility and availability of a minimization steps to include new facility rule that authorized particular technology across a particular environmental restoration. See 40 CFR restoration measures to meet that rule's industry. Existing facilities generally 230.75(d) ("Habitat development and requirements, EPA believes that portion face more and different problems than restoration techniques can be used to of the decision should not apply to this new facilities because of the minimize adverse impacts and to Phase HIrulemaking. Indeed, the Second technological challenges and high costs compensate for destroyed habitat"). Circuit explicitly stated that "[iln no associated with retrofitting as compared Moreover, at the time of the Phase I way [does it] mean to predetermine the to building a new facility. Indeed, by litigation, EPA had not interpreted the factors and standard applicable to Phase including the phrase "and such other term "reflect" in section 316(b), and II and Ill of the rulemaking." factors as [EPA] deems appropriate," therefore, the Second Circuit did not Riverkeeperv. EPA, slip op. at 12, note Congress made certain that EPA would consider its meaning in determining 13 (2nd Cir. Feb. 3, 2004). This is have sufficient flexibility in establishing whether restoration could be used as a probably because there are important limitations for existing facilities to design technology to meet the Phase I differences between new and existing consider all relevant factors. rule requirements. Section 316(b) facilities that warrant interpreting For several other reasons, EPA requires that "the location, design, section 316(b) more broadly to give believes the Second Circuit decision is construction, and capacity of cooling existing facilities additional flexibility not binding on this Phase H rule. First, water intake structures reflect the best to comply with section 316(b). As noted section 316(b) requires the design of a technology available for minimizing above, restoration measures have been cooling water intake structure to reflect adverse environmental impact." usedjo comply with section 316(b) the best technology available to&- (emphasis supplied). The term "reflect" limits at existing facilities for several "minimize adverse environmental is significant in two respects. First, it years because of the more limited impact." The phrase "minimize adverse availability of other technologies for environmental impact "is not defined indicates that the design, location, existing facilities. Costs to retrofit an in section 316(b). For the Phase H rule, construction and capacity of the cooling existing facility to install a "hard" EPA interprets this phrase to allow water intake structure itself must be technology can be much higher than facilities to minimize adverse based on the best technology available costs to install one at the time a facility environmental impact by reducing for such structures. This authorizes EPA is constructed, and those costs can vary impingement and entrainment, or to to identify technologies that can be considerably from site to site. Thus, the minimize adverse environmental impact incorporated into the physical structure range of technologies that are by compensating for those impacts after of the intake equipment. It also
.available" to existing facilities to meet the fact. Section 316(b) does not indicates that the choice of what the performance standards is narrower explicitly state when the adverse actually is the best physical than the range of technologies available environmental impact of cooling water configuration of a particular cooling to new facilities. structures must be minimized-that is water intake structure can take into In recognition of the vast differences whether they must be prevented from account, i.e., reflect, other between existing and new facilities,; occurring in the first place or technologies-and their effects-that are Congress established separate sections compensated for after the fact or where not incorporated into the structure in the Clean Water Act for establishing the minimization most occurs-at the itself. For example, barrier nets are not discharge limitations on existing and point of intake or at some other location incorporated into the physical design of new facilities. Effluent limitations in the same watershed. Therefore, under the cooling water intake structure, but guidelines for existing facilities are Chevron, EPA is authorized to define their use-and effectiveness-influences established under sections 301 and 304, "minimize" to authorize restoration at the physical design of the cooling water whereas new source performance existing facilities to minimize the effects intake structure. Another relevant standards are established under section of adverse environmental impact. example is the technology known as 306. Those sections set out two distinct In another context under the Clean "closed-cycle" cooling. Although this sets of factors for developing effluent Water Act, EPA has interpreted technology is physically independent of limitations guidelines for existing authority to "minimize adverse effects" the cooling water intake structure, it facilities and new source performance as including authority to require directly influences decisions regarding standards for new facilities. Notably, environmental restoration. Section 404 the design capacity of the cooling water there are only two factors explicitly of the CWA authorizes the Army Corps intake structure: as mnore cooling water stated in section 306 for the of Engineers to issue permits for is recycled, less needs to be withdrawn.
Administrator to consider in discharges of dredged or fill material Both barrier nets and closed-cycle establishing new source performance into waters of the United States. EPA cooling are considered "design" standards-cost and non-water quality was granted authority to establish technologies. Similarly, properly impacts, whereas for existing facilities regulations containing environmental designed restoration measures can be Congress calls upon EPA to consider a guidelines to be met by the Corps in best technologies available that can much broader range of factors in section issuing section 404 permits. See CWA influence the design of the physical 304(b)(2)(b): section 404(b)(1). Current regulations, in cooling water intake structure. To put it the age of equipment and facilities involved, place since 1980, prohibit a discharge another way, for purposes of (a the process employed, the engineering unless, among other requirements, all minimizing adverse environmental _aspects. . . of various types of control practicable steps are taken to avoid, impact, requirements for cooling water techniques, process changes, the cost of minimize and mitigate for the intake structures reflect a variety of best achieving such effluent reduction, non-water environmental effects of a discharge. technologies available, which EPA
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/ Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41629 construes to include restoration ensure that restoration projects achieve performance of restoration measures measures. A dry cooling system is substantially similar performance as under this final rule is not tied to another example of a technology that design and construction technologies conditions in the water body. Rather it although physically independent of the and/or operational measures. When is tied directly to the performance cooling water intake structure is these restoration technologies are used standards, just as is the performance of nonetheless considered an acceptable they must produce ecological benefits the other technologies that facilities may method to minimize adverse (the production of fish and shellfish for use to meet the standards. While the environmental impacts. In fact, since a a facility's waterbody or watershed, design and operation of restoration dry cooling system uses air as a cooling including maintenance of community measures will necessarily be linked to medium, it uses little or no water, structure and function) at a level that is conditions in the waterbody (as is also dispensing altogether with the need for substantially similar to the level the the case for "hard" technologies) the a cooling water intake structure. facility would achieve by using other performance standards that restoration EPA has discretion to characterize design and construction technologies measures must meet are not. restoration measures as technologies for and/or operational measures to achieve purposes of section 316(b). Section 6. Authority To Apply CWA Section the applicable performance standards or 316(b) Requirements to Existing 316(b) does not define either the phrase alternative site-specific performance "cooling water intake structure" or the Facilities requirements in § 125.94. In other term "technology" and, therefore, leaves words, the operation of the cooling Some commenters argued that CWA their interpretation to EPA. EPA has water intake structure together with § 316(b) does not apply to existing defined the phrase cooling water intake these restoration technologies will facilities, but rather authorizes only a structure in today's rule to mean the achieve the overall performance one-time, pre-construction review of total physical structure and any objective of the statute: to minimize the cooling water intake structure location, associated waterways used to withdraw adverse environmental impact of design, construction and capacity. cooling water from waters of the United withdrawing cooling water. For EPA disagrees with this assertion. States. This definition embraces facilities using this authority, their CWA section 316(b) applies to "any elements both internal and external to hardware decisions for the cooling standard established pursuant to section the intake equipment. EPA did not water intake structure thus take into 1311 [CWA section 301] or section 1316 define the term technology in today's account-or reflect-the impacts of [CWA section 306]." CWA section 301 rule, but looked for guidance to section restoration technology. establishes the statutory authority for 304(b), which the Second Circuit has EPA to promulgate technology-based recognized can help illuminate section EPA acknowledges that in 1982, when standards for effluent discharges from 316(b). Section 301(b)(2) best available Congress was considering substantial existing sources. Therefore, CWA technology limitations are based on amendments to the Clean Water Act, section 316(b) requirements can, and EPA testified in support of a proposed C factors set forth in section 304(b). Section 304(b), while not using the term amendment to CWA section 316(b) that indeed must, apply to existing facilities. Given that section 316(b) requirements al technology, discusses the "application of the best control measures and practices achievable including treatment would have expressly authorized the use of restoration measures as a compliance option, suggesting that EPA apply to existing facilities, such requirements cannot reasonably be viewed as mandating only a one-time, C)o techniques, process and procedure may have interpreted section 316(b) at pre-construction review. Moreover, as innovations, operating methods, and that time as not authorizing restoration the court noted in Riverkeeperv. EPA, other alternatives." This is a broad, non- measures to minimize the adverse slip op. at 44-45 (2nd Cir. Feb. 3, 2004), exclusive list. Indeed, BAT effluent environmental impact of cooling water "if Congress intended to grandfather in limitations guidelines under this intake structures. In EPA's view, the new or modified intake structures as authority have been based on a vast Second Circuit gave undue weight to well as the related point sources that array of treatment techniques, operation that testimony, particularly because it discharge heat, it could have done so in practices (including chemical was provided before the Supreme section 316(c)." substitution), and management Court's decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. practices. See 40 CFR Part 420 (effluent NaturalResources Defense Council, 467 7. Authority To Regulate "Capacity" of guidelines for concentrated animal U.S. 837 (1984), which gave the "Intake Structure" Through feeding operations); 40 CFR Part 430, administrative agencies latitude to fill in Restrictions on Flow Volume Subparts B &E (effluent guideline for the gaps created by ambiguities in Some commenters asserted that EPA pulp and paper industry); See also 62 statutes the agencies have been charged was not authorized to require closed-FR 18504 (April 15, 1998). by Congress to implement. For at least cycle cooling systems, pointing out that Employing this broad concept of twenty years, EPA and States have CWA section 316(b) addresses cooling technology, in today's rule EPA has authorized existing facilities to comply water "intake structures," not cooling determined that the design of cooling with section 316(b) requirements, at systems or cooling operations. EPA's water intake structures may reflect least in part, through the use of performance standards based on closed-technologies relating to the restoration restoration measures. Additionally, cycle cooling, they argued, constitutes of fish and shellfish in the waters from since 1982 EPA has gathered an impermissible restriction of the which cooling water is withdrawn. substantially more data to inform its cooling system or operation, which is Restoration is not included in the judgment regarding cooling water intake not part of the "intake structure" itself. definition of "design and construction structures, the environmental impact Others asserted that the term technology" in today's rule so as to resulting from them, and various "capacity," as used in CWA section distinguish restoration from "hard" technologies available to reduce 316(b), refers to the size of the cooling technologies for purposes of the rule. impingement and entrainment. Finally, water intake structure, not the volume Under the regulatory scheme of the final EPA notes that, in contrast to water of flow through the intake. They rule, restoration is treated differently than other technologies for several purposes, all of which are to help quality based effluent limitations that therefore questioned EPA's authority to are included in NPDES permits to meet regulate flow volume by requiring the water quality standards, the required use of closed-cycle cooling systems. QC)
41630 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations The rule does not in fact require the standards through CWA section 402 permitting guidance to assist Directors use of closed-cycle cooling systems. NPDES permits. CWA section 402(a)(1) in implementing these requirements. In Qf Rather, the rule provides facilities with five different compliance options, only one of which is based on closed-cycle authorizes the issuance of NPDES permits for discharges that comply with effluent guidelines limitations under addition, the Agency will develop implementation guidance for owners and operators that will address how to cooling technology. Moreover, EPA is CWA sections 301 and 306. CWA comply with the application authorized to set performance standards section 316(b) requirements can be requirements, the sampling and based on closed-cycle cooling implemented through CWA section 402 monitoring requirements, and the record technology, as it did in the Phase I rule, because they apply to all point sources keeping and reporting requirements in which was upheld in Riverkeeper v. subject to standards issued under CWA these final regulations. EPA, slip op. (2nd Cir. Feb. 3, 2004). See sections 301 and 306. See, U.S. Steel In this final rule, an existing facility also Section m. Corp v. Train, 556 F.2d 822, 850 (7th may choose one of five compliance Cir. 1977) (finding that CWA section alternatives for establishing best
- 8. Authority To Determine That 402 implicitly requires that CWA Technologies Short of Closed-cycle technology available for minimizing section 316(b) be implemented through adverse environmental impact at the Cooling Constitute "Best Technology NPDES permits). EPA's choice of Available To Minimize Adverse site:
NPDES permits, which already reflect (1) Demonstrate that it will reduce or Environmental Impact" CWA sections 301 and 306 effluent has reduced its intake flow Many commenters asserted that limitations, is reasonable. commensurate with a closed-cycle closed-cycle cooling is the "best recirculating system and is therefore technology available to minimize 10. Authority To Implement CWA Section 316(b) Requirements Without deemed to have met the impingement adverse environmental impact," and mortality and entrainment performance that EPA must therefore require Compensating Regulated Entities for "Taking" of Property standards, or that it will reduce or has facilities to reduce their cooling water reduced the design intake velocity of its intake capacity to a level commensurate Several commenters suggest that this cooling water, intake structure to 0.5 feet with.closed-cycle cooling. According to rule authorizes an iinpermissible per second (ft/s) and is therefore these commenters, this rule violates regulatory taking. Specifically, they deemed to have met the impingement CWA section 316(b) by adopting argue that the rule requires facilities to limit their intake flows, thus impairing mortality performance standards; performance standards less protective than "best technology available." their property rights to the water and (2) Demonstrate that its existing EPA reasonably rejected closed-cycle entitling them to compensation under design and construction technologies, cooling systems as "best technology the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. operational measures, and/or restoration available" based on consideration of Constitution. measures meet the performance QHe relevant factors, including the costs of closed-cycle cooling, the energy impacts, the relative effectiveness of EPA notes, however, that the rule does not in fact require a facility to limit its intake flows. Rather, it provides a standards and/or restoration requirements; (3) Demonstrate that it has selected _ closed-cycle cooling in minimizing facility with a variety of compliance and will install and properly operate impingement and entrainment in options, only one of which is based on and maintain design and construction variable waterbodies, and the flow limitations. While a facility could technologies, operational measures, availability of other design and control choose to comply with the section and/or restoration measures that will, in technologies that can be effective in 316(b) requirements by reducing its combination with any existing design significantly reducing environmental intake flow to a level commensurate and construction technologies, impacts. As the court held in with a closed-cycle cooling system (the operational measures, and/or restoration Riverkeeper v. EPA, slip op. at 29 (2nd first compliance option), it could also measures, meet the specified Cir. Feb. 3, 2004), "the Clean Water Act select one of the other compliance performance standards and/or allows EPA to make a choice among options that does not require flow restoration requirements; alternatives based on more than restrictions. EPA therefore believes that (4) Demonstrate that it meets the impingement and entrainment." In this rule does not authorize a applicability criteria for a rule-specified short, EPA has discretion to consider a compensable "taking" of property technology or a technology that has variety of factors besides the efficacy of within the meaning of the Fifth been pre-approved by the Director and technologies, including cost, and to Amendment. that it has installed, or will install, and compare the relative effectiveness of will properly operate and maintain the IX. Implementation technology; or, technologies that reduce impingement and entrainment. EPA's weighing of the As in the Phase I rule, section 316(b) (5) Demonstrate that it is eligible for factors is entitled to a high 4egree of requirements for Phase II existing a site-specific determination of best deference. See also Section m and VII. facilities will be implemented through technology available to minimize the NPDES permit program. Today's adverse environmental impact and that
- 9. Authority To Require Implementation final rule establishes application it has selected, installed, and is properly of CWA Section 316(b) Through NPDES requirements in §§ 122.21 and 125.95, operating and maintaining, or will Permits monitoring requirements in § 125.96, install and properly operate and Some commenters argued that EPA and record keeping and reporting maintain design and construction lacks authority to include section 316(b) requirements in S 125.97 for Phase It technologies, operational measures, requirements in section 402 NPDES existing facilities. The final regulations and/or restoration measures that the permits, because-unlike sections 301, also require the Director to review Director has determined to be the best 306, and 402-section 316(b) regulates application materials submitted by each technology available to minimize
,- "in takes" and not "discharges." regulated facility and include adverse environmental impact for the
>*L EPA disagrees with this comment. monitoring and record keeping facility.
-This rule properly requires requirements in the permit (§ 125.98). The application, monitoring, record implementation of CWA section 316(b) EPA will develop a model permit and keeping, and reporting requirements for
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations ;41631 each of the compliance alternatives are Between the time the existing permit prior to the expiration of your current detailed in the following sections. expires and the time an NPDES permit permit. This approximate timing is Q A. When Does the FinalRule Become t Effective? containing requirements consistent with this subpart is issued to the facility, based on the sequential Comprehensive Demonstration Study requirements and permit requirements reflecting the best the estimated level of effort required to This rule becomes effective sixty (60) technology available to minimize complete the studies and allow time for days after the date of publication in the adverse environmental impact will the Director's review and approval. The Federal Register. After the effective date continue to be determined based on the timing provided in this section is for of the regulation, existing facilities will Director's best professional judgement. illustrative purposes only and need to comply when an NPDES permit B. What Information Must I Submit to represents a schedule that the average containing requirements consistent with the DirectorWhen IApplyforMy facility may need to follow to meet the Subpart J is issued to the facility (see Reissued NPDES Permit? deadlines established in today's rule.
§ 125.92). Under current NPDES Some facilities may require more, or less program regulations, this will occur The NPDES regulations governing the time to perform the studies and prepare when an existing NPDES permit is permit application process at 40 CFR the application requirements. All reissued or, when an existing permit is 122.21 require that facilities currently facilities, except those that choose to holding a permit submit an application comply with the rule by reducing intake modified or revoked and reissued. for permit renewal 180 days prior to the capacity to a level commensurate with Under today's rule, a facility that is end of the current permit term, which a closed-cycle recirculating system in required to comply with this rule within is five years (see § 122.21(d)(2)). If you accordance with § 125.94(a)(1)(i), or by the first four years after the publication are the owner or operator of a facility adopting a pre-approved technology in date of this rule may request that the that is subject to this final rule, you will accordance with § 125.94(a)(4) must Director approve an extended schedule be required to submit the information submit a Proposal for Information for submitting its Comprehensive specified at 40 CFR 122.21(r)(2), (3), and Collection for review and comment by Demonstration Study. This schedule (5)and all applicable sections of the Director f§ 125.95(b)(1)). Facilities irnust-b as expeditious as practicable § 125.95, except for the Proposal for that comply with impingement -a and hot extend beyond three years and Information Collection, with your mortality requirements by reducing 180 days after the publication date of application for permit reissuance. intake velocity to 0.5 ft/s or less in the final rule. The Comprehensive The Proposal for Information accordance with § 125.95(a)(1)(ii) will Demonstration Study, once submitted, Collection component of § 125.95 only need to submit a Comprehensive forms the basis for the Director's should be submitted to the Director for Demonstration Study, including a determination of specific requirements review and comment prior to the start Proposal for Information Collection, for entrainment reduction requirements, if Cm consistent with Subpart J to be included of information collection activities. For in the permit. EPA has included this provision to afford facilities time to a typical facility that plans to install a technology, it is estimated that a facility applicable. The Proposal for Information Collection requirements are detailed collect information and perform studies, would need to submit this Proposal for later in this section. Figure 1 presents an including pilot studies where necessary, Information Collection about fifteen (15) example of a possible timeframe a needed to support the development of months prior to the submission of the facility may follow in preparing and the Comprehensive Demonstration remainder of the required information, submitting application components.
Study. which is about twenty-one (21) months BILUNG CODE 65600-P t.
C C noS 00 bPh N p7t 5tj tj & CD uV, La- III M a -. 0 _. 00 0 00 Figure 1. Sample Applicafton Timeline Iw0 Cs 0 6 months (180 days) CD before permit expiration 92. nz O CD Perm it Expires Now Permit Co I ,i 'I I containing requirements 0 Ca o t i.8 I 4P ' I CDS Facilitles: Conduct studies Al facilities: Prepare remainder of consistent with subpart J is Issued
.ap 4 L 40' permit renewal application _ X CY)
-e a~n 90 p0.
In W0 0 D -.
- 1. The tmetames pnrmOded In th lfue are appm te.
0
- 2. The feminderofth permit renemuI app tin (o be submtted 10 days pri to permitexpmton) Incudes Soume Water Physicl ot: Oong Wter Intake Sucture Dtea: and P ooMlng Waer System Descpi. The appliant must submit el components of the permt applcato as approprte for the compliance altemate selected. tD W 0
- 3. The Dieow may asler the appliation timelines neary.
0 0 0 aL D 9L CD 8 S.
,C o o
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 I Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 41633 activities in fulfillment of Director. The Director will consider all this section. In addition, the Comprehensive Demonstration Study public comments received on the draft requirements for each of the five requirements. The Director is permit and develop a final permit based compliance alternatives are detailed, C> encouraged to provide comments upon the application studies submitted with respect to which components are A'. expeditiously (i.e., within 60 days) so and other information submitted during required for each alternative. the permit applicant can make the comment period, as appropriate. responsive modifications to its The Director will incorporate the 1. Source Water Physical Data (40 CFR information gathering activities. relevant requirements for the facility's 122.21(r)(2)) It is assumed that most facilities cooling water intake structure(s) into the Under the final requirements at 40 would need approximately one year to final permit. CFR 122.21(r)(1)(ii), Phase II existing complete the studies outlined in the Today's final rule modifies facilities subject to this final rule are Proposal for Information Collection. regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(r) to required to provide the source water These must be completed at least 180 require Phase II existing facilities to physical data specified at 40 CFR days prior to the end of the current prepare and submit some of the same 122.21(r)(2) in their application for a permit term, by which time the information required for new facilities. reissued permit. These data are needed remainder of required application Phase II existing facilities are required to characterize the facility and evaluate information must be submitted. If the to submit two general categories of the type of waterbody and species facility requires more than one year to information when they apply for a potentially affected by the cooling water complete studies described in the reissued NPDES permit: (1) Physical intake structure. The Director is Proposal for Information Collection, the data to characterize the source expected to use this information to facility are encouraged to consult with waterbody in the vicinity where the. evaluate the appropriateness of the the Director. Facilities are also cooling water intake structures are design and construction technologies, encouraged to consult with the Director located (40 CFR 122.21(r)(2)), and (2) operational measures, and/or restoration regarding their schedule for study data to characterize the design and measures proposed by the applicant. completion. operation of the cooling water intake' The applicant is required to submit After the first peihit containing structures (40 CFR 122.21(r)(3)). Unlike the following specific data? il A requirements consistent with Subpart J new facilities, however, Phase It narrative description and scaled is issued, facilities may submit a request existing facilities are not required to drawings showing the physical to their Director soliciting a reduced submit the Source Water Baseline configuration of all source waterbodies information collection effort for Biological Characterization Data used by the facility, including areal subsequent permit applications in required under 40 CFR 122.21(r)(4). dimensions, depths, salinity and accordance with § 125.95(a)(3), which Today's final rule adds a new temperature regimes, and other allows facilities to demonstrate that the requirement at 40 CFR 122.21(r)(5) to documentation that supports the C~ conditions at their facility and within the waterbody in which their intake is located remain substantially unchanged require a facility to submit information describing the design and operating characteristics of its cooling water facility's determination of the waterbody type where each cooling water intake structure is located; (2) an since their previous permit application. system(s) and how it/they relate to the identification and characterization of The request for reduced cooling water cooling water intake structure(s) at the the source waterbody's hydrological and intake structure and waterbody facility. geomorphological features, as well as application information must contain a In addition, today's final rule requires the methods used to conduct any list and justification for each all Phase II existing facilities to submit physical studies to determine the information item in §§ 122.21(r) and the information required under § 125.95 intake's area of influence within the 125.95(b) that has not changed since the consistent with the compliance waterbody and the results of such previous permit application. The alternative selected. In general, the final studies; and (3) locational maps. applicant must submit this request at application requirements in § 125.95 least one year prior to the expiration of require most Phase II existing facility 2. Cooling Water Intake Structure Data the current permit term and the Director applicants to submit some or all of the (40 CFR 122.21(r)(3)) is required to act on the request within components of a Comprehensive Under the final requirements at 40 60 days. Demonstration Study (§ 125.95(b), see CFR 122.21(r)(1)(ii), Phase II existing The Director must review and also Exhibit II in section V). As noted in facilities are required to submit the data approve the information you provide in section V, facilities that do not need to specified at 40 CFR 122.21(r)(3) to your permit application, confirm conduct a Comprehensive characterize the cooling water intake whether your facility should be Demonstration Study are those that (1) structure which should assist in the regulated as an existing facility under reduce their flow commensurate with a evaluation of its potential for these final regulations, or under Phase closed cycle, recirculating cooling impingement and entrainment of III regulations for existing facilities that system, (2) install a rule-specified or aquatic organisms. Information on the will be developed in the future, or as a Director-approved technology in design of the intake structure and its new facility under regulations that were accordance with § 125.99 (except that location in the water column, in published on December 19, 2001 (66 FR these facilities must still submit a conjunction with biological information, 65256), and confirm the compliance Technology Installation and Operation will allow the permit writer to evaluate alternative selected (compliance Plan and Verification Monitoring Plan), which species, or life stages of a species, alternatives 1, 2, 3,4, or 5). Following or (3) reduce intake velocity to 0.5 ft/s are potentially subject to impingement review and approval of your permit or less (except that these facilities must and entrainment. A diagram of the application, the Director will develop a still submit a Comprehensive facility's water balance should be used draft permit for public notice and Demonstration Study for entrainment to identify the proportion of intake comment. The comment period will requirements, if applicable). water used for cooling, make-up, and allow the facility and other interested Each component of the process water. The water balance parties to review the draft permit Comprehensive Demonstration Study diagram also provides a picture of the conditions and provide comments to the and its applicability is described later in total flow in and out of the facility,
41634 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations allowing the permit writer to evaluate components of a Comprehensive and Compliance Assessment the suitability of proposed design and Demonstration Study, including data Information in § 125.95(b)(4), consisting construction technologies and/or and detailed analyses to demonstrate of a Design and Construction operational measures. that they will meet applicable Technology Plan (§ 125.95(b)(4)(i)) and a i , The applicant is required to submit requirements in § 125.94(b). As noted in Technology Installation and Operation the following specific data: (1) A section V, Comprehensive Plan (§ 125.95(b)(4)(ii)). (Facilities that narrative description of the Demonstration Study requirements vary use a pre-approved technology in configuration of each of its cooling depending on the compliance accordance with § 125.94(b)(4) need water intake structures and where they alternative selected. only submit the Technology Installation are located in the waterbody and in the The Comprehensive Demonstration and Operation Plan.) The Technology water column; (2) latitude and longitude Study has seven components: Installation and Operation Plan explains in degrees, minutes, and seconds for
- Proposal for Information Collection; how the facility intends to install, each of its cooling water intake . Source Waterbody Flow operate, maintain, monitor, and structures; (3) a narrative description of Information; adaptively manage the selected the operation of each of the cooling
- Impingement Mortality and/or technologies to meet the applicable water intake structures, including Entrainment Characterization Study; performance standards or site-specific design intake flows, daily hours of
- Technology and Compliance technology requirements, and in most operation, number of days of the year in Assessment Information; cases will provide the basis for operation, and seasonal operation . Restoration Plan; determining compliance with schedules, if applicable; (4) a flow
- Information to Support Site-specific § 125.94(b).
distribution and water balance diagram Determination of Best Technology Only those Phase 1 existing facilities that includes all sources of water to the Available for Minimizing Adverse that propose to use restoration measures facility, recirculating flows, and Environmental Impact; and wholly or in part to meet the discharges; and (5) engineering
- Verification Monitoring Plan. performance standards in § 125.94(b) or drawings of the cooling water intake All Phase 11 existing facilities, except site-specific requirements developed structure(s). those mentioned above, are required to pursuant to § 125.94(a)(5) are required submit at a minimum the following: a to submit ihe Restoration Plan
- 3. Cooling Water System Data (40 CFR Proposal for Information Collection (§ 125.95(b)(5)). This Plan serves an 122.21(r)(5)) (§ 125.95(b)(1)); Source Waterbody Flow analogous function for restoration Under the final requirements at 40 Information (§ 125.95(b)(2)); an measures to that served by the CFR 122.22(r)(1)(ii), Phase II existing Impingement Mortality and/or Technology and Compliance facilities are required to submit the Entrainment Characterization Study Assessment Information for design and cooling water system data specified at (§ 125.95(b)(3)); and a Verification construction technologies and 40 CFR 122.21(r)(5) to characterize the Monitoring Plan (§ 125.95(b)(7)). Note operational measures, in that it shows operation of cooling water systems and that facilities selecting restoration the design of the measures, explains their relationship to the cooling water measures provide a monitoring plan as how the facility will construct, intake structure(s) at the facility. Also part of their Restoration Plan, in maintain, monitor, and adaptively required is a narrative description of the accordance with § 125.95(b)(5)(v), rather manage the measures to meet applicable proportion of design intake flow that is than a Verification Monitoring Plan in performance standards and/or site used in the system, the number of days accordance with § 125.95(b)(7). The specific requirements, and serves as a of the year that the cooling water system requirements in these two provisions basis for determining compliance.
is in operation, and any seasonal are similar, but tailored specifically to Only those Phase I existing facilities changes in the operation of the system, the monitoring needs of restoration who request a site-specific if applicable. The facility must also projects, and design and construction determination of the best technology submit design and engineering technologies and operational measures, available are required to submit calculations prepared by a qualified respectively. Phase II existing facilities Information to Support Site-specific expert, such as a professional engineer, that have reduced their intake velocity Determination of Best Technology and supporting data to support the to less than or equal to 0.5 ft/s but are Available for Minimizing Adverse narrative description. This information still required to reduce entrainment (if Environmental Impact (§ 125.95(b)(6)). is expected to be used by the applicant the standard applies), must submit only Facilities that select the compliance and the Director in determining the those components of the Impingement alternative at § 125.94(a)(4) (Approved appropriate standards that can be Mortality and/or Entrainment Technology), are required to submit applied to the Phase 11 facility. Characterization Study pertaining to only two items: the Technology entrainment, in addition to the other Installation and Operation Plan
- 4. Comprehensive Demonstration Study required components of the
(§125.95(b)) (§ 125.95(b)(4)(ii)) and the Verification Comprehensive Demonstration Study. Monitoring Plan (§ 125.95(b)(7)). Final requirements at § 125.95(b) Facilities that are required to meet only-require all existing facilities, except the impingement mortality reduction a. Proposal for Information Collection those deemed to have met the requirements in § 125.94(b), are required As a facility, you are required to performance standards by reducing to submit a study only for the submit to the Director for review and intake capacity to a level commensurate impin ement reduction requirements. comment, a proposal stating what with the use.of a closed-cycle, facilities that comply with applicable information will be collected to support recirculating cooling water system, or by requirements either wholly or in part the Comprehensive Demonstration reducing intake velocity to 0.5 ft/s or through the use of existing or proposed Study (see § 125.95(b)(1)). This proposal less (impingement mortality standards design and construction technologies or must provide the following: only), or facilities that select an in part through the use of existing or
- A description of the proposed and/
( )approved technology in accordance proposed design and construction or implemented technology(ies) and/or with § 125.94(a)(4), to perform and technologies, and/or operational restoration measures to be evaluated in submit to the Director all applicable measures must submit the Technology the study (§ 125.95(b)(1)(i));
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41635
- A list and description of any Characterization Study. While the meets the requirement to not disrupt the historical studies characterizing Proposal for Information Collection is natural thermal stratification or turnover impingement and entrainment and/or only required to be submitted once, EPA pattern (where present) of the source
(~ the physical and biological conditions encourages permit applicants to consult water in a way that adversely impacts k in the vicinity of the cooling water with the Director as appropriate after fisheries, including the results of any intake structures and their relevance to the proposal has been submitted, in consultations with Federal, State, or this proposed study (§ 125.95(b)(1)(ii)). order to ensure that the Director has Tribal fish or wildlife management If you propose to use existing data, you complete and appropriate information agencies. Typically, this natural thermal must demonstrate the extent to which to develop permit conditions once the stratification will be defined by the the data are representative of current permit is submitted. thermocline, which may be affected to conditions and that the data were As stated previously, the proposal for a certain extent by the withdrawal of collected using appropriate quality information collection must be cooler water and the discharge of heated assurance/quality control procedures; submitted prior to the start of water into the system. If increased total
- A summary of any past, ongoing, or information collection activities and design intake flow is proposed, and voluntary consultations with should allow sufficient time for review disruption of the natural thermal appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal and comment by the Director, although stratification is a positive or neutral fish and wildlife agencies that are facilities are permitted to begin data impact, the facility should include this relevant to this study and a copy of collection activities before receiving the information with the data submitted in written comments received as a result of Director's comments. Directors are this section.
such consultation (§ 125.95(b)(1)(iii)); encouraged to provide their comments
- A sampling plan for any new field expeditiously (i.e., within 60 days) to c. Impingement Mortality and/or studies you propose to conduct in order allow facilities time to make responsive Entrainment Characterization Study to ensure that you have sufficient data modifications in their information (§125.95(b)(3))
to develop a scientifically valid estimate collection plans. Adequate time for data The final regulations require that you of impingement and entrainment at your collection efforts identified in the submit the results of an Impingement sitI(§ 125.95(b)(1)(iv)). The sampling proposal for information collection prior Mortality and/or Entrainment plan must document all methods and to the due date for the permit Characterization Study in accordance quality assurance/quality control application should also be scheduled. with § 125.95(b)(3). If your facility has procedures for sampling and data reduced its design, through-screen analysis. The sampling and data b. Source Waterbody Flow Information intake velocity to less than or equal to analysis methods you propose must be Under the requirements at 0.5 ft/s, you are not required to submit appropriate for a quantitative survey §125.95(b)(2)(i), Phase II existing the impingement mortality component and must take into account the methods facilities (except those that comply with of this study (§ 125.94(a)(1)(ii)). the rule under § 125.94(a)(1)(i) with ( used in other studies performed in the
~
source waterbody. Also, the methods must be consistent with any methods cooling water intake structures that withdraw cooling water from freshwater Facilities whose capacity utilization rate is less than 15 percent, facilities that withdraw cooling water only from a lake required by the Director. The sampling rivers or streams are required to provide or reservoir other than one of the Great plan must include a description of the the documentation showing the mean Lakes, and those facilities that withdraw study area (including the area of annual flow of the waterbody and any less than 5 percent of the mean annual influence of the cooling water intake supporting documentation and flow of a freshwater river or stream structure(s)), and provide taxonomic engineering calculations that allow a would only be required to submit the identifications of the sampled or determination of whether they are impingement mortality component of evaluated biological assemblages withdrawing less than or greater than this study because no performance (including all life stages of fish and five (5)percent of the annual mean flow. standards for entrainment apply. This shellfish) to the extent this is known in This will provide information needed to Impingement Mortality and Entrainment advance and relevant to the determine whether the entrainment characterization must include the development of the plan. performance standards of § 125.94(b)(2) following: (1) Taxonomic identifications In addition, the proposal should apply to the facility. Two potential of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and provide other information, where sources of the documentation are any species protected under Federal, available, that would aid the Director in publicly available flow data from a State, or Tribal Law (including reviewing and commenting on your nearby U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) threatened or endangered species) that plans for conducting the Comprehensive gauging station or actual instream flow are in the vicinity of the cooling water Demonstration Study (e.g., information monitoring data collected by the facility. intake structure(s) and are susceptible to on how you plan to conduct a Benefits Representative historical data (from a impingement and entrainment; (2) a Valuation Study, or gather additional period of time up to 10 years, if characterization of all life stages of fish, data to support development of a available) must be used to make this shellfish, and any species protected Restoration Plan). EPA recognizes that determination. under Federal, State, or Tribal Law in some cases collection and analysis of Under § 125.95(b)(2)(ii), Phase II (including threatened or endangered information will be an iterative process existing facilities with cooling water species) identified in the taxonomic and plans for information collection intake structures that withdraw cooling identification noted above, including a may change as new data needs are water from a lake (other than one of the description of the abundance and identified. For example, a facility may Great Lakes) or reservoir and that temporal and spatial characteristics in not be able to design a Benefits propose to increase the facility's design the vicinity of the cooling water intake Valuation Study and determine what intake flow are required to submit a structure(s), based on sufficient data to additional data are needed (e.g., narrative description of the thermal characterize annual, seasonal, and diel quantified information on non-use stratification of the waterbody and any variations in impingement mortality and benefits) until it has first collected and supporting documentation and entrainment (e.g., related to climate and (; analyzed the data for its Impingement engineering calculations showing that weather differences, spawning, feeding Mortality and/or Entrainment the increased total design intake flow and water column migration); and (3)
41636 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations documentation of the current Facilities seeking a site-specific the Impingement Mortality and/or impingement mortality and entrainment determination of the best technology Entrainment Characterization Study in of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and available must submit a Technology § 125.95(b)(3); and (5) design and any species protected under Federal, Installation and Operation Plan along engineering calculations, drawings, and State, or Tribal Law (including with their Site-Specific Technology estimates to support the narrative threatened or endangered species) Plan. descriptions required in the Design and identified above and an estimate of The Design and Construction Construction Technology Plan prepared impingement mortality and entrainment Technology Plan must explain the by a qualified expert such as a to be used as the calculation baseline. technologies or operational measures professional engineer. The documentation may include selected by a facility to meet the If your facility has multiple intake historical data that are representative of requirements in § 125.94(a)(2) and (3). structures and each is dedicated the current operation of your facility The Agency recognizes that selection of exclusively to the cooling water needs and of biological conditions at the site. the specific technology or group of of one of more generating units, you This information must be provided in technologies for your site will depend may calculate the capacity utilization sufficient detail to support development on individual facility and waterbody rate separately for each structure, for of the other elements of the conditions. Examples of appropriate purposes of determining whether Comprehensive Demonstration Study. technologies may include, but are not entrainment reduction performance Thus, while the taxonomic limited to, wedgewire screens, fine standards are applicable. Note that you identification in item 1 will need to be mesh screens, fish handling and return would still be required to consider the fairly comprehensive, the quantitative systems, barrier nets, aquatic filter total design intake flow at all structures data required in items 2 and 3 may be barrier systems, and enlargement of the combined in determining whether your more focused on species of concern, design intake flow exceeds 5 percent of cooling water intake structure to reduce the mean annual flow of a freshwater and/or species for which data are velocity. Examples of operational available. river or stream. If your capacity Impingement mortality and measures include, but are not limited to, utilization rate, for either a single intake
,seasonal shutdowns or reductions in structure or the facility as a whole, is 15 entrainment samples to support the flow, and continuous or more frequent calculations required by the Design and rotation of travelling screens. percent or greater based on the Construction Technology Plan and historical 5 year annual average, but you Restoration Plan must be collected Information required as part of your make a binding commitment to the during periods of representative Design and Construction Technology Director to maintain your capacity operational flows for the cooling water Plan includes the following: (1)capacity utilization rate below 15 percent for the intake structure and the flows utilization rate for your facility (or for duration of the permit, you may base associated with the samples must be individual intake structures where your capacity utilization rate documented. EPA recommends that the appropriate) and supporting data, determination on that commitment.
( facility coordinate a review of its list of including average annual net generation In determining compliance with any threatened, endangered, or other of the facility in megawatt hours (MWh) requirements to reduce impingement protected species with the U.S. Fish and as measured over a five-year period (if mortality or entrainment, you must Wildlife Service, National Marine available) of representative operating assess the total reduction in Fisheries Service, or other relevant conditions and the total net capacity of impingement mortality and entrainment agencies to ensure that potential the facility in megawatts (MW) and against the calculation baseline impacts to these species have been calculations (§ 125.95(b)(4)(i)); (2)a developed under the Impingement evaluated. narrative description of the design and Mortality and Entrainment operation of all design and construction Characterization Study (§ 125.95(b)(3)).
- d. Technology and Compliance technologies and/or operational The calculation baseline is defined at Assessment Information (§125.95(b)(4)) measures that you have or will put into § 125.93 as an estimate of impingement The Technology and Compliance place to meet the performance standards mortality and entrainment that would Assessment Information required under for reduction of impingement mortality occur at your site assuming (1) The
§ 125.95(b)(4) is comprised of two parts: of those species most susceptible to cooling water intake system has been (1)The Design and Construction impingement, and information that designed as a once-through system; (2)
Technology Plan; and (2) the demonstrates the efficacy of those the opening of the cooling water intake Technology Installation and Operation technologies and/or operational structure is located at, and the face of Plan. If you plan to utilize the measures for those species; (3)a the standard 3/X-inch mesh traveling compliance alternative in § 125.94(a)(4), description of the design and operation screen is oriented parallel to, the you need only submit the Technology of all design an construction shoreline near the surface of the source Installation and Operation Plan. If you technologies or operational measures waterbody; and (3) the baseline plan to utilize the compliance that you have or will put into place, to practices, procedures, and structural alternative in § 125.94(a)(2) or (3) using meet the performance standards for configuration are those that the facility design and construction technologies reduction of entrainment for those would maintain in the absence of any and/or operational measures (either species most susceptible to entrainment, structural or operational controls, existing or new), you must submit both' if applicable to your facility, and including flow or velocity reductions. parts. Note that facilities seeking a site- information that demonstrates the implemented in whole or in part for the specific determination of BTA in efficacy of those technologies and/or purposes of reducing impingement accordance with § 125.94(a)(5), must operational measures for those species; mortality and entrainment. You may submit a Site-Specific Technology Plan (4)calculations of the reduction in also choose to use your facility's current in accordance with § 125.95(b)(6)(iii) impingement mortality and/or level of impingement mortality and rather than a Design and Construction entrainment of all life stages of fish and entrainment as the calculation baseline. K - jTechnology Plan. The two plans contain shellfish that would be achieved by the EPA has previously referred to this as similar requirements, but are tailored to technologies and/or operational the "as-built approach." Reductions in the compliance alternative selected. measures you have selected based on impingement mortality and entrainment
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41637 from the calculation baseline as a result frequency at which you will monitor technologies and/or operational of any design and construction them; (3) a list of activities you will measures. This is designed to ensure technologies and/or operational undertake to ensure to the degree that technologies are operated and measures already implemented at your practicable the efficacy of the installed maintained to ensure their efficacy to to- facility should be added to the design and construction technologies the degree practicable, and not merely reductions expected to be achieved by and operational measures, and the to meet the low end of the applicable. any additional design and construction schedule for implementing them; (4) a performance standard range, if better technologies and operational measures schedule and methodology for assessing performance is practicable. The that will be implemented in order to the efficacy of any installed design and Technology Installation and Operation meet the applicable performance construction technologies and Plan is one of the most important pieces standards (§ 125.95(b)(4)(i)(C)). In this operational measures in achieving of documentation for implementing the case, the calculation baseline could be applicable performance standards, requirements of this final rule. It serves estimated by evaluating existing data including an adaptive management plan to (1) guide facilities in the installation, from a facility nearby without for revising design and construction operation, maintenance, monitoring, impingement and/or entrainment technologies and/or operational and adaptive management of selected control technology (if relevant) or by technologies if your assessment design and construction technologies evaluating the abundance of organisms indicates that applicable performance and/or operational measures; (2) in the source waterbody in the vicinity standards are not being met; and (5) for provide a schedule and methodology for of the intake structure that may be facilities that select a pre-approved assessing success in meeting applicable susceptible to impingement and/or technology in accordance with performance standards and site-specific entrainment. Additionally, if a portion § 125.94(a)(4), documentation that requirements; and (3)provide a basis for of the total design intake flow is water appropriate site conditions (as specified determining compliance with the withdrawn for a closed-cycle, by EPA or the Director in accordance requirements of § 125.94(a)(2)-(5). recirculating cooling system (but flow is with § 125.99) exist at your facility. In Facilities and Directors are encouraged not sufficiently reduced to satisfy the developing the schedule for installation to take appropriate care in developing, compliance option in§ 125.94(a)(1)(i)), -and maintenance of any new design and reviewing and approving the plan, Note such facilities may use the reduction in construction technologies in item 1, you that for facilities employing restoration impingement mortality and entrainment should schedule any downtime to measures, the Restoration Plan serves that is attributed to the reduction in coincide with otherwise necessary the same required functions. flow in meeting the performance downtime (e.g., for repair, overhaul, or e. Restoration Plan (§ 125.95(b)(5)) standards in § 125.94(b). The calculation routine maintenance of the generating EPA views restoration measures as baseline may be estimated using: units) to the extent practicable. Where historical impingement mortality and additional downtime is required, you part of the "design" of a cooling water e ntrainment data from your facility or may coordinate scheduling of this intake structure, and considers from another facility with comparable downtime with the North American restoration measures one of several design, operational, and environmental Electric Reliability Council and/or other technologies that may be employed, in conditions; current biological data generators in your area to ensure that' combination with others, to minimize collected in the waterbody in the impacts to energy reliability and supply adverse environmental impact. The vicinity of your cooling water intake are minimized. The Director should consideration of restoration measures is structure; or current impingement approve any reasonable scheduling relevant to the section 316(b) mortality and entrainment data provision included for this purpose. determination of the requisite design of collected at your facility. A facility may Those facilities that propose to use cooling water intake structures because request that the calculation baseline be restoration measures help minimize the restoration measures must submit the adverse environmental impact modified to be based on a location of the Restoration Plan required at attributable to such structures. Facilities opening of the cooling water intake § 125.95(b)(5). may use restoration measures that structure at a depth other than at or near Today's final rule requires the produce and/or result in levels of fish the surface if they can demonstrate to Director to evaluate, using information and shellfish in the facility's waterbody the Director that the other depth would submitted in your application, biannual or watershed that are substantially correspond to a higher baseline level of status reports, and any other available similar to those that would result impingement mortality and/or information, the performance of any through compliance with the applicable entrainment. technologies, operational measures, performance standards or alternative The Technology Installation and and/or restoration measures you may site-specific requirements. In order to Operation Plan is required for all have implemented in previous permit employ restoration measures, the facilities that choose the compliance terms. Additional or different design facility must demonstrate to the Director alternative in § 125.94(a)(2), (3),(4), or and construction technologies, that it has evaluated the use of design (5), propose to use design and operational measures, and/or restoration and construction technologies and/or construction technologies and/or measures may be required if the Director operational measures and determined operational measures (either existing or determines that the initial technologies, that the use of restoration measures is new) to meet performance standards or operational measures, and/or restoration appropriate because meeting the site specific requirements. Such measures you selected and implemented applicable performance standards or facilities must submit the following will not meet the requirements of site-specific requirements through the information to the Director for review § 125.94(b) and (c), as'provided in use of design and construction and approval: (1)A schedule for the § 125.98(b)(1)(i). The rule also requires technologies and/or operational installation and maintenance of any that your permit contain a condition measures alone is less feasible, less cost-new design and construction requiring your facility to reduce effective or less environmentally technologies; (2)a list of the operational impingement mortality and entrainment desireable than meeting the standards in LL parameters that will be monitored, commensurate with the efficacy of the whole or in part through the use of including the location and the installed design and construction restoration measures. Facilities must
41638 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations also demonstrate to the Director that the Third, the facility must submit a specific peer-reviewed ecological restoration measures, alone or in quantification of the ecological benefits studies, and/or consultation with combination with any feasible design of the existing and/or proposed appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal and construction technologies and/or restoration measures. The facility must natural resource agencies. While both restoration measures, will produce estimate the reduction in fish and in-kind and out-of-kind restoration ecological benefits and maintain fish shellfish impingement mortality and require a quantification of the levels of and shellfish in the waterbody, entrainment that would be necessary to fish and shellfish the restoration including community structure and comply with applicable performance measures are expected to produce, out-function, at a substantially similar level standards or site-specific requirements, of-kind restoration may include a to that which would be achieved by using information from the qualitative demonstration that these meeting the applicable performance Impingement Mortality and Entrainment ecological benefits are substantially standards at § 125.94(b) or the site- Characterization Study and any other similar to or greater than those that specific requirements developed available and appropriate information. would be realized through in-kind pursuant to § 125.94(a)(5). The Director The facility must then calculate the restoration, because different species are must approve any use of restoration production of fish and shellfish from being produced that may not be directly measures. existing and proposed restoration comparable to those identified in the To help all parties review the measures. The quantification must also Impingement Mortality and/or proposed or existing restoration include a discussion of the nature and Entrainment Characterization Study. measures and to help ensure adequate magnitude of uncertainty associated Fifth, the facility must submit a plan performance of those measures, with the performance of the restoration utilizing an adaptive management
§ 125.95(b)(5) requires facilities measures and a discussion of the time method for implementing, maintaining, proposing to use restoration measures to frame within which ecological benefits and demonstrating the efficacy of the submit a Restoration Plan with their are expected to accrue from the restoration measures it has selected and applications to the Director for review restoration project. for determining the extent to which and approval. In the submittal, the Fourth, the facility must provide restoration measures, or the restoration facility must address spiecies identified, *-measures in combination with design design calculations, drawings, and and construction technologies and in consultation with Federal, State, and estimates documenting that the Tribal fish and wildlife management operational measures, have met the proposed restoration measures, in applicable performance standards or agencies with responsibility for fisheries combination with design and site-specific requirements. Adaptive and wildlife potentially affected by its construction technologies and/or the facility's cooling water intake management is a process in which a operational measures, or alone, will facility chooses an approach for meeting structures, as species of concern. The meet the requirements for production of level of complexity of the Restoration a project goal, monitors the effectiveness fish and shellfish. Production of fish of that approach, and then, based on Plan likely will be commensurate with and shellfish as a result of relevant monitoring and any other available the restoration measures considered or restoration measures already information, makes any adjustments proposed. implemented at the facility should be necessary to ensure continued progress First, the facility must demonstrate added to the production expected to be toward the project's goal. This cycle is that it has evaluated the use of design achieved by the additional restoration repeated as necessary until the goal is and construction technologies and/or measures. If the restoration measures met.
operational measures and explain how address the same fish and shellfish The adaptive management plan must it determined that the use of restoration species identified in the Impingement include (1)A monitoring plan that measures would be more feasible, cost. Mortality and Entrainment includes a list of the restoration effective, or environmentally desirable Characterization Study (in-kind parameters that the facility will monitor, than meeting the applicable restoration), the facility must the frequency at which they will be performance standards or site-specific demonstrate that the restoration monitored, and the success criteria for requirements wholly through the use of measures will produce a level of these each parameter; (2) a list of activities the design and construction technologies, fish and shellfish substantially similar facility will undertake to ensure the and/or operational measures. to that which would result from meeting efficacy of the restoration measures, a Second, the facility must submit a applicable performance standards or description of the linkages between narrative description of the design and site-specific requirements. In this case, these activities and the items described operation of all restoration measures the the calculations should include a site-- in the monitoring plan, and an facility has in place or has selected and specific evaluation of the suitability of implementation schedule for the proposes to implement to produce fish the restoration measures based on the activities; and (3)a process for revising and shellfish. If the ecological benefits species that are found at the site. If the the restoration plan as new information, from an existing restoration project are restoration measures address fish and including monitoring data, becomes required to compensate for some shellfish species different from those available, and if the applicable environmental impact other than the identified in the Impingement Mortality performance standards or site-specific impact from impingement and and Entrainment Characterization Study requirements are not being met. entrainment by the cooling water intake (out-of-kind restoration), the facility Sixth, the facility must submit a structure (e.g., a wetland created to must demonstrate that the restoration summary of any past or ongoing satisfy section 404 of the Clean Water measures produce ecological benefits consultation with Federal, State, and Act requirements), those ecological substantially similar to or greater than Tribal fish and wildlife management benefits should not be counted towards those that would be realized through in- agencies on its use of restoration meeting the applicable performance kind restoration. Such a demonstration measures, including any written standards or site-specific requirements. should be based on a watershed comments received as a result of such The narrative description should approach to restoration planning and consultations. identify the species targeted under any consider applicable multi-agency Seventh, if requested by the Director, restoration measures. watershed restoration plans, site- the facility must conduct a peer review
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41639 of items to be submitted as part of the facility. To qualify for compliance using using design and construction Restoration Plan. Written comments the cylindrical wedgewire screen technologies and/or operational from peer reviewers must be submitted technology, your facility must meet the measures, to submit a Verification to the Director and made available to the following conditions: (1) Your cooling Monitoring Plan to measure the efficacy \) /public as part of the permit application. water intake structure is located in a of the implemented design and Peer reviewers must be selected in freshwater river or stream; (2) your construction technologies and/or consultation with the Director who may cooling water intake structure is operational measures. The plan must consult with EPA, Federal, State and situated such that sufficient ambient include at least two years of monitoring Tribal fish and wildlife management counter-currents exist to promote to verify the full-scale performance of agencies with responsibility for fish and cleaning of the screen face; (3)your the proposed or already implemented wildlife potentially affected by the maximum through-screen design intake design and construction technologies facility's cooling water intake velocity is 0.5 ft/s or less; (4) the slot and/or operational measures. Note that structure(s). Peer reviewers must have size is appropriate for the size of eggs, verification monitoring is also required appropriate qualifications (e.g., in the larvae, and juveniles of all fish and for restoration measures but the fields of geology, engineering and/or shellfish to be protected at the site; and requirements for this monitoring are biology) depending upon the materials (5)your entire main condenser cooling included as part of the Restoration Plan to be reviewed. water flow is directed through the in § 125.95(b)(5)(v). Components of the Finally, the facility must include in technology. Note that small flows Verification Monitoring Plan must the Plan a description of information to totalling less than 2 MGD for auxiliary include: be included in a status report to the plant cooling do not necessarily have to (i) Description of the frequency and Director every two years. The final be included. Facilities should duration of monitoring, the parameters regulations at § 125.98(b)(1)(ii) require demonstrate that they meet these to be monitored, and the basis for that this information be reviewed by the criteria in the Technology Installation determining the parameters and the Director to determine whether the and Operation Plan. frequency and duration of monitoring. proposed restoration measures, in In addition, any interested person The parameters selected and the conjunction with (or in lieu of) design may submit a request that a technology &durationand frequency of monitoring and construction technologies and/or be approved for use in accordance with must be consistent with any operational measures, will meet the the compliance alternative in methodology for assessing success in applicable performance standards or § 125.94(a)(4). If the Director approves, meeting applicable performance site-specific requirements, or, if the the technology may be used by all standards in your Technology restoration is out-of-kind, will produce facilities that have similar site Installation and Operation Plan as ecological benefits (fish and shellfish) conditions under the Director's required by § 125.95(b)(4)(ii); including maintenance or protection of jurisdiction. To do this, the interested (ii) A proposal on how naturally community structure and function in person must submit the following as moribund fish and shellfish that enter f - your facility's waterbody or watershed. required by § 125.99(b): (1)A detailed the cooling water intake structure would A- f. Compliance Using a Pre-approved description of the technology; (2)a list be identified and taken into account in Technology (§ 125.94(a)(4)) of design criteria for the technology and assessing success in meeting the site characteristics and conditions that performance standards in § 125.94(b); If you choose to comply with the each facility must have in order to and, fourth compliance alternative, you must ensure that the technology can (iii) A description of the information submit documentation to the Director consistently meet the appropriate to be included in a bi-annual status that your facility meets the appropriate impingement mortality and entrainment report to the Director. site conditions and you have installed performance standards in § 125.94(b); the facility and the Director will use and will properly operate and maintain and (3)information and data sufficient the results of verification monitoring to submerged cylindrical wedgewire to demonstrate that all facilities under assess the facility's success in meeting screen technology (as described in the jurisdiction of the Director can meet the performance standards for
§ 125.99(a)(1)) or other technologies as the applicable impingement mortality impingement mortality and entrainment approved by the Director under and entrainment performance standards reduction or alternate site-specific
§ 125.99(b)). If you are subject to in § 125.94(b) if the applicable design requirements and to guide adaptive impingement mortality performance criteria and site characteristics and management in accordance with the standards only, and plan to install conditions are present at the facility. requirements in the facility's wedgewire screens with a maximum EPA has adopted this compliance Technology Installation and Operation through-screen design intake velocity of alternative in response to comments Plan. Restoration monitoring is 0.5 ft/s or less, you should choose the suggesting that EPA provide an discussed separately under compliance alternative in additional, more streamlined § 125.95(b)(5)(v). Verification
§ 125.94(a)(1)(i), and do not need to compliance option under which a monitoring is required to begin once the demonstrate that you meet the other facility could implement certain technologies and/or operational criteria in § 125.99(a)(1) or prepare a specified technologies that are deemed measures are implemented and continue Technology Installation and Operation highly protective in exchange for for a sufficient period of time (but at Plan or Verification Monitoring Plan. reducing the scope of the least two years) to assess success in Facilities subject to entrainment Comprehensive Demonstration Study. reducing impingement mortality and performance standards seeking (See, 68 FR 13522, 13539; March 19, entrainment.
compliance under this alternative must 2003). submit a Technology Installation and C. How Will the DirectorDetermine the Operation Plan and a Verification g. Verification Monitoring Plan Appropriate Cooling Water Intake Monitoring Plan that address (§ 125.95(b)(7)) Structure Requirements? . I entrainment reduction, and document Finally, § 125.95(b)(7) requires all Initially, the Director must determine that all of the appropriate site Phase II existing facilities complying whether the facility is covered by this i-) conditions in § 125.99(a)(1) exist at their under §§ 125.94(a)(2), (3), (4), or (5) rule. If the answer to all the following
41640 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations questions is yes, the facility will be (including the sampling plan) seem based on the compliance alternatives in required to comply with the adequate to support the development of § 125.94(a) for establishing best requirements of this final rule the other components of the technology available chosen by the fob (§ 125.91). Comprehensive Demonstration Study, facility. The following requirements
- Is the facility a point source? including impingement mortality and must be included in each permit:
Is Does the facility use or propose to entrainment estimates. The Director will (1) Cooling WaterIntake Structure use a cooling water intake structure(s) also review any existing data submitted. Requirements. Requirements that with a total design intake flow of 50 The Director must review and provide implement the applicable provisions of million gallons per day (MGD) or more comment on the Proposal for § 125.94 must be included in the permit to withdraw cooling water from waters Information Collection; however, a conditions. To accomplish this, the of the United States? facility may proceed with planning, Director must evaluate the performance
- As its primary activity, does the assessment, and data collection of the design and construction facility both generate and transmit activities in fulfillment of technologies, operational measures, electric power or generate electric Comprehensive Demonstration Study and/or restoration measures proposed power but sell it to another entity for requirements prior to receiving and implemented by the facility and transmission? comments from the Director. The require additional or different design
- Is at least 25 percent of the water Director is encouraged to provide and construction technologies, withdrawn used solely for cooling comments expeditiously (i.e., within 60 operational measure, and/or restoration purposes? days) so the facility can make measures, and/or improved operation In the case of a Phase II existing responsive modifications to its and maintenance of existing facility that is co-located with a information collection plans. technologies and measures, if needed to manufacturing facility, only that portion If a facility submits a request in meet the applicable impingement of the cooling water intake flow that is accordance with § 125.95(a)(3) to reduce mortality and entrainment performance used by the Phase II facility to generate information about its cooling water standards, restoration requirements for electricity for sale to another entity will intake structures and the source fish and shellfish production, or be coQnsidered for purposes of waterbody required to be submitted in alternate site-specific requirements.
determining the 50 MGD and 25 percent its permit application (other than for the In determining compliance with the criteria. first permit term after promulgation of performance standards for facilities Use of a cooling water intake structure this rule, for which complete proposing to increase withdrawals of includes obtaining cooling water by any information is required), the Director cooling water from a lake (other than a sort of contract or arrangement with one must approve the request within 60 Great Lake) or a reservoir in or more independent suppliers of days if conditions at the facility and in § 125.94(b)(3), the Director must cooling water if the supplier withdraws the waterbody remain substantially consider anthropogenic factors (those water from waters of the United States unchanged since the facility's previous not considered "natural") unrelated to (except as provided below) but is not application. the Phase II existing facility's cooling l itself a Phase II existing facility. This The Director must also review all water intake structures that can
' provision is intended to prevent information submitted under influence the occurrence and location of.
circumvention of these requirements by § 122.21(r)(2), (3), and (5) and § 125.95, a thermocline. Anthropogenic factors creating arrangements to receive cooling as appropriate, to determine appropriate may include source water inflows, other water from an entity that is not itself a permit conditions based on the water withdrawals, managed water uses, Phase II existing facility. However, for requirements in this subpart. At each wastewater discharges, and flow/level purposes of this provision, a public permit renewal, or more frequently as management practices (e.g., some water system or any entity that sells appropriate, the Director must assess reservoirs release water from deeper treated effluent to be used as cooling success in meeting applicable bottom layers). The Director must water is not a "supplier." Thus, performance standards, restoration coordinate with appropriate Federal, obtaining cooling water from a public requirements, and/or alternate site- State, or Tribal fish and wildlife water system or treated effluent used as specific requirements. agencies to determine if any disruption cooling water does not constitute use of At each permit renewal, the Director of the natural thermal stratification a cooling water intake structure. This must review the application materials- resulting from the increased withdrawal rule is not intended to discourage the and monitoring data to determine of cooling water does not adversely beneficial reuse of treated effluent, nor whether additional requirements should affect the management of fisheries.. is it intended to impose requirements on be included in the permit to meet the To develop appropriate requirements public water systems. applicable performance standards. for the cooling water intake structure(s), Additional requirements may include, the Director must do the following: Permit Application Review, but are not limited to, additional design (i) Review and approve the Design The Director must review the and construction technologies, and Construction Technology Plan application materials submitted under operational measures, and/or restoration required in § 125.95(b)(4) to evaluate the
§ 122.21(r) and § 125,95 and determine measures, improved operation and suitability and feasibility of the design the appropriate performance standards maintenance of existing technologies and construction technology and/or to apply to the facility and approve a set and measures, and/or increased operational measures proposed to meet of design and construction technologies, monitoring. the performance standards of operational measures, and/or restoration § 125.94(b), or site-specific requirements measures to meet these standards. The Permitting Requirements developed pursuant to § 125.94(a)(5);
first step is to review the Proposal for Following consideration of the (ii) If the facility proposes restoration Information Collection and determine if information submitted by the Phase II measures in accordance with the technologies, operational measures, existing facility in its NPDES permit § 125.94(c), review and approve the i Aind/or restoration measures to be application, the Director must Restoration Plan required under W evaluated seem appropriate for the site determine the appropriate requirements § 125.95(b)(5) to determine whether the and if the data gathering activities and conditions to include in the permit proposed measures, alone or in
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41641 combination with design and Installation and Operation Plan and/or determination. Any site-specific construction technologies and/or Restoration Plan, or the facility has not requirements established based on new operational measures, will meet the been in compliance with the terms of its and/or existing design and construction fly requirements under § 125.94(c); current Technology Installation and technologies, operational measures, k.. (iii) In each reissued permit, include Operation Plan and/or Restoration Plan and/or restoration measures, must a condition in the permit requiring the during the preceding permit term, the achieve an efficacy that is, in the facility to reduce impingement mortality Director must require the facility to Director's judgement, as close as and entrainment (or to increase fish and comply with the applicable performance practicable to the applicable shellfish production, if applicable) standards in § 125.94(b), restoration performance standards without commensurate with the efficacy at the requirement in § 125.94(c)(2), and/or resulting in costs that are significantly facility of the installed design and alternative site-specific requirements greater than the costs considered by the construction technologies, operational developed pursuant to § 125.94(a)(5). In Administrator for a like facility to measures, and/or restoration measures; considering a permit application, the achieve the applicable performance (iv) If the facility implements design Director must review the performance of standards or the benefits of complying and construction technologies and/or the design and construction with the applicable performance operational measures and requests that technologies, operational measures, standards in § 125.94(b); compliance with the requirements of and/or restoration measures (vii) The Director must review
§ 125.94 be measured for the first permit implemented and require additional or information on the proposed methods (or subsequent permit terms, if different design and construction for assessing success in meeting applicable) employing the Technology technologies, operational measures, applicable performance standards and/
Installation and Operation Plan in and/or restoration measures, and/or or restoration requirements submitted accordance with § 125.95(b)(4)(ii), the improved operation and maintenance of by the -facility under § 125.95(b)(4)(ii)(D) Director must review and approve the existing technologies and measures, if and/or (b)(5)(v)(A), evaluate those and plan and require the facility to meet the needed to meet the applicable other available methods, and specify terms of the plan including any performance standards, restoration how success in meeting the performance revisions to the plan that may be requirements, and/or alternative site- standards and/or restoration necessary if applicable performance specific requirements. requirements must be determined standards or site-specific requirements (v) Review and approve the proposed including the averaging period for are not being met If the facility Verification Monitoring Plan submitted determining the percent reduction in implements restorations measures and under § 125.95(b)(7) (for design and impingement mortality and entrainment requests that compliance with the construction technologies) and/or and/or the production of fish and requirements in § 125.94 be measured monitoring provisions of the Restoration shellfish. Compliance for facilities who for the first permit term (or subsequent Plan submitted under § 125.95(b)(5)(v) request that compliance be measured permit terms, if applicable) employing a Ci Restoration Plan in accordance with
§ 125.95(b)(5), the Director must review and require that the monitoring continue for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate whether the design and employing a Technology Installation and Operation Plan and/or Restoration Plan must be determined in accordance and approve the plan and require the construction technology, operational with § 125.98(b)(1)(iv).
facility to meet the terms of the plan measures, and/or restoration measures (2)Monitoring Conditions. The including any revision to the plan that meet the applicable performance Director must require the facility to may be necessary if applicable standards in § 125.94(b), restoration perform monitoring in accordance with performance standards or site-specific requirements in § 125.94(c)(2) and/or the Technology Installation and requirements are not being met. In site-specific requirements established Operation Plan in § 125.95(b)(4)(ii), the determining whether to approve a pursuant to § 125.94(a)(5); Restoration Plan required by Technology Installation and Operation (vi) If a facility requests requirements § 125.95(b)(5), if applicable, and the Plan or Restoration Plan, the Director based on a site-specific determination of Verification Monitoring Plan required must evaluate whether the design and best technology available for by § 125.95(b)(7). In determining any construction technologies, operational minimizing adverse environmental additional applicable monitoring measures, and/or restoration measures impact, the Director must review the requirements in accordance with the facility has installed, or proposes to application materials submitted under § 125.96, the Director must consider the install, can reasonably be expected to § 125.95(b)(6) and any other information monitoring facility's Verification meet the applicable performance submitted, including quantitative and Monitoring, Technology Installation and standards in § 125.94(b), restoration qualitative benefits, that would be Operation, and/or Restoration Plans, as requirements in § 125.94(c)(2), and/or relevant to a determination of whether appropriate. The Director may modify alternative site-specific requirements alternative requirements are appropriate the monitoring program based on established pursuant to § 125.94(a)(5), for the facility. If a facility submits a changes in physical or biological and whether the Technology Installation study to support entrainment survival at conditions in the vicinity of the cooling and Operation Plan and/or Restoration the facility, the Director must review water intake structure. Plan complies with the applicable and approve the results of that study. If (3) Record Keeping and Reporting. At requirements of § 125.95(b). In the Director determines that alternative a minimum, the permit must require the - reviewing the Technology Installation requirements are appropriate, the facility to report and keep records and Operation Plan, the Director must Director must make a site-specific specified in § 125.97. approve any reasonable scheduling determination of best technology (4) Pre-ApprovedDesign and provisions that are designed to ensure available for minimizing adverse Construction Technologies. Section that impacts to energy reliability and environmental impact in accordance 125.94(a)(4) offers facilities the choice of adopting a protective, pre-approved (' supply are minimized, in accordance with § 125.95(b)(4)(ii)(A). If the facility does not request that compliance with with § 125.94(a)(5). The Director may request revisions to the information submitted by the facility in accordance design and construction technology, and preparing a significantly streamlined ( ) the requirements in § 125.94 be with § 125.95(b)(6) if it does not provide Comprehensive Demonstration Study. measured employing a Technology an adequate basis to make this Section 125.99 lists one pre-approved
41642 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations technology (wedgewire screens) and be used to develop permit conditions to Technology Installation and Operation provides an opportunity for the Director implement the requirements of this rule. Plan and/or Restoration Plan, and any to _pre-approve other technologies. The Director should ensure, where other methods the Director considers T For a 1acility that chooses to appropriate, that any required appropriate. i ) demonstrate that they have installed monitoring will allow for the detection Alternatively, the facility may request
~" and properly operate and maintain a of any annual, seasonal, and diel that compliance be determined based on design and construction technology variations in the species and numbers of whether it has complied with the approved in accordance with § 125.99, individuals that are impinged or construction, operational, maintenance, the Director must review and approve entrained. monitoring, and adaptive management the information submitted in the The Director may modify the requirements of its Technology Technology Installation and Operation monitoring program based on changes Installation and Operation Plan (for Plan in § 125.95(b)(4)(ii) and determine in physical or biological conditions in design and construction technologies if they meet the criteria in § 125.99. the vicinity of the cooling water intake and/or operational measures) or If a person/facility requests approval structure. The Director may also require Restoration Plan (for restoration of a technology under § 125.99(b), the monitoring of operational parameters for measures). In this case, the facility must Director must review and approve the facilities that employ a Technology still assess success in meeting information submitted and determine its Installation and Operation Plan or applicable performance standards or suitability for widespread use at Restoration Plan to comply with the restoration requirements but this facilities with similar site conditions in requirements of § 125.94. The Director assessment serves to guide the adaptive its jurisdiction with minimal study. The must specify what monitoring or other management process rather than as a Director must evaluate the adequacy of data is to be included in a status report basis for determining compliance. After the technology when installed in every two years. the first permit term following accordance with the required design E. How Will Compliance Be promulgation of this subpart, facilities criteria and site conditions to are only eligible for this compliance consistently meet the performance Determined? determination alternative if they have standards in § 125.94(b). The Director This final rule will be implemented been in compliance with the terms of may only approve a technology by the Director placing conditions their Technology Installation and following public notice and consistent with the requirements of this Operation Plan and/or Restoration Plan consideration of comment regarding part in NPDES permits. A facility may during the preceding permit term.
such approval. demonstrate compliance by meeting the Under this compliance determination (5) Bi-Annual Status Report. The performance standards in § 125.94(b) alternative, the Technology Installation Director must specify monitoring data applicable to the facility. The and Operation Plan or Restoration Plan and other information to be included in application information, including must specify construction, operational, a status report every two years. The components of the Comprehensive maintenance, monitoring, and adaptive other information may include Demonstration Study, as appropriate, management requirements that can operation and maintenance records, should demonstrate that the facility is reasonably be expected to achieve _' summaries of adaptive management already meeting the performance success in meeting the applicable activities, or any other information that standards, or that it will install and performance standards, restoration is relevant to determining compliance properly operate and maintain design requirements and/or site-specific with the terms of the facility's and construction technologies, requirements. These construction, Technology Installation and Operation operational measures, and/or restoration operational, maintenance, monitoring, Plan and/or Restoration Plan. measures to meet the performance and adaptive management requirements D. What Will I Be Required To Monitor? standards, or that a site-specific must also be approved by the Director, determination of best technology who will also specify what monitoring Section 125.96 of today's final rule data and other information must be provides that Phase II existing facilities available is necessary. To support this demonstration, the facility should included in the facility's biannual status must perform monitoring in accordance submit the following information to the report. with the Verification Monitoring Plan Director: 'Jhe required elements of the required by § 125.95(b)(7), the
- Data submitted with the NPDES Technology Installation and Operation Technology Installation and Operation permit application to show that the Plan include (l) a schedule for Plan required by § 125.95(b)(4)(ii), if facility meets location, design,: installation and maintenance of any applicable, the Restoration Plan construction, and capacity requirements new technologies; (2) operational required by § 125.95(b)(5), and any consistent with the compliance parameters to be monitored; (3) additional monitoring specified by the alternative selected; activities to ensure the efficacy of Director to demonstrate compliance . Data to demonstrate that the facility technologies and measures; (4) a with the applicable requirements of is meeting the performance standards schedule and methodology for assessing
§ 125.94. In developing monitoring consistent with the compliance the efficacy of installed technologies conditions, the Director should consider alternative selected; and measures in meeting the the need for biological monitoring data,
- Compliance monitoring data and performance standards; (5) an adaptive including impingement and records as prescribed by the Director. management plan; and (6) for facilities entrainment sampling data sufficient to The specifics of how success in using a pre-approved compliance assess the presence, abundance, life meeting the performance standards shall technology, documentation that they stages (including eggs, larvae, juveniles, be measured (i.e. the number of species, meet the conditions for its use. The and adults), and mortality of aquatic whether critical species or all species) Restoration Plan requires corresponding organisms (fish and shellfish or other and the method of measurement (e.g., information as appropriate for organisms required to be monitored by total biomass, total counts, etc.) must be restoration measures.
KILjthe Director) impinged or entrained determined by the Director based on EPA believes that it is important for
~ during operation of the cooling water review of the proposed methodology facilities to consider and document each intake structure. This type of data may submitted by the facility in its of the components of the Technology
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41643 Installation and Operation Plan, amend or enact a statute to make the will reduce the impacts to fish and regardless of which compliance required revisions. If a State or Tribe shellfish to levels required; determination approach is used. must amend or enact a statute to
- Verification that a permit applicant
(> However, the level of detail appropriate conform with today's final rule, the is eligible for site-specific requirements, k.J for some of the components may be revision must be made within two years and if so, development of site-specific different for the two different of promulgation. States and Tribes requirements that achieve an efficacy as approaches. For facilities that comply seeking new EPA authorization to close as practicable to the applicable by demonstrating success in meeting implement the NPDES program must performance standards; performance standards, particularly in comply with the requirements when
- Verification that the Technology cases where they are already meeting authorization is approved. This final Installation and Operation Plan can the standards and no significant changes regulation does not alter State authority reasonably be expected to meet in technologies or operations are under section 510 of the Clean Water performance standards or alternative needed, brief summaries may be Act. site-specific requirements; sufficient for most components, though EPA recognizes that some States have
- Verify that the facility meets the they will still need detailed invested considerable effort in requirements of the approved documentation of their schedule and developing and implementing section compliance alternative it selected; methodology for assessing efficacy of 316(b) regulatory programs. This final .Verify that any Restoration Plan installed technologies and measures for regulation allows States to use these meets all applicable requirements; meeting the standards. Conversely, for programs to fulfill section 316(b)
- Verify that the Verification facilities where compliance is requirements where the State Monitoring Plan is sufficient to assess determined based on whether they have demonstrates to the Administrator that technology efficacy; complied with the construction, . Development of draft and final such programs will achieve comparable NPDES permit conditions for the operation, maintenance, monitoring, environmental performance.
and adaptive management approaches applicant implementing applicable Specifically, the final rule allows any section 316(b) requirements pursuant to required in the Technology Installation State to demonstrate to the an4,0peration Pldn or Restoration Plan, this rule including whether complianca Administrator that it has adopted with the requirements of § 125.94 will a fairly detailed specification of these alternative regulafory requirements in requirements will be appropriate. The be determined based on success in its NPDES program that will result in applicable performance Director should ensure that the level of environmental performance within each meeting standards or based on complying with a detail in the Technology Installation relevant watershed that is comparable to and Operation Plan or Restoration Plan Technology Installation and Operation the reductions in impingement Plan or Restoration Plan; and, is sufficient to support whichever mortality and entrainment that would compliance determination approach is
- Ensuring compliance with permit otherwise be achieved under § 125.94. conditions based on section 316(b)
(In selected. Section 125.97 requires existing facilities to keep records and report In addition to updating their programs to be consistent with today's final rule, requirements. EPA will implement these monitoring data and other information States and Tribes authorized to requirements where States or Tribes are specified by the Director in a bi-annual implement the NPDES program are not authorized to implement the NPDES status report although Directors may required under NPDES State program program. EPA also will implement these require more frequent reports. Facilities requirements to implement the cooling requirements where States or Tribes are must also keep records of all data used water intake structure requirements of authorized to implement the NPDES to complete the permit application and subpart J following promulgation of the program but do not have sufficient show compliance with the requirements final regulations. The permit authority to implement these of § 125.94, any supplemental requirements in this final rule must be requirements. information developed under § 125.95, implemented upon the first issuance or reissuance of permits following G. Are Permitsfor ExistingFacilities and any compliance monitoring data Subject to Requirements Under Other submitted under § 125.96, for a period promulgation. Duties of an authorized State or Tribe FederalStatutes? of at least three (3)years from date of permit issuance. The Director may under this regulation may include: EPA's NPDES permitting regulations require that these records be kept for a
- Review and verification of permit at 40 CFR 122.49 contain a list of longer period. application materials, including a Federal laws that might apply to permit applicant's determination of Federally issued NPDES permits. These F. What Are the Respective Federal, source waterbody classification and the include the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, State, and TribalRoles? flow of a freshwater river or stream at 16 U.S.C. 1273 et seq.; the National Today's final regulations amend 40 the point of the intake; Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 CFR 123.25(a)(36) to add a requirement
- Determination of the performance U.S.C. 470 et seq.; the Endangered that authorized State and Tribal standards in § 125.94(b) that apply to Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; the programs have sufficient legal authority the facility; Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 to implement today's requirements (40
- Verification of a permit applicant's U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; and the National CFR part 125, subpart J). Therefore, determination of whether it meets or Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
today's final rule affects authorized exceeds the applicable performance 4321 et seq. See 40 CFR 122.49 for a State and Tribal NPDES permit standards; brief description of each of these laws. programs. Under 40 CFR 123.62(e), any
- Verification that a permit In addition, the provisions of the existing approved section 402 applicant's Technology and Compliance Magnuson-Stevens Fishery permitting program must be revised to Assessment Information, including the Conservation and Management Act, 16 be consistent with new program Design and Construction Technology U.S.C. 1801 et seq., relating to essential requirements within one year from the Plan and Technology Installation and fish habitat might be relevant. Nothing date of promulgation, unless the Operation Plan, demonstrates that the in this final rulemaking authorizes NPDES-authorized State or Tribe must proposed technologies and measures activities that are not in compliance
41644 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday. July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations with these or other applicable Federal 1. Facility's Costs Significantly Greater portion which would have been needed laws (e.g., Marine Mammal Protection Than Costs Considered by EPA anyway for repair, overhaul or Act, 16 U.s.C. 1361 et seq., and If the Director determines that data maintenance) and any pilot study costs Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703 specific to your facility indicate that the associated with on-site verification and/ et seq.). costs of compliance under § 125.94(a)(2) or optimization of the technologies or H. Alternative Site-Specific through (4) would be significantly measures. Costs should be annualized Requirements greater than the costs considered by the using a 7 percent discount rate, with an Administrator for a facility like yours in amortization period of 10 years for Under § 125.94(a)(5), an existing establishing the applicable performance capital costs and 30 years for pilot study facility may demonstrate to the Director standards in § 125.94(b) you may costs and construction downtime net that it has selected, installed, and is request a site-specific determination of revenue losses. Annualized costs should properly operating and maintaining, or best technology available for be converted to 2002 dollars ($2002), will install and properly operate and maintain, design and construction minimizing adverse environmental using the engineering news record technologies, operational measures, impacts. A facility requesting this construction cost index (see Engineering determination must submit a News-Record. New York: McGraw Hill. and/or restoration measures that the Director determines to be the best Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study Annual average value is 6538 for year technology available to minimize (§ 125.94(b)(6)(i)) and a Site Specific 2002). Costs for permitting and post-adverse environmental impact for the Technology Plan (§ 125.94(b)(6)(iii)). construction monitoring should not be facility based on the cost-cost test The Comprehensive Cost Evaluation included in this estimate, as these are specified in sub-section (a)(5)(i) or the Study must include engineering cost not included in the EPA-estimated costs cost-benefit test specified in (a)(5)(ii) of estimates in sufficient detail to against which they will be compared, as the rule. document the costs of implementing described below. Because existing Section 125.94(a)(5)(i) provides that design and construction technologies, facilities already incur monitoring and an existing facility may demonstrate operational measures, and/or restoration permitting costs, and these are largely that the coats of compliance under the measures at the facility that would be independent of the specific performance compliance alternatives in § 125.94(a)(2) needed to meet the applicable standards adopted and technologies through (4) of the rule would be performance standards of § 125.94(b); a selected to meet them, EPA believes it significantly greater than the costs demonstration that the documented is both simpler and more appropriate to considered by the Administrator for a costs significantly exceed the costs conduct the cost comparison required in like facility in establishing the considered by EPA for a facility like this provision using direct compliance applicable performance standards. In yours in establishing the applicable costs (capital, net O&M, net such cases, the Director must make a performance standards; and engineering construction downtime, and pilot study) site-specific determination of the best cost estimates in sufficient detail to only. Adding permitting and monitoring technology available for minimizing document the costs of implementing costs to both sides of the comparison adverse environmental impact. The alternative design and construction would complicate the methodology ~'Director must establish site-specific technologies, operational measures, without substantially changing the alternative requirements based on new and/or restoration measures in the results. and/or existing design and construction facility's Site-Specific Technology Plan technologies, operational measures, developed in accordance with To calculate the costs that the and/or restoration measures that achieve § 125.95(b)(6)(iii). Administrator considered for a like To make the demonstration that facility in establishing the applicable an efficacy that is, in the judgment of the Director, as close as practicable to compliance costs are significantly performance standards, the facility must the applicable performance standards in greater than those considered by EPA, follow the steps laid out below, based
§ 125.94(b) of the rule. the facility must first determine its on the information in the table provided Section 125.94(a)(5)(ii) provides that actual compliance costs. To do this, the in Appendix A: Costs considered by an existing facility may demonstrate facility first should determine the costs EPA in Establishing Performance that the costs of compliance under for any new design and construction Standards. A sample of the table is alternatives in § 125.94(a)(2) through (4) technologies, operational measures, provided below (see sample table). Note of the rule would be significantly greater and/or restoration measures that would that those facilities that claimed the than the benefits of complying with the be needed to comply with the flow data that they submitted to EPA, applicable performance standards at requirements of § 125.94(a)(2) through and which EPA used to calculate that facility. In such cases, the Director (4), which may include the following compliance costs, as confidential must make a site-specific determination cost categories: The installed capital business information (CBI), are not of best technology available for cost of the technologies or measures, the listed in the table provided in Appendix minimizing adverse environmental net operation and maintenance (O&M) A, unless the total calculated impact. The Director must establish site- costs for the technologies or measures I compliance costs were zero. If these specific alternative requirements based (that is, the O&M costs for the final suite facilities wish to request a site-specific on new and/or existing design and of technologies and measures once all determination of best technology construction technologies, operational new technologies and measures have available based on significantly greater measures, and/or restoration measures been installed less the O&M costs of any compliance costs, they will need to that achieve an efficacy that, in the existing technologies and measures), the waive their claim of confidentiality judgment of the Director, is as close as net revenue losses (lost revenues minus prior to submitting the Comprehensive practicable to the applicable saved variable costs) associated with net Cost Evaluation Study so that EPA can performance standards in § 125.94(b) of construction downtime (actual make the necessary data available to the the rule. construction downtime minus that facility, Director, and public.
SAMPLE TABLE.-COSTS CONSIDERED BY EPA IN ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ($2002) EPA as- Annulized nuap2O Net revenue Annualized Perform-aince stand-3 sumed de- Baseline Pos conit-l losses from downtime ards on EPA mod- Design flow Facility ID Intake ID sign Intake Capital cost O&M an- O&M an- une EPA net con- o stdy and pilot which EPA eled tech- adjustment flow g m nual cst nual cost design intake struction cost estl- nology code slope (m)' design intake downtime cot24 mates are flov~2 ~based V 9L Column I Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 Column 11 Column 12 Column 13 0 Fac 1 ID .................... ...... ...... .... ..................... .................... ...... ............... ..... ...... ......... .... ........ ....... . ............... ...... ...... .... :..*................. ...... .................... Fac 2 ID .................... ...... .............. ...... ...... ........ ............ ...... .. .................. .... ..................... ....... ............. ....... ...... ........ ............ ...... .. ................... ...... ........................... Po Fac 3 ID 5 Intake ake Fan 3 ID5Ir 1. 1 ~................... .................... .......... .......... .......... ...... .... ................ ...... ..................... .................... ....... .............. ...... ...... ........ ............. ...... ......................... R Fac 3 ID5 Intake 2 .... .................... ..,................. ...... ...... ;........ ............ ....... ..................... .................... ...... .......... ..................... .............. .................... ...... ........... Etc._ .................... ..... ............... ..... ..... .......... .................. ..................... ...... .... ..... .............. ..... ..................... ..... ............... ................ ............. I The design flow adjustment slope (m)represents the slope that corresponds to the particular facility using the technology incolumn 12. z 2 Discount rate = 7% 0 3 4 Amortization period for capital costs = 10 years 0 Amortization period for downtime and pilot study costs = 30 years 5Depending on the data provided, some facilities with multiple intakes were costed separately for each intake. In such cases, the facility should calculate the costs considered by EPA for Z each intake separately using the steps below and sum. Note that some cost components (e.g. construction downtime losses and pilot study costs) are assigned arbitrarily to one of the in- o0 takes, since it is difficult to determine how they would be assigned to each intake separately. Since the costs for multiple intakes are summed, this will not affect the results.
'-4 0
P W Y e Cs h. X0 so M CA v.
.rb x0 0,0 F_
X
'Pb 0
v A me CAt C, C C
41646 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations The data in Appendix A is keyed to technology (§ 125.94(a)(5)(i)(B)). To do and added the result to the difference both a facility name and survey ID this, you should use the following between the post construction O&M number. Facilities should be able to formula, which is derived from the costs and the baseline O&M costs. determine their IDnumber from the results of EPA's costing equations for a Note that some entries in Appendix A survey they submitted to EPA during facility like yours using the selected have NA indicated for the EPA assumed the rule development process. technology: design intake flow in column 2. These Step 1: Determine which technology are facilities for which EPA projected EPA modeled as the most appropriate Yf = yepa +m* (xf-Xepa)(1) that they would already meet otherwise compliance technology for your facility applicable performance standards based (§125.94(a)(5)(i)(A)). To do this, use the Where: on existing technologies and measures. code in column 12 of Appendix A to yf = annualized capital and net O&M EPA projected zero compliance costs for look up the modeled technology in costs using actual facility design these facilities, irrespective of design Table 9-1 below. intake flow, intake flow, so no flow adjustment is xf = actual facility design intake flow (in needed. These facilities' should use $0 TABLE 9-1.-TECHNOLOGY CODES gallons per minute), as their value for the costs considered x=a - EPA assumed facility design by EPA for a like facility in establishing AND DESCRIPTIONS intake flow (in gallons per minute) the applicable performance standards. Tech- (column 3), EPA recognizes that these facilities will nology Technology description y pa = Annualized capital and net O&M still incur permitting and monitoring codes costs using EPA design intake flow costs, but these are not included in the (column 7),and cost comparison for the reasons stated 1 Addition of fish handling and re- m = design flow adjustment slope turn system to an existing above. (column 13). Step 3: Determine the annualized net traveling screen system. Rather than providing the detailed 2 Addition of fine-mesh screens to revenue loss associated with net an existing traveling screen costing equations that EPA used to construction downtime that EPA system. calculate annualized capital and net, modeled fur the facility to install the 3 Addition of a new, larger intake O&M costs for facilities to use each of technology (§125.94(a)(5)(i)(C)) and the with fine-mesh and fish han- the 14 modeled technologies, EPA has annualized pilot study costs that EPA dling and return system In provided the simplified formula above, modeled for the facility to test and front of an existing intake sys- which collapses the results of those optimize the technology tem. equations for the particular facility and (§125.94(a)(5)(i)(D)). The sum of these 4 Addition of passive fine-mesh technology into a single result (ypap) and two figures is listed in column 10. For screen system (cylindrical then allows the facility to adjust this wedgewire) near shoreline informational purposes, the total (not with mesh width of 1.75 mm. result to reflect its actual design intake annualized) net revenue losses from 5 Addition of a fish net barrier sys- flow, using a technology specific slope construction downtime, and total (not tem. for a facility like yours that is derived annualized) pilot study costs are listed 6 Addition of an aquatic filter bar- from the costing equations. This allows separately in columns 8 and 9. These rier system. facilities to perform the flow adjustment two figures were annualized using a 7 7 Relocation of an existing intake required by § 125.94(a)(5)(i)(B) in a percent discount rate and 30 year to a submerged offshore loca- straightforward and transparent manner. amortization period and the results tion with passive fine-mesh Facilities, Directors, or members of the screen Inlet with mesh width added together to get the annualized public who wish to review the detailed facility downtime and pilot study costs of 1.75 mm. costing equations should consult the 8 Addition of a velocity cap Inlet to in column 10. an existing offshore Intake. Technical Development Document, Step 4: Add the annualized capital 9 Addition of passive fine-mesh Chapter 3. and O&M costs using actual facility screen to an existing offshore EPA has provided some additional design intake flow (yf from step 2), and Intake with mesh width of 1.75 information in Appendix A, beyond that the annualized facility downtime and mm. which is needed to perform the pilot study costs (column 10 from step 10 [Module 10 not used). calculations in § 125.95(a)(5)(ii), to 3) to get the preliminary costs 11 Addition of dual-entry, single-exit facilitate comparison of the results considered by EPA for a facility like traveling screens (with fine- obtained using formula 1 to the detailed yours (§ 125.94(a)(5)(i)(E)). mesh) to a shoreline Intake costing equations in the TDD, for those Step 5: Determnine which performance system. 12 : Addition of passive fine-mesh who wish to do so. EPA does not expect standards in § 125.94(b)(1) and (2) (i.e., screen system (cylindrical facilities or permit writers to do this, impingement mortality only, or wedgewire) near shoreline and has in fact provided the simplified impingement mortality and with mesh width of 0.76 mm. formula to preclude the need for doing entrainment) are applicable to your 13 Addition of passive fine-mesh so, but is providing the additional facility, and compare these to the screen to an existing offshore information to increase transparency. performance standards on which EPA's Intake with mesh width of 0.76 Thus, for informational purposes, the cost estimates are based, listed in mm. total capital cost (not annualized), column 11 (§ 125.94(a)(5)(i)(F)). If the 14 Relocation 'of an existing Intake to a submerged offshore' loca- baseline O&M cost, and post applicable performance standards and tion with passive fine-mesh construction O&M cost from which the those on which EPA's cost estimates are screen Inlet with mesh width annualized capital and net O&M costs based are the same, then the preliminary of 0.76 mm. using EPA design' intake flow (y". in costs considered by EPA for a facility column 7) are derived are listed like yours are the final costs considered (f Step 2: Using EPA's costing equations, separately in columns 4 through 6. To by EPA for a facility like yours. If only calculate the annualized capital and net calculate yep, EPA annualized the total the impingement mortality performance 44operation and maintenance costs for a capital cost using a 7 percent discount standards are applicable to your facility, facility with your design flow using this rate and 10 year amortization period, but EPA based its cost estimates on
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41647 impingement mortality and entrainment technologies or operational measures for . Documentation of the basis for any performance standards, then you should reducing impingement mortality and/or assumptions and quantitative estimates. divide the preliminary costs by a factor entrainment (as applicable) of all life If you plan to use an entrainment C..G: of 2.148 to get the final costs. If impingement mortality and entrainment performance standards are applicable to stages of fish and shellfish based on representative studies (e.g., studies that have been conducted at cooling water survival rate other than zero, you must submit a determination of entrainment survival at your facility based on a study a your facility, but EPA based its cost intake structures located in the same approved by the Director; estimates on impingement mortality waterbody type with similar biological
- An analysis of the effects of performance standards only, then you characteristics) and, if applicable, site- significant sources of uncertainty on the should multiply the preliminary costs specific technology prototype or pilot results of the study; by 2.148 to get the final costs. In studies. If restoration measures will be
- If requested by the Director, a peer calculating compliance costs, EPA used, you must provide a Restoration review of the items you submit in the projected what performance standards Plan that includes the elements Benefits Valuation Study. You must would be applicable to the facility basedI described in § 125.95 (b)(5); choose the peer reviewers in on available data. However, because of
- A demonstration that the proposed consultation with the Director who may both variability and uncertainty in the and/or implemented design and consult with EPA and Federal, State, underlying parameters that determine construction technologies, operational and Tribal fish and wildlife which performance standards apply measures, and/or restoration measures management agencies with (e.g., capacity utilization rate, mean achieve an efficacy that is as close as responsibility for fish and wildlife annual flow), it is possible that in some practicable to the applicable potentially affected by your cooling cases the performance standards that performance standards of § 125.94(b) water intake structure. Peer reviewers EPA projected are not correct. The without resulting in costs significantly must have appropriate qualifications adjustment factor of 2.148 was greater than either the costs considered depending upon the materials to be determined by taking the ratio of by the Administrator for a facility like reviewed.
median compliance costs for facilities to yours in establishing the applicable
- A narrative description of any non-meetiffipingefment mortality and, performance standards, or as monetized benefits that would be entrainment performance standards ovei appropriate, the benefits of complying realized at your site if you were to meet median compliance costs for facilities to with the applicable performance the applicable performance standards meet impingement mortality standards at your facility; and, and a qualitative assessment of their performance standards only. While a Design and engineering magnitude and significance.
using this adjustment factor will not calculations, drawings, and estimates All benefits, whether expressed necessarily yield the exact compliance prepared by a qualified professional to qualitatively or quantitatively, should costs that EPA would have calculated support the elements of the Plan. be addressed in the Benefits Valuation Study and considered by the Director in C had it had current information, EPA tbelieves the results are accurate enough for determining whether a facility's
- 2. Facility's Costs Significantly Greater Than the Benefits of Complying With determining whether compliance costs siificantly exceed benefits.
Performance Standards enefits assessment should begin _ actual compliance costs are "significantly greater than" the costs A facility demonstrating that its costs with an impingement and entrainment considered by EPA for a like facility in are significantly greater than the mortality study, which quantifies both establishing the applicable performance benefits of complying with performance the baseline mortality as well as the standards. EPA believes it is preferable standards must perform and submit a expected change from rule compliance. to provide a simple and transparent Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study, The benefits assessment should include methodology for making this adjustment a Benefits Valuation Study, and a Site- a qualitative and/or quantitative that yields reasonably accurate results, Specific Technology Plan. description of the benefits that would be rather than a much more complex The Comprehensive Cost Evaluation produced by compliance with the methodology that would be difficult to Study is discussed in the previous applicable performance standards at the use and understand (for the facility, section. It requires the same information facility site and, to the extent feasible, Director, and public), even if the more for a cost-benefit site-specific monetized (dollar) estimates of all complex methodology would yield determination as for a cost-cost site- significant benefits categories using well slightly more accurate results. specific determination, except that the established and generally accepted The Site-Specific Technology Plan is demonstration in § 125.95(b)(6)(i)(B) valuation methodologies. The first developed based on the results of the must show that the facility's actual benefit category to consider is use Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study compliance costs significantly exceed benefits, which includes such benefits and must contain the following the benefits of meeting the applicable as those to commercial and recreational information: performance standards at the facility. fishermen. Well-established revealed
- A narrative description of the The Benefits Valuation Study requires preference and market proxy methods design and operation of all existing and that a facility use a comprehensive exist for valuing use benefits, and these proposed design and construction methodology to fully value the impacts should be used in all cases where the technologies, operational measures, of impingement mortality and impingement and entrainment mortality and/or restoration measures that you entrainment at its site and the benefits study identifies substantial impacts to have selected in accordance with of complying with the applicable harvested or other relevant species.
§ 125.94(a)(5); performance standards. In addition to The second benefit category to
- An engineering estimate of the the valuation estimates, the benefit consider is non-use benefits. Non-use efficacy of the proposed and/or study must include the following: benefits may arise from reduced impacts implemented design and construction
- A description of the to ecological resources that the public technologies or operational measures, methodology(ies) used to value considers important, such as threatened and/or restoration measures. This commercial, recreational, and ecological and endangered species. Non-use ( )
estimate must include a site-specific benefits (including any non-use benefits can generally only be evaluation of the suitability of the benefits, if applicable); monetized through the use of stated
41648 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations preference methods. When determining work products receive appropriate a Addition of passive fine-mesh whether to monetize non-use benefits, levels of critical scrutiny from screen system (cylindrical wedgewire) permittees and permit writers should independent scientific and technical near shoreline with mesh width of 1.75
/ consider the magnitude and character of experts as part of the overall decision- mm; L ' the ecological impacts implied by the making process. In designing and
- Addition of passive fine-mesh
_' results of the impingement and implementing peer reviews, permittees screen system (cylindrical wedgewire) entrainment mortality study and any and permit writers can look to EPA's near shoreline with mesh width of 0.76 other relevant information. Science Policy Council Handbook-Peer mm;
. In cases where an impingement Review (EPA 100-B-98-00, January . Addition of a fish net barrier mortality and entrainment 1998, www.epa.gov) for guidance. system; characterization study identifies The Site-Specific Technology Plan is
- Addition of an aquatic filter barrier substantial harm to a threatened or described in the previous section. It system; endangered species, to the sustainability requires the same information for a cost- a Relocation of an existing intake to of populations of important species of benefit site-specific determination as for a submerged offshore location (with fish, shellfish or wildlife, or to the a cost-cost site-specific determination, -
velocity cap inlet, passive fine-mesh maintenance of community structure except that the demonstration in screen inlet with mesh width of 1.75 and function in a facility's waterbody or § 125.95(b)(6)(iii)(C) must show that the mm, passive fine-mesh screen inlet with watershed, non-use benefits should be proposed and/or implemented mesh width of 0.76 mm, or onshore monetized.5 0 technologies and measures achieve an traveling screens);
. In cases where an impingement Addition of a velocity cap inlet to efficacy that is as close as practicable to an*existing mortality and entrainment offshore intake; the applicable performance standards
- Addition of passive fine-mesh characterization study does not identify without resulting in costs significantly substantial harm to a threatened or screen to an existing offshore intake greater than the benefits of complying with mesh width of 1.75 mm; endangered species, to the sustainability with the applicable performance of populations of important species of a Addition of passive fine-mesh fish, shellfish oi wildlife, or to the standards at your facility. screen tQ as existing offshore intake maintenance of community structure *X. Engineering Cost Analysis with mesh width of 0.76 mm; and function in a facility's waterbody or
- Addition or modification of a watershed, monetization is not A. Technology Cost Modules shoreline-based traveling screen for an necessary. In the Notice of Data Availability offshore intake system; and Permittees should consult with their (NODA) (68 FR 13522, March 19, 2003),
- Addition of dual-entry, single-exit permitting authority regarding their the Agency presented an approach for traveling screens (with fine-mesh) to a plans for assessing ecological and non- developing compliance costs that shoreline intake system.
use benefits, including whether they included a broad range of compliance Further explanation and derivation of {I plan to conduct a stated preference technologies for calculating compliance each of these costing modules and their i study and if so, the basic design of the costs as opposed to the approach used application for the purposes of assessing study, including such items as target for the proposal, which was based on a costs is discussed in the Technical population, sampling strategy, limited set of technologies. In response Development Document. For approximate sample size, general survey to comments, EPA revised the costing explanation of how the Agency-applied design, and other relevant information. modules that were presented in the these technology cost modules to When conducting quantitative benefits NODA and used to develop the determine compliance costs, see section assessments, permittees should engineering costs for the final rule. X.B below. carefully review and follow accepted Modifications made include adding a B. Model FacilityCost Development best practices for such studies. A new set of costing modules to address discussion of best practices regarding In order to implement the technology the installation of fine-mesh wedgewire costing modules discussed in section valuation can be found in EPA's screens with open mesh sizes less than Guidelines for Preparing Economic 1 mm in width; revising construction X.A, the Agency used the same basic Analyses (EPA 2000, EPA 240-R-0C- down time needed to relocate cooling approach which was described in the 003, September 2000) and OMB Circular water intake structures offshore; and NODA for the estimation of costs at the A-4: Regulatory Analysis (September reconsidering the applicability of the model facility level. This approach 17, 2003, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ focuses as much as possible on site-double-entry, single-exit technology and specific characteristics for which the inforeg/circularoa4.pdfl.In their its ability to compensate for through-benefits assessment, the permittee screen velocity issues for fine-mesh. Agency obtained data through the should present the results,-as well as section 316(b) questionnaires. In applications. clearly describe the methods used, the addition, EPA used available geographic The following modules were used to information, including detailed assumptions made, and the associated develop compliance costs for the topographic mapping and overhead uncertainties. Agency's engineering cost analysis for It is recommended that the permittee satellite imagery, to better utilize site-and Director seek peer review of the the final rule: specific characteristics of each model major biological and economic aspects
- Addition of fish handling and facility's intake(s) to determine the of the final benefits assessment. The return system to an existing traveling appropriate costing modules for that goal of the peer review process is to screen system; facility. The Agency also utilized ensure that scientific and technical
- Addition of fine-mesh screens (both facility-specific information collected with and without a fish handling and for the regional benefits studies to SOIn cases where harm cannot be clearly return system) to an existing traveling further inform the selection of
( i
'explained to the public, monetization is not feasible because stated preference methods are not reliable Ashen the environmental improvement being valued screen system;
. Addition of a new, larger intake in compliance technology at model facilities. The Technical Development Cannot be characterized in a meaningful way for front of an existing intake screen Document provides the background and survey respondents. system; a more detailed explanation of the
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41649 Agency's approach to model facility requirements with technologies in- flush, protruding, or recessed from level costing, which has not changed place. These facilities received no shoreline. For the case of canals and dramatically from that published in the capital or annual operating and channels, the Agency similarly focuses NODA (68 FR 13522). maintenance compliance upgrade costs on whether the intake is flush, EPA's approach to model facility-level (although they may receive protruding, or recessed from a shoreline. (_ costing may be described as follows. In administrative or monitoring costs). The For the case of shoreline intakes, the order to project upgrades to Agency categorized facilities according Agency necessarily assessed whether technologies as a result of compliance to waterbody type from which they the intake is flush, protruding, or with today's final rule, the Agency withdraw cooling water. The Agency recessed. For the case of offshore utilized as much information as was then sorted the intakes (facilities) within intakes, the Agency examines whether available about the characteristics of the each waterbody type based on their or not the intake has an onshore facilities expected to be within the configuration as reported in the terminus (or well) and assesses the scope of the rule. By incorporating as questionnaires. Generally, the categories characteristics of the onshore system. many site-specific features as possible of intakes within one waterbody type The information the Agency gathers up into the design and implementation of are as follows: canal/channel, bay/ to this point is sufficient to narrow its costing approach, the Agency has embayment/cove, shoreline, and down the likely technology applications been able to capture a representative offshore. Once the intake (facility) is for each intake (facility). However, in range of compliance costs at what it classified to this level the Agency order to determine the best technology deems "model facilities." However, it is examines the type of technology in- application, the Agency also utilizes infeasible for the Agency to visit and place and compares that against the commercially available satellite images study in detail all of the engineering compliance requirements of the and maps where available. The use of aspects of each facility complying with particular intake (facility). For the case the satellite images and maps aided the this rule (over 400 facilities could incur of entrainment requirements, the intake Agency in determining the potential for technology-related compliance costs as the construction of expanded intakes in-a result of this rule). Therefore, although technologies (outside of recirculating cooling) that qualify to meet the front of existing intakes and the the Agency has developed costs that requirements at baseline are fine mesh potential for an intake modification to represent EPA's best effort to develop a screen systems, and combinations of far- protrude into the waterbody (such as a site-specific engineering assessment for near-shore t-screen) due to the degree of a particular facility, this assessment offshore inlets with passive intakes or fish handling/return systems. A small navigational traffic in the near vicinity does not address any site-specific subset of intakes has entrainment of the intake and whether a protrusion characteristics that only long-term study might be tolerated, the possibility of of each facility would reveal. Hence, the qualifying technologies in-place at baseline (for the purposes of this costing installing a barrier net system, obvious Agency refers to its approach as a signs of strong currents, the relative "model" facility approach. effort). Therefore, in the case of entrainment requirements, most distance of a potentially relocated intake Q In selecting technology modules for each model facility, EPA, to a degree departed from its traditional least cost facilities with the requirement would receive technology upgrades. The inlet, the possibility for fish return installations of moderate length, etc. approach. The least cost approach, methodology for choosing these The Agency was able to collect satellite traditionally utilized for estimating entrainment technologies is explained images for most intakes (facilities) for compliance technology choices, relies further on in this discussion. For the which it required the resource. on the principle that the complying case of impingement requirements, However, in some cases (especially plant will choose to install the least cost there are a variety of intake technologies those in the rural, mid-western U.S.), technology that meets the minimum that qualify (for the purposes of this only maps were available. Hence, for the standard. While the Agency is confident costing effort) to meet the requirements case of a significant number facilities that the suite of available technologies at baseline. The intake types meeting located near small freshwater rivers/ can achieve the performance standards impingement requirements at baseline streams and lakes/reservoirs, the on § 125.94(b) generally, EPA lacks include the following: barrier net (the Agency utilized only the questionnaire sufficient data to determine the precise only fish diversion system which data and the overhead maps available. performance of each technology on a qualifies), passive intakes (of a variety of Once the Agency gathered the intake site-specific basis for over 400 different types), and fish handling and return (facility) specific information to this applications. The Agency thus selected, systems. A significant number of intakes degree, the applicable list of based on criteria published in the (facilities) have impingement technologies for each intake was small NODA, one of a set of best performing technology in-place that meets the (and in some cases only one technology technologies (rather than the least costly qualifications for this costing effort. would apply). Therefore, the Agency technology) that was suitable for each Therefore, some intakes (facilities) examined any other sources of model facility (or intake), in order to require no technology upgrades when information, such as those obtained for ensure that the technology on which only impingement requirements apply. the regional benefits studies, to further costs were based would in fact achieve For facilities that do not pre-qualify for narrow down the best technology to compliance at that model site. The impingement and/or entrainment, meet the requirements of the rule for criteria for selecting the best performing technology in-place (for the purposes of each model intake (facility). Often, the technology for a model facility (or this costing effort), the Agency focuses decision was between just two or three intake) utilized questionnaire data as next on questionnaire data relating to potential technologies. If there was no the primary tool in the assessment. For the intake type-canal/channel, bay/ evidence in the Agency's possession to those facilities utilizing recirculating embayment/cove, shoreline, and suggest that the least-cost technology cooling systems in-place, the Agency offshore. Within each intake type, the would not function, then the Agency assigned no compliance actions as they Agency further classifies according to would select this technology. However, K met the standards at baseline. The certain specific characteristics. For the should evidence imply that the least (9 Agency then deternuned those intakes case of bays, embayments, and coves, cost technology not be able to function (facilities) that met compliance the Agency determined if the intake is reliably or have a feasibility issue
41650 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations related to site deployment (for example, has estimated the costs and benefits of resources to determine the precise a barrier net across a navigable the rule using improved flow data over performance of each technology on a waterway or a fish handling and return the NODA and proposal. For the case of site-specific basis for over 400 different system with an extremely long return STQ facilities, the Agency has utilized applications. The Agency thus selected, s trough), then the Agency departed from an improved data set for the calculation for subset of sites where multiple the "least-cost" decision process and of design intake flows, and, in turn, the technologies could be under assigned the "best-performing" calculation of compliance costs. consideration to meet the requirements, technology. In cases where more than a best performing technology (rather XI. Economic Analysis than the least costly technology of the one technology still remained after ruling out a least-cost alternative due to A. Final Rule Costs choices). The best performing evidence (which was a rare occurrence), EPA estimates that the final rule will technology concept, when necessary to then the Agency attempted to balance have total annualized social (pre-tax) apply, relied on assigning technologies the application of the remaining costs of $389 million ($2002). Of this about a median cost, with some choices technologies about a median, thereby total, $385 million are direct costs above and below. Therefore, for each assigning moderately high costs for model facility (or intake), in order to incurred by facilities and $4 million are ensure that the technology on which some cases and moderately low costs in implementation costs incurred by State others. Therefore, for the case of and Federal government. On a post-tax costs were based would in fact achieve national costs, the Agency's application compliance at that model site, the basis, direct costs incurred by facilities Agency could not rely on a one-size fits of technology cost modules reflect a subject to the final rule are expected to reasonable national average. be $249 million, including one-time all, least-cost approach. The cost technology costs of complying with the difference between the NODA and the C. FacilityFlow Modifications final rule is primarily a result of rule, a one-time cost of installation decreases in capital and permitting cost In developing costs and benefits for downtime, annual operating and the NODA, the Agency revised intake maintenance costs, and permitting costs estimates. flow information for a small subset of (initial permit costs, annual monitoring Capital and O&M costs changed inscope facilities in an effort to ensure between NODA and final primarily due costs, and permit reissuance costs). to three factors. The Agency revised its the accuracy and quality of the data. In These cost estimates include developing costs and benefits for the compliance costs for eight facilities that application of certain technology cost final rule, the Agency has further are projected to be base case closures.51 modules (especially the dual-entry, refined the intake flow information single-exist traveling screen module) Excluding compliance costs for between NODA and final, in response to used. projected base case closure facilities Since the NODA, the Agency re- would result in annualized pre-tax comments received. The Agency revised evaluated its original decision to use the facility compliance costs of its costs for some passive screen reported 1998 (the most recent of three technology costs utilizing finer mesh approximately $376 million and years collected) annual flows for annualized post-tax facility compliance screens, in response to comments Detailed Questionnaire (DQ) recipients costs of approximately $244 million. received. In addition, the Agency i_0P/ for the calculation of benefits. This, in The equivalent annualized post-tax credited facilities with far offshore turn, had an impact on the development facility compliance costs were $178 intakes plus certain impingement of estimated design intake flows for million at proposal and $265 million for controls in-place (such as fish handling short-technical questionnaire (STQ) the NODA preferred option. The cost or passive inlet screens) as having met recipients. As presented in the NODA, difference between proposal and the the requirements for entrainment the Agency estimated design intake NODA is due primarily to the expanded reduction at baseline. This final change flows for STQ facilities using a range of technology options considered was also in response to comments that statistical methodology based on linear for the NODA and the "best performing recommended that the Agency correlate regression of DQ recipients' annual technology" selection criteria used to the benefits assessment more closely intake flows and DQ recipients' design assign cost modules to model facilities with the engineering cost estimates. The intake flows to assess the design intake (see section IV of the NODA, 68 FR overall net result of these changes was flow information for facilities that 13522,13526). to slightly decrease total capital and responded to the short technical In selecting technology modules for total O&M costs of the rule. However, on questionnaire. Because the Agency each model facility, EPA, to a degree the basis of facilities expected to asked STQ respondents for only their departed from its traditional least cost upgrade technologies to meet the rule actual annual intake flow for the 1998 approach. The least cost approach, requirements, the capital and O&M costs reporting year only (or a typical traditionally utilized for estimating did increase slightly. operational year), it was necessary to There are many uncertainties compliance technology choices relies on calculate design intake flow information the principle that the complying plant surrounding any forecast. The national for the purpose of accurately assessing will choose to install the least cost: annualized costs estimated for today's compliance costs. Therefore, for the technology that meets the minimum rule were necessarily developed using NODA and proposal, the Agency standard. While the Agency is confident several major assumptions which are calculated design intake flows for STQ that the suite of available technologies subject to uncertainty. The Agency facilities based on a model derived from can achieve compliance with the attempted to develop a plausible range only the 1998 DQ flow data. In proposed performance requirements of costs focusing on four major cost retrospect, the Agency determined that assumptions surrounding the direct (60-90% reduction in entrainment and private cost of $385 million that may be a more robust approach would be to use 80-95% reduction in impingement all three years of annual DQ flows incurred when facilities implement this mortality relative to the calculation collected (1996--1998) and to take baseline), EPA lacks sufficient data and rule. Uncertainty factors were analyzed advantage of the statistical abilities for the cost assumptions affecting k4,afforded by the expanded data set (that 51 There are eight base case closures in 2008, the technology capital, technology O&M, _ iis,to determine and exclude outliers). first model run year of the IPM. See section 3a.B.1 downtime for connection outages, initial Hence, for this final rule, the Agency for further discussion of analyses using the 1PM. permitting, and pilot studies. This
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41651 uncertainty analysis provided a range of capital and O&M costs; the effects of facilities that have partial recirculating costs for the national private (direct) annualization time frame for initial systems. For more information on the annualized compliance costs of $377 to permitting and downtime connection Agency's analysis of this issue, see DCN
$437 million. This range was developed outages; the effects of sampling 6-5045.
by examining the effect of capacity frequency and data analysis on pilot utilization assumptions on technology study costs; and excluding costs for K) Cost assumption Base case facility compliance cost estimate Sensitivity estimate Annualization time frame for initial permitting 30 years ................................................. 20 years. and downtime. Partial recirculation system credit ................... No . Yes. Capacity utilization rate used to estimate tech- Based on 2008 IPM Forecast .......................... IBased on historic utilization. nology capital and O&M. Pilot study costs ........ Moderate sampling frequency High sampling frequency. B. FinalRule Impacis Phase II regulation. Analyzed a. Changes to the IPM analyses since
- 1. Energy Market Model Analysis characteristics include changes in the NODA. EPA did not change its IPM electricity prices, capacity, generation, assumptions and modeling procedures At proposal and for the NODA, EPA revenue, cost of generation, and income. for this final rule. EPA continued to use used an electricity market model, the These changes were identified by the 2000 version of the IPM model to Integrated Planning Model (IPMOD), to comparing two scenarios: (1) The base perform the final rule analysis. In the identify potential economic and case scenario (in the absence of any 2003 current version of the IPM, the operational impacts of various section 316(b) Phase I and Phase II model has been updated to include, regulatory options considered for the regulation) and (2) the post compliance among other things, effects of the State 2
Phase II regulation.5 Electric reliability scenario (after the implementation of Multi-Pollutant regulations and the New impact analyses could not be performed the new section 316(b) Phase I Source Review settlements on using the IPM model. EPA does regulations). At proposal, EPA used the environmental compliance costs recognize that due to down time or results of these comparisons to assess associated with the IPM base case. connection outages estimated to install the impacts of the proposed rule and Further, the 2003 version of the IPM several of the technologies, and the two of the five alternative compliance model includes updated costs for number of facilities that will need to existing facilities such as life extension come into compliance over the first few options considered by EPA: (1) The ( - years after today's rule is promulgated, there may be short-term electric "Intake Capacity Commensurate with Closed-Cycle, Recirculating Cooling costs. However, a few general changes affect the results presented in the following subsection. These changes are reliability issues unless care is taken System based on Waterbody Type/ outlined in section VL.A and include the within each region to coordinate outages Capacity" option and (2) the "Intake following: An increase in the estimated with the North American Electric Capacity Commensurate with Closed- number of in-scope Phase 11 facilities Reliability Council (NERCQ and where Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System for All Facilities" option. For the NODA, from 551 to 554; revisions of possible with normal scheduled technology, operating and maintenance, maintenance operations. Noting this, EPA assessed the impacts of the preferred option and the "Intake and permitting/monitoring costs; and EPA has provided flexibility in today's changes to the assumption of rule so that facilities can develop Capacity Commensurate with Closed- construction downtimes for compliance workable construction schedules with Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System technologies other than recirculating their permit writers and coordinate with based on Waterbody Type/Capacity" cooling towers. NERC to appropriately schedule down option, making several changes to the b. Revised results for the Final Rule. times (see § 125.95(b)(4)(ii)). As noted in analysis (major changes included This section presents the revised impact the NERC 2003 Long-term Reliability changes in 1PM model aggregation, analysis of the final rule. The impacts of Assessment, the overall impact on capacity utilization assumptions, and compliance with the final rule are reliability of any new environmental treatment of installation downtime; see defined as the difference between the requirements will "* *
- depend on section V.A of the NODA). modeling results for the base case providing sufficient time to make the Since publication of the NODA, EPA scenario and the modeling results for necessary modifications and the has conducted further IPM analyses. the post-compliance scenario. Two base commercial availability of control The following sections present a case scenarios were used to analyze the technologies." 53 EPA conducted impact discussion of changes to the analysis impacts associated with the final rule.
analyses at the market level, by NERC since the NODA and the results of the The first base case scenario was region,54 and for facilities subject to the re-analysis of the final rule. developed using EPA's electricity 52 demand assumption. Under this For a detailed description of the IPM see Reliability Coordination Agreement), ERCOT assumption, demand for electricity is Chapter B3 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis (Electric Reliability Council of Texas), FRCC based on the Annual Energy Outlook (EBA) document in support of the proposed rule (Florida Reliability Coordinating Council), MAAC (DCN 4-0002; http://www.epa.gov/os1/316b1 (AEO) 2001 forecast adjusted to account (Mid-Atlantic Area Council), MAIN (Mid-America econbenefits/b3.pdf). Interconnected Network, Inc.), MAPP (Mid- for efficiency improvements not 3 North American Electric Reliability Council Continent Area Power Pool), NPCC (Northeast factored into AEO's projections of (NERC). 2003. 2003 Long-term Reliability Power Coordination Council). SERC (Southeastern electricity sales. The second base case Assessment: The Reliability of Bulk Electric Electricity Reliability Council), SPP (Southwest Systems in North America; prepared December was developed using the unadjusted Power Pool), and WSCC (Western Systems 2003. Coordinating Council). Electric generators in Alaska electricity demand from the AEO 2001. 54 The IPM models the ten NERC regions that and Hawaii are not interconnected with these The results presented in this section use cover the continental U.S.: ECAR (East Central Area regions and are not modeled by the IPM. the first, EPA-adjusted base case.
416521 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations Results using the second base case are The results of these analyses are as the sum of total fuel and variable presented in the Appendix of Chapter presented in the following subsections. O&M costs divided by total generation; B3 of the final EBA. i. Market-level impacts of the Final (4) post-compliance changes in energy EPA analyzed impacts of the final rule Rule. The market-level analysis includes price, where energy prices are defined using data from model run year 2010. results for all generators located in each as the wholesale prices received by Model run year 2010 was chosen to NERC region including facilities both facilities for the sale of electric represent the effects of the final rule for in-scope and out-of-scope of the generation; and (5) post-compliance a typical year in which all facilities are proposed Phase II rule. Exhibit XI-1 changes in pre-tax income, where pre-expected to be in compliance (for this presents five measures used by EPA to tax income is defined as total revenues analysis, EPA assumed that facilities assess market-level impacts associated minus the sum of fixed and variable come into compliance between 2005 with the final rule, by NERC region: (1) O&M costs, fuel costs, and capital costs. and 2009; in reality, compliance is Incremental capacity closures, Additional results are presented in expected to begin in 2008).55 The calculated as the difference between Chapter B3: Electricity Market Model analysis was conducted at two levels: capacity closures under the final rule Analysis (section B3-4.1) of the the market level including all facilities and capacity closures under the base Economic and Benefits Analysis (EBA) (by NERC region) and the Phase II case; (2) incremental capacity closures in support of the final rule (DCN 6-facility level (including analyses of the as a percentage of baseline capacity; (3) 0002). Chapter B3 also presents a more in-scope Phase II facilities as a group post-compliance changes in variable detailed interpretation of the results of and of individual Phase 11 facilities). production costs per MWh, calculated the market-level analysis. EXHIBIT X-1 .-MARKET-LEVEL IMPACTS OF THE FINAL RULE (2010) R regnso Incremental closures n Chneipro-variable Change In en- Change in pre-NERCegioBasduction v o rgy pnce per tax income pacei BMWn (MW)Cy ( ) per MWh ($2002) capacity (Pe~e (percent), (percent ECAR ...................... 118,529 ........................ - 0.0 0.1 0.3 -0.8 ERGOT ...... ................ 75,290 ........................ .0 0.0 5.8 -5.6 FRCC ...................... 50,324 ........................ -0.0 0.4 0.6 -3.0 MAAC ...................... 63,784 ........................ -0.0 0.4 0.1 -0.9 MAIN ...................... 59,494 94 0.2 0.1 -0.3 -0.3 MAPP ...................... 35,835 ........................ -0.0 -0.1 -0.3 0.1 NPCC ...... 72,477 ........................ -0.0 -0.5 -0.1 -1.9 SERC ...... 194,485 ........................ -0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 SPP ......... 49,948: .. -0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 WSCC ...... ................ 167,748 58 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 Total ................... 887,915 152 0.0 0.0 n/a -1.0 Two of the ten NERC regions changes will be less than 1.0 percent. between capacity closures under the modeled, MAIN and WSCC, are ERCOT is estimated to experience the final rule and capacity closures under estimated to experience economic largest decrease in pre-tax income (- 5.6 the base case; (2) incremental capacity closures of existing capacity as a result percent). Only one region, MAPP, will closures as a percentage of baseline of the final rule. These closures experience an increase in market-level capacity; (3) post-compliance changes in represent negligible percentages of pre-tax income (0.1 percent). variable production costs per MWh, regional baseline capacity (0.2% in ii. Facility-level impacts of the Final calculated as the sum of total fuel and MAIN and less than 0.1% in WSCC) and Rule. The results from model run year variable O&M costs divided by total of total U.S. baseline capacity (less than 2010 were used to analyze impacts on generation; (4) post-compliance changes 0.1%). EPA estimates that four NERC Phase HIfacilities at two levels: (a) Potential changes In the economic and in electricity generation; and (5) post-regions will experience increases in compliance changes in pre-tax income, variable production costs per MWh, operational characteristics of the group although the largest increase will not of in-scope Phase II facilities as a whole where pre-tax income is defined as total exceed 0.4 percent. In addition, four and (b) potential changes to individual revenues minus the sum of fixed and NERC regions will experience an facilities within the group of Phase II variable O&M costs, fuel costs, and increase in energy prices under the final facilities. Exhibit XI-2 presents five capital costs. Additional results are rule. Of these, only ERCOT is estimated measures used by EPA to assess impacts presented in section B13-4.2 of the final to experience an increase of more than to the group of Phase II facilities EBA. Chapter B3 also presents a more 1.0 percent (5.8 percent). Pre-tax associated with the final rule, by NERC detailed interpretation of the results of incomes are estimated to decrease in all region: (1) Incremental capacity the analysis of Phase II facilities as a but one region, but the majority of these closures, calculated as the difference group. 55EPA also analyzed potential market-level some Phase 11facilities experience installation run year 2008. See Chapter 83, section 83-4.3 of impacts of the final rule for a year during which downtimes. This analysis used output from model the final EBA for the results of this analysis.
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004/ Rules and Regulations 41653 EXHIBIT-XI-2.-IMPACTS ON PHASE II FACILITIES OF THE FINAL RULE (2010) Incremental closures Change In variable pro- Change in Change in pre-NERC region Baseline paiy(W Capafyy(M)per % of baseline duction cost MWh generation (percent) tax income (percent) (WCaaty() capacity (percent) ECAR ...... ................. 82,313 0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 - 1.0 ERCOT ...... ................. 43,522 0 0.0 -0.7 - 1.8 -10.4 FRCC . 27,537 0 0.0 0.3 -0.8 -4.0 MAAC ......... .................... 34,376 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -1.A MAIN ....................... 36,498 94 0.3 0.1 -0.3 -0.6 MAPP .. ................. 15,749 0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 NPCC ................ 37,651 0 0.0 -1.7 -3.6 -4.3 SERC ......... . 107,450 0 0.0 -- 0.3 -0.2 -0.7 SPP ........... .. 20,471 0 0.0 = 0.4 -0.7 -1.0 WSCC . ............................. 28,431 58 0.2 -0.9 -4.3 -10.4 Total ........ ..................... 433,998 152 0.0 -0.6 -0.8 -1.8 Identical to the market-level results, U facilities experience a 4.3 percent minus the sum of fixed and variable EPA estimates that 152 MW, or less than reduction in generation. Overall, EPA O&M costs, fuel costs, and capital costs. 0.1%, of capacity at Phase II facilities estimates that pre-tax income will Exhibit XI-3 presents the total will close as a result of the final rule,. decrease by 1.8 percent for the group of number of Phase U facilities with (If the AEO's higher demand forecast is Phase H facilities. The effects of this estimated degrees of change due to the i-i tili*Md, it Would result in a larger. change are concentrated in a few final rule. This exhibit excludes 17 in-capacity of early closures of 493 MW or regions: WSCC and ERCOT each scope facilities with estimated more than 0.1%. See EBA B3 appendix experience reductions in pre-tax income of 10.4 percent, which is driven by a significant status changes in 2010: Ten Table B3-A-3.) MAIN (94 MW) and facilities are base case closures, one WSCC (58 MW) are the only regions that reduction in revenues (not presented in this exhibit) rather than an increase in facility is a full closure as a result of the are estimated to experience incremental final rule, and six facilities changed capacity closures. In both regions, these costs. NPCC and FRCC are estimated to experience a reduction of 4.3 and 4.0' their repowering decision between the incremental closures represent less than base case and the post-compliance case. Do 0.3% of baseline capacity at Phase II percent, respectively. Results for the group of Phase II These facilities are either not operating facilities. Variable production costs per MWh at Phase 11 facilities increase in two regions and decrease in six regions facilities as a whole may mask shifts in economic performance among individual facilities subject to this rule. at all in either the base case or the post-compliance case, or they experience fundamental changes in the type of iv0 under the final rule. No region To assess potential distributional units they operate; therefore, the experiences an increase in Phase II effects, EPA analyzed facility-specific measures presented in Exhibit XI-3 facility production costs that exceeds changes between the base case and the would not be meaningful for these 0.5 percent, while Phase 11 facilities in post-compliance case in (1) capacity facilities. In addition, the change in NPCC and WSCC see reductions of 1.7 utilization, defined as generation variable production cost per MWh of percent and 0.9 percent, respectively. divided by capacity times 8,760 hours, generation could not be developed for Phase I facilities in three NERC regions (2) electricity generation, (3) revenue, 57 facilities with zero generation in are estimated to experience decreases in (4) variable production costs per MWh, either the base case or post-compliance generation in excess of 1.0 percent as a defined as variable O&M cost plus fuel scenario. For these facilities, the change result of the final rule. The largest is cost divided by generation, and (5) pre- in variable production cost per MWh is estimated to be in WSCC, where Phase tax income, defined as total revenues indicated as "n/a." EXHIBIT XI-3.-OPERATIONAL CHANGES AT PHASE II FACILITIES FROM THE FINAL RULE (201 0)a Reduction Increase Economic measures No NIA
<4=1% 1-3% > 3% 4=1% 1-3% >3% change Change in Capacity UtiizationI.6 21 25 7 7 11 441 0 Change in Generation ............. ..................... 4 6 46 11 5 18 428 0 Changein Revenue ........... . . ................. 83 30 45 142 8 16 194 0 Change In Variable Production Costs/MWh .38 16 9 145 11 17 ;:225 57 Change In Pre-Tax Income 115 109 213 44 11 15 11 0 aFor all measures percentages used to assign facilities to impact categories have been rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent bThe change In capacity utilization is the difference between the capacity utilization percentages in the base case and post-compliance case.
For all other measures, the change is expressed as the percentage change between the base case and post-compliance values. EPA estimates that the majority of final rule. Of those facilities with Exhibit XI-3 also indicates that the Phase II facilities will not experience changes in post-compliance capacity majority of facilities with changes in changes in capacity utilization or utilization and generation, most will variable production costs will (%w generation due to compliance with the experience decreases in these measures. experience increases. However, about 85
41654 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations percent of those increases are estimated subject to the final rule, 413 out of 554 between one and three percent of to be 1.0 percent or less. Changes in (75 percent), will incur annualized costs revenues, and only one entity (1 revenues at a majority of Phase II of less than one percent of revenues. Of percent) is estimated to incur costs of C facilities will also not exceed 1.0 these, 314 facilities incur compliance greater than three percent. The highest percent. The largest effect of the final costs of less than 0.5 percent of estimated cost-to-revenue ratio for the rule is estimated to be on facilities' pre- revenues. In addition, 94 facilities (17 final rule is 6.7 percent of the entities' tax income: the model projects that over percent) are estimated to incur costs of annual sales revenue (for the proposed 80 percent of facilities will experience between one and three percent of rule, this value was 5.3 percent; for the a reduction in pre-tax income, with revenues, and 39 facilities (7 percent) NODA preferred option, this value was about 40 percent of the overall total are estimated to incur costs of greater 7.4 percent). experiencing a reduction of 3.0 percent than three percent. Eight facilities are b. Cost per household. EPA also or greater. estimated to be base case closures. conducted an analysis that evaluates the ii. Firm-level analysis. The firms potential cost per household, if Phase UI
- 2. Other Economic Analyses owning the facilities subject to Phase 11 facilities were able to pass compliance EPA updated its other economic regulation may experience greater costs on to their customers. This analyses conducted at proposal and for impacts than individual in-scope analysis estimates the average the NODA to determine the effect of facilities if they own more than one compliance cost per household for each changes made to the assumptions for the facility with compliance costs. EPA North American Electricity Reliability final rule on steam electric generating therefore also analyzed the cost-to- Council (NERC) region,57 using two data facilities. This section discusses changes revenue ratios at the firm level. EPA inputs: (1) The average annual pre-tax made to EPA's methodology and identified the domestic parent entity of compliance cost per megawatt hour assumptions and presents the updated each in-scope facility and obtained their (MWh) of total electricity sales and (2) results. For complete results of this sales revenue from publicly available the average annual MWh of residential analysis, refer to Chapter B2 of the final data sources (the Dun and Bradstreet electricity sales per household. For the EBA. For complete results of the database for parent firms of investor- proposal and NODA analyses, EPA used proposal and the NODA analyses, refer owned utilities and nonutilities; and .2000 electricity sales information -from to the chapters in Part B of the EBA Form EIA-861 for all other parent Form EIA-861 (Annual Electric Power document in support of the proposed entities). This analysis showed that 126 Industry Report); for the final rule, EPA rule at http.//www.epa.govl unique domestic parent entities own the updated the electricity sales information waterscience/316b/econbenefitsland facilities subject to Phase II regulation. to 2001.
DCN 5-3004 of the NODA docket. EPA compared the aggregated - The results of this analysis show that It should be noted that the measures annualized post-tax compliance costs the average annual cost of the final rule presented in this section are provided in for each facility owned by the 126 per residential household is expected to ( addition to the economic impact measures based on the Integrated
@Planning Model (IPM) analyses (see parent entities to the firms' total sales revenue.
Since proposal, EPA has updated the range from $0.50 in Alaska to $8.18 in Hawaii. The U.S. average is estimated to be $1.21 per household. section XI.B.i). The following measures parent firm determination for Phase II c. Electricity price analysis. EPA also are used to assess the magnitude of facilities. EPA also updated the average considered potential effects of the final compliance costs; they are not used to Form EIA--861 data used for this Phase II rule on electricity prices. EPA predict closures or other types of analysis from 1996-1998 (used at used three data inputs in this analysis: economic impacts on facilities subject to proposal) to 1997-1999 (used for the (1) Total pre-tax compliance cost Phase II regulation. NODA) and 1999-2001 (used for the incurred by facilities subject to Phase II
- a. Cost-to-revenue measure. final rule). In addition, EPA made one regulation, (2) total electricity sales,
- i. Facility-levelanalysis. EPA modification to the sources of revenue based on the Annual Energy Outlook examined the annualized post-tax data used in this analysis: At proposal, (AEO), and (3) prices by end use sector compliance costs of the final rule as a EPA used sales volume from Dun and (residential, commercial, industrial, and percentage of baseline annual revenues, Bradstreet (D&B) for any parent entity transportation), also from the AEO. All for each of the 554 facilities expected to listed in the database. If D&B data were three data elements were calculated by be subject to Phase EI of the section not available, EPA used the EIA NERC region. For the proposal and 316(b) regulation. This measure allows database or the section 316(b) survey. NODA analyses, EPA used the AEO for a comparison of compliance costs For the NODA and final rule analyses, 2002; for the final rule, EPA updated the incurred by each facility with its EPA used the D&B database for data with the AEO 2003.
revenues in the absence of the Phase II privately-owned entities only. For other The results of the final rule analysis regulation. The revenue estimates are entities, EPA used the EIA database. For show that the annualized costs of facility-specific baseline projections the final rule analysis, EPA conducted Complying (in cents per KWh sales) from the IPM base case for 2008 (see additional research (e.g., Securities and range from 0.007 cents in the SPP region section XI.B.1 for a discussion of EPA's Exchange Commission 10-K filings; to 0.019 cents in the NPCC region. To analyses using the 1PM). 56 company web sites) to collect revenue determine potential effects of these Similar to the findings at proposal data for those firms whose revenue was and for the NODA preferred option, EPA not reported in either D&B or Form EIA 57 There are twelve NERC regions: ASCC (Alaska estimates that a majority of the facilities 861. Systems Coordinating Council). ECAR (East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement), ERCOT For the final rule, EPA estimates that (Electric Reliability Council of Texas), FRCC SLEPA used 2008 rather than 2010 baseline of the 126 parent entities, 115 entities (Florida Reliability Coordinating Council), HI revenues for this analysis because 2008 is the first (91 percent) will incur annualized costs (Hawaii), MAAC (Mid-Atlantic Area Council), model run year specified in the IPM analyses. EPA of less than one percent of revenues. Of MAIN (Mid-America Interconnected Network, Inc.). used the first model run year because it more these, 105 entities incur compliance MAPP (Mid-Continent Area Power Pool), NPCC (~ *losely resembles the current operating conditions (Northeast Power Coordination Council), SERC f in-scope facilites than later run years (over time, costs of less than 0.5 percent of (Southeastern Electricity Reliability Council), SPP facilities may be Increasingly affected by factors revenues. In addition, 10 entities (8 (Southwest Power Pool), and WSCC (Western other than the Phase 11regulation). percent) are estimated to incur costs of Systems Coordinating Council).
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41655 compliance costs on electricity prices, in the estimation of benefits of the final aquatic species present, and EPA compared the per KWh compliance rule are largely built upon those used characteristics of commercial and O> cost to baseline electricity prices by end use sector and for the average of the sectors (the detailed results are for estimating use benefits of the proposed rule (see 67 FR 17121) and the Notice of Data Availability (see 67 FR recreational fishing activities within each of the seven regions (see the background chapter of each study region ( presented in Chapter B2 of the final 38752). The Regional Analysis in Parts B-H of the Regional Analysis EBA). This analysis projects that the Document for the Proposed Section 316 Document for maps of the study greatest increase in electricity prices (b) Phase UExisting Facilities Rule (see regions). The five coastal regions will be in the WSCC region (0.3 DCN 6-0003), hereafter known as the (California, North Atlantic, Mid-percent). The average increase in Regional Study or Regional Analysis, Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of electricity prices is estimated to be 0.16 provides EPA's complete benefit Mexico) correspond to those of the percent (for the proposed rule, this assessment for the final rule. National Oceanographic and value was 0.11 percent; for the NODA National benefit estimates for this rule Atmospheric Association (NOAA) preferred option, this value was 0.17 are derived from a series of regional Fisheries. The Great Lakes region percent). studies across the country from a range includes all facilities in scope of the of waterbody types. Section XI.B Phase II rule that withdraw water from XHI. Benefits Analysis provides detail on the regional study Lakes Ontario, Erie, Michigan, Huron, A. Introduction design. Sections XII.C through XI.E of and Superior or are located on a This section presents EPA's estimates this reamble describe the methods EPA waterway with open fish passage to a of the national environmental benefits use to evaluate impingement and Great Lake and within 30 miles of the of the final section 316(b) regulations for entrainment impacts at section 316(b) Phase II existing facilities and to derive lake. The Inland region includes the Phase II existing facilities. The assessed an economic value remaining facilities that withdraw water benefits occur due to the reduction in associated with any from freshwater lakes, rivers, and such losses. Regional benefits are reservoirs. impingement and entrainment at coqling water ixtake structures affected estimated using a set of statistical weights for each in-scope facility that Based on comments on the proposal by this tilemaktiiig. lImpingenibnt and about study gaps, EPA used available were developed as part of the survey life history data to construct entrainment kills or injures large design. National benefit estimates are numbers of all life stages of aquatic obtained by summing regional benefits. representative regional life histories for organisms. By reducing the levels of groups of similar species with a impingement and entrainment, today's B. Regional Study Design common life history type and groups final rule will increase the number of In its analysis for the section 316(b) used by NOAA Fisheries for landings fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life in Phase II proposal, EPA relied on case data. Aggregation of species into groups C local aquatic ecosystems. This, in turn, studies of 19 facilities grouped by directly and indirectly improves use benefits such as those associated with waterbody type (oceans, estuaries/tidal rivers, lakes/reservoirs, and rivers/ facilitated evaluation of facility impingement and entrainment monitoring data. DCN 6-0003 provides recreational and commercial fisheries. streams) to estimate the potential a listing of the species in each life Other types of benefits, including economic benefits of reduced history group evaluated by EPA and ecological and non-use values, would impingement and entrainment. For the tables of the life history data and data also be enhanced. Section D provides an proposal analysis, EPA extrapolated sources used for each group. overview of the types and sources of estimates of impingement and To obtain regional impingement and benefits anticipated, how these benefits entrainment for each of the case study entrainment estimates, EPA are estimated, the level of benefits facilities to other facilities located on extrapolated losses from selected achieved by the final rule, and how the same waterbody type, including facilities with impingement and monetized benefits compare to costs. those in different regions. However, a entrainment data to all other facilities The analysis was based on impingement number of commenters expressed within the same region. Impingement and entrainment data from facility concern about this method of and entrainment data were extrapolated studies. Most of these studies counted extrapolation, noting that there are on the basis of operational flow, in losses of fish species only and important ecological and socioeconomic millions of gallons per day (MGD), considered only a limited subset of the differences among different regions of where MGD is the average operational species impinged and entrained. the country, even within the same flow over the period 1996-1998 as To estimate the economic benefits of waterbody type. To address this reported by facilities in response to reducing impingement and entrainment concern, EPA revised the design of its EPA's Section 316(b) Detailed at existing cooling water intake analysis to examine cooling water intake Questionnaire and Short Technical structures, all the beneficial outcomes structure impacts and regulatory Questionnaire. Operational flow at each need to be identified and, where benefits at the regional level. This facility was scaled using factors possible, quantified and assigned involved the evaluation of impingement reflecting the relative effectiveness of appropriate monetary values. Estimating and entrainment data collected by the currently in-place technologies for economic benefits is challenging ' industry for another 27 facilities in reducing impingement and entrainment. because of the many steps necessary to addition to the 19 facilities evaluated for DCN 6-0003 provides details of the link reductions in impingement and proposal (for a total of 46 facilities). extrapolation procedure. The goal of the entrainment to changes in impacted Regional results were then combined to analysis was to provide regional and fisheries and other aspects of relevant develop national estimates. national estimates, so although there aquatic ecosystems, and then to link The Agency evaluated the benefits of may be variability in the actual losses these ecosystem changes to the resulting today's rule in seven study regions (and benefits) per MGD across particular changes in quantities and values for the (North Atlantic, Mid Atlantic, South individual facilities, EPA believes that t associated environmental goods and Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, California, this method of extrapolation is a services that ultimately are linked to Great Lakes, and Inland) based on reasonable basis for developing an human welfare. The methodologies used similarities in the affected ecosystems, estimate of regional- and national-level
41656 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations benefits for the purposes of this entrainment, resulting in an (pounds of commercial harvest and rulemaking. underestimate of the number of species numbers of recreational fish and and total losses. Studies often did not shellfish that are not harvested due to C. The PhysicalImpacts of Impingement count early life stages of organisms that impingement and entrainment), and (3) - and Entrainment were hard to identify. In addition, most foregone biomass production (pounds of EPA's benefits analysis is based on studies EPA found were conducted over impinged and entrained forage species facility-provided biological monitoring 30 years ago, before activities under the that are not commercial or recreational data. Facility data consist of records of Clean Water Act improved aquatic -fishery targets but serve as valuable impinged and entrained organisms conditions. In those locations where components of aquatic food webs, sampled at intake structures. However, water quality was degraded relative to particularly as an important food supply factors such as sampling methods and current conditions, the numbers and to other aquatic species, including equipment, the number of samples diversity of fish may have been commercial and recreational species). taken, the duration of the sampling depressed during the monitoring period, Estimates of foregone fishery yield period, and the unit of time and volume resulting in low impingement and include direct and indirect losses of of intake flow used to express entrainment estimates. On the other impinged and entrained species that are impingement and entrainment, and hand, use of linear methods for harvested. Indirect losses represent the other aspects of facility sampling projecting losses to fish and shellfish in yield of these harvested species that is programs, are highly variable. The data the waterbody may overstate or lost due to losses of forage species. available covered organisms of all ages understate impacts. Nevertheless, EPA Details of the methods used for these and life stages from newly laid eggs to believes that the data from the facility analyses are provided in Chapter A5 of mature adults. Therefore, EPA studies were sufficient for developing Part A of the Regional Analysis converted sampling counts into an estimate of the relative magnitude of document. For all analyses, EPA used standardized estimates of the annual impingement and entrainment losses the impingement and entrainment numbers of fish impinged or entrained nation-wide. estimates provided by the facility and and then expressed these estimates in Using standard fishery modeling terms of metrics suitable for the techniques, 5 8 EPA constructed models assumed 100% entrainment mortality environmental assessment and that combined facility-derived based on the analysis of entrainment economic benefits analysis. impingement and entrainment counts survival studies presented in Chapter EPA notes that the facility studies with relevant life history data to derive A7 of Part A of the Regional Analysis evaluated may under or over estimate estimates of (1) age-one equivalent document. impingement and entrainment rates. For losses (the number of individuals of Exhibit XII-1 presents EPA's example, facility studies typically focus different ages impinged and entrained estimates of the current level of total on only a subset of the fish species by facility intakes expressed as age-one annual impingement and entrainment in impacted by impingement and equivalents), (2) foregone fishery yield the study regions. EXHIBIT XII-1.-TOTAL CURRENT ANNUAL IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT, BY REGION Age-one Foregone fish- Biomass pro-Region equivalents err yield duction fore-(millions) (mill ion lbs) g(omnbe California ...................................... 312.94 28.87 43.62 North Atlantic : ................. 65.70 1.26 289.12 Mid Atlantic ..................... 1,733.14 67.2 110.90 South Atlantic ........ : 342.54 18.34 28.31 Gulf of Mexico ......... , 191.23 35.81 48.12 Great Lakes ........ 319.11 3.59 19.34 Inland ........................................................................................... I..........369 3.53 122.0 Total for 554 facilities a. .................... 3,449.38 164.97 717.07
&National totals are sample-weighted and Include Hawaii. Hawaii benefits are calculated based on average loss per MGD in North Atlantic, Mid Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, California and the total Intake flow In Hawaii.
Exhibit XII-2 presents EPA's reductions associated with the rule, by estimates of annual combined region. impingement and entrainment 55 Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant Operations on ( L interpretation of biological statistics of fish London and New York.; Quinn, T.J., IL end R.B. Aquatic Communities. Final Report. Report number
-%_'populations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Deris. 1999. Quantitative Fish Dynamics. Oxford TR-112013.
Bulletin 191: Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters. 1992. University Press, Oxford and New York: Dixon, Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Choice, D.A. 1999. Catalog of Assessment Methods for
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 41657 EXHIBIT XII-2.-REDUCTIONS IN ANNUAL IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT, BY REGION Age-one Foregone fish- Biomass pro-duction fore-Region equivalents ery yield aone (millions) (million Ibs) (million Ibs) Califomia .66.39 6.10 9.19 North Atlantic .. 19.34 0.37 8428 Mid Atlantic ..... , 846.37 34.28 54.66 South Atlan.ic 76.67 5.31 6.31 Gulf of Mexico 89.55 13.84 16.50 Great Lakes.159.52 1.73 8.51 Inland ....................................................... I.............................................................................. 116.83 : 1.06 20.90 Total for 554 faclitiesa 1,420.20 64.92 217.09
*National totals are sample-weighted and Include Hawaii. Hawaii losses are estimates based on average loss rates per MGD at mainland coastal facilities and the total intake flow of the Hawaii facilities.
D. NationalBenefits of Rule values resulting from improved fishing individuals to pay for the protection of
- 1. Overview opportunities due to reductions in fish based on a sense of altruism, impingement and entrainment. For the stewardship, bequest, or vicarious Economic benefits of today's rule can remaining three study regions (Inland, consumption (non-use benefits). To be broadly defined according to North Atlantic, and South Atlantic), estimate non-use benefits from reducing categories of goods and services EPA used secondary nonmarket losses to forage species, and landed and provided by the species affected by valuation data (e.g., benefits transfer of :ur-landed commercial and recreational impingement and entrainment at nonmarket valuation studies of the species, EPA explored benefits transfer cooling water intake structures (CWIS). value of recreational angling). Because from nonmarket valuation studies of The first category includes benefits that methodologies for estimating use values non-use values of aquatic ecosystem pertain to the use (direct or indirect) of for recreational and commercial species improvements. EPA also explored the the affected fishery resources. The direct are well developed, and some of these transfer of secondary nonmarket use benefits can be further categorized species have been extensively studied, valuation data to value losses of according to whether or not affected these values are relatively threatened and endangered species.
goods and services are traded in the straightforward to estimate. Sections These efforts generated evidence that market. The "direct use" benefits of the XII.D.3 and XII.D.4 briefly summarize non-use values could occur as a result 316(b) regulation include both "market" EPA's approaches to measuring direct of this rule, but EPA was unable, by the commodities (e.g., commercial fisheries) use benefits. A detailed description of time of publication of this final rule, to and "nonmarket" goods (e.g., these approaches can be found in the estimate reliable valuations for the recreational angling). Indirect use 316(b) Regional Analysis document. resource changes associated with the benefits also can be linked to either Estimating benefits from reduced expected results of this rule. EPA also market or nonmarket goods and impingement and entrainment of forage investigated additional approaches to services-for example, the manner in species is more challenging because illustrate public willingness-to-pay for which reduced impingement- and these species are not targeted directly by potential aquatic resource entrainment-related losses of forage commercial or recreational anglers and improvements that might occur because species leads through the aquatic have no direct use values that can be of this rule, but the Agency did not have ecosystem food web to enhance the observed in markets or inferred from sufficient time to fully develop and biomass of species targeted for revealed actions of anglers. To estimate analyze these non-use benefit commercial (market) and recreational indirect use benefits from reducing approaches for the final rule. Section (nonmarket) uses. The second category impingement and entrainment losses to XII.D.5 briefly summarizes the includes benefits that are independent forage species, EPA used a simple approaches EPA considered for of any current or anticipated use of the trophic transfer model that translates measuring non-use benefits. Additional resource; these are known as "non-use" changes in impingement and details about all approaches explored or "passive use" values. Non-use entrainment losses of forage fish into for estimating benefits can be found in benefits reflect human values associated changes in the harvest of commercial Section XII.F and the 316(b) Regional with existence and bequest motives. and recreational species that are subject Analysis document (DCN 6-0003). The economic value of benefits is to impingement and entrainment (i.e., As a consequence of the challenges estimated using a range of valuation not the whole food web). Agency associated with estimating benefits, methods, with the specific approach benefits estimates are based on some benefits are described only being dependent on the type of benefit projected numbers of age 1 equivalent qualitatively, because it was not category, data availability, and other fish saved under the final rule. feasible, by the time of publication of suitable factors. Commercial fishery Neither forage species nor the this final rule, to derive reliable benefits are valued using market data. unlanded portion of recreational and quantitative estimates of the degree of Recreational angling benefits are valued commercial species have direct uses; impact and/or the monetary value of using a combination of primary and therefore, they do not have direct use reducing those impacts at the national secondary research methods. For four of values. Their potential value to the level. the seven study regions, EPA developed public is derived from two alternative The remaining parts of Section XII.D original Random Utility Models (RUM) sources: their indirect use as both food below discuss details about discounting () of recreational angling behavior to and breeding population for those fish future benefits, valuation of recreational estimate changes in recreational fishing harvested; and, the willingness of fishing, valuation of commercial fishing,
41658 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations potential non-use benefits, and 3. Recreational Fishing Valuation model coefficients estimated by Hicks et estimation of national benefits. a. Recreational fishery methods for a]. (1999) (DCN 4-1603). marine regions. For the five coastal To estimate the total economic value
- 2. Timing of Benefits to recreational anglers for changes in regions, EPA's analysis of recreational
< )Discounting refers to the economic catch rates resulting from changes in (' conversion of future benefits and costs fishing benefits from reduced impingement and entrainment is based impingement and entrainment in a to their present values, accounting for given region, EPA multiplied the total the fact that individuals tend to value on region-specific random utility number of fishing days for a given future outcomes less than comparable models (RUM) of recreational anglers' region by the estimated per-day welfare near-term outcomes. Discounting is behavior, combined with benefit gain due to the regulation. Because of important when benefits and costs occur function transfer. EPA developed data limitations, EPA was unable to in different years, and enables a original RUM models for four of the five estimate participation models for all comparison of benefits to costs across coastal regions: California, the Mid- regions. For the California and Great different time periods. Atlantic, the South Atlantic, and the Lakes regions, the welfare estimates For today's rule, benefits are Gulf of Mexico. For the North Atlantic presented in the following section are discounted to calculate benefits in a region, EPA used a model developed by based on the estimates of baseline manner that makes the timing the National Marine Fisheries Service recreational fishing participation comparable to the annualized cost (NMFS) by Hicks et a). (Hicks, provided by NOAA Fisheries. Thus, estimates. The benefits of today's rule Steinback, Gautam, and Thunberg, 1999. welfare estimates for these two regions are estimated as the typical benefits Volume II: The Economic Value of New presented in today's rule do not account expected once the rule takes effect. The England and Mid-Atlantic Sportfishing for changes in recreational fishing need to discount arises from two in 1994-DCN 5-1271). Chapter All of participation due to the improved different delays in the realization of the Regional Analysis document quality of the fishing sites; however, benefits. provides detailed discussion of the thes changes are likely to be small First, facilities will not immediately methodology used in EPA's RUM based on results for other regions.
- achieve compliance. Facilities-will face analysis. For the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, regulatory requirements once the rule The regional recreational fishing South-Atlantic, and Gulf regions, takes effect, but it will take time to make studies use information on recreational estimates are based on an average of the required changes. EPA has assumed, anglers' behavior to infer anglers' baseline and predicted increased fishing for the purpose of estimating benefits, economic value for the quality of fishing days. For these regions, EPA also that it will take one year from the date in the case study areas. The models' estimated a trip frequency model, which when installation costs are incurred by main assumption is that anglers will get captures the effect of changes in catch a facility until the required cooling greater satisfaction, and thus greater rates on the number of fishing trips water technology is operational. To economic value, from sites where the (t -account for this lag, all benefits are discounted by one year from the date catch rate is higher due to reduced impingement and entrainment, all else taken per recreational season.
- b. Recreational Fishery methods for the Great Lakes region. For the Great
_ when costs are incurred. being equal. This benefit may occur in Lakes region, EPA developed an original Second, an additional time lag will two ways: first, an angler may get RUM model for the state of Michigan, result between the time of technology greater enjoyment from a given fishing and transferred benefits to other Great implementation and resulting increased trip when catch rates are higher, and Lakes states. EPA's RUM model for the fishery yields. This lag stems from the thus get a greater value per trip; second, Great Lakes used data from the 2001 fact that one or more years may pass anglers may take more fishing trips f Michigan Recreational Anglers survey, between the time an organism is spared when catch rates are higher, resulting in and information on historical catch rates impingement and entrainment and the greater overall value for fishing in the at Michigan fishing sites on Lakes time of its ultimate harvest. For region. EPA modeled an angler's Michigan, Huron, Superior, and Erie example, a larval fish spared from decision to visit a site as a function of provided by the Michigan Department entrainment (in effect, at age 0) may be site-specific cost, fishing trip quality, of Natural Resources (MDNR, 2002, caught by a recreational angler at age 3, and additional site attributes such as DCN 4-1863). For the Great Lakes, EPA meaning that a 3-year time lag arises presence of boat launching facilities or estimated a single RUM site choice between the incurred technology cost fish stocking at the site. model for boat, shore, and ice-fishing and the realization of the estimated The Agency used 5-year historical modes. To transfer values from the recreational benefit. Likewise, if a 1-year catch rates per hour of fishing as a Michigan study to other Great Lakes old fish is spared from impingement measure of baseline fishing quality in states, EPA used harvest information and is then harvested by a commercial the regional studies. Catch rate is one of from state-level anglers' creel surveys, waterman at age 2, there is a 1-year lag the most important attributes of a and participation information from the between the incurred cost and the fishing site from the angler's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Annual subsequent commercial fishery benefit. perspective. This attribute is also a Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and To account for this growth period, EPA- policy variable of concern because catch Wildlife-Related Recreation (U.S. applied discounting by species groups rate is a function of fish abundance, Department of the Interior, 2001, DCN in each regional study. EPA conducted which is affected by fish mortality 1-3082-BE). this analysis using two alternative caused by impingement and c. Recreational fishery methods for discount rates as recommended by entrainment. the Inland region. For the Inland region, OMB: 3% and 7%. The Agency notes The Agency used the estimated model EPA used a benefit transfer approach to that discounting was applied to coefficients in conjunction with the value post regulation recreational recreational and commercial fishing estimated changes in impingement and impingement and entrainment losses. benefits only. Non-use benefits are entrainment in a given region to EPA conducted this analysis for five K< Independent of fish age and size and, thus start as soon as impingement and estimate per-day welfare gain to recreational anglers due to the final rule. aggregate species groups: panfish, perch, walleye/pike, bass, and anadromous entrainment ceases. For the North Atlantic region, EPA used gamefish. The panfish group includes
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday. July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41659 species commonly classified as panfish, losses that would be prevented by the percent discount rate and a 7 percent except perch, and includes species that regulation to calculate the value of post discount rate to reflect the fact that fish did not clearly fit in one of the other regulation recreational fishing benefits. must grow to a certain size before they groups. Using estimates collected from d. Results. As noted earlier in this will be caught by recreational anglers ten studies, the Agency calculated section, anglers will get greater and to account for the one-year lag - (I) measures of central tendency for the satisfaction, and thus greater economic between the date when installation costs marginal value of catching one value, from sites where the catch rate is are incurred and technology additional fish for each species group. higher, all else being equal. Decreasing implementation. For detail see Chapter H4, of the impingement and entrainment increases the number of fish available to be caught The greatest recreational fishing Regional Study Document, DCN 6-0003. benefits from reducing impingement by recreational anglers, thus increasing The mean marginal value per angler welfare. and entrainment losses occur in the additional fish caught is $2.55 for Exhibit XJU-3 shows the benefits that Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Great panfish, $0.38 for perch, $6.54 for would result from reducing Lakes regions. For more detailed walleye/pike, $4.18 for bass, and $11.95 impingement and entrainment losses by information on the models and results for anadromous gamefish. EPA installing cooling water intake for each region, see Chapter 4 in Parts combined these marginal values per fish technology under the final regulation. B through H of the 316(b) Regional with estimates of recreational fishing These values were discounted at a 3 Analysis document. EXHIBIT XII-3.-POST REGULATION RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT LOSSES Baseline rec- Reduction in rec- Benefits of final rule (million 2002$) R reational fishery reational fishery Region . losses (number of losses (numnber of 0%/ Discount rate 3% Discount rate 70% Discount rate California.5,787,661 1,735,668 $3.01 $2.45 $1.91 North Atlantic ....... .. 916,396 267,536 1.59 1.38 1.17 Mid Atlantic ......... .............. 20,468,540 9,990,333 47.69 43.37 38.48 South Atlantic .......... ............. 4,314,983 985,769 7A9 6.85 6.17 Gulf of Mexico . ................................ 3,854,850 1,201,806 6.79 6.18 5.53 Great Lakes ................................... . 4,743,384 2,283,896 15.51 13.95 12.21 Inland ...... ................. 3,188,097 930,610 3.34 2.98 2.58 Total for 554 facilitiesa ................... 44,513,814 17,908,496 87.83 79.34 69.96 National totals are sample-weighted and include Hawaii. Hawaii benefits are calculated based on average loss per MGD In North Atlantic, Mid Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, California and the total intake flow In Hawaii. ( The total for all regions, discounted at 4. Commercial Fishing Valuation attributable to the rule. This three percent, is $79.3 million; and the Reductions in impingement and methodology was applied in each region total for all regions, discounted at seven entrainment at cooling water intake in the final analysis: the North Atlantic, percent, is $70.0 million. structures are expected to benefit the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of
- e. Limitations and uncertainties. commercial fishing industry. The effect Mexico, California, Great Lakes, and Because of the uncertainties and is straightforward: reducing the number Inland. Additional detail on the assumptions of EPA's analysis, the of fish killed will increase the number methods EPA used for this analysis can estimates of benefits presented in this of fish available for harvest. Measuring be found in Chapter A10 "Methods For section may understate the benefits to the benefits of this effect is less Estimating Commercial Fishing straightforward. The next section Benefits" in the Regional Analysis recreational anglers. In estimating the Document.
benefits of improved recreational summarizes the methods EPA used to angling for the California and Great estimate benefits to the commercial The process used to estimate regional fishing sector. The following section losses and benefits to commercial Lakes regions, the Agency assigned a fisheries is as follows: monetary benefit only to the increases presents the estimated commercial in consumer surplus for the baseline fishing benefits for each region. 1. Estimate losses to commercial number of fishing days. This approach a. Methods. EPA estimated harvest (in pounds of fish) attributable omits the portion of recreational fishing commercial benefits by first estimating to impingement and entrainment under the value of total losses under current current conditions. The basic approach benefits that arise when improved impingement and entrainment is to apply a linear stock-to-harvest conditions lead to higher levels of conditions (or the total benefits of assumption, such that if 10% of the participation. However, EPA's analysis eliminating all impingement and current commercially targeted stock of changes in recreational fishing entrainment). Then, based on review of were harvested, then 10% of the participation due to the section 316(b) the empirical literature, EPA assumed commercially targeted fish lost to regulation for other coastal regions that producer surplus is equal to 0% to impingement and entrainment would shows that the practical effect of this 40% of baseline losses. Finally, EPA also have been harvested absent omission is likely to be very small with estimated benefits by applying the impingement and entrainment The respect to the total recreational benefits estimated percentage reduction in percentage of fish harvested is based on assessment. impingement and entrainment to the data on historical fishing mortality rates. estimated producer surplus to obtain the 2.: Estimate gross revenue of lost, estimated increase in producer surplus commercial catch. The approach EPA
41660 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and-Regulations uses to estimate the value of the price changes in the markets for the 4. Estimate increase in surplus commercial catch lost due to impacted fisheries. attributable to the Phase II regulations. impingement and entrainment relies on For the regions and magnitude of Once the commercial surplus losses landings and dockside price ($/lb) as losses included in this analysis, it is associated with impingement and reported by NOAA Fisheries for the reasonable to assume no change in entrainment under baseline conditions period 1991-2001. These data are used price, which implies that the welfare have been estimated according to the to estimate the revenue of the lost approaches outlined in steps 2 and 3, change is limited to changes in producer EPA estimates the percentage reduction commercial harvest under current surplus. The change in producer surplus conditions (i.e., the increase in gross in impingement and entrainment at a revenue that would be expected if all is assumed to be equivalent to a portion regional level. impingement and entrainment impacts of the change in gross revenues, as b. Results. Exhibit XII-4 presents the were eliminated). developed under step 2. EPA assumes a estimated commercial fishing benefits
- 3. Estimate lost economic surplus. range of 0% to 40% of the gross revenue attributable to today's rule for each The conceptually suitable measure of losses estimated in step 2 as a means of region. The results reported include the benefits is the sum of any changes in estimating the change in producer total reduction in losses in pounds of producer and consumer surplus. The surplus. This is based on a review of fish, and the value of this reduction methods used for estimating the change empirical literature (restricted to only discounted at 0%, 3%, and 7%. Total in surplus depend on whether the those studies that compared producer commercial fishing benefits for the U.S.,
physical impact on the commercial surplus to gross revenue) and is applying a 3% discount rate, are ishery market appears sufficiently consistent with recommendations made estimated to range from $0 to $3.5 small such that it is reasonable to in comments on the EPA analysis at million. Applying a 7% rate they range assume there will be no appreciable proposal. from $0 to $3.5 million. EXHIBIT X1-4.-ANNUAL COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS a Current (baseline) Reduction in lost Benefits (millions of 2002$) Region lbst yield (million Ibs) 0% discount rate 3% discount rate 7% discount rate California .1. 11.5 2.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 North Atlantic .0.6 -0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Mid Atlantic .4 . 7 48.7 25.3 1.8 1.7 1.5 South Atlantic . 9 .6............9.6 3.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 Gulf of Mexico . 7 .6.............7.6 3.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 Great Lakes . 1 .6...........1.6 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 Inland U.S .n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total for 554 facilities ........... 82.8 37.0 4.1 3.5 3.0 a Benefits are upper bound benefits based on 40%/6 of gross revenue. The lower bound Is $0. b Discounted to account for lag in Implementation and lag in time required for fish lost to l&E to reach a harvestable age. Assumed It will take one year from the date when installation costs are Incurred to the date of installation. Thus, all benefits are discounted by one year from the date when installation costs are incurred. c Regional totals are unweighted. National total estimates are weighted and Include Hawaii.
- c. Limitations and uncertainties.
- EPA assumes a linear stock-to- preferences and the measurement of Some of the major uncertainties and harvest relationship (i.e., a 13% change welfare changes. According to theory, assumptions of EPA's commercial in stock would have a 13% change in use values and non-use values are fishing analysis include: landings); this may be low or high, additive," and ` *
- there is a real
- Projected changes in harvest may be depending on the condition of the possibility that ignoring non-use values under-estimated because the cumulative stocks. Region-specific fisheries could result in serious misallocation of impacts of impingement and regulations also will affect the validity resources." This statement by Freeman entrainment over time are not of the linear assumption. aptly conveys the importance of non-use considered.
- EPA assumes that NOAA Fisheries benefits outlined in EPA's own
- The analysis only includes landings data are accurate and economic valuation guidance individuals that are directly killed by complete. However, in some cases documents. A comprehensive estimate impingement and entrainment, not their prices and/or quantities may be reported of total resource value should include progeny, though given the complexities incorrectly. both use and non-use values, so that the of population dynamics, the
- EPA currently estimates that the resulting appropriate total benefit value significance of this omission is not increase in producer surplus as a result estimates may be compared to total clear. of the rule will be between 0% and 40% social cost.
- Projected changes in harvest may be of the estimated change in gross too high or too low because interactions revenues. The research used to develop It is clear that reducing impingement with other stressors are not considered. this range is not region-specific; thus the and entrainment losses of fish and
- EPA used impingement and i true value may be higher for some shellfish may result in both use and entrainment data provided by the regions and species. non-use benefits. Of the organisms facilities. While EPA used the most which are anticipated to be protected by K current data available, in some cases 5. Non-Use Benefits the section 316(b) Phase II rule, it is Lthese data are 20 years old or older. As discussed by Freeman (1993), projected that approximately 1.8 percent k Thus, they may not reflect current "Non-use values, like use values, have will eventually be harvested by conditions. their basis in the theory of individual commercial and recreational fishers and
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41661 therefore can be valued with direct use harvested animals. A percentage of EPA was unable to value the non-use valuation techniques. The Agency's these unlanded organisms become prey benefits associated with this rule. In direct use valuation does not account or serve as breeding stock in the order to provide an estimate of the for the benefits from the remaining production of those commercial and quantified (but not monetized) effects of X 98.2% of the age 1 equivalent aquatic recreational species that will eventually the rule, Exhibit XII-5 summarizes , organisms estimated to be protected be caught, therefore their indirect use information about total impingement nationally under today's rule. A portion value as biological input into the and entrainment losses, and Exhibit of the total benefits of these unharvested production process is represented in the XII-6 presents estimates of reductions commercial, recreational, and forage: estimated direct use values of the in impingement and entrainment losses species, can be derived indirectly from harvested fish. under the final rule. the estimated use values of the EXHIBIT Xl--5.-DISTRIBUTION OF BASELINE IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT Current l&E of annual age-one equivalents (millions) l&E of harvested Regiona Commercial and Harvested corm pecesas ofa per-All species (total) Forage species recreational spe- mercial and rec- f&E des reational speciesiE California .. 312.9 170.6 142.3 14.9 4.8 North Atlantic . .65.7 49.7 16.0 - 0.7 1.0 Mid Atlantic . .1,733.1 1,115.6 617.6 28.4 1.6 South Atlantic. 342.5 208.1 134.5 6.5 1.9 Gulf of Mexico . .191.2 53.5 137.8 8.1 4.2 Great Lakes . .319.1 300.8 18.3 0.5 0.2 Inland..................................................... 369.0 284.8 84.2 0.2 0.1 Total for 554 facilities .a................... 3,449.4 2,255.8 1,193.6 62.1 1.8 a Regional totals are unweighted. National total estimates are weighted and Include Hawaii. EXHIBIT XII-6.--DISTRIBUTION OF REDUCTIONS IN IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT Reductions in l&E of annual age-one equivalents (millions) Reduction In l&E of harvested spe-Region a Commercial and Harvested oem- ies as a percent-All species (total) Forage species recreational spe- mercial and rec- age of total reduc-des reational species ton In l&E i~- A California .............. .......... 66.4 36.0 30.4 3.2 4.8 North Atlantic ........... ............. 19.3 14.6 4.7 0.2 1.0 Mid Atlantic ...... 846.4 537.5 308.8 13.9 1.6 South Atlantic . .76.7 38.5 38.2 1.6 2.0 Gulf of Mexico ........................ 89.5 20.5 69.0 3.6 4.0 Great Lakes ........................ 159.5 151.7 7.8 0.2 0.1 Inland ............. .. ......... 116.8 101.2 15.7 0.1 0.1 Total for 554 facilities ..................... 1,420.2 928.9 491.3 23.7 1.7
*Regional numbers are unweighted. National totals are sample-weighted and include Hawaii.
Lack of direct use values for the as well as non-users (those who do not values are often considered more unharvested commercial, recreational use the resource) may have non-use difficult to estimate. The preferred and forage species means that EPA did values for these species. Non-use benefit technique for estimating non-use values not directly value a substantial valuation is challenging, but the is to conduct original stated preference percentage of the total age-one existence and potential importance of surveys, but benefit transfer of values equivalent impingement and non-use benefits is supported by EPA's from existing stated preference studies entrainment losses. Given that aquatic Guidelines for Preparing Economic can be considered when original studies organisms without any direct uses Analysis (EPA 240-R-00-003) and OMB are not feasible. account for the majority of cooling water Circular A-I, Regulatory Analysis, also Stated preference methods rely on intake structure losses and indirect available as Appendix D of Informing surveys, which ask people to state their valuation of these species may only Regulatory Decisions: 2003 Report to willingness-to-pay for particular represent a fraction of their total value, Congress on The Costs and Benefits of ecological improvements, such as comprehensive monetization of the Federal Regulations and Unfunded increased protection of aquatic species benefits of reduced impingement and Mandates on State, Local and Tribal or habitats with particular attributes. entrainment losses is incomplete Entities, 0MB, 2003, pp 118-165. The Agency was not able to perform an without developing a reliable estimate Market valuation approaches are used original stated preference study for this of non-use benefits. Although to estimate use benefits. The theory and regulation, so benefit transfer was individuals do not use these resources practice of nonmarket valuation is well explored as an alternative means to directly, they may value changes in developed, and typically plays a pivotal estimate non-use benefits. Benefits their status or quality. Both users role in benefit-cost analysis conducted transfer involves adapting the findings Ue (commercial and recreational fishermen) by public and private agencies. Non-use from research conducted for another
41662 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations purpose to address the policy questions benefits do not reflect reduced impacts a result, EPA explored other methods in hand. to a variety of potential ecological and for valuing threatened and endangered One of the specific benefit transfer public services that are a function, in species. Details about possible non-use C techniques explored by EPA for part, of healthy fish stocks and other benefits valuation approaches are estimation of non-use benefits in Phase organisms affected by cooling water presented in the 316(b) Regional
-II of the 316(b) rulemaking was meta intake structures. Examples of other Analysis document (DCN 6-0003).
regression analysis. Meta regressions are potential ecosystem services that may 6. National Monetized Benefits designed to statistically define the potentially be adversely affected by relationship between values and a set of impingement and entrainment losses Quantifying and monetizing reduction resource, demographic and other but which could not be monetized in impingement and entrainment losses characteristics compiled from original include: due to today's final rule is extremely primary study sources. The resulting
- Decreased numbers of ecological challenging, and the preceding sections mathematical relationship allows the keystone, rare, or sensitive species; discuss specific limitations and researcher to forecast estimates of non- . Increased numbers of exotic or uncertainties associated with estimation use values specific to the resource disruptive species that compete well in of commercial and recreational benefits changes projected to occur as a the absence of species lost to I&E; categories (presented in Exhibit XII-7),
consequence of the final rule. EPA's
- Disruption of ecological niches and and non-use benefits. National benefit Guidelines for Preparing Economic ecological strategies used by aquatic estimates are subject to uncertainties Analysis (EPA 240-R-00-003) discusses species; inherent in valuation approaches used the use of meta-analysis and notes that . Disruption of organic carbon, for assessing the three benefits this approach is the most rigorous nutrient, and energy transfer through categories. The combined effect of these benefit transfer exercise. the food web; uncertainties is of unknown magnitude The meta analysis conducted by EPA
- Decreased local biodiversity; or direction (i.e., the estimates may over for this rule identifies a set of elements
- Disruption of predator-prey or under state the anticipated national-that may influence willingness-to-pay; relationships; level benefits); however, EPA has no the analysis found both statistically
- Disruption of age class structures of data to indicate that the results for each significant and intuitive patterns that species; and benefit category are atypical or appeared to influence non-use values
- Disruption of public satisfaction unreasonable.
for water quality improvements in with a healthy ecosystem. Exhibit XII-7 presents EPA's aquatic habitats. However, the Agency The existence and potential estimates of the total monetized benefits encountered various limitations when magnitude of each of these benefits from impingement and entrainment trying to apply the meta analysis model categories is highly dependent on site- reduction of the final regulation. to this final rule, and these limitations specific factors which could not be Although EPA believes non-use benefits could not be thoroughly analyzed assessed. exist, the Agency was not able to within the publication time-frame Today's rule may help preserve monetize them. The estimated sty established for this rule. EPA therefore threatened and endangered species, but impingement and entrainment does not present estimates of non-use primary research, using stated reduction monetized benefits post values for this final rule. preference methods, and data collection regulation are $83 million (2002$) per Due to the various difficulties regarding threatened and endangered year, discounted at three percent, and associated with estimating indirect and species impacts, could not be conducted $73 million, discounted at seven non-use benefits for this rule, final for the final rule at the national level. As percent. EXHIBIT XIl-7.--
SUMMARY
OF MONETIZED SOCIAL BENEFITS [Millions; 2002$1 Total value of RI *Commercial fish- Recreational fish- monetizable im-egonI ng benefits ing benefits - ntrpinment re-ductionsb Evaluated at a 3 percent discount rate California ................................................................... $0.5 $2.5 $3.0 North Atlantic . .. . . ........ i............0.1 1.4 1.5 Mid-Atlantic .. 1 .7 43.4 45.1 South Atlantic ........ 0.2 6.9 7.1 Gulf of Mexico ........................................................... 0.7 6.2 6.9 Great Lakes .... 0.2 14.0 14.2 Inland.. ................................. 3.0 3.0 Total for 554 facilities.3.5 ..................... 5 - 79.3.5. 79.3 82.5 Evaluated at a 7 percent discount rate California .... _ 1.9 2.3 North Atlantic ........................................................................................................... 0.0 1.2 1.2 ( Mid-Atiantic. 1.5 38.5 40.0 ( Douth Atlantic ............................................................................................................. 0.2 6.2 6.4
- Gulf of Mexico ............................................................................................................ 0.6 5.5 6.1 Great Lakes ............................................................................................................... 0.2 12.2 12.4
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41663 EXHIBIT XII-7.-
SUMMARY
OF MONETIZED SOCIAL BENEFITS-Continued - [Millions; 2002$i Total value of Commercial fish- Recreational fish- monti eim- :x Region aIng benefits Ing benefits pingement and entrainment re-ductionsb Inland.....................................................................................................I.......I..................... ................ .............. 2.6 - 2.6 Total for 554 facilities ........... 3.0 70.0 73.0
- Regional benefit estimates are unweighted. National benefits are sample-weighted and include Hawaii.
bThe monetized benefits of the final rule may be significantly under-estimated due to the inability to moneftze the non-use values. E. Other Considerations 1. Cost Per Age-One Equivalent Fish the cost used for the national This section presents two additional Saved-Cost-Effectiveness Analysis comparison is the total social cost of the analyses that consider the benefits and EPA also analyzed the cost per final rule (including facility compliance costs of the final rule: (1) An analysis of organism saved as a result of costs and administrative costs). the costs per age-one equivalent fish compliance with the final rule. This Exhibit XII-8 shows that the saved (equivalent to a cost-effectiveness analysis estimates the cost-effectiveness estimated cost per age-one equivalent analysis) and (2) a break-even analysis of the rule, by study region. Organisms ranges from $0.07 in the Mid Atlantic of the minimum non-use benefits saved are measured as "age-one region to $1.46 in the nland region. At required for total annual benefits to equivalents." The costs used for the the national level, the estimated average equal total annualized costs, on a per regional comparisons are the annualized cost is $0.27 per age-one equivalent household basis. Each measure is pre-tax compliance costs incurred by saved. presented by study region. facilities subject to the final rule, and EXHIBIT XI-8.--COST PER AGE-ONE EQUIVALENT SAVED Study region
- 1Annual Stdnl
( social stmiall Age-one equiva-n2002$) lents (millions) Costage-one equivalent saved California........................ ................................................................................ $31.7 66.4 $0.48 North Atlantic ............................................................................................................ 13.3 19.3 0.69 f ) Mid Atlantic ................................................................................................................ 62.6 846.4 0.07 V South Atlantic ............................................................................................................ 9.0 76.7 0.12 Gulf of Mexico ............................................................................................................ 22.8 89.5 0.25 Great Lakes ............................................................................................................... 58.7 159.5 0.37 Inland . ,.. 170.4 116.8 1.46 Total for 554 facilities ......................................................................................... 389.4 1,420 0.27 a Regional benefit and cost estimates are unweighted; total national estimates are sample-weighted and Include Hawaii. bmce regional costs Include only annual compliance costs Incurred by facilities. The national cost includes the total social cost of the final rule (facility compliance costs and administrative costs).
- 2. Break-Even Analysis have to be in order for the final rule to pay per household per year) in order for have benefits that are equal to costs. total annual benefits to equal Due to the uncertainties of providing The break-even approach uses EPA's annualized costs. Exhibit XII-9 provides estimates of the magnitude of non-use estimated or monetized, commercial this assessment for the seven study values associated with the final rule, and recreational use benefits for the rule regions. The exhibit shows benefits this section provides an alternative and subtracts them from the estimated values using a 3 percent social discount approach of evaluating the potential annual compliance costs incurred by rate. Use of a 7% discount rate would relationship between benefits and costs. facilities subject to the final rule. The produce somewhat higher breakeven The approach used here applies a resulting "net cost" enables one to work numbers. Section XIlD.5 presents "break-even" analysis to identify what backwards to estimate what the undiscounted benefits and benefits the unmonetized non-use values would unmonetized non-use values would discounted using a 7 percent discount need to be (in terms of willingness-to- rate.
EXHIBIT XII-9.-IMPLICIT NON-USE VALUE-BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS [Million; 2002$) Annual non- Annual break-use benefits even non-use Use benefits b I Annual social Numberof Study regions* . cost - necessary to households VWTP per I_______break even California .... North Atlantic .......................................................................
$3.0 1.4
$31.7 13.3 d.s
$28.7 11.9 (mlins) a 8.1 3.9 household f
$3.55 3.02 U'_
4166;4 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations I EXHIBIT XI -9.-IMPLICIT NON-USE VALUE-BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS-continued [Million; 2002$] Annual non- Number of Annual break-Study region
- Use befifsben Anuaotc c use benefits necessary to hoseholds ouseholdse even WrPnon-use per break even d-s (ilin~ householdf Mid Atlantic ........ 45.0 62.6 17.5 9.6 1.82 South Atlantic ..................................... 7.1 9.0 1.9 3.8 0.50 Gulf of Mexico ....... 6.9 22.8 15.9 5.4 2.92 Great Lakes .... 14.1 58.7 44.6 8.6 5.17 Inland ..................................... 3.0 170.4 167.4 20.9 8.01 Total for 554 facilities ............ . 82.9 389.4 306.5 60.4 5.07 a Regional benefit and cost estimates are unweighted; total national estimates are sample-weighted and include Hawaii.
b Benefits are discounted using a 3 percent discount rate. regional costs indude only ,The annual compliance costs incurred by facilities. The national cost includes the total social cost of the final rule (facility compliance costs and administrative costs). d Annualized compliance costs minus annual use benefits. Millions of households, Incuding anglers fishing In the region and households In abutting counties. From U.S. Census 2000 (BLS): htp.V/ factfinder.census.gov. fDollars per household per year that, when added to use benefits, would yield a total annual benefit (use plus non-use) equal to the annualized costs.
*Non-use benefits may also Include unmonetized use benefits, i.e., Improvements in bird watching.
As shown in Exhibit XII-9,. for total 1. Have an annual effect on the distinct types of information collection annual benefits to equal total economy of $100 million or more or as part of the NPDES renewal annualized costs, non-use values per - adversely affect in a material way the application. In general, the information household would have to be $0.50 in economy, a sector of the economy, will be used to identify which of the the South Atlantic region and $8.01 in productivity, competition, jobs, the requirements in today's final rule apply the Inland region. At the national level, environment, public health or safety, or to the existing facility, how the existing the annual willingness-to-pay per State, local, or Tribal governments or facility will meet those requirements, affected household would have to be communities; and whether the existing facility's
$5.07 for total annual benefits to equal 2. Create a serious inconsistency or cooling water intake structure reflects total annualized costs. otherwise interfere with an action taken the best technology available for While this approach of backing out or planned by another agency; minimizing adverse environmental the "break-even" non-use value per 3. Materially alter the budgetary impact. Categories of data required by household does not answer the question impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, today's final rule follow.
of what non-use values might actually or loan programs or the rights and
- Source waterbody data for be for the final rule, these results do obligations of recipients thereof, or determining appropriate requirements frame the question for policy-making 4. Raise novel legal or policy issues to apply to the facility, evaluating decisions. The break-even approach arising out of legal mandates, the ambient conditions, and characterizing poses the question: "Is the true per President's priorities, or the principles potential for impingement and household willingness-to-pay for the set forth in the Executive Order. entrainment of all life stages of fish and non-use amenities (existence and Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined shellfish by the cooling water intake bequest) associated with the final rule structure; likely to be greater or less than the that this rule is a "significant regulatory
. Intake structure and cooling water "breakeven" benefit levels displayed in action." As such, this action was system data, consisting of intake Exhibit XII-9?" Unfortunately, the submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or structure design, cooling water system existing body of empirical research is operational data and relationship of inadequate to answer this question on recommendations will be documented each intake to the cooling water system, behalf of the nation as a whole, but EPA in the public record. and a facility water balance diagram, to is providing the analysis to aid policy B. PaperworkReduction Act determine appropriate requirements and makers and the public in forming their The Office of Management and Budget characterize potential for impingement own judgment. (OMB) has approved the information and entrainment of all life stages of fish XIII. Statutory and Executive Order collection requirements contained in and shellfish; Reviews this rule under the provisions of the
- Information on design and Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. construction technologies implemented A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB to ensure compliance with applicable Planning and Review control number 2060.02, or DCN 6- requirements set forth in today's final Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 0001. Compliance with the applicable rule; and 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency information collection requirements
- Information on supplemental must determine whether a regulatory imposed under this final rule (see restoration measures proposed for use action is "significant" and therefore §§ 122.21(r), 125.95, 125.96, 125.97, with design and construction subject to OMB review and the 125.98, 125.99) is mandatory. Existing technologies or alone to minimize r requirements of the Executive Order. facilities are required to perform several adverse environmental impact.
'\L jThe Order defines a "significant data-gathering activities as part of the In addition to the information A regulatory action" as one that is likely permit renewal application process. requirements of the permit renewal to result in a rule that may: Today's final rule requires several application, NPDES permits normally
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131IFriday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations ;41665 specify monitoring and reporting considered in establishing the -today's rule. Additional information requirements to be met by the permitted performance standards or because costs collection requirements will occur after entity. Existing facilities that fall within are significantly greater than the this initial three-year period as existing the scope of this final rule would be benefits of complying with the facilities continue to be issued permit required to perform biological performance standards. These facilities renewals and such requirements will be ( ) monitoring for at least two years, and as must perform a comprehensive cost counted in a subsequent infornation required by the Director, to demonstrate evaluation study and submit a site- collection request. EPA does not compliance. Additional ambient water specific technology plan characterizing consider the specific'data that would be quality monitoring may also be required the design and construction collected under this final rule to be of facilities depending on the technologies, operational measures and/ confidential business information. specifications of their permits. The or restoration measures they have However, if a respondent does consider facility is expected to analyze the results selected. In addition, facilities that this information to be confidential, the from its monitoring efforts and provide request a site-specific determination respondent may request that such these results in a bi-annual status report because of costs significantly greater information be treated as confidential. to the permitting authority. Finally, than the benefits must also perform a All confidential data will be handled in facilities are required to maintain valuation of the monetized benefits of accordance with 40 CFR 122.7,40 CFR records of all submitted documents, reducing impingement mortality and Part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part supporting materials, and monitoring entrainment and an assessment of non- m, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. results for at least three years. (Note that monetized benefits. Site-specific Burden means the total time, effort, or the Director may require more frequent determinations are voluntary. Since financial resources expended by persons reporting and that records be kept for a facilities would choose site-specific to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose longer period to coincide with the life determinations only if other alternatives or provide information to or for a of the NPDES permit.) are more costly, EPA has not assessed a Federal agency. This includes the time All facilities carry out the activities facility burden for these activities; needed to review instructions; develop, necessary to fulfill the general however, EPA has incorporated burden acquire, install, and utilize technology information collection requirements. into the activities that the Director will and systems for the purposes of The estimated burden includes perform in reviewing site-specific collecting, validating, and verifying developing a water balance diagram that information. information, processing and can be used to identify the proportion The total average annual burden of maintaining information, and disclosing of intake water used for cooling, make- the information collection requirements and providing information; adjust the up, and process water. Facilities will associated with today's final rule is existing ways to comply with any also gather data (as required by the estimated at 1,700,392 hours. The previously applicable instructions and compliance alternative selected) to annual average reporting and record requirements; train personnel to be able calculate the reduction in impingement; keeping burden for the collection of to respond to a collection of mortality and entrainment of all life information by facilities responding to information; search data sources; stages of fish and shellfish that would the section 316(b) Phase II existing complete and review the collection of K) be achieved by the technologies and facility final rule is estimated to be information; and transmit or otherwise operational measures they select. The 5,428 hours per respondent (i.e.,, an disclose the information. burden estimates include sampling, annual average of 1,595,786 hours of An Agency may not conduct or assessing the source waterbody, burden divided among an anticipated sponsor, and a person is not required to estimating the magnitude of annual average of 294 facilities). The respond to a collection of information, impingement mortality and Director reporting and record keeping unless it displays a currently valid OMB entrainment, and reporting results in a burden for the review, oversight, and control number. The OMB control comprehensive demonstration study. administration of the rule is estimated numbers for EPA's regulations are listed For some facilities, the burden also to average 2,615 hours per respondent in 40 CFR Part 9. EPA is amending the includes conducting a pilot study to (i.e., an annual average of 104,606 hours table in 40 CFR Part 9 of currently evaluate the suitability of the of burden divided among an anticipated approved OMB control numbers for technologies and operational measures 40 States on average per year). various regulations to list the based on the species that are found at Respondent activities are separated information requirements contained in the site. into those activities associated with the this final rule. Some of the facilities (those choosing NPDES permit application and those to use restoration measures to maintain activities associated with monitoring C. RegulatoryFlexibilityAct fish and shellfish) will need to prepare and reporting after the permit is issued. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), a plan documenting the restoration The reason for this is that the permit as amended by the Small Business measures they implement and how they cycle is every five years, while Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of demonstrate that the restoration Information Collection Requests (ICRs) 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., measures are effective. Restoration is a must be renewed every three years. generally requires an agency to prepare voluntary alternative. Since facilities Therefore, the application activities a regulatory flexibility analysis of any would most likely choose restoration occur only once per facility during an rule subject to notice and comment only if other alternatives are more costly ICR approval period, and so they are rulemaking requirements under the or infeasible, EPA has not assessed considered one-time burden for the Administrative Procedure Act or any facility burden for this activity. purpose of this ICR. By contrast, the other statute unless the agency certifies However, burden estimates have been monitoring and reporting activities that that the rule will not have a significant included for the Director's review of occur after issuance of the permit occur economic impact on a substantial restoration activities. on an annual basis. The burden and number of small entities. Small entities it Some facilities may choose to request costs are for the information collection, include small businesses, small a site-specific determination of best reporting, and recordkeeping organizations, and small governmental technology available because of costs requirements for the three-year period jurisdictions. For the purposes of U significantly greater than those EPA beginning with the effective date of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
41666 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations small entities, small entity is defined as statement, including a cost-benefit 2008. Thus, EPA has determined that (1) A small business according to RFA analysis, for proposed and final rules this rule contains a Federal mandate default definitions for small business with "Federal mandates" that may that may result in expenditures of $100 (based on Small Business result in expenditures to State, local, million or more for State, local, and k..)jAdministration (SBA) size standards); and Tribal governments, in the Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
- (2) a small governmental jurisdiction aggregate, or to the private sector, of the private sector in any one year.
that is a government of a city, county, $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a town, school district or special district Before promulgating an EPA rule for written statement under § 202 of the with a population of less than 50,000; which a written statement is needed, UMRA, which is summarized as and (3) a small organization that is any section 205 of the UMRA generally follows. See Economic and Benefits not-for-profit enterprise which is requires EPA to identify and consider a Analysis, Chapter B5, UMRA Analysis, independently owned and operated and reasonable number of regulatory for detailed information. is not dominant in its field. alternatives and adopt the least costly, After considering the economic most cost-effective, or least burdensome 1. Summary of Written Statement impacts of today's final rule on small alternative that achieves the objectives a. Authorizing Legislation entities, I certify that this action will nort of the rule. The provisions of section This final rule is issued under the have a significant economic impact on 205 do not apply when they are a substantial number of small entities. authority of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, inconsistent with applicable law. 308, 316, 401, 402, 501, and 510 of the This final rule applies to existing power Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to producing facilities that employ a Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251, adopt an alternative other than the least 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1326, 1341, cooling water intake structure and are costly, most cost-effective, or least design to withdraw 50 million gallons 1342, 1361, and 1370. This rule partially burdensome alternative if the fulfills the obligations of the U.S. per day (MGD) or more from waters of Administrator publishes with the final the United States for cooling purposes. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule an explanation why that alternative under a consent decree in Riverkeeper, EPA expects this final rule to regulate was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 25;small entities that own electric Inc. et al. v. Whitman, United States any regulatory requirements that may District Court, Southern District of New generators. We estimate that 17 of the significantly or uniquely affect small small entities are governmental York, No. 93 Civ. 0314. See section m governments, including Tribal of this preamble for detailed jurisdictions (i.e., 16 municipalities and governments, it must have developed one political subdivision), two are information on the legal authority of under section 203 of the UMRA a small this regulation. private businesses (i.e., one nonutility government agency plan. The plan must and one investor-owned entity), and six provide for notifying potentially b. Cost-Benefit Analysis are not-for-profit enterprises (i.e., rural affected small governments, enabling electric cooperative). The final rule is expected to have total officials of affected small governments annualized pre-tax (social) costs of K Of the 25 small entities, one entity is to have meaningful and timely input in estimated to incur annualized post-tax $389.2 million (2002$), including direct the development of EPA regulatory costs incurred by facilities and compliance costs of greater than three percent of revenues; eight are estimated proposals with significant implementation costs incurred by State intergovernmental mandates, and and Federal governments. The total use to incur compliance costs of between one and three percent of revenues; and informing, educating, and advising benefits of the rule are estimated to be small governments on compliance with $82.9 million. EPA was not able to 16 small entities are estimated to incur compliance costs of less than one regulatory requirements. estimate the monetary value of non-use percent of revenues. Eleven small EPA estimates the total annualized benefits resulting from the rule, entities are estimated to incur no costs (post-tax) costs of compliance for although the Agency believes non-use other than permitting and monitoring facilities subject to the final rule to be benefits may be significant. Thus, the costs. $249.5 million (2002$), of which $216.3 total social costs exceed the total use Although this final rule will not have million is incurred by the private sector benefits of the rule by $306.3 million, (including investor-owned utilities, and the benefit-cost ratio, calculated by a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, nonutilities, and rural electric dividing total use benefits by total social EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the cooperatives) and $23.1 million is costs, is 0.2. EPA notes that these impact of this rule on small entities. incurred by State and local governments analyses are based on a comparison of EPA has divided implementation of that operate in-scope facilities.he a partial measure of benefits with a section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act Additionally, permitting authorities complete measure of costs; therefore, (CWA) into three phases where the incur $4.1 million to administer the the results must be interpreted with majority of small entities will be rule, including labor costs to write caution. For a more detailed comparison addressed in Phase HI. Under the Phase permits and to conduct compliance of the costs and benefits of the final EI rule, EPA will convene a SBREFA monitoring and enforcement activities. rule, refer to section XII.E of this panel that will evaluate impacts to small EPA estimates that the highest preamble. entities. undiscounted post-tax cost incurred by EPA notes that States may be able to the private sector in any one year is E: use existing sources of financial D. Unfunded MandatesReform Act approximately $419.1 million in 2009. assistance to revise and implement the Title II of the Unfunded Mandates The highest undiscounted cost incurred final rule. Section'106 of the Clean Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public by the government sector in any one Water Act authorizes EPA to award Law 104-4, establishes requirements for year is approximately $43.5 million in grants to States, Tribes, intertribal Federal agencies to assess the effects of consortia, and interstate agencies for (' --their regulatory actions on State, local, 591n addition. 14 facilities owned by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). a Federal entity, incur administering programs for the and Tribal governments and the private $10.1 million in compliance costs. The costs prevention, reduction, and elimination A sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, incurred by the Federal government are not of water pollution. These grants may be EPA generally must prepare a written included in this section. used for various activities to develop
Federal Register/IVol. 69, No. 131/ Friday, July 9, 2004/ Rules and Regulations416 41667 and carry out a water pollution control CWA that the location, design, E. Executive Order13132: Federalism program, including permitting, construction, and capacity of cooling Executive Order 13132, entitled monitoring, and enforcement. Thus, water intake structures reflect the best "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, State and Tribal NPDES permit technology available for minimizing 1999), requires EPA to develop an programs represent one type of State program that can be funded by section 106 grants. adverse environmental impact, and it is economically practicable. EPA believes the final rule reflects the most cost-accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State Q and local officials in the development of
- c. Macro-Economic Effects effective and flexible approach among regulatory policies that have federalism the options considered. By providing implications." "Policies that have EPA estimates that this regulation will five compliance alternatives the final not have an effect on the national federalism implications" is defined in rule offers Phase H existing facilities a the Executive Order to include economy, including productivity, high degree of flexibility in selecting the economic growth, employment and job most cost-effective approach to meeting regulations that have "substantial direct creation, and international section 316(b) requirements. Under the effects on the States, on the relationship competitiveness of U.S. goods and rule, these facilities can demonstrate between the national government and services. Macroeconomic effects on the that existing flow or CWIS technologies the States, or on the distribution of economy are generally not considered to fulfill section 316(b), identify design power and responsibilities among the be measurable unless the total economic and control technologies, and/or use various levels of government."
impact of a rule reaches at least 0.25 This final rule does not have operational measures or restoration federalism implications. It will not have percent to 0.5 percent of Gross Domestic measures to fulfill the rule Product (GDP). In 2002, U.S. GDP was requirements. The final rule also substantial direct effects on the States,
$10.4 trillion (2002$), according to the ensures that any applicable on the relationship between the national U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thus, in requirements are economically government and the States, or on the order to be considered measurable, the practicable through the inclusion of the distribution of power and final rule would have to generate costs site-specific compliance alternative at responsibilities among the various of at least $26 billion to $52 billion. § 125.94(a)(5). EPA further notes that the levels of government; as specified in Since EPA estimates the final rule will compliance alternative specified in Executive Order 13132. Rather, this rule generate total annual pre-tax costs of § 125.94(a)(4) and 125.99(a) and (b) was would result in minimal administrative only $389.2 million, the Agency does included in part to provide additional costs on States that have an authorized not believe that the final rule will have flexibility to Phase II existing facilities NPDES program; would result in an effect on the national economy. as well as to reduce the burden of minimal costs to States and local determining, implementing, and government entities that own facilities
- d. Summary of State, Local, and Tribal subject to the regulation; it maintains Government Input administering section 316(b) requirements among all relevant parties. the existing relationship between the rev EPA consulted with State Finally, the Agency believes that the national government and the States in governments and representatives of rule extends additional flexibility to the administration of the NPDES local governments in developing the States by providing that where a State program; and it preserves the existing regulation. The outreach activities are has adopted alternative regulatory distribution of power and discussed in section In of this preamble. requirements that achieve responsibilities among various levels of environmental performance comparable government. Thus, Executive Order
- e. Least Burdensome Option 13132 does not apply to this rule.
EPA considered and analyzed several to that required under the rule, the Administrator will approve such The national cooling water intake alternative regulatory options to structure requirements will be determine the best technology available alternative requirements. implemented through permits issued for minimizing adverse environmental 2. Impact on Small Governments under the NPDES program. Forty-five impact. These regulatory options are EPA has determined that this rule States and the Virgin Islands are discussed in the proposed rule at 67 FR contains no regulatory requirements that currently authorized pursuant to section 17154-17168, as well as in section VII might significantly or uniquely affect 402(b) of the CWA to implement the of this preamble. These options small governments. EPA estimates that NPDES program. In States not included a range of technology-based 17 of the 62 government-owned authorized to implement the NPDES approaches (e.g., reducing intake flow to facilities subject to the final rule are program, EPA issues NPDES permits. a level commensurate with the use of a owned by small governments (i.e., Under the CWA, States are not required closed-cycle cooling system for all governments with a population of less to become authorized to administer the facilities; facilities located on certain than 50,000). The total annualized post- NPDES program. Rather, such waterbody types; facilities located on tax compliance cost for all small authorization (and potential funding to certain waterbody types that withdraw a government-owned facilities incurring support administration) is available to specified percentage of flow; and the costs under the final rule is $5.4 States if they operate their programs in use of impingement and entrainment million, or approximately $316,000 per a manner consistent with section 402(b) controls at all facilities). EPA also facility. The highest annualized and applicable regulations. Generally, included consideration of at least four compliance costs for a small these provisions require that State distinct site-specific options, including government-owned facility is $1.3 NPDES programs include requirements several proposed by industry. As million. These costs are lower than the that are as stringent as Federal program discussed in detail in section VII., EPA corresponding costs for large requirements. States retain the ability to did not select these options because governments and private entities. EPA implement requirements that are ultimately they are not the most cost- therefore concludes that these costs do broader in scope or more stringent than effective among the options that fulfill not significantly or uniquely affect small Federal requirements. (See section 510 the requirements of section 316(b). EPA governments, and that today's rule is selected the final rule because it meets not subject to the requirement of section the requirement of section 316(b) of the 203 of UMRA. of the CWA). EPA expects an average annual burden of 104,606 hours with total average annual cost of $4.8 million 0J)
41668 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations for States to collectively administer this F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation the planned rule on children, and rule during the first three years after and CoordinationWith Indian Tribal explain why the planned regulation is promulgation. Governments preferable to other potentially effective Executive Order 13175, entitled and reasonably feasible alternatives t .EPA has identified 62 Phase II "Consultation and Coordination with considered by the Agency. Q_ existing facilities that are owned by Executive Order 13405 does not apply State or local government entities. The Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to this rule because the rule does not estimated average annual compliance concern an environmental health or cost incurred by these facilities is to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by safety risk that EPA has reason to
$372,000 per facility. believe may have a disproportionate tribal officials in the development of Today's rule would not have effect on children. This rule establishes regulatory policies that have tribal substantial direct effects on either implications." "Policies that have tribal requirements for cooling water intake authorized or nonauthorized States or structures to protect aquatic organisms.
implications" are defined in the on local governments because it would Executive Order to include regulations H. Executive Order 13211:Actions That not change how EPA and the States and that have "substantial direct effects on local governments interact or their SignificantlyAffect Energy Supply, one or more Indian tribes, on the Distribution, or Use respective authority or responsibilities relationship between the Federal for implementing the NPDES program. This rule is not a "significant energy government and the Indian tribes, or the action" as defined in Executive Order Today's rule establishes national distribution of power and requirements for Phase II existing 13211, ("Actions Concerning responsibilities between Federal Regulations That Significantly Affect facilities with cooling water intake government and Indian tribes." structures. NPDES-authorized States Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 This rule does not have Tribal FR 28355, May 22, 2001)) because it is that currently do not comply with the implications. It will not have substantial final regulations based on today's rule not likely to have a significant adverse direct effects on Tribal governments, on effect on the supply, distribution, or use will need to-anend their regulations or the relationship between the Fede-al statutes to ensure that their NPDES of energy. The final ruile does~not government and the Indian Tribes, or contain any compliance requirements programs are consistent with Federal the distribution of power and section 316(b) requirements. See 40 CFF that will: responsibilities between the Federal . Reduce crude oil supply in excess 123.62(e). government and Indian Tribes as of 10,000 barrels per day; For purposes of this rule, the specified in Executive Order 13175. The
- Reduce fuel production in excess of relationship and distribution of power national cooling water intake structure 4,000 barrels per day; and responsibilities between the Federal requirements will be implemented
- Reduce coal production in excess of government sad the States and local through permits issued under the 5 million tons per day;
( governments are established under the 'NPDES program. No Tribal governments
- Reduce electricity production in
',CWA (e.g., sections 402(b) and 510), and are currently authorized pursuant to excess of 1 billion kilowatt hours per nothing in this rule alters this section 402(b) of the CWA to implement day or in excess of 500 megawatts of established relationship and the NPDES program. In addition, EPA's installed capacity; distribution of power and analyses show that no facility subject to
- Increase energy prices in excess of responsibilities. Thus, the requirements this rule is owned by Tribal 10 percent; of section 6 of the Executive Order do governments and thus this rule does not
- Increase the cost of energy not apply to this rule. affect Tribes in any way in the distribution in excess of 10 percent; foreseeable future. Thus, Executive
- Significantly increase dependence Although Executive Order 13132 does ; Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. on foreign supplies of energy; or not apply to this rule, EPA did consult Nevertheless, in the spirit of
- Have other similar adverse with representatives of State and local Executive Order 13175 and consistent outcomes, particularly unintended ones.
governments in developing this rule. with EPA policy to promote EPA an lyzed the final rule for each EPA also met with the Association of communications between EPA and of these potential effects and found that State and Interstate Water Pollution Tribal governments, EPA solicited this rule will not lead to any adverse Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) and, comment on the proposed rule from all outcomes. Based on the analyses, EPA with the assistance of ASIWPCAj stakeholders. EPA did not receive any concludes that this final rule will have conducted a conference call in which comments from Tribal governments. minimal energy effects at a national and representatives from 17 States or interstate organizations participated. A G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of regional level. As a result, EPA did not prepare a Statement of Energy Effects. summary of consultation activities is ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth and SafetyRisks For more detail on the potential energy provided in section m of this preamble. effects of this rule, see section XI.B.1 of In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, Executive Order 13045: "Protection of this preamble or the Economic and and consistent with EPA policy to Children from Environmental Health Benefits Analysis for the FinalSection promote communications between EPA Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, 316(b) PhaseH Existing FacilitiesRule. and State and local governments, EPA April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: also specifically solicited comments on (1) Is determined to be "economically L. National Technology Transfer and the proposed rule from State and local significant" as defined under Executive Advancement Act officials. A summary of the concerns Order 12866, and (2) concerns an As noted in the proposed rule, section raised during that consultation and environmental health or safety risk that 12(d) of the National Technology subsequent public comment periods and EPA has reason to believe may have a Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 g EPA's response to those concerns is disproportionate effect on children. If (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section ".i provided in section VIII of this preamble the regulatory action meets both criteria, 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA and in the response to comment the Agency must evaluate the to use voluntary consensus standards in document in the record. environmental health or safety effects of its regulatory activities unless to do so
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41669 would be inconsistent with applicable Benefits Analysis, show that the thereunder, over which the United law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary populations affected by the in-scope States exercises jurisdiction, consistent consensus standards are technical facilities have poverty levels and racial with international law." standards (e.g., materials specifications, compositions that are quite similar to Today's final rule recognizes the test methods, sampling procedures, and the U.S. population as a whole. A biological sensitivity of tidal rivers, business practices) that are developed or relatively small subset of the facilities estuaries, oceans, and the Great Lakes adopted by voluntary consensus are located near populations with and their susceptibility to adverse standard bodies. The NTTAA directs poverty rates (23 of 543, or 4.2%), or environmental impact from cooling EPA to provide Congress, through the non-white populations (105 of 543, or water intake structures. This rule Office of Management and Budget 19.3%), or both (13 of 543, or 2.4%) that provides the most stringent (OMB), explanations when the Agency are significantly higher than national requirements to minimize adverse decides not to use available and levels. Based on these results, EPA does environmental impact for cooling water applicable voluntary consensus not believe that this rule will have an intake structures located on these types standards. This rule does not involve exclusionary effect, deny persons the of waterbodies, including potential technical standards. Therefore, EPA did benefits of the NPDES program, or reduction of intake flows to a level not consider the use of any voluntary subject persons to discrimination commensurate with that which can be consensus standards. because of their race, color, or national attained by a closed-cycle recirculating origin. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal In fact, because EPA expects that this cooling system for facilities that Actions To Address Environmental final rule would help to preserve the withdraw certain proportions of water Justicein Minority Populationsand health of aquatic ecosystems located in from estuaries, tidal rivers, and oceans. Low-Income Populations reasonable proximity to Phase II existing EPA expects that this rule will reduce Executive Order 12898 requires that, facilities, it believes that all impingement mortality and entrainment to the greatest extent practicable and populations, including minority and at facilities with design intake flows of permitted by saw, each Federal agency low-income populations, would benefit 50 MGD or more. The rule would afford must make achiev environmental from improved environmental protection of aquatic organisms at justice part of its mission. E.O. 12898 conditions as a result of this rule. Under individual, population, community, or states that each Federal agency must current conditions, EPA estimates over ecosystem levels of ecological structure. conduct its programs, policies, and 1.5 billion fish (expressed as age 1 Therefore, EPA expects today's rule activities that substantially affect human equivalents) of recreational and would advance the objective of the health or the environment in a manner commercial species are lost annually Executive Order to protect marine areas. that ensures such programs, policies, due to impingement and entrainment at L CongressionalReview Act and activities do not have the effect of the inscope Phase II existing facilities. excluding persons (including Under the final rule, more than 0.5 The Congressional Review Act, 5. ( populations) from participation in, billion individuals of these U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small c owdenying persons (including commercially and recreationally sought Business Regulatory Enforcement Q ) populations) the benefits of, or fish species (age 1 equivalents) will now Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, subjecting persons (including survive to join the fishery each year. generally provides that before a rule populations) to discrimination under These additional fish will provide may take effect, the agency such programs, policies, and activities increased opportunities for subsistence promulgating the rule must submit a because of their race, color, or national anglers to increase their catch, thereby rule report, which includes a copy of origin. providing some benefit to low income the rule, to each House of the Congress Today's final rule would require that households located near regulation- and to the Comptroller General of the the location, design, construction, and impacted waters. United States. EPA will submit a report capacity of cooling water intake containing this rule and other required structures (CWIS) at Phase H existing K. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. facilities reflect the best technology House of Representatives, and the available for minimizing adverse Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, Comptroller General of the United environmental impact. For several May 31,2000) requires EPA to States prior to publication of the rule in reasons, EPA does not expect that this "expeditiously propose new science- the Federal Register. A major rule can final rule would have an exclusionary based regulations, as necessary, to not take effect until 60 days after it is effect, deny persons the benefits of ensure appropriate levels of protection published in the Federal Register. This participating in a program, or subject for the marine environment." EPA may action is a "major rule" as defined by persons to discrimination because of take action to enhance or expand 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This will be effective their race, color, or national origin. protection of existing marine protected September 7, 2004. To assess the impact of the on areas and to establish or recommend, as low-income and minority populations, appropriate, new marine protected Dated: February 16, 2004. EPA calculated the poverty rate and the areas. The purpose of the Executive Michael 0. Leavitt, percentage of the population classified Order is to protect the significant Administrator. as non-white for populations living natural and cultural resources within Note: The following appendices A and B within a 50-mile radius of each of the the marine environment, which means will not appear in the Code of Federal 543 in-scope facilities for which survey "those areas of coastal and ocean Regulations. data are available. The results of the waters, the Great Lakes and their analysis, presented in the Economic connecting waters, and submerged lands Appendix A (40
Cf 0 - EPA assumed Post Cannualized Net rvneAnnualized anionsi Eeflow 0 dsgInae CRacotBaseline O&M construction C?0 usingPilot suy downtime and sadrsmodeled adjOWt Facility ID Intk entake takeow capIgm annual cost O&M EPA design pilosta ndards ec Cs);l annual cost intake f5f2cosrUCtion MOt iost sud onAwosth no ment5 Ph downimeare based Column I Column 2 ColuriwO oun4 Clm Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 110 Column Column Column aI _ __ __11 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12 13 OW AUJT0001......................... 4011,8811 322,884 699,866 795,393 14,48.....i.......&........................E 2 0.8689 AUT00O02 .. . .. 549,583 5,750.259 68,489 104,063 854,282 6,650,155 290,459 559,082 M&E 12 3.6581 AUTrO0O4 .. .... 239,107' 528,427 30,725 104,458 148,969 . . .................................... I 1 1.1604 ALUT0O 1... .......... .. 453,758..... 9673,.6757 55,5545 193,66080 275..... ....... ... I...890...... ........ 1...1.160411.60 AUT0012 .. ...................... 2,016,917 48,835,32 360,813 989,876 7,582,115 110,716,357 4,933,1578 9,315,779 l&E 12 3.6581 ALUT0014 ..... 572,383 2,732,729 91.0,57 110,893 408,915 ..... 1........ 276,073 22,022 M&E 11 0.7352 00 AWTOl..... . 1I.26872 510,784 ............. 134,070 206,794 ............. d........... ... .......... I 5 0.1286 AUOI....................... 301,127 41,613 ............ 26,195 34,120.............................. . ........ I 5 0.1286 AUTO 9... .. I.......848,784........11,094,3431, 271,04505 994,8761 94 2,30......3........41......
..... .... II...1..1.16.041.60 AUT002O ............. . I.... 207,514 1,517,779 34,859 42,089 223,327 ..... f....... 153,333 12,231 M&E 11 0.7352 AUTOO21 ..... 267,138 1,187,727 65,395 263,140 366,851... .......... 150,000 11,965 M&E 2 0.8639 5-.
AA T024...O .. .6.,72639,702..........72,44024574 .47,1...........4...57,472....... ...... 5...0.12.86 0118 AUFT0O27.......404,214 2,362,884 147,563 532,881 721,737.............................. . ........ I 1 1.1604 AUT0044....................... 457,88 183,853.............. 57,997 84,145 . . ............................
..... I 5 0.1286 AUT0049........................ . 820,88 6,080,054 196,361 797,241 1,466,543 .............. 204,745 16,332 M&E 2 0.8639 AUT005O....... 348,052 11,832,011 17,181 50,842 1,718,273 ....... 1...................... .. I...... 4 2.5787 0 AUTrOO53........................ . 147,762 454,296 27,346 108,078 145,413 . .
f... .....
.............. ........... E 2 0.863 AUTOO57 ... .. 56,391 271,166 19,611 65.525 84,322 ...... b..... ........................ . .I 1 110 AUT0O58 .. . ...... . 624,376 8,582,766 66,231 225,908 1,379,670 7,092,06 867,072 640,749 l&E 12 3.6581 AUJT0064 .. ................. . 553,145 3,039,302 195,656 695,636 932,709 ....... I 1 1.1604 AUT006O.. .................. 65,571 2,006,184 80,531 63,685 268,790 23,985,660 15,0 1,4488MiE 4 258 AUT0078 ..... 288,792 5,883,876 267,577 1,083,987 1,625,867............. 574,212 45,804 i&E 2 0.8639 AUTrOO84 .. .... . 2,100,000 2,976,122 3.003,550 3.318,577 738,760 ......... . 150,331 11,992 i&E 2 0.8639 ALUT005..O..................S.... 975,261 23,279,870 341,127 452,608 3,426,011 52i,842,026 2,351,844 4,445,953 ISE 4 2.78 I-A AUTOO92 ... ,8.9 9977 .2912 00.. I5 0.1286 AUT0095 ...... 7,369 -55,82 120,772 140,422 27,598 ...... ...... .............. . .......... &E 2 0.8639 AUT016..O......I..... ......... . 325,449 1,104,684 55.757 223,858 325,383 ............. 150,000 11,965 M&E 2 0.8639 AUT01110.......551,114 6,445.617 70,141 104,066 951,636 5,297,741 651,167 478,869 i&E 12 3.65811 AUT012D0I. .... . 207,333 2,085,862 55,736 225,656 466,900............. 210,724 16,809 M&E 2 0.863 AA1UTO 3 .. ........ 6...,.....6...106,975= 0697 707,0212 8,33.20....1.......28,333........... ....... 1...1.1604 1164 AUT0127........ . 104,872 573,136 34,651 118,506 165,457............................. . ..
ii;iI 1 1.1604 AUT0130..... .................... 929,723 8,127,384 402,025 1,628,672 2,383,804.............. 821,067 6546 ME 2 0.8639 AUTO131 .. .......... ..... 492,967. 3...299,93129,91 95195.3217 694,407 968,921........... 6892 .. ..... ........ 1...1.160411.60 AUIT0134 ...... .. .9...... 9,252 3,334,593 8,170 35,218 501,819 38035 ............ 19,182 1 3 3.4562 ('K AUT0I37 .. ................... . 401,222 1,916,441 117,385 475,099 630,572.... ...... 193,608 15,444 ME 2 0.8639 AU1TO139.................., ...... 369,074 117,095............ 49,945 86,617 ..... ,....... ............. . . I.......... 5 0.1286, AUT0142 .. ................ . ... 407,669 9,461,494 66,798 78,036 1,358,342 3,421,735 955,845 351,992 M&E 14 6.9559 AUT0143 . ....................... 289,29 971,645 50,004 200,412 288,748 ............ 150.000 11,965 i&E 2 0.8639 AUT0146 .. ........... ........
. 213,207 1,618.128 88,506 313,588 455,467.......I 1 1.1604 ALUT0148 .. ....... ............. 1,036,478 12,443,192 ............ 288,984 2,060,615 . . .....
E 9 5.973 AUT15T ... ....... ... 482,911.........1,465,485,6548 9,79530,64 453,142......... 45742 .34...,2....... ........ 1...1.160411.60 AUT0168........................ . 329,758 5,156,763 39,196 51,388 746,399 492,266 260,480 6044 M&E 12 3.6581 AUT0171 .. ... ... ......... 1,189,016 14,989,478 120,512 398,517 2,412,170 15,890,363............ . 1,280,547 MSE 7 2.504 AUT0174 .. ..... . 1,341,997 934,489 1,387,449 1.537,156 282,755 ............. 150,000 11,965 I&E 2 0.8639 AUT0175........258,008 2.505,888 134,658 484,461 706,582.............................. . ........ I 1 1.1604 AUT0176 .. ......... . . 1,652,395 6,892,691 425,370 1,533,553 2,089,548.............................. . ........ I 1 1.1604 AUT0185........................ . 810,911 97,503............ 56.756 70,638 . . ............
........... ........... 5 0.1286 AUT0187........................ . 1,242,691 257,332.............. 107,659 144,297................................ . . I.... 5 0.1286 AUT0190........................ . 511,950 27,779,896 616,589 191,870 3,530,513 ... ........... ...........
. . ME 9 5.973 AUT1TO 9 ... ........ 692,335........19.255,8655 1 184,1614,11 6,91 2,623,932...........
,63,66,491.. ... ........... 9...5..97397
AUT01 92 ..................... 359,686 959,625 71,963 253,183 317,849 I1 1.1604 AUTO193.1,00..................... 6,084 19,112,685 90,728 323,635 2,954,121 ~',78,888 ..... ....... 264,234 I3 3.4562 ALI 017 ... ...... 407,081........4,773,87607,61 4,7248,24 554481,10891,410 1,3....2,55...............1
...... .. 1 1.16 1.60 AUTO2 ... ...... 2..080,.....99...106...
2025.9902802.04777,62569,481769,048......15,387,001. ................. ... 9..5.973597 AUTO203........................ 1,083,174 4.847,332 232,706 851,244 1,308,689.................................... I 1 1.1604 AUTO205S........................ 313,218 720,557 37,147 127,449 192,893 ......................... &........... E 1 1.1604 AUO2O8 ........................ 220,683 3,140,556 27,181 51,205 471,169 3,544,915 ............ 285,672 I&E 4 2.5787 AUT0O222 ........................ 156,484 299,274............. 9,554 52,164 . ....................... ........... 8 0.3315 AUT0227 ........................ 82,468 523,999 30.107 102,249 146,748 ..................................... I I 1 1.1604 MT AUT0229 ........................ 483,349 1,784,794 87,496 391,684 558,253 ......................... &........... E 2 0.8639 c AUT0242 ........................ 1,113,045 8,239,161 291,327 1,039,947 1,921,691......................................I I .10 AUT0245 ........................ 491,302 1,459,999 50,879 61,192 218,185............. 150,000 11,965 I&E 11 075 AUTO261 ........................ 201229 943,433 57,335 230,290 307,278.............. 150,000 11965 I&E 2 0.869 ' AUT0264 ........................ 840,000 21,384,690 1,50,211 185,672 1,728,160 43525,468 2,160,384 3,679,89 I&E 12 3.6581 AUT02668.. 653,994 139,380 307,951 351,075 62,969 ........-... ................ .......... &E 2 0:8639 AUT0268 .. "... 712,677 2,998,753 114,173 417,470 730,253.................... I 1 1.1604 r-- AUT0273 .. 173,689 994,534 52,039 208,703 298,263...... .1....,000. -11,965 I&E 2 0.8639 AUT0277 ....... 88,631 1,192,108 45,779 51,021 174,971 186,fi802 ............ 15,054 I&E 4 2.5787 c AUT0278......................... 1,642,492 6,410,550 771,895 257,586 398,409............ . 8647,624 51,660 I&E 11 0.7352 AUT0284.. ...................... 728,495 3,743,185 208,370 742,487 1,087,059........................-. ....... I 1 1.1604 Z AU09.556,596 2,227,636 99,379 008 57,4 .. I1 .64 9 AUT0295 ... .359,098 3,584,905 53,365 114,232 571,276 5,005,800 ........... 403,399 I&E 4 2.5787 AUJT0297 ....................... 184,293 1,172,223 63,592 255,790 359,096.............. 150,000 11,965 I&E 2 0.8639 AUT0298 ... ...... : . .... 897,819 100,769 ............ 61,625 75,972 .................. ........... I...... 5 0.1286 " ALUT0299 ... ........... 864,873 9,012,107 150,709 127,282 1,259,694 15,622,548 227,612 1,277,121 I&E 12 3.6581 AUT03O2 ..... .......... 71,413 91,582 6,933 19,813 25,916 ....................- .... i.......I 1 1.1604 AUT030OS......:: ................ 762,197 42,822,242 146,012 281,593 6,232,505 49,751,104 4,326,10 4,354,352 I&E 14 6.9559 p. AUT0308 ........................ 394,361 3,381,768 151,364 77,961 408,085 3,407,223............. 274,576 I&E 7 2.504 0 AUT0309 .. 789,860 81,433 ............ 55,577 67,171 ..................................... 5 0.1286 AUT0314 ...... 1,039,315 2,438,597 134,759 484,839 697,281 ...... I..............................1 1.1604 '- AUT031I9 . ............. .... 468,117 1,326,662 88,025 355,386 456,248............. 150,000 11,965 I&E 2 0.8639 AUT0321I. ... 669,493 2,092,630 88,910 107,698 316,732............. 150,000 11,965 I&E I11 0.7352 AUTOSl .................. ..... 178,562 24,860............. 21,328 24,867 ......................... I........... 5 0.1286 AUT0333.336,448 786,807 46,794 162,104 227,333.....................................I 1 1.1604 AUT0337 ..... 1,110,944 131,046............. 73,566 92,224 ..................................... 5 0.1286 ALUT0345 ........................ 610,223 5,103,322 267,506 952,013 1,411,108.....................................I 1 1.1604 AUIT0349 ........................ 2,429,925 8,146,829 424,696 1,514,477 2,249,706.....................................I 1 1.1604 AUT0351 ........................ 301,024 6,389,631 42,269 99,196 966,667 -700,911............. 56,484 I&E 3 3:4562 AUT0358.1,3 ,7,9 1,3 4179 6293I1 110 AUTO0361I........ 433,165 7,852,621 59,105 140,320 1,170,775 893,934 ........... 72,039 I&E 3 3.4562 fA AUT0362 ... .................... 312,830 1,566,484 51,821 185,883 357,091 .................. I 1 1.1604 0 AUTO364 ..... ............... 505,137 5,447,440 170,196 611,090 1,216,487 .................. I 1 1.1604 AUT0365 .83,..................... 40809 2,71593 146,752 529,832 769,768......................................E 1 1.16049 AUT0368........................ 832,340 1,816,986 79,9152 5289,832 468,7633 ...................................... 1 1.1604 AUT0379 ..... 351,933 41,890 ............ 31,041 37,006...................... ...... I 5 0.12866 AUJT0381 ......................... 50,14 960,912 9,984 22,083 148,931 506,182 ............ 4079 ME 4 2.5787 0 AUT0384 .............. 146,511 66,229 91,020 104,211 22,620 ............ I........................&E 2 0.8639 :T AUT0385 .............. t....... 130,966 1,623,217 20,420 25,963 265,149 1.445,483............. 116,485 I&E 4 2:5787 0 AUT0387 ........................ 576,057 5,283,933 122,322 496,655 1,126,646.............. 533,808 42,581 I&E 2 0.8639 ALUT0398 ........................ 537,402 6,842,592 63,631 75,697 988,297 6,440,309............. 519,001 I&E 4 2.5787 AUT0399 ........................ 140,486 232,496............. 9,212 42,314 ............. ........... I........... 8 0.3315 ALUT0401........................ 613,529 578,957............. 72,110 154,541 ........ ........... I................ 5 0.11286 AUT0404 ............ ............. 291,400 4,124,975 44,842 51,995 594,657 3,259,312............. 262,656 I&E 4 2.5787 AUTo4o8 ........................ 73,728 900,969 13,020 49,057 164,315 803,968 ............ 64,789 lIE 4 2.5787 AT2.564,501 29,714,518 122,524 248,148 4,356,303...................................... E 9 5.97 AUT0427 .. ...................... 148,668 291,697 ............ 9,392 50,923.....................................I 8 0.3315 % AUT43 ... ............ 1.4...,.....5...3436,235 02860,120,913 69,450............. ,2........... ... .1..1.16........ I..60
C7 C> C I-A EPA assumed Post Annualized 3 Net revenue Perform- Design caiaU*~ ossfo Annualized ance EPA Desow design Intake Capial cost Baseline O&M construction &M usingdowntime and standards Facility ID Intake ID annual cost O&Mcost EPA intaked fow, Plgot study owsmeuad (s) annual constrcosts pilot Study4 on wtfich tehhstadd adeut- ustmod 0) N doniecss EPA cost nology mn
$ estimates code slp (a) are basedI Column 1 Column 2 Column 10 ColumnColumn Column
.12 AUT0434........ . 400,472 763,363 40,353 138,952 207,284.............................. . .... 1...16.4 AUT0435... 183..I............613483,839070716 27,166 7.........
49077107,34........14. ....... ...... 2..0.8639..': AUT04351.. .0...26,8 7,9 .IM 7,79,2.. 1 1.604 AUT0446........................ . 278.043 3,528,075 28,547 111,202 584.973 1.404,150.............. 113,155 M&E 4 2.5787 AUT04492....................... . 23487640 2178,918 413,2683 511,926 8309,417................. ...... ........... I 2 0.16039 ~IL 0 AUT0472 ....................... . 233,836 49,7 2 7898 5,5653 93,1969 8413527 .................................... . M 1 1.1604 AUT0483......... . 1.148.72 2,715,801 112,654 136,742 410,757............ 274,363 21,886 M&E 11 0.7352
,M.
AUT0490 .. .......... . ... .. 405,350 3,527,610 73,321 78,027 506,958 3,548,991 ............. 286,000 M&E 4 2.5787 0, AUT0493... ................. . 257,137 1,429,134 51,159 206,956 359,274 ......... 150,000 11,965 M&E 2 0.8639 CD AUT49T............603,432..... 6031,649,804 5,34 206,130...... 26,57,3042 3......721.............1...1.16041.60 AUT0501l... . 346,213 115,781 205,027 230,840 42,297 ............................ . .......... E 2 0.8639 0 z AUT0513........................ . 1,29,772 27,395,451 170,929 603,316 4,332,883 36,923,245.............. 2,975,512 M&E 4 2.5787 AUTU1T i......... ...... ... 193,413.... 4395,3465 282846 96,388..... 9.4672990 .. .129,905.......... ........ 1...1.160411.60 ::.A 9 AUT0523........................ . 608,373 7,741,521 ............. 189,045 1,291,263............................ . .......... &E 9 5.973 AUT0S34 . .. 70,565 230,241 17,175 56,150 71,756...................I.......... . ........ I 1 1.1604 AUT0535......................... . 196,064 3,706,283 25,082 66,100 568,710 604,316 ............ 48,700 l&E 3 3.4562 AUT0S39 .... . 1,056,137 13,978,398 183,682 342,369 2,148,896 2,343,730 1,412,165 301,520 M&E 12 3.6581 0 ALUT0541........................ . 117,759 3,346,437 108,327 37,393 405,523 27,152,758 169,037 2,201,627 l&E 12 3.6581 C; AUT0547 ... -... 780,279 9,747,498 118,281 129,393 1,398,937 17,882,815.............. 1,441,112 M&E 4 2.5787 a:4 AUT0OS..S...................I... . 295,707 823,114 30,125 35,820 122,888 ............. 150,000 11,965 l&E 11 0.7352 It AUT0S52......I.................. . 1,226,625 133,029............ 80,047 96,987 . . ............
........... ........... 5 0.1286 0
AUTO554 .. .......-............. . 429,991 8,840,925 249,963 170,468 1,179,253 1,498,242 .......... . 120,738 l&E 3 3.4562 a AUT0564........................ . 1,129,749 14,903,816 170,408 396.749 2,348,309 15,236,406.............. 1,227,847 M&E 7 2.504 0-4 ALUT0567,.. . ........... 441,177 5,817,871 67,488 77,963 838,809 4,139,441 ............. 333,583 I&E 4 2.5787 AUT0S68................. 584,525 2,308,321 342,703 382,141 368,091 ............. 150,000 11,965 M&E 2 0.8639 AUTU7 ... .......... 951,201........4,021,857 ,01,57 16,164,8178 99,83 .591,048.......998,853........... ......... 1..1.160411.60 ALUT0577........................ . 741.931 10,647,710 113,337 129,884 1,532,542 . . ............ l........................
&E 7 2.504 00 AD AUTrOS83........................ . 222,087 2,210,305 36,279 51,245 329,663 9,610,528 ............. 774,478 l&E 4 2.5787 CD AUIT055..O...................... . 1f28,015 1,501,382 49,933 54,853 227,225 1,102,473.............. 88,644 M&E 4 2.5787 U) 00 AUJT0588 .. ................. . 396,576 1',788,685 191,759 66,639 129,540.............. 180,701 14,414 I&E 11 0.7352 x AUTO59O ...... 147,803 315,803 22,592 75,430 97,801............................... . ....I...I 1 1.1604 0 AUT0599........198,681 3,040,887 21,121 104,455 516,288 ............. 307,205 24,505 I 4 2.5787 AUTO600.~.............. .71,01 177,1.0,9.8466 44,0 ..... 110 AUTO6O....................... .71,1,2014 51,4802 677,192 7842,7536 142,6508............................ . .......... E 2 0.1639 la.
AUTO603 .. . .
... 1,228,633 684,562 720,077 802,140 179,529 ............. 150,000 11,965 l&E 2 0.8639 ALI`1`6O7........................ . 635,364 9,044,216 111,819 226,342 1,402,216 3,693,163 456,845 334,061 M&E 12 3.6581 g AAU0TO1I...1 .. .. .... 547,114........3,195,898 ,15,9888,88 32,2368770 .3.....,973.....687,709.......... ........ 1...1.160411.60 OQn AUT0612........................ . 186,464 6,614,075 ............ 85,670 1,027,365.................................... . .lME 13 7.0567 AUT61 ... .......... 493....9...3...4..,341,49431, 155,354 572,021........1,034,798..........
52,21 1,04, ......... 1..1.160411.60 AUT0617 .. . .
... 2,292,812 37,040,390 1,403,836 741,877 4,611,760 2,161,531 1,247,332 273,688 liE 12 3.6581 AUT0619........:159,600 62,547 98,454 1 12,506 22,957 ............................ . .l.I...... iE 2 0.8639 AUT0620...............551,528 2,198,869 264,319 90,714 139,464............ . 222,140 17,720 lME I11 0.7352 AUT0623 .. . .... 73,622 267,379 13,006 49,653 74,715.............................. . ........ I 2 0.8639 AUT62 ... .......... 562,255....... 2,641,330,30 104,1613 10 3....,113.... 0,487................1..1.160411.60 68848 .... ....
lTh AUT0630O....................... . 589,211 16,086,712 94,881 227,787 2,423,292 974,792.............. 78,555 M&E 3 3.4562 AUT0631........................ . 480,721 11,721,529 77,934 190.232 1,781,179 193,002 ............ 15,553 M&E 3 3.4562 AUIT0635 ........................ 72,550 1,057,088, 50,149 201,000 301,357.............. 150,000 11,965 M&E 2 0.8639 AUT0638 ........................ 201,395 2,336,881 50,154 202,851 485,416 ............. 236,083 18,832 l&E 2 0.8639 DMU3244 .. 1........... ...... 22,222 138,465 ............ 27,927 47,641 .I.1 1.1604 DM34 .66250 163,334 3.......5..,612...1..1.1634 DMU3244 .4.123..9.255.....8,793...27,169...22,0120 .,. 1 1.1604 DNU2003 ........................ 156,944 68,4655........... 30,711 -40,458 ......... .. 5 0.1286 DNU2010O........................ 67,000 1,010,938 11,787 .23,430 155,578 5......3I.43,826.
.. I 4 2.5787 "'
DNU2011 ........................ 181,250 2,707,585 21,222 102,473 466,750 5,223,420 273,533 442,756 I&E 12 3.6581 'O DNU2013 ........................ 65,000 588,369 ............. 24,812 108,583........ 150,000 11,965 I&E 11 0.7352 Cu 0NU2014 ........................ 42,798 531,997 64,365 22,327 33,707.150,000 11,965 M&E 11 075 DNU2017 ........................ 38,194 984,494 ............ 13,803 153,973...........a. ............ &E 13 706 DNU2021 ........................ 55,750 292,158 18,165 59,671 83,103 ................ ...... ii... I 1 1.1604 DNU2025 ........................ 120.689 7,720,257............. 825,174 1,924,365 .779,..7.62,215 I&E 2 0.8639 0NU2032 .... UnhIt 1 & 2............ 156,250 ..............
.......................... ........ I..........5..
15 0.12...........06.......... 018 DNU2032 .... Unit 3.124,3............ 1 4 06.............I............ ........... ............ ..... o......'15 5..........0.1286........... 011 DNU2032 .... UnIt 4................. 136,808 143,049 ............ 54,324 74,691 .................... I...I........... 5 0.1286 DUT0062.. 1..........!.......... 72,917 1,069,902 6,527 48,944 192,747 5,279,493 ............. 425,455 I&E 4 2.5787 DUT0062 2. ................ 156,250 1,922,088 14,312 58,483 315,834 5,279,493 ............. 425,455 I&E -4 2.5787 DUT0576 5&6..... 50,000 1,434,192 51,770 185,694 338,121 ............ ........... . ..... ........ I 1 1.1604 c DUT0576 ... 7....43,056 886,245 29,000 101,863 196,197............ ................... . . ..... I 1 1.1604 DUT0576 CT.... 2,083 202,358 ............ 25,785 54,596 ........... ........................ . . I 1 1.1604 Z DUITI002 ... Screenhouse 1 ....... 685,833 166,652 322,571 367,337 68,493 .. . .......... ...... ..... I&......... E 2 0.8639 P DUTI0O2 ... Screenhouse 2 ........ 685,833 166,652 322,571 367,337 68,493 ................. .. . ..... . .t&.... E 2 0.863 DUT1003......................... 38,500 703,237 15,912 20,989 105,202 236,360 ...... .19,.....047 I 4 2.5787 c DUT1006 .... Unit 1/2173,611 1,286,341 54,154 153,027 282,018..........................1 1 1.1604 DUT1006 .... Unit 3/4 .............. 20,833 281,28 12,'914 39,309 66,440.I1 110 DUI0 ..................... 242,778 680,059 32,861 39,165 103,129 ............ 150,000 11,965 I&E I11 0.7352 DUTIOO8. ... 60,000 1,016,367 26,935 107,846 225,619 ............ 150,000 11,965 I&E 2 0.8639 , DUTl011.283,611 1,350,484 76,112 267,481 383,6548.:' - .. ............ ............ I 1 1.1604 DU I102T .. ........ 173,611.........522,20511 52,25 9,29,5761 145,125....... 4512 .100,351....... .. ...... 1...1.1604I1
.10 DUJTIO14 .... 87,000 920,321 40,859 163,140 253,315............. 150,000 11,965 I&E 2 08639 0UT02i.... 2,20,000 8,268,801 291,801 1,051,593 1,937,083.....................................I 1 1.1604 DUT1023 .... CWS #535 ............ 478,444 28,961,186 360,609 274,535 4,037,344 ......................... &...........
E 3 3.4562 DUT1023 .... DWS #536 ............ 520,000 39,708,776 97,288 361,137 5,91.7,486 4,830,432............. 389,267 I&E 3 3.4562 co DUT1029 .... CR8N..............638,0.000 140,391478 162,4709 254,1538 2,239,8526.....I&....................I........E 3 3.48629 DU`1O29 .... CRN................. -8.000 649,893 13,914 16.340 94s,956........ &E I11 0.7352 0 DUT1029 .... RCT ................. 735,000 4,654,560 '159,675 194,358 697,388 217624 6762 18973 IE11 0..7352 DUUlTI0 .. I.....1...59,000........808,700 80 77777,917,79710,81 ,826..... 1....0,181......
....... ........ 4...2.578742.78 DUT103l .. 2.................... 140,000 1,524,044 24,132 26,017 218,874 5,399,114 . .... ..... 435,095 I&E 4 2.5787 DUT1033 ........................ 240,000 1,076,251 43,293 55,502 165,443 .1 .......... 50,000 11,965 I&E I1 075 DUIT1034 ........................ 1,231,944 4,990,608 202,923 820,337 1,327,964............. 504,175 40,218 I&E 2 0.8639 U 0UT11036 ........................ 444,000 753,297 41,568 141,630 207,314.....................................I 1 1.1604 DUT1038 .................... I... 65,972 213,848 12,804 38,918 56,561.....................................I 1 110 DUT1041 ........................ 188,958 433,167 27,973 94,625 128,325.....................................I 1 1:1604 DUT1043 ........................ 280,556 ,.36,345 ............ 27,042 32,217.......I....... .......... ........... 5 0.1286 PO DUT1O44 ........................ 756,944 76,726 ............ 53,732 64,656 ......................... I.I... 5 0.1286 cC 0UITI047 ... .. ............ 1 ... 614,306 16,998,704 151,032 103,667 2,372,868 4,783,541 .365,488.........&E 7 2.504 DLUT1048 .... HI-2.................. 170,139 473,836 33,127 113,050 147,387.-........................I 1 1.1604 ~
DUT1051O.2,10.......... ... 34,167 4027,068 .5.48 171,852 289,809.....................................I 5 0.1260 DUT1O57 ........................ 340,000 2,844,898 35,159 51,102 420,993 7,997,712............. 644,507 M&E 4 2.5787 DUTI1062 ..... 670,139 67,658 ............ 48,869 56,502.I..... ... 5 0.1286 DUIT1066 ........................ 1,712,000 32,777,974 260,695 678,771 5,084,922 84598...... 68,175....3.3.4.. U............1........O3616............ DU16 .. 1........63,611...... .... ............ ................... I-..............-.
... 5 0.1286 DUU6T1 7...........
. 2.31,.......7......
.................... i67............ ..................................... ............ I 5 0.1286 DUT1067 .. 3.69,653 23,159 ............ 20,564 23,862 ... I 5 0.1286 DUT1O068 :........................ 91,528 360,536 66,351 20,060 15,042.......................... &E I11 0.7352 DUT1072 -............... 366,597 691,381 40,319 137,184 195,303 ............................ I 1 1.1604 .
O .. DUT0TI ....... 264,58............5,7....924,63 834,495444 8189,86333 2.....,3..6............1.1604.......
..... .1A
C C C A Oa Annualized Perfon- EPA Design i~m Annualized Net revenue modeled adjst-O aM ng net Pilot study downtime and standards design itake Capial cost Baseline O&Mmconstuction p s on wt)h tech- adst Facility ID Intake ID flow, BSmannusln O&Mo Pcti O&M using Pi (5) anuacst inAkdes gn~ construction 24 nostogen K ana ot itkflw downtime () Costs . EPA cost nolooye (()(y() estimates coda M are based Column3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Colu umn 9 Column 10 Column Column Column ~T1 Cs Column 1 Column 2 L 11 12 13 DU1T1085 .... 297.000 2,410,696 159,608 619,834 803,455............. 243,540 19,427 I&E 2 0.8639 S DUT1086 .... Ui1 .57,292 667,197 29,048 122,691 188,637 .................................... . I&E 2 0.8639 150,000 11,965 I&E 2 0.8639 DUT1086 .... Unit 2................ DUT1088 .... #4 .................... DLUT1088 .... #5..... DU11093.~~............ .30,60
. 57,292 49,280 99,458 687,197 8534 1,438.399 945,66.
29,048 11,129 12,058 122,691 22,007 25,232 3,6 188,637............. 134,081............................. 217,970 130,5 1,601,167 ............. 129,032 l&E I&E
&E9 7
7 2.504 2.504 5.7 I DUT1097 .. .. .. .. ........... . 106,007 2,349,646 ............. 242,606 577,143 ............. 237,372 18,935 I&E 6 5.0065 DU T............71,528..........07,0250.05 108 .. 9.629.4461266 99,942..... 142,669........... .. ...... 1...1....1604.10 DU``1100 ... Units 1 & 2............ 188,000....................................... . ........... . .I..........
........... ........... 5 0.1286 0 DU`7111 ... Unts Un 4its3&41.188,000............ 5153308,878.......0,57...3...70,062....... ........ 5...0...1286.28 Co DUTI 103 ... Unit 1 Screenhus..... 118,000.........
DUT1 103 ... vnt crakeIntaue 1.... 5,200 347,0615............ 41,7941 98,642 .... ........... I..................... 8 0.3158 z DUT 13 .. HOSLae itae ........ 1...20074 1r20a4t15 ........... ,634...615.....4...7......9,......2.. ........ 8...0.331580.31 00 DUT1 103 .... River Intake 7,800.........75,587 5,734 15,570 20,597.............................. . ........ I 1 1.1604 DUITli109.58,333 873,553 32,385 130,170 222,159............. 150,000 11,965 I 2 0.863 DUT1111 .. Unt1.199,716 764,700 99,547 37,851 47,181 ............ ............. . ............ &E I11 0.7352 DUT1111... Unit 3.................. 189,842 717,221 93,277 35,552 44,391............. 150,000 11,965 I&E I11 0.7352 DU1T1113 .... System 27 ............ 1,125,000 6,518,329 281,013 1,001,831 1,648,882............ ........................ I 1 1.1604 CA DUJT113.. Sytm6.......... ysem6
.... 44,028 181,599............ 8,508 34,364.................................I ... 8 0.3315 DLUT1116......... .............. 355,556 2,886,459 69,804 84,921 426,084 ............ 291,604 23261 I&E I11 0.7352 ~To DUT1118 .. ..................... 667,361 140,959............. 64,789 84,858 .I..... ................. ........... 5 0.1286 DU 122...I .. ... 200120,000..........23,134804 18,047...........21,.......1......
2 ...... 5...0.128615 .18 DUTI1123 .... 6................111,806 4,071,741 15,536 39,240 603,428 . ........................ &E 3 3.4562 p DUTI123 .... 7 '.",I.........'I.... 256,250 5,809,773............. 431,082 1,258,263 ....... ..... ........... ........... &E 6 5.0065 Z O DUT11123 .... 8.. ................. 220,139 5,590,610 27,185 73,721 842,513 1,136,010 ............ 91,547 I&E 3 3.4562 DUTl 132 .. ...................... 1,896,000 3,995,072 197,552 927,311 1,298,568............. 403,601 32,195 I&E 2 0.8639 DU1 133 ... .2 13,889 1,180,531 44,631 57,260 180,711............. 150,000 11,965 I&E I11 0.7352 0. 0U11138 ........ 77,083 264,532 12,475 37,753 62,942 .. 1.1604 I..................................1 0 x,, 0U11140 .... Ma2.4.131,250 334,100 20,512 66,264 93,320.....................I.................1 1.1604 1`A DUT114O .... Mc5&6.... 383,956 1,450,787 82,444 290,867 414,982................................... .I 1 1.1604 P: (D DUT11145 .......... : 178,472 2,702.979 38,035 57,101 403,909 1,565,614 273,068 147,950 I&E 12 3.6581 0U`11146 ........................ 181,944 325,271 276,184 309,256 79,383............. ........ ............... &E 2 0.8639 DU`17152 .. .................... .399,306 10,606,982 355,225 1,321,682 2,476,653.....................................I 1 1.1604 CD 0U111156 ........ ............... 496,000 16,234,948 67,033 77,047 2,321,504 9,287,608............. 748,455 I&E 7 2.504 0U11157 .... 8......... ......... 110,000 10,2862,5 1347,82 25,501 157,553 ............ ............ ............. &E 4 2.5787 01111165... 1..480,000....
............. 9,356,40303 22.44 189,951.......1,301,645.......
192510,44765 ... ............ 3..3.45623.56 0U11165 .... 2.................... 489,233................................................. 9,426,676............. 759,682 I&E 01111169 ..... 620,000 14,655,719 47,990 185,073 2,252,203 1,896,934............. 152,867 I&E 3 3.4562 DUT1 173 ...... 37,986 312,285 18,521 72,119 98,061 ......................... l...........
&E 2 0.8639
...... 19 ..
DU17 390,278 1,204,485 74,177 261,241 358,556 .................................... I 1 1.1604 01111185 ..... 225,000 3,496,693 21,560 51,324 527,614 1,268,125............. 102,032 I&E 7 2.504 5764 26,371 88,907 144,780 . ............ I 1 1.1604 0U1166.. 0118 Unt462,000 Unit .62,000............577,654 2,7 897 1470.I1 ......................... 110 01111187 t23............... 14,1 ........................ ........................ . . .
........................ . . .t&.4,1. ......... I 5 0.1286 0U11187 K 6.8................
Mt. 500,000 78,370............ 47,573 58,732 ..... ........... I...................5 0.1286 DU119 .. UU1611.............82229.......................................&..........72,222.......... .............. ............ I 5 0.1286 1111189 ... Unit 7 ................ 80,000 22,427............ 19,852 23,045 ............................... I.... 5 0.1286 0U11198 ........................ 279,511 5.198,159 27,451 92,443 805,093 268,118 2............ 1,607 I&E 3 3.4562 01111202 .... Power Plant ........... 36,000 1,154,817 ............ 13,668 178,088 ......................... l...........
&E 11 0.7352 0DU11202 .... Filtration Plant ......... 30,000 987,137 ............ 13,284 153,830 ........ ........... l................
&E 9 5.973
('-4 i DUT1206 1...................................... 85,972 53,440 56,705 65,852 16,756 ....................... ....................... ....................... I&E 2 0.8639 DUTt206 2...................................... 85,000 59,054 56,155 65,236 17,489 ....................... i&E 2 0.8639 DUT1206 3...................................... 120,972 87,045 76,530 88,027 23,890 ....................... .......................
....................... l&E 2 0.8639 DUT1209 Plant A..... . 640,000 2,227,053 89,172 ........................................
S ....................... 116,036 343,947 .......... ....... l&E 11 0.7352 DUT1209 Plant B............................ 515,972 10,503,729 51,204 184,394 1,628,685 5,849,051 471,354 l&E 3 3.4562 DUT1211 ......................................... 1,666,667 32,926,766 3,240,832 1,072,136 2,519,335 ....................... 265,345 16E 11 0.7352 DUT1212 ......................................... 687,500 2,000,922 85,020 3,326,419....... 302,122 501,987 ................... I&E 1.1604 DUT1214 ....................................... 51,944 754,488 34,900 22,241 94,763 7,829,721 630,969
....................... lI 4 2.5787 DUT1217 Unit 1 .............................. ....................... ............. ;......... ....................... .................. ................... ........... !............
DUT1217 Unit 6-8........................... 104,861 848,612 ....................... ...................... ....................... 16,547 137,371 ......... ....... _.. I&E 13 7.0567 DUT1217 Unit 4.............................. ............. i......... .................
..................... ....................... l&E DUT1219 550,000 2,862,608 108,307 438,079 737,343 23,069 l&E 2........0.8639 DUT1223 .................................... 142,000 1,422,632 8,898 55,779 249,432 179,0194 ............ ......... _ l&E 12 3.6581 DUT1223 2.. .............................. 224,800 2,121,274 22,284 56,502 336,239 ...................... ........... ......... __ 44,587 MIE 12 3.6581 DUT1227 1 & 2............................... 130,000 373,205 21,493 71,516 103,159 179,011........ lIE 1.1604 DUT1227 3. .................................. 185,000 512,326 29,084 98,594 142,454 ............. .......... .......................
lI 1.1604 DUT1229 73,000 30,638 82,612 96,918 18,668 .......... ............ ....................... ....................... lIE 2 0.8639 CD DUT1238 ...................................... 676,000 386,447 531,800 688,788 212,010 2 0.8639 DUT1238 B..................................... 334,000 344,428 525,715 662,610 185,934 lI 2 0.8639 DUT1248 ......................................... 452,083 .......... ........ _. ....................... *1 49,114 ....................... 36,652 43,645 ....................... lI 5 0.1286 DUT1249 ......................................... 43,900 10,765 ....................... 13,783 .15,316 ............ ......... ....................... 5 0.1286 DUT1250 ..........I............................... 360,000 12,788,752 160,063 151,944 1,812,711 17,224,807 1,388,085 IE 7 2.504 DUT1252 112,000 157,353 10,988 32,494 43,910 .......................
....................... lI 1.1604 -Ci
....................... ........... 3 DUT1258 Screen House No.1. 287,083 6,665,603 171,249 116,490 894,273 .......................
....................... 3.4562 DUT1258 Screen House No.2. 422,708 9,009,434 248,577 168,448 1,202,611 ...................
................. l&E IE 3 3.4562 DUT1258 DUT1259 Screen House No.3......... 243,056 71,181 4,842,849 2,706,303 108,025 20,742 73,278 26,203 654,766 390,778 4,429,893 81,723 356,989 6,586 3
.3 3.4562 3.4562 z
DUT1261 U12.....................................
................................. 79,000 49,889 119,643 139,137 26,598 ....................... ....................
lIE
!E l&E .2 0.8639 DUT1261 U34............................... 139,750 1,735,631 101,580 26,018 171,552 ... _................... ............... ........ 133,034 l&E l&E 4 2.5787 DUT1265 DUT1268
......................................... 70,000 2,400,000 495,281 20,911,797 35,987 1,793,928 143,288 177,818 1,807,054 .......................
150,000 11,965 l&E M&E a 0.8639 p.
......................................... 623,613 -2,112,610 168,521 11 0.7352 DUT1269 456,000 3,012,280 107,765 130,761 451,877 ....................... I&E
......................................... 304.315 24,275 11 0.7352 DUT1270 89,583 18,084 ............ i........ 16,343 18,918 .......................
................. 0.1286
......... O............................... 5 I-b DUT1271 186,000 14,970,016 30,165 49,913 2,151,142 470,162 7 2.504 DUT1272 Mol &2.....................
................. . .................. Co 713,889 1,238,695 76,910 270,425 369,877 1.1604 DUT 272 Mo1 & ........................ .. 528,472 849,029 53,826 185,965 253,021 ....................... .............. I.........
I&E 1 1.1604 DUTi 273 ........................................ ...................... 444.444 2,752,775 164,719 582,187 809,401 ....................... ....................... I 1.1604 DUT1274 ......................................... 330,556 1,564,234 62,476 225,250 385,486 ....... I........... ....................... ..................... 2 1.1604 DUT1275 ......................................... 1,992,500 6,739,793 ..................... 355,766 1,315,361 ...................... iiiii 680,886 11 54,31 0.8639 DUT1276 ........... I.............................. 62,500 412,277 23,754 26,574 61,518 ,..................... ....................... ....................... 1 0.7352 DUT1278 ........................... a.............. 559,722 4,962,033 193,479 688,069 1,201,071 ......... ....... _.. ....................... . . . 1.1604 J. ___ ___ _ __ ___ ___ _ L ___ ____ __ . _ ___ ___ _ .L _ __ __ _ II Facilitles Receiving No EPA Technology Upgrade Costs V F T .. AUTOOIO AUYTOO13 ALUT0018 ............................................. n/a n/a ....................... n/a ....................... n/a n/a n/a n/a p. CD AUIT0022 AUIT0033 .....................................................
............ .................... n/a .......................
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 00 0) AUTOO36 AUT0041 .......................................
......................................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ALUT0047 ALUT00SO .........................................
......................................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
....................... ................. ....................... n/a n/a 0.
AUT0054 n/a ....................... ....................... ....................... n/a n/a AUTOO67 AUTrOO68 n/a n/a
....................... ................. n/a n/a n/a n/a AUTOO71 AUIT0072 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0)
AUT0073 AUTrOO77
...................................... ... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A AUT0079 n/a ....................... ....................... .......................
AUTom8 AUT0083 .................................
........................................ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a AUT0087 AUToo91 AUT0093
............................................................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a CM n/a r
C C Annualized Ntrvnehfulzd Perform-Dei C' EPA assumed designcostenueO&DeEPAn IntaknCapNal Post Aiie Netr Annualized standar molde EPA design intake Baseline O&M constructon C&M usg losses from Pilot sudy downstme and standards modeled o Facility ID Intake ID flowm (l) annual oot intakotAe neto2 costs pilot study on which teh- adjust-07 Conm M d 86 estimates coe (ml tP ($) are based Column I Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 Column Column Column 02 11 12 13 AUT00 7 .... n. ........................ .... .......I..._... n..... ............... ........ ....................... ......... ................... ......... .... _.......... ............. I......... .................... ....a. . ............a.... ALJT 101 .... . ................ '1 r a .. .... ........ _...... na.......................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ........ ....................... ........ ................... ....... ................ .... AUT0104 .. WA ....................... .................. a....... ....................... .......... . ....... ....... . .......................
. ....... ................ ........................... .................. .... r~
AUT 111 .... .. ...................................... .n a ............ ........ ........... I.... ........ ....................... ......... ..... ...... ..... I....... ......... . ...................... .......... I............. ..................... r~ ALI 01 14 ........ AUT0156 .... .......... ............................../a .n a ..............
....................... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... .................... ....................... ....................... ................. . .. n/a n/a n~
AUT................ AUT0125 .... ... .......................... n/..n ............ r a ... ......... nal......... ....................... ...I..................... .... ........ ........... .................. ...... ................ ....... ....................... ..... ................ . . ... a ~ r/ O-A m 0 12 .... ... ."..................... ............. AUT0129 .... ...... n
. n~a .......I............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ........ ....................... ........ .. ............
a . ....................... ....... ........ ........
............... ........ . ..................... ......................... .......... ............. .......... ....... ...... .....I...........n an/
W AU~ 1s .... ......................................... n Wae ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ........ ....................... ........ ............... ............... ........ .............. ....... .. ..................... n/ ALI 0157 .... ......................................... I a ................. n...... . ............ .... ....... ........ ........ ............... ........ ...................
........ ....................... ....... ................ ...... ....... ...... . .......I-AtM 0 5 .... ......................................... n a - ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... . ....................... ........ ............... ...... ....... .......... ............. ....... ... .................. na ~
AU T 163 .... ... .... ra ....................... ........... na........ .... ................... ...... ....................... ........ ....I.........I. ... ........ ................... ...I....................... ....... ................ .... 0)
~
A o17O .... .... na........ ...................... . ..... n a ....................... ........... ............ ........... ......... . ....................... ................ ....................... ........ ............... ........ .... r an/ 0 1: A ~T0 73... .....
........................... ............. _. nta ...... ................. ...... ........ ......... .............. ........ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ....... ........ ............... ........ .................... n an a 00 AUT0178 .... ... -:..... ...........................
.. nfa . ....................... ....... ........ ........ ............... ........ ....................... ....... .................. ..... ........ .......... ............. .... ...... ................. na a _oZ AU~T0 81 .... ... .. ............................. . ....
n a ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... . ....................... ....... I............... ......... ........ ...... ............ I..... ..... ................. . .. n/ AUT0182 .... ......................................... . . na ....................... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... . ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ .... ... ................. na a %a4 AUT0189 .... ......................................... . .n/a ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ........ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ .... ... .................. na ~ 0 CD AUT0 019 .... ......................................... . . na ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... . ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ .... ... .................. na l 0 AU T021 .... ......................................... . .n/a ......... ............. .......... ........ ..... .................. ..... .. ....................... ..... I... .............. ......... ........ ...... ................. ...... .................. .'an/ .o3 AU T0215 .... ......................................... .n/a ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ........ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ .... ... .................. na ~ 00 AUT02 16.... ....................................... .. Wa ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... . ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ .... ... .................. na I _0 A T 221 .... ......................................... (Va ........ .............. ......... ........ ...... ................. ...... . ....................... ........ ............... ........ ............... ................ .... ... ................. . .. n/ AtJT 23 .... ... ( a ....................... .............. na_......... ....................... ........ ................... ........ ................... ........ ............... ............ ................... ................. . .... .V AUT 232 .... ........................................ Iva ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... . ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................. ~ / 0pd 51 AUT 235 .... ........ ................................ AUT 24 3.... .............................. ....
.n a ....................... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... . ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................
I a . ....... ................ ....... ........ ........ ............... ........ ....................... ........ ...:........... ......... ........ ...... ................. ...... ................. r an an/ a M AUT 241 .... .................................. ....... r a ........._i........ ...... ........................ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ...... ................. ...... . ....................... ................. . .... .k/ AUT0241 .... ............................ ............ . nW A ........ ............... ........ ..... I... ..... .................. ..... ....................... ........... ............ ......... ........ ...... ................. ...... ................. ~ ~ Ca A I C246 .... .......................... ............... ._ rna ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ........ ....................... ........ .... .......... .......... ........ .... ......... .......... ... ....... ?.............n~ ALI O M 4 .. .. ....................... .................. n....... ....................... ........ ............... ............ ................... ........ ............... ........................... .................. ..... A N AU T026 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ O
....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................ ....... ................ n an a AtJT026 .... ........................................ n a ........ ......... ..... ......... ......... .. ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................ ....... ................. f ~ ~O AU T0270 .... ......................................... n/a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................ ....... ................ an a AL O 75 Iva ....................... .................. na.............................. ........ ................... ........ ................... ........ ................... ....................... ..................... n/ CD AUT 286 ... . ...... _............. na........ .............. WA ......... ........... ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ............... ........ ....................... ....................... ......... n an a ID At 286 .... ......................................... n A W 0287 .. n.
a ........ ............... ........ ............
....................... .................. na.....
/
n~
/ tn AUT0287 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ....... ........ ............... ........ ............... ........ ................ / / PW AUT0206 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ....... ........ ............... ........ ............... ........ ................ l /
AUTO 0 ... ..................................... I... . n/a ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ..................... ....................... .......... ............ ........ ............... ........ ............... ............. / ~ AUT 30 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ ...... I................ . ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................ ....... ................. ~ ~ ALIT 31 .... ......................................... n a ....................... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ............... ................ ....... ................ ....... ................. ~ / AUT0310 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ............... ........ ...........I.... ....... ................ an/ ALIT 15 .... ......................................... n ~ a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ............... ........ ............... ........ ...I............ ~ / AU T 34 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................ ....... ................. W a A1.77O 5 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................ ....... ................. ~ ~ ALIT03 5 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ........... I..... ...... ................. AW AUT0356 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................ ....... ................. n aW AUT0359 .... ......................................... na ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................ ....... ................ AW AUT 3O .... ......................................... n/a .................... ............... ........ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ....I............ ...... ................. ...... ................. a a AUT 373 .... ......................................... n a ........ ............... ........ ............ ....................... ........ ............... ........ ........ ....... ................ ....... ................ ....... I............... n aW
AUU.......................Oa 08A .. *............. a.....
............. ....... ............ i/a flaf AUT0O8S... ..................... n/a ............. ..... ............ ................... ... .. ..... fl/a...
/ fl......./a...........
/
AU0AU4a.. ....................... ............. .a........... ....... .. ... rar/a..... fl/a....... AUTO........ a... ........ ..... ......... *...ri/a... a. AU UTO............ 9...........7............ 09A.. ..................... ............ ............ ............ ri/aa
........... ........ n/a f/
AUT04397 .. ..................... r/a ............. ............ ............ ... I..... n............/a........... w r............i/a....... d A UTT0O..4...................... ri/a ............. ............ ... ........... ............ ......... ~n............ a........ ri/a..........
/
r/..... AU00U.......................TO4........................O...........................6...... ............................ n/a n/a 'AUT04011.. . da ....................................................................................... /......ra n/ta AUT0411S... . /a ........................................... I.................................................... /a n/a AUT0440S ................. I........n..................................................................... /a ri/a AUT04434 .. .................. I.. . ra a.. .......... ............. ............. ............. ............... .a.......... ............ ~ ~ i.......a. AUT044 .. .... ri/a........................................................................... ...... ... n...... ra n/a AU05AU 4...........5........................9.......r/..... ........................ ........................ n/a n/a AUT0462 .. ..................... . raa. ........... ............. ............. ............ ...... ...... ............ ............. ........ la.rl AUT04737... na.......................................................................... .... I........r....../.. a n/a AUT04778... NO/...........a.................................... ............................................. ri/a n/ta
/...
AU08AUT04........................9........................2........................ ... .....
. .n/va rn/a AUTO0490 . ......................ri/a............ ............. ............................... ;....../a............ ............. .. /a......rt
/
AUT050 ... n/ra ............................................................................. I.........i/........ ta n/ta AUT05072...nra .............................................................. ........... ........... ........ n/a n/a AU01U.......................TO r/..... ........................ ........................ ..................... I.............. ....... n/a ri/a AUT0538....nda ...................................................................................... i/........ na rda AU0AUTO........................5.......................I........................4...................r/..... rda n/a AU04AUT.....................................0........................4...I.........ri/.....ri/a n/a AU04AUT.....................................0........................6.............ri/.....rIva n/a
'AUT0545..5..................... .ri/a....................................................... da n/a AUT0555 .. ... ri/a.. . .................................................... n/a n/a AUT055 .. ri/a .................................. ................................ ...... n/fla nfla AUT.................... ... /a...... .a.........
AUT0575 ... na .............................................................. ........... ........... ....... ria n/a AUTOO5..O...................... . n/a...............................ri/a n/a AUTOO ........................ r/a ......................... .... /a m/a AUTOGG ... n/a ............................................ I........I.........................................ri/a n/a AUT066I8 .. na ....................................................................................... /..........l n/al n/.....n/da AU00U.T.....................rO8........................S........................6.................................... ....... n/a AU01U.........T.............O6 7....n/.....n/~a ........................ .................................... .................... n/a AUTO75S .. ....................... rla............
............ .......................... ............. ......... .......... ~
r...i/a....... a~ DNU2002 .. ...................... . n ............ ............ ............ ............ .... ......... v ~ n............/a........... n/a.... DNU20I5... ..................... .ri/a............ ............. ................... I...... ............. ...... ............ /a...... i........a l DNU2031..4..................... .nva ....................................... ........................ rta n/a DUrilol.... . . ..................... ra.......... . .n/da n/a CLT03.. DU.............l............. a........r......./a.... C................. . . . I.. . ............ ............ ............ . . . . C~ ~ i/a.......
C II. AnuIzd NtrvneAnnualized Perlorm- EA Design EPA assumedt Baseline O&M Ponstr o capita s int losestro Pilo study downtime and standards modeled adjust Facility ID Intake ID deswgn intakecost m cons&co EPA uesigngit costs pilot Stud on which tech-($)M annual cost intake flow2 cof~struction ($ costs2 EPA cost nologly m~ent 0) (S)Mdontm ($ estimates code Si~ ($) are based Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 Column Column Column 11 12 13 Z' DU121........... DU1U O........................ 6.. ..................... nl.... n// e............
.. A ...................
...... n/a n.....a.
W We n/a qs. 0 DDT07..U.....................T1 n/....n/va........................ ........... ........................ ................................. MIA DDT02..U.....................Tna............1........... n/.... ........................ ........................ ............. ....... n/a n/a 0 DUUTIOnS........................S........................
....................... n/ .. ...... ........................ ........... n/a....n/a W DUTr1O58 .. .............. ...... n/a...........................n/a......... ............ ............ ............ ............. .... ~ ~ a.... S.-
DU17DUT n/.............................. ..
........................ .... ...... ........................ ..... n/a n/a DLT07.. ..................... n/....
/a........................1........................ .. .................................... ...... n/a n/a DDT02..U.....................Ia..T......... n/ ........................ .. ........... ..... ........................ ........... n/......
ra n/a 0.9 0
.. ............... ............. n/
DUT11 7.. ..................... . .n/a......................................n............/............ ............. .... ......... v ~ n/a...... DUT1 120 .. ..................... . .n/a...................................................n..../a....... ............ ............ v/a........W DUD 19..U.....................Ta............ n/ ........................ .. ........... ............ ........................ ........... /a n/a DUT14 ....................... n/....n/va
/1........................4........................ .. .................................... ...... n/a DLT UT........................1........................1....................................
4 ....................... n/......n/va .. ..... n/a DUT1 4 .. ...................... . .n/a............I.......................... ............. ...... I...... ....... I..... ..... I....... ...... v va.. 04 DUTI 170 . . . . na........................ ......... n/a nWa DUD 1.....I..............................5...... 14.. ..................... n/....n/~a nUT........... ............... ..
..................... n/a DUD 1........................
15..U.....................nT............ n/.... .................................... .. ........... ...... n/a n/a DDrU7T1...n1............7........................7........................n/....n/~a .. ........................ ...... n/a OU .............. .... a........n/a 9........................ DU18DU............... n/....
/ ........................ .......................... ........... ...... n/a n/a DUT11 .. ..... a......n/
DUT1199 .. ..................... . n/a............................ ............ ............ ............. .... ..................... l ~ n/a..... DUD 0 .. ....................................... n........................... ........ I.... . .. n/a.....n/
/
DU123......... 4........... ............. n/......nIva na............ .................................... .. ........................ ..... n/a DUJT12205 ................... ..... . n a ............. .......................... ............. ............ ............ /............v/.........a~ T1 8...... DU1DU ....................... n/.... ........................ ..
........................ .................................... n/a n/a DUUT 12........................3...........
....................... n/.... .. ................ ................... ........... ...... n/a n/a D0UT1225..3 ..................... n............a..
W . ................ ......... ........................ ......... ......... v ~ n..........a. n/a DUJT12385.. .e.........................n........................a. .. ............ n.........../..................... ra n/A
DU4
- n DLI1239..... .....................I.................... r.a ............... na........
.......... ^. ...................... ........... ........ .... ................. nana DLT 1243 ..... ......................................... r ................ na....................... ........ ....................... ....................... ........... . ......... ..........;............ ........ ............... ............ / t DUT1254 .. ................ ....................... nn/a ........ ............... ........ ........ ....................... ....................... ........ ........ ....................... ............................. a DM 1257 .... ......................................... n/a ................ ....... ................ ....... ....................... ....................... ....................................... ....... ....................... ........................ a DUT1262 .... .a........................................................
/... ....................... ....................... ....................... ..... ........... ....................... ....................... ............
'The design flow adjustment slope (m) represents the slope that corresponds to the particular facility using the technology in column 3 2 Dlscount rate = 7%
3 Amortization period for capital costs = 10 years 4 Amortization period for downtime and pilot study costs - 30 years Note: Depending on the data provided, some facilities with multiple Intakes were costed separately for each intake. In such cases, the facility should calculate the costs considered by EPA for each intake using the steps below and sum. Note that some costs (e.g., constructon downtime) are assigned evenly to each intake for convenience. C C (.
41680 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations Appendix B: Facility ED and Facility Facility ID Facility name Facility ID Facility name Name for All Facilities Not Claiming AUT0160 . L V Sutton AUTo307 ... Rodemacher
-- Survey Information CBI AUT0308 ... W S Lee AUT0161 . Valley Facility name AUT0163.. . Belle River AUTo309 ... Wilkes Facility ID AUT0310 ... A B Paterson AUT0168.. E F Barrett
... Cane Run AUT0170 . 0 W Sommers AUT0314 ... Philip Spom AUT0001 ... Sabine AUT0002 ... Chesapeake AUT0171 . New Madrid AUT0315 AUT0004 ... Hennepin AUT0173 . Fort Calhoun Nuclear AUT0319 ... Cliffside AUT0010 ... Bowen AUT0174 . Herbert a Wagner AUT0321 ... J E Corette
... Shawville AUT0175 . R E Burger AUTo331 ... Lake Creek AUT0011 Hamilton AUT0012 ... Diablo Canyon Nuclear AUT0176 . Martin Lake AUT0333 ...
AUT0013 ... Montville AUT0178 . Mt Storm AUT0337 ... Johnsonville AUT0014 ... Williams AUT0181 Prairie Creek AUT0341 ... Montrose AUT0015 ... Northport AUT0182 Arsenal Hill AUT0343 ... John E Amos
... Cholla AUT0183 Schuylkill AUT0344 ... Weston AUT0016 AUT0018 ... R M HesketK Station AUT0185 Gallatin AUT0345 ... Summer Nuclear
... Charles Polettl AUT0187 North Anna Nuclear AUT0349 ... McGuire Nuclear AUT0019 AUT0020 ... B L England AUT0190 Ginna AUT0350 ... Clinton Nuclear
... B C Cobb AUT0191 J H Campbell AUT0351 ... Portland AUT0021 AUT0022 ... St Johns River Power AUT0192 ... R W Miller AUT0355 ... Limerick Nuclear
... Bull Run AUT0193 ... Joliet 29 AUT0356 ... Byron Nuclear AUT0024 ... H T Pritchard AUT0027 ... Lake Hubbard AUT0196 ... Southside AUT0358 AUToo33 ... Muscatine AUT0197 Austin-dt AUT0359 ... Hookers Point
... Edgewater AUT0201 ... Cope AUT0361 ... Hawthorn AUT0036
... Edwin I Hatch AUT0202 ... Donald C Cook Nuclear AUT0362 ... Teche AUTo041 AUT0044 ... Hunters Point AUT0203 ... Riverside AUT0363 ... Wansley AUT0047 ... Michoud AUT0205 ... Jollet 9 AUT0364 ... Dresden Nuclear AUToo49 ... Phalk Point AUT0208 ... NewCastle AUT0365 ... Arkwright
... Wyandotte AUT0215 ... Coleto Creek AUT0368 ... Kaw AUTo050 Deepwater AUT0051 ... Suwannee River AUT0216 ... Fort St Vrain AUT0370 ...
AUT0053 ... Nelson Dewey AUTO221 ... Polk AUT0373 ... Valmont AUT0054 ... Flint Creek AUT022 ... Marion AUT0379 ... Lake Pauline
... Thomas Fitzhugh AUT0226 ... Sooner AUT0380 ... Will County AUT0057 AUT0058 ... Mercer AUT0227 ... Silver Lake AUT0381 ... Healy AUT0064 Decordova AUT0228 ... High Bridge AUT0384 ... Somerset AUT0066 ... Fermi Nuclear AUT0229 ... Dan E Kam AUT0385 ... Hutsonville
{: AUT0067 ... Henry D King AUT0230 ... McWilliams AUT0387 ... Haynes
... Scattergood AUT0232 ... V H Braunig AUT0388 ... Lewis Creek AUT0068
,JiiiAUTO071 ... Oswego AUT0235 ... Sam Raybum AUTo390 ... Fort Churchill AUT0072 ... Sioux AUT0238 ... North Lake AUT0394 ... Nebraska City AUT0073 ... Lake Catherine AUT0240 ... Lee AUT0396 ... Bremo Power Station AUT0078 ... Missouri City AUT0241 ... J B Sims AUT0397 ... George Neal North AUT0079 ... Eagle Mountain AUT0242 Quad Cities Nuclear AUT0398 ... latan AUT0080 ... Lone Star AUT0244 Elk River AUT0399 ... Boomer Lake AUT0083 ... Schiller AUT0245 ... Avon Lake AUT0401 ... Fort Myers AUT0084 ... Salem Nuclear AUT0246 ... Canaday AUT0403 ... Nine Mile Point Nuclear AUT0085 ... Point Beach Nuclear AUT0248 ... Sam Bertron AUT0404 ... Mitchell
... Linden AUT0254 ... Chamois AUTD405 ... Fisk AUT0092 AUT0093 ... Perry Nuclear AUT0255 ... Cooper AUT0406 ... Merom AUTOO95 *- Tyrone AUT0257 ... Gerald Gentleman AUT0408 ... Cameo AUT0097 ... Little Gypsy AUT0260 ... Marshall AUT0411 ... Roseton AUT0101 ... Lakeside AUT0261 ... Dale AUT0415 ... Rochester 7 AUT0106 Cheswick AUT0264 ... Indian Point 3 Nucler AUT0416 ... Noblesville AUT0110 ... C P Crane AUT0266 ... North Omaha AUT0419 ... Brunswick Nuclear AUT0111 ... Cape Fear AUT0268 ... Cutler AUT0423 ... James A Fitzpatrick AUTo014 ... Kewaunee Nuclear AUT0270 ... Possum Point AUT0424 ... Davis-besse AUT0120 ... Norwalk Harbor AUT0273 ... Stanton AUT0427 ... Blount Street AUT0123 ... Warren AUT0275 .. Seabrook Nuclear AUT0431 ... San Angelo AUT0125 ... Beaver Valley Nuclear AUT0276 ... River Rouge AUT0433 ... Mistersky AUT0127 ... Lake Road AUT0277 ... Dubuque AUT0434 ... Paradise AUT0129 ... Susquehanna Nuclear AUT0278 ... Morgantown AUT0435 ... Shiras AUT0130 ... Elmer W Stout AUT0284 ... Handley AUT0440 ... Eaton AUT0131 ... iHammond AUT0285 ... Conners Creek AUT0441 ... Piqua AUT0134 ... Mount Tom AUT0286 ... Welsh AUT0443 ... Milton L Kapp AUT0137 ... Mitchell AUT0287 ... Horseshoe Lake AUT0444 ... Gibbons Creek AUT0139 ... ,Albany AUT0292 ... Harris Nuclear AUT0446 ... Richard H. Gorsuch AUT0142 ... ILauderdale AUT0295 ... Jack Mcdonough AUT0449 ... Big Brown AUT0143 ... IWood River AUT0296 W H Zimmer AUT0453 ... Four Comers AUT0146 ... IMeredosia AUT0297... Quindaro AUT0455 ... Seminole AUT0148 Tanners Creek AUT0298 ... Harllee Branch AUT0459 ... Vogfe Nuclear AUT0149 Thomas Hill AUT0299 ... Chesterfield AUT0462 ... Warrick Y AUT0151 ...
UT0152 ... IDecker Creek I)uck Creek AUT0300 ... AUT0302 ... Eckert Station U.S. DOE SRS (D-area) AUT0463 ... Rex Brown AUT0467 ... Vero Beach
- AUT0156 ... INaterford 1 & 2 AUT0304 ... Lansing AUT0472 ... Miami Fort AUT0157 ... IPulliam AUT0305 ... Kahe AUT0473 ... Palisades Nuclear
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 / Friday,, July 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 41681 Facility ID I Facility name Facility ID I Facility name Facility ID I Facility name AUT0476 Trinidad AUT0623 Kendall Square DUT110O. Sewaren (>AUT0477 Fair Station AUT0625 Encina DUT1103 Milton R Young AUT0478 Dansby AUT0630 Lovett DUT1 109 Riverside AUTO481.. Powerlane AUT0631 Salem Harbor DUT1i11 E D Edwards AUT0482 Gen J M Gavin AUT0635 Aes Hickling DUTI1112 Lieberman AUT0483 Shawnee AUT0637 Ormond Beach DUTI1113 Sequoyah Nuclear AUT0489 Nearman Creek AUT0638 Mandalay DUT1 I16 Waiau AUT0490 Buck AUT0639 Pittsburg DUT1 117 Columbia AUT0492.. Collins DMU3244.. University of Notre Dame DUT1118 Cooper AUT0493.. E S Joslin Power Plant DUTI1122 Edgewater AUT0496.. Indian River DMU3310.. University of Iowa-Main DUT1I123 Waukegan AUT0499 Bay Front Power Plant DUT1 132 Cumberland Big Cajun 2 DNU2002 Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogenera- DUTI1133 J R Whiting ALFT0501 Jack Watson tion Partners,'L.P. DUTI1138 Harbor AUT0507.. Crawford DNU2011 Long Beach Generation DUT1140 Morgan Creek AUiT0512 J K Spruce DNU2013 Maine Energy Recovery Com- DUT1 142 Victoria AUT0513 Waterford #3 Nuclear pany DUTI 143 East River AUT0515.. Rockport DNU2014 Baltimore Resco DUTI 145 Honolulu AUT0517.. Humboldt Bay DNU2015 Southern Energy-Canal DUTI 146 Devon AUT0518 . James River DNU2017 Westchester Resco Co. DUTI1148 Council Bluffs AUT0521.. Menasha DNU2018 Grays Ferry Cogeneration Part- DUT1 152 Coffeen AUT0522.. Jefferies nership DUTI 153 Mill Creek AUT0523.. Walter C Beckjord DNU2021 Morgantown DUTI1154 McClellan AUT0529.. Gould Street DNU2025 Sparrows Point Div Bethlehem DUT1 155 P H Robinson AUT0531 . Braidwood Nuclear Steel Corp DUT1 156 John Sevier AUT0534.. Crisp- DNU2031 Ch Resources-Beaver Falls DUTI1157 Sterdington AUT0535 . Urquhart DNU2032 Duke Energy South Bay DUT 1161 Robert E Ritchie AUT0536.. Rush Island DNU2038 Saugus Resco DUTI16B5 Big Bend AUT0537.. Dallman DNU2047 El Segundo Power DUTI 167 Ninemile Point AUT0538.. Genoa DUT0062 Leland Olds Station DUTI1169 Hudson AUT0539 Edge Moor DUT0576 Sam 0. Purdom Generating DUT1 170 Carl Bailey AUT0540 J P Madgett Station DUT1 172 Barney M Davis Point Nuclear DUTI1173 Logansport AUTOS" .. Indian Eddystone DUT1002 ... Monroe Peru DUT1174 Arkansas Nuclear One AUT05464. DUT1003 Bar Nuclear Martins Creek DUTI1175 Fox Lake AUT0547 . Watts DUT1006 CZAUT0551 AUT0552 Muskingum River Allen S King Kingston DUT1007 DUT1008 DUT1011 Presque Isle Far Rockaway Stryker Creek DUTI1179 DUTI 185 DUT1186 Pirkey Cromby Glenwood AUT0553.. Hunlock Pwr Station DUT1012 Grand Tower DUT1 187 Mountain Creek AUT0554.. Potomac River DUT1014 Dolphus M Grainger DUTI 189 Larsen Memorial AUT0555 . Zuni DUT1021 Alma DUT1 191 Monroe AUT0S57.. Sayreville DUT1022 Comanche Peak Nuclear DUTI 192 Meramec AUT0561.. J T Deely DUT1023 Oyster Creek Nuclear DUTI 194 Gerald Andrus AUT0564.. Kyger Creek DUT1026.. Delaware DUTI1198 O H Hutchings AUT0567 . F B Culley DUTi 029 Crystal River DUT1202 Manitowoc AUT0568.. Northside DUT1031 Merrimack DUT1206 Indian River AUT0570 . Peach Bottom Nuclear DUT1033 J C Weadock DUT1209 Widows Creek AUIT0571 Baxter Wilson DUT1034 South Oak Creek DUT1211 Surry Nuclear AUT0573 San Onofre Nuclear OUT1036 Allen OUT1212 J M Stuart AU`10575.. Trenton Channel DUT1038 North Texas DUT1213 Riverside AUT0577.. Middletown DUT1041 Elmer Smith DUT1214 Charles R Lowman AUT0580O. Sixth Street DUT1043 Ray Olinger DUT1217 Deepwater AU`10582.. E W Brown DUT1O44 Tradinghouse DUT1219 Port Washington AUT0583.. Dave Johnston DUT1046 Labadie DUT1223 Nueces Bay AUT0585 . Burlington DUT1047 Elrama DUT1225 Burlington AUT0588.. Monticello DUT1048 Holly Street DUT1227 Sibley AUT0590O. C D McIntosh Jr DUT1049 Joppa Steam DUT1228 Willow Glen AUT0599.. Keamy DUT1050 Browns Ferry Nuclear DUT1229 Riverton AUT0600.. Kincaid DUT1051 Havana DUT1235 Riverside AUT0601.. Bridgeport Harbor DUT1056 Webster DUT1238 Cedar Bayou AUT0602.. Mason Steam DUT1057 Wateree DUT1248 Knox Lee AUT0603.. Astoria DUT1062 Fayette Power Pfi DUT1249 Oak Creek ALUTO604.. C R Huntley DUT1066 F J Gannon DUT1250 Vermont Yankee Nuclear AUTO606.. Hmp&l Station 2 DUT1067 Paint Creek DUT1252 Muskogee AUT0607.. Moss Landing DUT1068 Harbor DUT1258 St Clair AUT0608.. Pilgrim Nuclear DUT1070 Millstone DUT1259 James De Young AUT0611.. New Boston DUT1072 Graham DUT1261 Green River AUT0612.. Huntington Beach DUT1084 Fort Phantom DUT1265 River Crest AUT0613.. Morro Bay DUT1085 Petersburg DUT1268 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear AUT0617.. Ravenswood DUT1086 Valley DUT1269 Dean H Mitchell New Haven Harbor DUT1088 Seward DUT1270 Pueblo AUT0619.. AUT0621.. William F Wyman Dunkirk Contra Costa DUT1093 DUT1097 DUT1098 Bailly Rock River Blackhawk DUT1271 DUT1272 DUT1273 Michigan City Monticello Sim Gideon Ue
41682 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 131 I Friday, July 9, 2004/ Rules and Regulations Facility ID Fatcduity name § 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork provisions of § 125.95 of this chapter as Reduction Act. part of their application except for the DUT1274 ... P L Bartow * * * *
- Proposal for Information Collection DUT1275 ... Anclote which must be provided in accordance DUT1276 ... Animas with § 125.95(b)(1).
DUT1278 ... Newton 40 CFR citation No. (5) Cooling water system data. Phase List of Subjects I existing facilities as defined in part 40 CFR Part9 125, subpart J of this chapter must EPA Administered Permit Programs: The provide the following information for Environmental protection, Reporting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination each cooling water intake structure they and recordkeeping requirements. System use: 40 CFR Part122 (i) A narrative description of the Environmental protection, * * * .
- operation of the cooling water system, Administrative practice and procedure, 122.21 (r) .2040-0241, its relationship to cooling water intake Confidential business information, 2040-0257 structures, the proportion of the design Hazardous substances, Reporting and intake flow that is used in the system, recordkeeping requirements, Water the number of days of the year the pollution control. cooling water system is in operation and Criteria and Standards for the National seasonal changes in the operation of the 40 CFR Part123 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System system, if applicable; and Environmental protection, (ii) Design and engineering Administrative practice and procedure, calculations prepared by a qualified Confidential business information, professional and supporting data to 125.95 . .2040-0257 support the description required by Hazardous substances, Indians-lands, .12596 .. 204-0257 paragraph (r)(5)(i) of this section.
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 125.97 . .204-0257 Reporting and recordikeeping 125.98 . .2040-0257
- 3. Section 122.44 is amendedby requirements, Water pollution control. 125.99 . .2040-0257 revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
40 CFR Part124
§ 122.44 Establishing limitations, Environmental protection, standards, and other permit conditions Administrative practice and procedure, PART 122-EPA ADMINISTERED (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL § 12325).
Indians-lands, Reporting and POLLUTANT DISCHARGE * * * *
- recordkeeping requirements, Water ELIMINATION SYSTEM (b)***
pollution control, Water supply. (3) Requirements applicable to 40 CFR Part 125
- 1. The authority citation for part 122 cooling water intake structures under continues to read as follows: section 316(b) of the CWA, in Environmental protection, Cooling Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. accordance with part 125, subparts I and water intake structure, Reporting and 1251 etseq. J, of this chapter.
recordkeeping requirements, Waste
- 2. Section 122.21 is amended by * * * *
- treatment and disposal, Water pollution revising paragraph (r)(1) and by adding control. a new paragraph (r)(5) to read as follows: PART 123-STATE PROGRAM
- For the reasons set forth in the REQUIREMENTS preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the Code § 122.21 Application for a permit of Federal Regulations is amended as (applicable to State programs, see 5 123.25) a 1. The authority citation for part 123 follows: .* * * *
- continues to read as follows:
(r) Application requirements for Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 PART 9-OMB APPROvALS UNDER facilities with cooling water intake et seq. THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT structures-1)(i)New facilities with.. new or modified cooling water intake
- 2. Section 123.25 is amended by m1. The authority citation for part 9 structures. New facilities with cooling revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (36) to continues to read as follows: water intake structures as defined in read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-1 3 6y; part 125, subpart I, of this chapter must §123.25 Requirements for permitting. 15 U.S.C. 2001. 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671, submit to the Director for review the 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 information required under paragraphs U.S.C. 1251 etseq., 1311, 1313d, 2314, 1318, (r)(2), (3), and (4) of this section and (4) § 122.21 (a)-(b), (c)(2), (e)-(k), (in)- 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (p), (q), and (r)-(Application for a (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, § 125.86 of this chapter as part of their permit); 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C 241, application. Requests for alternative * * * *
- 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g. 300g-1, 300g-2, requirements under § 125.85 of this (36) Subparts A, B, D, H, I, and J of 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, chapter must be submitted with your part 125 of this chapter; 300j-2, 300j-3, 300J-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., permit application. * * .* .,
- 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,9601-9657, (ii) Phasef existingfacilities. Phase II 11023, 11048. existing facilities as defined in part 125, PART 124-PROCEDURES FOR
- 2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by subpart J, of this chapter must submit to DECISIONMAKING
\J revising the entry for "122.21(r)" and by the Director for review the information
'%Wadding entries in numerical order under required under paragraphs (r)(2), (3),
- 1. The authority citation for part 124 the indicated heading to read as follows: and (5) of this section and all applicable continues to read as follows:
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 131/.Friday, July 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations 41683 Authority: Resource Conservation and Subpart J-Requirements Applicable power, or generates electric power but Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; Safe to Cooling Water Intake Structures for sells it to another entity for Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; Phase II Existing Facilities Under transmission; and ({' Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Section 316(b) of the Act (4) It uses at least 25 percent of water ok~ Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
- 2. Section 124.10 is amended by
§125.90 What are the purpose and scope of this subpart?
withdrawn exclusively for cooling purposes, measured on an average annual basis. 0J revising paragraph (d)(1)(ix) to read as (a) This subpart establishes (b) In the case of a Phase II existing follows: requirements that apply to the location, facility that is co-located with a design, construction, and capacity of manufacturing facility, only that portion
§124.10 Public notice of permit actions cooling water intake structures at of the combined cooling water intake and public comment period. existing facilities that are subject to this flow that is used by the Phase II facility subpart (i.e., Phase I existing facilities). to generate electricity for sale to another (d)* *
- The purpose of these requirements is to entity will be considered for purposes of establish the best technology available determining whether the 50 MGD and for minimizing adverse environmental 25 percent criteria in paragraphs (a)(2)
(ix) Requirements applicable to impact associated with the use of and (4) of this section have been cooling water intake structures under cooling water intake structures. These exceeded. section 316(b) of the CWA, in requirements are implemented through (c) Use of a cooling water intake accordance with part 125, subparts I and National Pollutant Discharge structure includes obtaining cooling J, of this chapter. Elimination System (NPDES) permits water by any sort of contract or
* * * *
- issued under section 402 of the Clean arrangement with one or more Water Act (CWA). independent suppliers of cooling water PART 125-CRiTERIA AND (b) Existing facilities that are not if the supplier withdraws water from STANDARDS FOR THE NATIONAL subject to requirements under this or waters of the United States but is not POLLUTANT DISCHARGE another subpart of this part must meet itself a Phase II e.dsting facility, except ELiMINATION SYSTEM requirements under section 316(b) of the as provided in paragraph (d) of this CWA determined by the Director on a section. This provision is intended to m 1. The authority citation for part 125 case-by-case, best professional judgment prevent circumvention of these continues to read as follows: (BPJ) basis. requirements by creating arrangements (c) Alternative regulatory to receive cooling water from an entity Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 requirements.Notwithstanding any et seq.; unless otherwise noted. that is not itself a Phase II existing other provision of this subpart, if a State facility.
Q 2. Add subpart J to part 125 to read as A_ follows: demonstrates to the Administrator that it has adopted alternative regulatory (d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, obtaining cooling water requirements in its NPDES program that from a public water system or using Subpart J-Requirements Applicable to will result in environmental treated effluent as cooling water does Cooling Water Intake Structures for Phase performance within a watershed that is not constitute use of a cooling water 11Existing Facilities Under Section 316(b) of comparable to the reductions of intake structure for purposes of this the Act impingement mortality and entrainment subpart. Sec. that would otherwise be achieved under 125.90 What are the purpose and scope of § 125.94, the Administrator must § 125.92 [Reserved) this subpart? approve such alternative regulatory
§ 125.93 What special definitions apply to 125.91 What is a "Phase Hexisting requirements. this subpart?
facility"? Cd) Nothing in this subpart shall be 125.92 [Reserved] construed to preclude or deny the right In addition to the definitions 125.93 What special definitions apply to of any State or political subdivision of provided in § 122.3 of this chapter, the this subpart? a State or any interstate agency under following special definitions apply to 125.94 How will requirements reflecting section 510 of the CWA to adopt or this subpart: best technology available for minimizing enforce any requirement with respect to Adaptive management method is a adverse environmental impact be control or abatement of pollution that is type of project management method established for my Phase I existing not less stringent than those required by where a facility chooses an approach to facility? Federal law. meeting the project goal, monitors the 125.95 As an owner or operator of a Phase effectiveness of that approach, and then' Hexisting facility, what must I collect §125.91 What is a "Phase 11Existing based on monitoring and any other and submit when I apply for my reissued Facility"? relevant information, makes any NPDES permit? (a) An existing facility, as defined in adjustments necessary to ensure 125.96 As an owner or operator of a Phase § 125.93, is a Phase II existing facility continued progress toward the project's I existing facility, what monitoring must subject to this subpart if it meets each goal. This cycle of activity is repeated as I perform? of the following criteria: necessary to reach the project's goal. 125.97 As an owner or operator of a Phase (1) It is a point source. Annual mean flow means the average II existing facility, what records must I (2) It uses or proposes to use cooling of daily flows over a calendar year. keep and what information must I water intake structures with a total All life stages means eggs, larvae, report? design intake flow of 50 million gallons juveniles, and adults. 125.98 As the Director, what must I do to per day (MGD) or more to withdraw Calculationbaselinemeans an comply with the requirements of this cooling water from waters of the United estimate of impingement mortality and subpart? States; entrainment that would occur at your 125.99 What are approved design and (3) As its primary activity, the facility site assuming that: the cooling water construction technologies? both generates and transmits electric system has been designed as a once-
41684 Federal Register/IVol. 69, No. 131 /Friday. July 9,- 200-4 / Rules and Regulations 41684 through system; the opening of the water system as the thermodynamic passes through the open area of the cooling water intake structure is located medium. intake screen (or other device) against Qa at, and the face of the standard 3/a-inch mesh traveling screen is oriented parallel to, the shoreline near the Closed-cycle recirculatingsystem means a system designed, using minimized make-up and blowdown which organisms might be impinged or through which they might be entrained. Diel means daily and refers to surface of the source waterbody; and the flows, to withdraw water from a natural variation in organism abundance and baseline practices, procedures, and or other water source to support contact density over a 24-hour period due to the structural configuration are those that and/or noncontact cooling uses within a influence of water movement, physical your facility would maintain in the facility. The water is usually sent to a or chemical changes, and changes in absence of any structural or operational cooling canal or channel, lake, pond, or light intensity. controls, including flow or velocity tower to allow waste heat to be Entrainment means the incorporation reductions, implemented in whole or in dissipated to the atmosphere and then is of any life stages of fish and shellfish part for the purposes of reducing returned to the system. (Some facilities with intake water flow entering and impingement mortality and divert the waste heat to other process passing through a cooling water intake entrainment. You may also choose to operations.) New source water (make-up structure and into a cooling water use the current level of impingement water) is added to the system to system. mortality and entrainment as the replenish losses that have occurred due Estuarymeans a semi-enclosed body calculation baseline. The calculation to blowdown, drift, and evaporation. of water that has a free connection with baseline may be estimated using: Cooling watermeans water used for open seas and within which the historical impingement mortality and contact or noncontact cooling, including seawater is measurably diluted with entrainment data from your facility or water used for equipment cooling, fresh water derived from land drainage. from another facility with comparable evaporative cooling tower makeup, and The salinity of an estuary exceeds 0.5 design, operational, and environmental dilution of effluent heat content. The parts per thousand (by mass) but is conditions; current biological data intended use of the cooling water is to typically less than 30 parts per thousand collected in the waterbody in the absorb waste heat rejected from the (by mass).
*vicinity of your'cooling water intake process or processes used, or from Existingfacility means any facility auxiliary operations on the facility's structure; or current impingement premises. Cooling water that is used in that commenced construction as mortality and entrainment data described in 40 CFR 122.29(b)(4) on or collected at your facility. You may a manufacturing process either before or before January 17, 2002; and any request that the calculation baseline be after it is used for cooling is considered modification of, or any addition of a modified to be based on a location of the process water for the purposes of unit at such a facility that does not meet opening of the cooling water intake calculating the percentage of a facility's the definition of a new facility at intake flow that is used for cooling structure at a depth other than at or near purposes in § 125.91(a)(4).
§ 125.83.
the surface if you can demonstrate to the Cooling waterintake structuremeans Freshwaterriveror stream means'a (1 Director that the' other depth would the total physical structure and any lotic (free-flowing) system that does not C/ correspond to a higher baseline level of associated constructed waterways used receive'significant inflows of water from impingement mortality and/or to withdraw cooling water from waters oceans or bays due to tidal action. For entrainment. of the U.S. The cooling water intake the purposes of this rule, a flow-through Capacityutilization rate means the structure extends from the point at reservoir with a retention time of 7 days ratio between the average annual net which water is withdrawn from the or less will be considered a freshwater generation of power by the facility (in surface water source up to, and river or stream. MWh) and the total net capability of the including, the intake pumps. Impingement means the entrapment facility to generate power (in MW) Design and construction technology of any life stages of fish and shellfish on multiplied by the number of hours means any physical configuration of the the outer part of an intake structure or during a year. In cases where a facility cooling water intake structure, or a against a screening device during has more than one intake structure, and technology that is placed in the water periods of intake water withdrawal. each intake structure provides cooling body in front of the cooling water intake Lake or reservoirmeans any inland water exclusively to one or more structure, to reduce impingement body of open water with some generating units, the capacity utilization mortality and/or entrainment. Design minimum surface area free of rooted rate may be calculated separately for and construction technologies include, vegetation and with an average each intake structure, based on the but are not limited to, location of the hydraulic retention time of more than 7 capacity utilization of the units it intake structure, intake screen systems, days. Lakes or reservoirs might be services. Applicable requirements under passive intake systems, fish diversion natural water bodies or impounded this subpart would then be determined and/or avoidance systems, and fish streams, usually fresh, surrounded by separately for each intake structure. The handling and return systems. land or by land and a man-made average annual net generation should be Restoration measures are not design and retainer (e.g., a dam). Lakes or reservoirs measured over a five year period (if construction technologies for purposes might be fed by rivers, streams, springs, available) of representative operating' of this definition. and/or local precipitation. conditions, unless the facility makes a Designintake flow means the value Moribundmeans dying; close to binding commitment to maintain assigned (during the cooling water death. capacity utilization below 15 percent for intake structure design) to the total Naturalthermal stratificationmeans the life of the permit, in which case the volume of water withdrawn from a the naturally occurring and/or existing rate may be based on this commitment. source waterbody over a specific time division of a waterbody into horizontal For purposes of this subpart, the period. layers of differing densities as a result
/ capacity utilization rate applies to only Design intake velocity means the of variations in temperature at different
\E hat portion of the facility that generates value assigned (during the design of a depths.
~'electricity for transmission or sale using cooling water intake structure) to the Ocean means marine open coastal a thermal cycle employing the steam average speed at which intake water waters with a salinity greater than or
Federal Register /Vol. 69, -No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2004/ Rules and Regulations 41685 equal to 30 parts per thousand (by closed-cycle recirculating system. In determined to be the best technology mass). this case, you are deemed to have met available to minimize adverse Once-through cooling water system the applicable performance standards environmental impact for your facility means a system designed to withdraw and will notbe required to demonstrate in accordance with paragraphs (a)(5)(i) § X
\ water from a natural or other water further that your facility meets the or (ii) of this section.
source, use it at the facility to support impingement mortality and entrainment (i) If the Director determines that data contact and/or noncontact cooling uses, performance standards specified in specific to your facility demonstrate that and then discharge it to a waterbody paragraph (b) of this section. In the costs of compliance under without recirculation. Once-through addition, you are not subject to the alternatives in paragraphs (a)(2) through cooling systems sometimes employ requirements in §§ 125.95, 125.96, (4) of this section would be significantly canals/channels, ponds, or non- 125.97, or 125.98. However, you may greater than the costs considered by the recirculating cooling towers to dissipate still be subject to any more stringent Administrator for a facility like yours in waste heat from the water before it is requirements established under establishing the applicable performance discharged. paragraph (e) of this section; or standards in paragraph (b) of this Operationalmeasure means a (ii) You may demonstrate to the section, the Director must make a site-modification to any operation at a Director that you have reduced, or will specific determination of the best facility that serves to minimize impact reduce, your maximum through-screen technology available for minimizing to fish and shellfish from the cooling design intake velocity to 0.5 ft/s or less. adverse environmental impact. This water intake structure. Examples of In this case, you are deemed to have met determination must be based on operational measures include, but are the impingement mortality performance reliable, scientifically valid cost and not limited to: reductions in cooling standards and will not be required to performance data submitted by you and water intake flow through the use of demonstrate further that your facility any other information that the Director variable speed pumps and seasonal flow meets the performance standards for deems appropriate. The Director must reductions or shutdowns; and more impingement mortality specified in establish site-specific alternative frequent rotation of traveling screens. paragraph (b) of this section and you are requirements based on new and/or Phqse It existing facilitymeans any not subject to the requirements in existing design and construction existing facility that meets the criteria §§ 125.95, 125;96, 125.97, or 125.98 as technologies, operational measures, specified in § 125.91. they apply to impingement mortality. and/or restoration measures that achieve Source water means the waters of the However, you are still subject to any an efficacy that is, in the judgment of U.S. from which the cooling water is applicable requirements for entrainment the Director, as close as practicable to withdrawn. reduction and may still be subject to any the applicable performance standards in Supplier means an entity, other than more stringent requirements established paragraph (b) of this section, without the regulated facility, that owns and under paragraph (e) of this section. resulting in costs that are significantly operates its own cooling water intake (2) You may demonstrate to the greater than the costs considered by the structure and directly withdraws water Director that your existing design and Administrator for a facility like yours in from waters of the United States. The construction technologies, operational establishing the applicable performance supplier sells the cooling water to other measures, and/or restoration measures standards. The Director's site-specific facilities for their use, but may also use meet the performance standards determination may conclude that design a portion of the water itself. An entity specified in paragraph (b) of this section and construction technologies, that provides potable water to and/or the restoration requirements in operational measures, and/or restoration residential populations (e.g., public paragraph (c) of this section. measures in addition to those already in water system) is not a supplier for (3)You may demonstrate to the place are not justified because of the purposes of this subpart. Director that you have selected, and will significantly greater costs. To calculate Thermocline means the middle layer install and properly operate and the costs considered by the of a thermally stratified lake or a maintain, design and construction Administrator for a facility like yours in reservoir. In this layer, there is a rapid technologies, operational measures, establishing the applicable performance change in temperatures between the top and/or restoration measures that will, in standards you must: and bottom of the layer. combination with any existing design (A) Determine which technology the Tidal rivermeans the most seaward and construction technologies, Administrator modeled as the most reach of a river or stream where the operational measures, and/or restoration appropriate compliance technology for salinity is typically less than or equal to measures, meet the performance your facility; 0.5 parts per thousand (by mass) at a standards specified in paragraph (b) of (B)Using the Administrator's costing time of annual low flow and whose this section and/or the restoration equations, calculate the annualized surface elevation responds to the effects requirements in paragraph (c) of this capital and net operation and of coastal lunar tides. section; maintenance (O&M) costs for a facility (4) You may demonstrate to the with your design intake flow using this
§125.94 How will requirements reflecting Director that you have installed, or will technology; best technology available for minimizing install, and properly operate and (C)Determine the annualized net adverse environmental Impact be maintain an approved design and revenue loss associated with net established for my Phase Nexisting facility? construction technology in accordance construction downtime that the (a) Compliance alternatives.You must with § 125.99(a) or (b); or Administrator modeled for your facility select and implement one of the (5)You may demonstrate to the to install this technology; following five alternatives for Director that you have selected, (D)Determine the annualized pilot establishing best technology available installed, and are properly operating study costs that the Administrator for minimizing adverse environmental and maintaining, or will install and modeled for your facility to test and pimact at your facility: properly operate and maintain design C s(1)ri)You may demonstrate to the Director that you have reduced, or will and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration optimize this technology; (E)Sum the cost items in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(B), (C), and (D)of this section; reduce, your flow commensurate with a measures that the Director has and}}