MEMORANDUM DATE: September 28, 2005 TO: Paul Shriner, USEPA Shari Goodwin, Tetra, Tech Inc. Regno Arulgnanendran, Tech Inc.

FROM: John Sunda, SAIC REVISIONS FOR PHASE III COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES As part of the review of the Phase III Proposal compliance costs estimation methodology, EPA performed the following:

° Revise compliance costs based on updated facility input data including updated Design Intake Flow ( DIF); update cost test tool, including incorporating additional input variables in cost test tool ° Revise O& M costs ° Review and revise estimates of net downtime duration ° Conduct sensitivity analysis on compliance costs by using alternatives to DIF such as Maximum Reported Intake Flow ( MRIF) and Average Intake Flow ( AIF)

Based on the above revisions, the total compliance costs and net O& M costs for the NODA decreased approximately ten and 38 percent, respectively, from the costs at Proposal for facilities under the > 50 MGD option.

Details of the above listed revisions are described in the following paragraphs.

1.0. Revise Compliance Costs 1.1 Updating Cost Tool Input Variables and Facility Input Data A detailed engineering review of the cost test tool input data was performed for Phase III Facilities with DIF > 50 MGD. The 316( b) survey responses and written comments submitted with the surveys were reviewed to ensure that the correct parameters were identified and incorporated in the tool. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 2 A new input data sheet for the cost test tool was created that incorporated input data corrections and the additional input variables described below. In addition, the input data for six facilities were divided into two sets by designating them as separate intakes to account for substantial differences in their intakes. These separate intakes were costed individually using the revised cost test tool The new input data spreadsheet [ DCN XXXX] includes data fields for the following additional input variables: Facility Type; Offshore Distance for Submerged Intakes; Canal Length; Intake Flow ( MRIF); Intake Flow ( AIF); and Through Screen Velocity Flow Basis. The above fields were also populated with appropriate data from the surveys. The input variables in the updated cost test tool, the changes made ( if any) for the data, and the overall effect of these changes on the cost estimates are briefly discussed below for each input variable.

Facility Type This input value was added to allow for proper selection of input default values to the cost test tool for different types of facilities. Table 1 presents the two options available:

Table 1. Facility Type Codes Facility Type Code Manufacturer 3 Electric Generator 2 Facility Type is a required input variable in the cost test tool.

Cooling System Type Few changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter. Data for two facilities were changed from " full re circulation" to " other" because the schematic diagram showed the use of intake water for non contact cooling purposes. These changes would increase the compliance costs for these facilities, since neither facility was estimated to have costs at Proposal.

State Abbreviations No changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter.

Waterbody Type Few changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter. The intake data for one facility was divided because multiple intakes were withdrawing water from different Waterbodies, and two waterbody types. Waterbody Type is a required input variable in the costtest tool. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 3 Fuel Type No changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter.

Capacity Utilization Phase III manufacturers were assigned a default value of 20 percent as the capacity utilization to ensure that they were above the threshold of 15 percent. No changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter.

Intake Location/ Description Changes were made where appropriate. Some facilities included more than one description for their type of intakes. The description that best described the situation or was most crucial in development of the costs was selected. For example, where intake canals are present, this attribute took precedence over others because of the limitation in technology selection and added costs for extra fish return length.

Where multiple intakes had different descriptions, the intake with the largest DIF was selected. Numerous changes were made in this field because of the reassessment of values previously selected for multiple intakes and where multiple items were identified in the survey. When multiple intakes had substantially different descriptions, the intake data were separated and assigned to the respective intakes. As a result, intakes for three facilities were separated because one intake from each of these three facilities withdrew cooling water from a shoreline location and the other intake withdrew water from a submerged offshore location. Intake Location/ Description is a required input variable in the cost test tool.

Distance Offshore for Submerged Intakes In the Proposal cost test tool, the offshore distances were selected based on Phase II Facility median values for each waterbody type. This new input variable data field was populated with reported survey data wherever the intake description was identified as submerged offshore. Where there were multiple intakes, DIF flow weighted average value was used.

Canal Length At Proposal, the cost test tool did not use this data. As part of the cost test tool review and revision for the NODA, a cost component was added to account for the additional length of fish returns for cost modules requiring a fish return. This new input variable data field was populated with reported survey data wherever the intake description was identified as " intake canal." Where there were multiple intakes, the DIF flow weighted average value was used.

Navigation/ Waterbody Use No changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 4 Mean Intake Water Depth This value is used in the calculation of estimated total existing screen width. Many of the corrections resulted in reducing the water depths, which in turn results in increased estimated compliance costs, as wider screens are required. Where there were multiple intakes, the DIF flow weighted average value was used. Where mean intake water depth was not reported, the mean intake water depth of 19 ft as reported by Phase III manufacturers with intake flow > 50 MGD was used as a default value.

Intake Well Depth The intake well depth is used to select the depth of the required screen. For a given screen width, deeper screens result in higher capital costs. Where facilities reported the distance above and below the mean water depth, the sum of these two values was used. Where mean intake water depth was reported but intake well depth was not reported, the intake well depth was assumed to be 1.2 times the mean intake water depth. Where mean intake water depth was not reported, the mean intake depth of 22 ft as reported by Phase III manufacturers with intake flow > 50 MGD was used as a default value. Facility data for this input variable was reviewed and revised for many facilities.

River Proportional Flow This value was reviewed only for facilities that reported receiving water flow rates in the survey. Few changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter.

Intake Flow ( DIF)

This input value represents the intake flow used to design and construct the existing intakes. Revisions were made based on the review of the surveys. In one case, the flow volume for an emergency intake dedicated for fire fighting was removed from the previous total. For facilities where the intakes were split into two groups, the sum of the individual intake design flows for each group were used. Intake Flow ( DIF) is a required input variable in the cost test tool.

Intake Flow ( MRIF)

This input value was added to conduct a sensitivity analysis by using alternative intake flow to the DIF for certain technology modules. This value is intended to represent on the ground intake flow capacities, as opposed to the DIF, which is based on hypothetical design flow capacities. As described in a separate section, EPA has derived estimates for the MRIF based on the average reported daily maximum intake flow data. In most cases, the MRIF was lower than the DIF, reflecting an apparent trend of manufacturers implementing flow reduction measures. As a result, the overall effect of using the MRIF for developing costs for certain technologies resulted in a reduction in compliance cost estimates. Details of the sensitivity analysis on using alternate intake flows are presented in DCNXXXX. ( Refer the line item explanation memo here) Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 5 Intake Flow ( AIF)

This input variable was added to allow for adjustment of the variable portion of the O& M costs to reflect actual equipment operating costs. In addition, this input value was also used to conduct a sensitivity analysis by using an alternative intake flow to the DIF for certain technology modules. Details of the sensitivity analysis on using alternate intake flows are presented in DCNXXXX. ( Refer the line item explanation memo here)

The AIF was calculated based on the average flow over a three year period as reported in the surveys. These data were presented at Proposal, but were not used in developing compliance cost estimates. Few changes were made facility data used at Proposal. The overall effect of adding this input value was a reduction in the estimated net O& M costs.

Intake Flow ( AIF) is a required input variable in the cost test tool.

Through Screen Velocity This input variable is used to estimate the existing screen width as well as for selecting the appropriate compliance technology. Few changes were made to the through screen velocity facility data. For one facility, the screens for three of the six intakes had velocities below 0.5 fps. The input data for this facility were separated in order to account for the fact that three of the intakes are in compliance because of low through screen velocity and the other intakes for this facility would require a different technology module than the assigned module at Proposal.

Through Screen Velocity Flow Basis This input variable was added to allow for greater flexibility in the cost test tool by allowing a user to report through screen velocities in the input field described above based on flow values other than the DIF. Only one facility reported screen velocity using a flow basis other than the DIF, and the proper input value was assigned. Addition of this input value should have no effect on the cost estimates.

Water Type Few changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter. For one facility with separate intakes on freshwater and saltwater, the input data were separated in order to account for potential differences in costs and compliance technology modules required for the different waterbodies.

Debris Loading No changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 6 Impingement Technology In Place Many changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter. The engineering review focused on the responses to several survey questions along with the review of schematic diagrams in determining the technology in place. Where multiple impingement technologies existed, traveling screens took precedence for this input variable. The majority of the changes involved changing the input value to " traveling screens" from " none" or " other technologies" as the technology in place. One overall effect of changing the input value to traveling screens was the addition of baseline O& M costs for traveling screens to the compliance cost calculation. This in turn resulted in lowering the overall compliance costs, since the baseline O& M costs are deducted from the gross module O& M costs to calculate net compliance O& M costs. Impingement Technology In Place is a required input variable in the cost test tool.

Qualified Impingement For facilities with traveling screens, this input value indicates whether a fish return is in place. This in turn affects the cost module selected, as well as baseline O& M costs. Corrections resulted in many facilities being coded from " qualified" to " not qualified" and vice versa. Qualified Impingement is a required input variable in the cost test tool.

Entrainment Technology In Place Changes were made to the facility data for this input parameter. The engineering review focused on the responses to several survey questions together with the review of schematic diagram to determine the technology in place. Where fine mesh screens coexisted with intakes submerged far offshore, fine mesh screens took precedence for this input value. Again, corrections resulted in many facilities going from " none" to " passive technology in place" and vice versa. Entrainment Technology In Place is a required input variable in the cost test tool.

Qualified Entrainment In the input data for the Phase III Proposal, numerous facilities were incorrectly identified as having " qualified" entrainment technology when the entrainment technology in place should have been coded as " not qualified," when the entrainment technology was reported as " none," in the survey. In most cases, this input data was corrected from " qualified" to " not qualified." The impact of this correction on compliance costs is not clear, as other factors in selecting compliance technologies would also contribute to the change in costs. However, the likely effect would be to increase the overall compliance costs. Qualified Entrainment is a required input variable in the cost test tool.

Average Annual Generation ( 1996 1999)

This input value generally does not apply to manufacturing facilities and therefore no changes or additions were made to the facility data for this input parameter. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 7 Assigning Intake specific Input Data At Phase III Proposal, a single set of input data was used for each facility, regardless of how many intakes are used by the facility. In developing the input data for facilities with multiple intakes, including some with different attributes, flow data were summed. In addition, either flow weighted averages were assigned for each intakes or the attributes of the intake( s) that had the largest DIF were selected In some cases, the differences in attributes between intakes were significant, suggesting that assignment of intake specific input data would be appropriate to obtain more reliable cost estimates. During the engineering review of this data, all facilities with multiple intakes were reviewed and as a result of this review, six facilities were determined to have intakes with different attributes that warranted dividing them into separate intakes, or groups of intakes for each facility. For the remainder of the facilities with multiple intakes, the intake characteristics were similar enough that it was determined to use the input data at the facility specific level.

The reasons for dividing the facility input data for the six facilities are: 1. Saltwater and freshwater intakes that also use different technologies ( one facility) 2. Shoreline and submerged offshore intakes ( three facilities) 3. Intakes with through screen velocities < 0.5 fps and intakes with through screen velocities > 0.5 fps ( one facility) 4 Intakes with fine mesh screen and without fine mesh screen ( one facility)

Input data specific to the divided intakes were modified accordingly. River proportional flow, however, was not modified, as it should apply to the sum of the facility's intakes. For the facility with intakes on both freshwater and saltwater, the total intake DIF for the freshwater portion exceeded 5% of the river flow ( same determination as before). In addition, capacity utilization was not modified, since it is based on a facility specific threshold and not based on an intakespecific threshold.

The impact on compliance cost estimates that results from the divisions made regarding facilities listed under 1 and 2 above may result in an increase in compliance costs, because at Proposal it was assumed that all intakes were on freshwater or all were submerged offshore intakes. Changing a portion of the intakes to saltwater or shoreline based results in an increase in compliance costs. The impact on cost estimates that results from the divisions made under 3 and 4 above will likely reduce compliance costs for the individual intakes that have < 0.5 fps throughscreen velocities or have fine mesh screens, since these attributes indicate that the intakes may not require impingement and entrainment technologies.

1.2 Updating Cost Test Tool In addition to the above updates to the cost tool input variables and facility data, several revisions were made to the cost test tool itself. These include:

° Addition of default values to the cost test tool where applicable ° Addition of a cost component for the added length of fish sluice for facilities with canals Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 8 ° Revision of compliance costs for technology module 3 for facilities with screen widths< 10ft Details of these revisions are described in the following paragraphs.

1.2.1 Added Default Values to the Cost test Tool EPA revised the cost test tool to assign appropriate default values where facility specific input values were not available.

The default values assigned are as follows:

Cooling System Type If the entered value is not " re circulating" ( code 1), then assumes " all others" ( code 0).

State Abbreviation If null or an invalid state abbreviation is entered, then assumes regional factor of 1.0 ( national average).

Fuel Type If the entered value is not " nuclear" ( code 1), then assumes " nonnuclear ( code 0).

Capacity Utilization If null, then assumes value is 20 %.

Distance Offshore for Submerged Inlet If null, then applies default based on waterbody type using Phase II data as follows:

Ocean 500 meters Estuary/ Tidal River 125 meters Great Lake 500 meters Freshwater Stream/ River 125 meters Lake/ Reservoir 125 meters Canal Length If null, then applies default based on waterbody type using Phase II data as follows:

Ocean 3370 ft Estuary Tidal River 1650 ft Great Lake 1460 ft Freshwater Stream/ River 690 ft Lake/ Reservoir 800 ft Navigation / Waterbody Use If null, then assumes " boat/ barge traffic near intake" ( code 1).

Mean Intake Water Depth If null, then applies default values based on design flow and facility type using values in Table 5 6, Technical Development Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 9 Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase III Rule ( DCN 7 004).

Mean Intake Well Depth If null, then applies default values based on design flow and facility type using values in Table 5 6, Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase III Rule ( DCN 7 004).

River Proportional Flow If null, then assumes " others," code 0; if intake > 5% of mean annual river flow, code 1.

Through Screen Velocity If null, then applies default values based on design flow and facility type using values in Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase III Rule, Table 5 7 ( DCN 7 004). Note: Values are adjusted based on selected flow basis entered in " Through Screen Velocity Flow Basis."

Through Screen Velocity Flow Basis If null, then assumes basis is " existing equipment intake design flow." If value other than 1 is entered, then the corresponding intake flow value must also be entered.

Waterbody Type If null or value other than " freshwater" ( code 0) is entered, then assumes " saltwater" ( code 1).

Debris Loading If null or value other than " low" ( code 0) is entered, then assumes " high" loading ( code 1).

In addition, the following data fields were identified as required fields for the cost test tool to estimate the compliance costs.

Facility Type Waterbody Type Intake Location/ Description Existing Equipment Design Intake Flow Average Intake Flow Impingement Tech In Place Qualified Impingement Entrainment Tech In Place Qualified Entrainment 1.2.2 Added Cost Component for the Added Length of Fish Sluice for Facilities with Canals A comparison of the cost test tool used to develop the Phase II compliance costs revealed that the cost test tool did not add costs for the additional length of a fish return sluice for facilities with intake canals and the compliance technology required the addition of a fish return. Although Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 10 the cost test tool output contained default canal lengths, these lengths were not incorporated in the calculations. As part of this revision, EPA added the canal length to the input data spreadsheet and populated it with survey data for facilities with intake canals. Flow weighted canal lengths were used where facilities had multiple intakes. Default values already provided in the cost test tool were applied if no canal length was reported.

An equation was developed for calculating the costs for added canal length. The cost of additional canal length was included in the compliance costs for technology modules 1, 2, 3 and 11 when the intake description is identified as " intake canal" ( code 2).

Compliance cost equation used for technology modules 1, 2, and 11 is as follows:

Compliance cost = canal length * number of costing units * ( 0.0135 * baseline screen width/ unit ^ 2 + 4.3648 * baseline screen width/ unit + 69.948) ( Eq. 1a) For technology module 3, this cost equation is modified slightly to reflect the fact that the compliance screen width may be different from the baseline screen width:

Compliance cost= canal length * number of costing units * ( 0.0135 * compliance screen width/ unit^ 2+ 4.3648* compliance screen width/ unit + 69.948) ( Eq. 1b)

The assumptions used in deriving these equations are described on page 1 46 of the Phase II Final Technical Development Document ( DCN X XXX). The overall effect of this revision will result in an increase of the capital compliance costs for facilities that have intake canals and are assigned compliance Modules 1, 2, 3 or 11.

The above does not apply to technology modules other than 1, 2, 3 and 11 because they do not have fish return systems.

1.2.3 Revised Costs for Module 3 for Facilities with Screen Widths < 10 ft Technology module 3, as developed for the Phase II Rule, included two sets of capital cost equations. One set was developed for compliance screen widths > 10 ft and the other set for compliance screen widths < 10 ft. A review of the cost test tool found that the same compliance cost equations applicable to > 10 ft were being applied to all compliance screen widths. However, this error did not affect O& M costs, as the same O& M cost equations are applied for technology module 3, irrespective of the compliance screen widths.

The cost test tool was revised to apply the correct capital cost equations for technology module 3, so that when total compliance screen width is < 10 ft, a different set of capital cost equations are selected for deriving compliance costs of the new intake structure. For the various Well Depths listed, the compliance cost equations for compliance screen widths < 10 ft are as follows:

Well Depth Equation 10 ft 12333 * comp screen width ^ 2  73000 * comp screen width + 376667 Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 11 ( Eq. 2a)

25 ft 29500 * comp screen width ^ 2  186500 * comp screen width + 795000 ( Eq. 2b)

50 ft 69167 * comp screen width ^ 2  447500 * comp screen width + 2000000 ( Eq. 2c) 75 ft 112000 * comp screen width ^ 2  734000 * comp screen width + 3000000 ( Eq. 2d)

100 ft 159500 * comp screen width ^ 2  1000000 * comp screen width + 4000000 ( Eq. 2e)

While this modification will not affect the Phase III compliance cost estimates ( since all Phase III facilities using technology module 3 were determined to have compliance screen widths > 10 ft), it will allow the cost test tool to provide more accurate estimates when smaller intakes are being evaluated.

In reviewing the cost test tool equations for technology module 3, it was also found that the costtest tool was overestimating the capital costs for module 3 at high flow values, corresponding to a total compliance screen width > 140 ft. When the total compliance screen width was > 140 ft ( the upper end of the technology module 3), the cost test tool instead calculates costs based on the total compliance screen width, rather than calculating costs based on multiple units of equal screen widths which make up the total screen width. The costs presented in the NODA have the required corrections incorporated for this for technology module 3.

1.3 Summary of Revisions to Compliance Cost Estimates For the > 50 MGD option, the total compliance costs for the NODA decreased approximately ten percent from the costs at proposal. Because there were few changes to the technology modules themselves, the changes in capital costs are primarily due to changes to the facility specific input data in the cost tool. These changes in cost tool input variables resulted in changes to the selected compliance technology modules for nearly a third of the facilities. The cost tool input variables that likely had the greatest impact on costs were changes made to the intake description, impingement technology in place, qualified impingement, entrainment technology in place, and qualified entrainment.

2.0. Revise O & M Costs Revisions to the compliance O& M costs included ( i) addition of baseline O& M costs for passive intakes and ( ii) estimation of variable O& M costs based on AIF instead of DIF.

2.1. Baseline O& M Costs for Passive Intakes The Phase III Proposed Rule cost test tool included two baseline O& M scenarios: Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 12 1. Traveling Screens without Fish Return ( TSNF) 2. Traveling Screens with Fish Returns ( TSB)

These scenarios were based on the cost methodology developed for the Phase II Rule, which did not include O& M cost estimates for existing passive intakes. However, passive intakes incur some O& M costs. Hence when passive intakes are replaced by other compliance technologies, the baseline O& M costs incurred by passive intakes should be deducted from the O& M costs incurred by the compliance technology module. During the NODA process, EPA developed baseline O& M costs for passive screen technologies that will be deducted from the gross module O& M costs to yield net compliance O& M costs.

Passive technologies reported by Phase III facilities with a DIF > 50 MGD comprise of the following technologies:

1. Fixed Coarse Screens 2. Perforated Pipes 3. Coarse Mesh Wedgewire Screens Depending on the waterbody conditions, O& M costs for baseline passive intake technology vary significantly. The technologies listed under 2 and 3 above are generally installed at submerged intakes, while fixed coarse screens can be installed at both shoreline and submerged intakes. The 316( b) surveys did not specify the location ( shoreline vs. submerged offshore) of fixed screens. O& M costs are generally higher for passive T screens with backwash systems and for intakes requiring frequent cleaning and inspection by divers. Because of the potential for wide variations in baseline costs, the costs derived below are intended to represent the low end of the range of O& M costs for passive technologies, resulting in a conservative compliance cost estimate ( i. e., higher net compliance O& M estimate).

Two approaches were used to derive passive technology O& M costs. The first approach uses actual data for routine cleaning and inspection of submerged intakes reported in the Submerged Intake Survey conducted in 2002. The second approach is based on paring down the gross O& M costs derived for the passive T screen modules ( technology modules 4, 7, 9) so that they include only routine labor and dive team costs. The results of the second approach are presented to confirm the validity of the cost derived through the first approach.

Use of Actual Data Provided in the Submerged Intake Survey EPA received a limited amount of passive technology O& M cost data in the Submerged Intake Survey sent to selected Phase II facilities with submerged intakes. Three facilities reported O& M costs associated with routine cleaning and inspection of the passive intake system including pipe and inlet. These costs are presented in Table 2 below, along with the facility design intake flow. Note that this data was not claimed as CBI.

None of the submerged intakes reported in the Submerged Intake Survey used fine mesh screens. These intakes are expected to involve lower costs than the total O& M cost for T screen based compliance technologies, since there will be a reduced need for debris removal. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 13 Table 2. Data from the Submerged Intake Survey Design Intake Flow ( GPM) Annual O& M for Inspection and Cleaning Inlet 38,200 $ 3,800a 53,472 $ 4,200b 318,000 $ 10,000a a. Inspect and clean underwater pipe and inlet structures. b. Costs for cleaning inlet screens A linear equation provided a good fit to the data and, considering that only three data points are used, the selection of any other equation type would result in a curve with a shape that would be highly influenced by site specific differences. Figure 1 in Attachment A presents a plot of the data in Table 2 along with the linear equation that is fitted to the data.

The equation used to estimate baseline O& M costs for passive technology based on the Submerged Intake Survey data is:

Annual Baseline O& M = 0.0223 X " Intake Flow DIF" + 2977 Eq. 3 Since the above equation has no upper bound where the estimate would be considered as erroneous, it can be applied to the total design intake flow, rather than dividing the flow into cost units which are then summed together as was done for many of the cost modules and for traveling screen baseline costs.

Paring Down the Gross O& M Costs Derived for the Passive T screen Modules Since the passive intake costs derived above are based on limited data, the O& M costs for the passive T screen modules were reviewed to see how pared down T screen costs ( reflecting routine labor and dive team costs only) compared with the above costs based on the Submerged Intake Survey data. The total O& M cost for EPA cost module passive T screen intakes includes:

Labor for monitoring intake system involving 2 to 4 hours per week, plus 1 or 3 weeks of 24 hour monitoring for seasonal high debris episodes ( 1 week low debris, 3 weeks high debris)

Cost for electric power to run air backwash system

Costs for annual clean and inspection by a dive team ( only for intakes relocated to offshore).

The passive technologies reported by facilities did not appear, in most cases, to include active systems for cleaning or backwash; thus, it would be reasonable to consider power costs to be negligible. It is also reasonable to assume that the labor costs should be based on estimates for Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 14 routine inspection and manual cleaning. The T screen labor costs included two components, one for routine labor and one for cleaning and inspection by a dive team.

In both the passive T screen and velocity cap cost modules, the annual inspection by dive teams was not added for facilities with existing submerged intakes, as it was assumed that these types of operations were already being conducted. Thus, dive team costs should not be included in the baseline O& M costs for submerged intakes with passive technology. Also, the surveys did not specify where the passive technology was located; thus, for facilities where fixed screens were reported, the screens could easily be located either at the inlet or in an onshore channel. If the passive technology is located at the shoreline, divers may not be necessary. So in many cases, costs for use of a dive team may not be applicable. Therefore, minimum O& M costs based on the T screen technology modules should include the equivalent of routine labor only.

It is assumed that the passive intake technologies, by their nature, have low or no energy requirements and so, in general, O& M costs will involve labor associated with routine cleaning and inspection. For other costs, such as material/ equipment replacement ( as was included in the traveling screen costs), it would be difficult to estimate a dollar value considering the wide variety of technologies classified as passive technology. Wear and tear on passive technologies tends to be low. Thus, these potential costs are not included.

The labor estimates for routine inspection and maintenance for passive T screens of 2 to 4 hours per week for flows ranging from 10,000 GPM ( 14.4 MGD) to 163,000 GPM ( 235 MGD) are based on vendor supplied information and are close in value to the dive team costs. Either set of costs seems reasonable as a comparable low end estimate for a variety of passive technologies. The labor hours added for high debris episodes are not considered applicable here, because the baseline passive intake technologies generally use coarse mesh sizes of 3/ 8 inch or larger and thus will not be as greatly affected by presence of debris. The 2 to 4 hours per week of labor for routine cleaning and inspection are considered to account for overall variations in debris. Table 3 below summarizes the O& M costs using the 2002 EPA Phase II labor rate estimate of $ 40.10/ hr.

Table 3. O& M Costs for Different Intake Flows Flow ( GPM) Annual Routine Labor Hours/ day Annual Routine Labor  Costs Annual Dive Team Costs 2,500 2 $ 4,274 $ 5,260 15,800 3 $ 6,412 $ 7,250 81,500 4 $ 8,549 $ 11,230 These costs are plotted on Figure 1 in Appendix A for comparison to the costs derived from the Submerged Intake Survey. Either component compares well with the costs derived from the Submerged Intake Survey, considering the differences in mesh size.

The Submerged Intake Survey approach was selected for estimating passive technology baseline O& M costs because this approach yielded costs that are lower and are based on actual reported costs for coarse mesh type passive technology. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 15 2.2 Estimation of Variable O& M Costs Based on AIF Instead of DIF Fixed Versus Variable O& M Costs When developing the annual O& M cost estimates, the underlying assumption was that facilities were operating nearly continuously with the only downtime being periodic routine maintenance. This routine maintenance was assumed to be approximately four weeks per year. The economic model however, considers variations in capacity utilization. Lower capacity utilization factors result in additional generating unit shutdown that may result in reduced O& M costs. However, it is not valid to assume that intake technology O& M costs drop to zero during these additional shutdown periods. Even when the generating unit is shut down, there are some O& M costs incurred. To account for this, total annual O& M costs were divided into fixed and variable components. Fixed O& M costs include items that occur even when the unit is periodically shut down, and thus are assumed to occur year round. Variable O& M costs apply to items that are allocable based on estimated intake operating time. The general assumption behind the fixed and variable determination is that shutdown periods are relatively short ( on the order of several hours to several weeks).

Basis of Calculating Variable O& M Costs During an engineering review of the O& M cost estimates for NODA, it was noted that the O& M costs are based on the assumption that the intake technologies were operating at the DIF. The data reported by the facilities, however, indicate that most facilities operate at an average flow level that is often well below the DIF. Hence, the cost test tool was revised such that for each O& M estimate, both baseline and compliance O& M costs are adjusted so that the variable component is reduced to reflect actual use. The method used was to apply a factor ( i. e., AIF/ DIF) to the variable portion to arrive at the revised O& M cost. The cost test tool was revised to add AIF as an additional input value. O& M costs were adjusted using the following factor:

(( 1 fixed factor)* AIF/ DIF + fixed factor) ( Eq. 4)

2.3 Summary of Revision to O& M Costs For the > 50 MGD option the net O& M costs for the NODA decreased approximately 38 percent from the net O& M costs at proposal. This decrease in net O& M costs is due to several factors. The most significant reason for this cost decrease was the use of AIF instead of the DIF to calculate the variable portion of the O& M costs. As noted in the proposed rule, DIF was used to calculate both the variable and fixed portions of the net O& M costs.

The second factor that contributed to the decrease in O& M costs at NODA was the increase in baseline O& M costs due to the addition of baseline costs for passive intake technologies in place together with changes to the input variables for technologies in place. This resulted in an increase in the number of facilities identified as having traveling screens in place. Since the baseline O& M costs are deducted from the compliance technology O& M costs, higher baseline O& M costs will yield decreases in the net O& M costs. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 16 3.0 Review and Revise Net Downtime Estimates Estimates of downtime durations at Proposal for manufacturing facilities were based on downtime durations for Phase II electric generators. EPA initially considered reducing downtime duration estimates using various fractions or percentages of downtime durations used at Proposal. EPA then reviewed in detail the basis for the downtime duration estimates originally developed for electric generators to determine whether these estimates were appropriate for manufacturing facilities, and whether the downtime estimates could be revised to reflect sitespecific features applicable to manufacturers.

Basis of Downtime Estimates During Phase II For technology module 3, the total downtime duration estimate of 6 8 weeks ( net downtime duration of 2 4 weeks, assuming 4 weeks scheduled downtime for routine maintenance per year) were based on a scenario modeled after an option described in a 316( b) Demonstration Study for the Salem Nuclear Plant ( Page 3 58, Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase III Rule, DCN 7 0004). EPA concluded that a total construction downtime estimate in the range of 6 to 8 weeks was reasonable for this facility and other similar nuclear power plants and electric generators. However, because the above facility is a nuclear power plant with multiple generating units and an extremely large flow, EPA believes that, while appropriate for power generation facilities, this downtime duration is overly conservative for manufacturing facilities, which have much lower flows on average and are not subject to the same security concerns as a nuclear power plant. Thus, EPA believes that total downtime duration of 4 6 weeks, or a net downtime of 0 2 weeks ( after allowing for overlap with a 4 week routine maintenance period) is more appropriate.

Similar to the above estimation of downtime durations for technology module 3, for technology modules 4, 7, 12 and 14, the total downtime duration estimate of 13 15 weeks ( net downtime of 9 11 weeks) was based on WH Zimmer plant, a power generation facility that EPA had identified as actually having converted an existing shoreline intake with traveling screens to submerged offshore T screens ( Page 3 16, Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase III Rule, DCN 7 0004). EPA concluded that the total downtime duration should be in the range of 13 15 weeks for similar electric generator facilities. EPA believes that, while the above estimates are appropriate for power generation facilities, the estimate is overly conservative for manufacturing facilities, which have much lower flows on average. EPA believes that it is appropriate to reduce this schedule by 2 weeks for manufacturers with these cost modules, yielding total downtime durations of 11 13 weeks, or net downtime durations of 7 9 weeks after allowing for overlap with a 4 week routine maintenance period.

Based on how the downtime duration estimates were originally estimated for electric generators and how the downtime durations can be revised for manufacturers, EPA believes that it is more appropriate to reduce downtimes by a set number of weeks than to reduce them by a fraction or percentage. The cost test tool has thus been revised to reflect this reduction in net downtime duration for manufacturers; the tool now applies the appropriate downtime durations ( net, in weeks) based on the Facility Type, Intake Flow ( DIF) and selected cost module. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 17 In addition to the general reductions in downtime durations for manufacturing facilities described above, EPA also adjusted the downtime durations for some manufacturing facilities with multiple intakes, as described on page 5 41 of the Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase III Rule. Review of the flow diagrams and facility level survey data for these facilities indicated that they had multiple intakes, where the intakes were not dedicated intakes. In other words, these facilities could decommission any one intake and still meet their average intake flow without exceeding the total design intake flow of the remaining intakes. EPA therefore assumed that these facilities could retrofit one intake at a time, thereby avoiding downtime costs. As such, these facilities do not incur any downtime.

During the review of the downtime durations for manufacturing facilities, in order to substantiate the above determinations EPA contacted six manufacturing facilities during NODA to obtain information on practices adopted when retrofitting or major upgrades are required at these facilities. This information is in addition to the two manufacturing facilities contacted regarding their downtime practices and frequency of downtime during the preparation of the Phase III Proposal. Details of these contacts are presented in DCN XXX{ Include the Downtime calls memo}

4.0 Conduct Sensitivity Analysis of Alternatives to Design Intake Flow EPA investigated whether alternative intake flows other than the DIF would be appropriate for developing compliance technology cost estimates. EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of using DIF, MRIF, or AIF as the intake flow input variable on technology compliance costs.

In order to conduct the sensitivity analysis, EPA computed values for MRIF from either daily maximum flow data provided in the surveys or using regression analysis when facilities did not provide the data in the surveys. The following paragraphs describe the methodology used by EPA to calculate as well as impute values for MRIF.

Unlike daily maximum flow, AIF was more frequently reported in the surveys. For facilities not reporting AIF data, DIF were used to impute the facility AIF values. MRIF Data From Survey Responses EPA examined at the monthly average and daily maximum flow reported for 36 months ( 1996 1998) for each intake of the manufacturing facilities in the detailed surveys. Quality control checks of flow data included reviewing and updating data entry errors and normalizing units of measure. For facilities that reported the daily maximum flow ( on a monthly basis) in the surveys, the average of the 36 months of this data was calculated as the MRIF for each intake. The facility MRIF was calculated as the sum of the individual intake MRIF values. For most facilities the MRIF values were lower than the DIF. However, for facilities with higher MRIF than DIF, this higher MRIF was used as the intake flow in the sensitivity analysis. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 18 Estimation of MRIF for Facilities That Did Not Report Daily Maximum Flow When the survey responses did not provide daily maximum flow data, EPA developed a methodology for imputing MRIF. Using calculated MRIF values for all intakes where daily maximum flow data was reported, a regression analysis was performed comparing the relationship between DIF and MRIF to the relationship between AIF and MRIF. The best correlation was found to be a linear relationship between the MRIF and the AIF, with an r2 value of 0.903 for the relationship between DIF and MRIF and an r2 value of 0.9826 for the relationship between AIF and MRIF. However, when the DIF was used as the independent variable to derive estimates of the MRIF, some of the imputed MRIF values were estimated to be lower than the reported AIF values in the survey. This is technically unacceptable, because the MRIF values should always be greater than the AIF values. Conversely, when AIF was used as the independent variable to derive estimates of the MRIF, some of the imputed MRIF estimates were higher than the reported DIF values in the survey. This was technically feasible and was supported by actual survey data for many facilities where, reported daily maximum intake flow values were higher the reported DIF. Hence it was determined to use the relationship between AIF and MRIF from survey data to impute MRIF values when such data was not provided in the survey.

As part of the computation of MRIF, quality assurance checks were performed on the consistency between DIF, MRIF and AIF. When the reported data in the survey were inconsistent with individual intake flows, the data were eliminated for the regression analysis. The resulting regression equation after data cleanup resulted in the following relationship:

MRIF = 1.1946* AIF + 902099 ( Eq. 5)

With an r2 of 0.9826.

A plot of the data and the formula line are presented in Figure 2 in Attachment B. Using the above linear relationship, MRIF values were estimated for each facility intake for which an actual daily maximum flow data was not available in the survey.

In the updated cost test tool ( DCN XXXX), a toggle was added so that the user could select between ( i) DIF for all technologies, ( ii) DIF for Modules 1, 2, 2a and 11 and MRIF for the remaining technologies, or ( iii) DIF for Modules 1, 2, 2a and 11 and AIF for the remaining technologies, and compare the compliance cost estimates based on these alternative intake flows.

Since the AIF represents an overall average of what can be a widely varying intake flow capacity, the use of this value for development of compliance cost estimates would likely result in an undersized system. Thus, while EPA has revised the cost test tool to allow AIF to be used as an alternative intake flow for sensitivity analysis, EPA considers the use of the AIF as intake flow for compliance cost estimates as not technically defensible. In addition, the limitations of using MRIF as an alternate intake flow on selected technology modules is described in detail in Attachment C. titled Limitations on the Use of Alternate Intake Flows for Computing Compliance Costs. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 19 4.1 Summary Results of Sensitivity Analysis on Compliance Costs with Alternate Intake Flows The use of MRIF or AIF as an alternative intake flow to the DIF resulted in a general reduction in the capital costs, but only for those facilities where the technology module ( all technology modules except 1, 2, 2a, and 11) did not involve using the existing traveling screens. Because technology modules 1, 2, 2a, and 11 involve modifying or replacing existing traveling screens, the costs for these modules are based on an estimate of the total screen width of the existing intake. As the existing intake cannot be easily re sized for different intake flows, the costs for these technology modules are based on the DIF and not based on MRIF or AIF. For facilities with technology modules other than 1, 2, 2a, and 11, the capital costs at NODA are significantly lower than costs estimated at proposal when MRIF or AIF are used as the intake flow input variable instead of DIF.

References AEC. Lowman Plant. Noel, Mike. Response to offshore intake system questions concerning design and costs for submerged intakes submitted to EPA September 18, 2002.

Entergy Environmental Services, Ritchie Plant. Holzer, Annette. Response to offshore intake system questions concerning design and costs for submerged intakes submitted to EPA August 20, 2002 Johnson Screens. Watson, Mark. Telephone contact report with John Sunda, SAIC, regarding their experience with solutions for minimizing plant shut down at manufacturers when installing new intake technology. August 23, 2005. Sunda, John. Email correspondence with Roy Neal. Cononco Phillips. Regarding EPA Request for Information Regarding the New Intake at the TOSCO Refinery. September 8, 2004.

Wheelabrator Westchester. Maillet, Thomas. Plant Manager. Response to offshore intake system questions concerning design and costs for submerged intakes submitted to EPA August 9, 2002. Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 20 ATTACHMENT A Figure 1  Passive Technology Baseline O& M Minimum Costs y = 0.0223x + 2977 R2 = 0.9999 $ 0 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 $ 6,000 $ 8,000 $ 10,000 $ 12,000 $ 14,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 Design Flow ( gpm)

Annual O&

M Costs Submerged Intake Actual Cost T Screen Dive Team Cleaning & Inspection T Screen Routine Inspection Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 21 ATTACHMENT C Limitations on the Use of Alternate Intake Flows for Computing Compliance Costs The term intake flow used in this analysis refers to the flow value used in determining the size of compliance technology. The design intake flow ( DIF) is the value ( or sum of the individual intake values for multiple intakes) reported by a facility. It generally represents the maximum flow for an intake at the time it was constructed or modified. There are probably many instances where the DIF no longer represents the maximum flow requirements due to flow reduction measures or an overestimation of future flow requirements at the planning and design stages of the facility. Conversely, there may also be cases where the reported DIF is an outdated value because it does not reflect more recent expansions of the intakes and corresponding increases in intake flow.

The limitations in using alternate intake flows for certain technology modules due to site specific restrictions of the facility intakes is described below.

In general, the technology modules can be categorized as follows:

1. Modules that use the existing intake screens and/ or screen slots. 2. Modules that require an entirely new screening system and that can be sized independently of the existing intake.

The cost modules that use the existing screen slots involve either modifying the existing screens or replacing the screens using the same screen slots. These include technology modules 1, 2, 2a and 11. Cost Module 3 ( add larger intake) also uses traveling screens, but these are placed in a new intake structure whose size is not predetermined by the existing intake structure.

Technology Modules 1, 2, 2a and 11 For technology modules that involve modifying or replacing the screens in the existing intake structure ( technology modules 1, 2, 2a, and 11), the costs are derived by estimating the existing total screen width and combining that with the screen well depth to derive the screen system costs. The costing methodology for traveling screens uses design intake flow, through screen velocity and water depth to estimate the size of the existing screens. Because the size of the existing screens is fixed, use of an intake flow value other than the DIF is not a technically viable option.

One possibility, especially where the new flow requirements are much lower due to flow reduction measures implemented by the facility, would be the closure of a portion of the existing screen system ( e. g., the channel for one out of four screens might be blocked off and permanently taken out of service). This, however, requires knowledge of the intake configuration that is very limited in the survey data. Thus, for Modules 1, 2, 2a and 11, the use of any flow measure other than DIF is not recommended unless it can be shown that the existing intake could Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 22 be pared down by eliminating one or more screens. In such a situation, a partial DIF could be derived when the number of screens required is known. Such a value would need to be greater than or equal to the alternate intake flow to be used.

All Other Modules The remaining cost modules all involve screen or filter/ net systems that are not constrained in size by the existing intake structure. All systems are sized based on an intake flow equal to the maximum expected flow value. As such, alternate intake flows other than DIF can be used to calculate the compliance costs.

Since the AIF represents an overall average of a widely varying intake flow, the use of AIF for compliance cost estimation would likely result in a potentially undersized system. Use of the AIF as a design input value for any of the cost modules is not technically defensible.

Table B 1 presents the applicable intake flow that can be used as an alternative to DIF.

Table B 1. Applicable Alternate Intake Flows for Various Technology Modules Module Description Applicable Intake Flow for Capital Cost Estimation Reason 1 Addition of fish handling and return system to an existing traveling screen system 2 Addition of fine mesh screen overlay to existing traveling screen ( already has fish return)

2a Addition of traveling screen with finemesh screen overlay and fish handling & return system DIF Size based on existing intake structure 3 Addition of new larger intake structure with fine mesh traveling screens, fish handling and return 4 Addition of passive fine mesh ( 1.75 mm) screen system near shoreline DIF or MRIF New screen surface can be sized to new flow requirements 5 Addition of fish net barrier system DIF or MRIF Net surface area can be sized to new flow requirements.

6 Addition of aquatic filter barrier system DIF or MRIF Filter barrier surface area can be sized to new flow requirements.

7 Relocation of an existing of intake to a DIF or MRIF New screen surface can Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 23 Module Description Applicable Intake Flow for Capital Cost Estimation Reason submerged offshore location with passive fine mesh ( 1.75 mm) screen system be sized to new flow requirements 8 Addition of a velocity cap inlet to an existing submerged offshore intake DIF or MRIF Velocity cap can be sized to new flow requirements 9 Addition of passive fine mesh ( 1.74 mm) screens to an existing submerged offshore intake DIF or MRIF New screen surface can be sized to new flow requirements 11 Addition of dual entry, single exit traveling screens with fine mesh to an existing shoreline intake system DIF Size based on existing intake structure 12 Addition of passive fine mesh ( 0.76 mm) screen system near shoreline 13 Addition of passive fine mesh ( 0.76 mm) screen to an existing submerged offshore intake 14 Relocation of an existing of intake to a submerged offshore location with passive fine mesh ( 0.76 mm) screens DIF or MRIF New screen surface can be sized to new flow requirements _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 ATTACHMENT B Figure 2 Imputation Formula y = 1.1946x + 902099 R2 = 0.9826 0 500,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 2,000,000,000 2,500,000,000 3,000,000,000 0 200,000,000 400,000,000 600,000,000 800,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,200,000,000 1,400,000,000 1,600,000,000 1,800,000,000 AIF Flow ( gpd)

Flow (

gpd) MRIF DIF Linear ( MRIF)


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 56048]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19728]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: Filings Instituting
Proceedings
    Docket Numbers: RP22-1206-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Tariff Provision of
Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/7/22.
    Accession Number: 20220907-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/22.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 7, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19728 Filed 9-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Draft June 2003 E. coli Membrane Filtration Sample Results Acceptability Checklist for the LT2 Rule No. Factor Check sample results to verify that: U Sample Condition 1 Sample condition upon receipt The sample temperature upon receipt for the sample was between 0 ° C and 10 ° C, and the sample was not frozen or leaking Holding Time and Temperature 2 Holding time and temperature The sample was analyzed within 24 hours of sample collection and maintained at < 10 ° C, but not freezing, between collection and analysis General Quality Control 3 Dilution/ rinse water sterility check The dilution/ rinse water sterility check was acceptable ( target organism or potentially interfering materials were not found in the sterility check)

4 Media sterility check The media sterility check was acceptable ( target organism or potentially interfering materials were not found in the sterility check)

5 Positive/ negative controls The positive/ negative controls were acceptable 6 Media storage specifications The media storage specifications were not exceeded Membrane Filtration QC Specifications 7 Incubation time and temperature The following incubation time and temperature requirements were not exceeded: mEndo6NA MUG 24 ± 2 hours at 35 ° C ± 0.5 ° C6 4 hours at 35 ° C ± 0.5 ° C LES Endo6NA MUG 24 ± 2 hours at 35 ° C ± 0.5 ° C6 4 hours at 35 ° C ± 0.5 ° C mFC6NA MUG 24 ± 2 hours at 44.5 ° C ± 0.2 ° C6 4 hours at 35 ° C ± 0.5 ° C mTEC 2 hours at 35 ° C ± 0.5 ° C 622 24 hours at 44.5 ° C ± 0.2 ° C Modified mTEC 2 hours at 35 ° C ± 0.5 ° C 622 24 hours at 44.5 ° C ± 0.2 ° C MI Medium 24 hours at 35 ° C ± 0.5 ° C m ColiBlue24 24 hours at 35 ° C ± 0.5 ° C 8 Filtration unit sterility check The Filtration unit sterility check was acceptable ( target organism or potentially interfering materials were not found in the sterility check) 9 Preparation blank The preparation blank was not contaminated with the target organism 10 Colony verification The verifications, performed in accordance with method specific requirements, were acceptable


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30697-30698]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10836]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA R9-2019-13; FRL-10008-81-Region 9]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order
on Consent With De Minimis Parties at the Omega Chemical Corporation
Superfund Site in Los Angeles County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), notice
is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), has
entered into a proposed settlement, embodied in an Administrative
Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (``Settlement Agreement''),
with one hundred and forty-five parties (the ``Settling De Minimis
Parties'') that sent between one and three tons of waste to a solvent
and refrigerant recyling facility that operated between 1976 and 1991
in Whittier, California, called the Omega Chemical Corporation. Under
the Settlement Agreement, the Settling De Minimis Parties agree to pay
EPA $6,521,025.19 to resolve their liability for both past and future
costs associated with the cleanup of the Omega Chemical Corporation
Superfund Site (``Omega Site'') in Los Angeles County California.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Please contact Keith Olinger at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
(415) 972-3125 to request a copy of the Settlement Agreement. Comments
on the Settlement Agreement should be submitted in writing to Mr.
Olinger at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should reference the Omega
Site and the EPA Docket Number for the Settlement Agreement, EPA R9-
2019-13. If for any reason you are not able to submit a comment by
email, please contact Mr. Olinger at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make alternative
arrangements for submitting your comment. EPA will post its response to
comments at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0903349, EPA's web page for the Omega Site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Olinger, Enforcement Officer
(SFD-7-5), Superfund Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone (415) 972-
3125.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this proposed Settlement Agreement
is made in accordance with the Section 122(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9622(i). The Settlement Agreement is a de minimis settlement agreement
pursuant to Section 122(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g), whereby the
Settling De Minimis Parties, which are identified below, collectively
agree to pay EPA $6,521,025.19. The Settlement Agreement resolves the
Settling De Minimis Parties' liability for both past and future
response costs at the Omega Site and provides the Settling De Minimis
Parties with a site-wide covenant not to sue pursuant to Section
122(g)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g)(2). Groundwater contamination
extends approximately four-and-one-half miles south, southwest from the
former Omega Chemical Corporation facility, where the Settling De
Minimis Parties sent hazardous waste. Much of the plume of groundwater
contamination at the Omega Site lies beneath a large commercial/
industrial area where chemicals released at other facilities have
commingled with the contamination originating at the former Omega
Chemical facility. Pursuant to a Consent Decree entered on March 31,
2017, Docket No. 2:16-cv-02696 (Central District, California), between
the United States and other potentially responsible parties (``PRPs'')
at the Omega Site, EPA is obligated to share seventy percent of the
money collected under this Settlement Agreement with certain PRPs that
have incurred significant costs cleaning up contamination at the Omega
Site and will continue to incur cleanup costs in the future. As of
December 31, 2019, EPA had incurred more than $43 million in costs
related to the Omega Site. After accounting for the transfer of a
portion of the proceeds from this Settlement Agreement to certain PRPs
at the Omega Site pursuant to the terms of the 2017 Consent Decree, EPA
will have recovered more than $28 million of its costs.
    EPA will consider all comments received on the Settlement Agreement
in accordance with the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this Notice and
may modify or withdraw its consent to the Settlement Agreement if
comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

Parties to the Proposed Settlement

    ACD Holdings, LLC; Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.; Albertsons Companies

Inc. (for Vons Milk Plant); Alhambra Unified School District; Alinabal
Holdings Corporation, as successor to Lamsco West, Inc.; Allfast
Fastening Systems, LLC; Alltech Associates, Inc.; Amvac Chemical
Corporation; Anacomp, Inc.; Anheuser-Busch, LLC; Antelope Valley Union
High School District; Armtec Defense Products Co.; B. Braun Medical
Inc., for American McGaw Laboratories; Barber Group, Inc.; Barnett Tool
& Engineering; BP Lubricants USA, Inc.; Burbank Steel Treating, Inc.;
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority; California Institute of
the Arts; California State University (Fullerton); California State
University (Pomona); California State University (San Diego);
California Steel Industries, Inc.; Calstrip Steel Corporation;
Centinela Hospital Medical Center; Cerritos College; CIPCO, Inc. (f/k/
a, California Industrial Products, Inc.); Circor Instrumentation
Technologies, Inc.; City of Beverly Hills; City of Burbank; City of
Glendale; City of Inglewood; City of Palm Desert; City of Tustin;
Climet Instruments Company; Closet Maid LLC; Conopco, Inc., successor
to Lever Brothers Company; Consolidated Communications of California
Company; County of San Diego; County of Ventura; Courtesy Chevrolet
Center; Crossfield Products Corp.; Daikin Applied Americas, Inc.;
Dasol, Inc. (f/k/a, Coronet Manufacturing Company, Inc.); DCH (Oxnard)
Inc.; Desert Healthcare Foundation; Diamond Perforating Metal; Dick
Browning, Inc.; Dignity Health d/b/a St. John Regional Medical Center;
Dow-Key Microwave Corp.; Ducommun Labarge Technologies, Inc.; E.M.E.,
Inc.; Eagle Packaging, Inc.; Earnhardts Auto Center; Elliott Company,
as successor to Ebara International Corporation; Eubanks Engineering
Co.; Exhibitree, Inc.; Finishmaster, Inc.; Flextronics International
USA, Inc.; Fontana Unified School District; Garden Grove Unified School
District; Garner Glass Company; Gehr Industries; General Electric;
Griswold Industries; Halbert Brothers, Inc.; Hardinge, Inc.; Hawker
Pacific Aerospace; Heitman Properties; Hercules Hydrocarbon Holdings,
Inc., as successor to Betz Energy Chemicals; Hoffmaster Group, Inc., as
successor to Duni Corporation (West); Hogg & Davis, Inc.; Hyster-Yale
Group, Inc.; Hyundai Translead, as successor to Hyundai Steel
Industries; Industrial Truck Bodies & Equipment, Inc.; J.H. McCormick,
Inc. d/b/a McCormick Construction Co.; J.R. Simplot Company; JMB Realty
Corporation (for JMB Property Management); Jostens Inc.; Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, Inc.; Kemp Ford; Kennametal Stellite, LP; Long
Beach City College; Los Feliz Ford, Inc.; Los Robles Regional Medical
Center; Martin E-Z Stick Labels; Mazda Motor of America, Inc.;
MemorialCare Health System, for Long Beach Memorial Medical Center;
Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; Mitsubishi Cement Corporation; Moss Motors,
Ltd.; Motion Picture and Television Fund; North Orange County Community
College District; Ogner Motorcars, Inc.; Orcutt Union School District;
P. H. Glatfelter Company; Pasadena City College; Peter Pepper Products,
Inc.; Plasma Coating Corporation; Plasma Technology, Inc.; PMC
Specialties Group, Inc.; Port of West Sacramento PRC-Desoto
International, Inc.; Providence Health System--Southern California;
QSC, LLC, as successor to QSC Audio Products, Inc.; R & K Metal
Finishing; Ralphs Grocery Company; Randall/McAnany Company; Resident
Group Services, Inc.; Rio Hondo College; Rockwell Automation, Inc.;
Santa Barbara Unified School District; Scientific-Atlanta, LLC;
Sensient Imaging Technologies, Inc.; SGL Technic LLC; Siemens Industry,
Inc., as successor to Safetran Systems Corporation; Skov Auto Parts,
Inc.; South Bay Cable Corp.; Space Systems; Space Systems/Loral, LLC
(for Ford Aerospace); Spirol West, Inc.; Spring Street Towers; State of
California Department of Developmental Services (for Fairview State
Hospital); State of California Department of Developmental Services
(for State of California (LSHDC); State of California Department of
General Services; Sunnyvale Ford; Systron-Donner Corporation; T S
Spray; Taiyo Yuden (U.S.A.) Inc.; Tanabe Research Laboratories USA,
Inc.; Tap Plastics, Inc.; The ML Lawrence Trust; Tnemec Company, Inc;
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Unifirst Corporation;
Universal Oil Products Company; Vertiv Corporation (as successor to
Liebert Clean Room Systems); Wavell Huber Wood Products, Inc.; Western
Pacific Fleet Service, Inc.; Weyerhaeuser Company; Wildwood Express:
Windowmaster Products, Inc.; Young Touchstone Company, for Arrowsmith
Power Systems, Inc.; Zeneca Inc.; Zieman Manufacturing Company.

    Dated: May 13, 2020.
Enrique Manzanilla,
Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2020-10836 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31265]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010; FRL 9903-67-Region 9]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the El Toro Marine Corps
Air Station Superfund Site; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal
Register on November 19, 2013, a document concerning the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the El Toro Marine Corps Air
Station Superfund Site. Inadvertently, that publication included the
incorrect docket number for this Site. This document corrects that
error.

DATES: This correction is effective on January 21, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Aycock, U.S. EPA Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; Telephone:
(415) 972-3289; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA published a document in the Federal
Register on November 19, 2013 (78 FR 69302) that included the incorrect
docket number for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the El
Toro Marine Corps Air Station Superfund Site. This correction corrects
the incorrect docket number published on November 19, 2013.
    In rule FR Doc. 13-27724 published on November 19, 2013, (78 FR
69302) make the following corrections.
    1. On page 69302, in the second column, correct the docket number
for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the El Toro Marine
Corps Air Station Superfund Site to read:

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010; FRL 9902-79-Region 9]

    2. On page 69302, in the third column, correct the first clause of
the ADDRESSES caption to read:
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1990-0010, by one of the following methods:

    3. On page 69302, in the third column, correct the first sentence
of the ``Instructions'' caption to read:

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1990-0010.

    Dated: December 19, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-31265 Filed 12-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


3/19/07

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

APRIL 18-20, 2007 *

PUBLIC MEETING

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

 Arlington, VA 22202

HSRB WEB SITE   http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0216

( 10:00 AM	Convene Meeting and Identification of Board Members – Celia
Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 10:15 AM	Welcome – Warren Lux, MD (Human Subjects Research Review
Official, Office of the Science Advisor, EPA)

( 10:25 AM	Opening Remarks – Mr. Jim Jones (Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances,
EPA)

( 10:40 AM	Meeting Administrative Procedures - Paul Lewis, Ph.D.
(Designated Federal Officer [DFO], HSRB, OSA, EPA)

( 10:45 AM	Meeting Process – Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 10:55 AM	EPA Follow-up on HSRB Recommendations – Mr. William Jordan
(EPA, OPP)

Completed Repellent Efficacy Studies: IR3535 Aerosol (EMD-003.3 and
EMD-004.3)

( 11:10 AM	Science and Ethics of Repellent Efficacy Studies – Clara
Fuentes, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 12:00 PM	Public Comments

( 12:30 PM	Lunch

( 1:30 PM	Board Discussion

EMD-003.3: Tick Repellency with Aerosol Spray Formulations

a.   Is this study sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to
be used to assess the repellent efficacy of the formulation tested
against ticks?

b.   Does available information support a determination that this study
was conducted in substantial compliance with subparts K and L of EPA
regulations at 40 CFR part 26?

EMD-004.3: Mosquito Repellency with Aerosol Spray Formulations

a.   Is this study sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to
be used to assess the repellent efficacy of the formulation tested
against mosquitoes?

b.   Does available information support a determination that this study
was conducted in substantial compliance with subparts K and L of EPA
regulations at 40 CFR part 26?

Carroll-Loye Mosquito Repellent Efficacy Protocol WPC-001

( 2:30 PM	Science and Ethics of Protocol WPC-001– Clara Fuentes, Ph.D.
(OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 3:30 PM	Break

( 3:45 PM	Public Comments

( 4:15 PM	Board Discussion

a. 	If the proposed research described in Protocol WPC-001 from
Carroll-Loye Biological Research is revised as suggested in EPA’s
review, does the research appear likely to generate scientifically
reliable data, useful for assessing the efficacy of the test substances
for repelling mosquitoes?

b.  If the proposed research described in Protocol WPC-001 from
Carroll-Loye Biological Research is revised as suggested in EPA’s
review, does the research appear to meet the applicable requirements of
40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

( 5:15 PM	Adjournment

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

APRIL 18-20, 2007 *

PUBLIC MEETING

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

 Arlington, VA 22202

( 8:30 AM	Convene Meeting – Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 8:40 AM	Follow-up From Previous Day’s Discussion – Mr. William
Jordan (OPP, EPA)

Completed Patch Test Studies

( 8:50 AM	HSRB Workgroup and EPA Process on CBI Redacted Submissions -
Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair) and Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA)

Part I. 48-Hour Dermal Irritation Patch Test

( 9:00 AM	Science and Ethics of 48 Hour Dermal Irritation Patch Test
–Roger Gardner, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 10:00 AM	Public Comments

( 10:30 AM	Break

( 10:45 AM	Board Discussion

a.   Is this study sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to
be used as part of a weight-of-evidence assessment to evaluate the
potential of the formulations tested to irritate human skin?

b.   Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of this
study was fundamentally unethical or significantly deficient relative to
the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted?

( 12:15 PM	Lunch

Part II. Repeated Insult Patch Test

( 1:30 PM	Science and Ethics of Repeated Insult Patch Test –Roger
Gardner, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 2:15 PM	Public Comments

( 2:45 PM	Board Discussion

a.   Is this study sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to
be used to be used as part of a weight-of-evidence assessment to
evaluate the potential of the formulations tested to cause sensitization
of human skin?

b.   Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of this
study was fundamentally unethical or significantly deficient relative to
the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted?

( 3:45 PM	Break

Framework for Developing Best Practices for Subject Recruitment for
Handler Exposure Research

( 4:00 PM	Framework for Developing Best Practices for Subject
Recruitment for Handler Exposure Research - Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 4:30 PM	Public Comments

( 4:45 PM	Board Discussion

a.  What additional elements of the process of recruiting and enrolling
subjects in handler exposure research should be addressed in a “Best
Practices Framework”?

b.  For each of the elements in the “Best Practices Framework,”
please identify any additional sources of guidance that could be useful
for an investigator who is designing a process for recruiting and
enrolling subjects in handler exposure research.

( 5:45 PM	Adjournment

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

APRIL 18-20, 2007 *

PUBLIC MEETING

Friday, April 20, 2007

Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

 Arlington, VA 22202

( 8:30 AM	Convene Meeting – Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 8:40 AM	Follow-up From Previous Day’s Discussion – Mr. William
Jordan (OPP, EPA)

Follow-up on AHETF and AEATF Protocols

( 8:50 AM	EPA’s Need for New Research on Occupational Handler Exposure
- Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA), Mr. Jeff Evans (OPP, EPA), Mr. Jeff
Dawson (OPP, EPA), and Mr. Matthew Crowley (OPP, EPA)

( 10:00 AM	Break

( 10:15 AM	EPA’s Need for New Research on Occupational Handler
Exposure (continued) - Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA), Mr. Jeff Evans
(OPP, EPA), Mr. Jeff Dawson (OPP, EPA), and Mr. Matthew Crowley (OPP,
EPA)

( 11:15 AM	Summary of EPA FIFRA SAP January 2007 Report “Worker
Exposure Methods” – FIFRA SAP Chair and/or Designee

( 11:45 AM	Public Comments

( 12:15 PM	Lunch

( 1:15 PM	Board Discussion

The HSRB is requested to comment on the following EPA conclusions:

a.	the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) has significant
limitations with respect to  the quality and quantity of data contained
in the database  which limits EPA’s  ability to fully characterize the
range, magnitude, and variability of potential exposures of pesticide
handlers, and

b.	EPA needs additional data beyond the information available in PHED to
improve its ability to assess potential exposure of pesticide handlers.

Research Conducted After April 7, 2006: Meaning of “Substantial
Compliance” with 40 CFR Part 26

( 2:15 PM	Meaning of “Substantial Compliance” – Mr. William Jordan
(OPP, EPA) and Mr. Keith Matthews (OGC, EPA)

( 2:30 PM	Public Comment

( 2:45 PM	Board Discussion

( 3:15 PM	Adjournment

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate. For further
information, please contact the Designated Federal Officer for this
meeting, Paul Lewis via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

  PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  6