Controls Needed From August 2000 to August 2003, the facility exceeded its current average monthly limit for FC 50% of the time, and exceeded its maximum daily limit for FC twice ( 280 and 320 colonies/ 100 mL). Therefore, the facility is most likely not in compliance with its current permit limits. EPA assumed that the facility would implement process optimization consisting of a process analysis study, moving the chlorination point ( and increasing chlorine dose), increasing maintenance frequency, and improve mixing conditions. Once in compliance with its current permit limits, the facility should also be able to meet potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. However, EPA included enterococci monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 42 Facility name: Fairhope WWTP NPDES permit number: AL0020842 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 4 mgd Average Flow: 1.6 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 34 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from August 2000 through August 2003.

Exhibit A 34. Effluent Data Summary, Fairhope WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 74 74 0 962 19 100 1,000 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from August 2000 to August 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From August 2000 to August 2003, the facility did not exceed its current average monthly or maximum daily limit for FC. Therefore, EPA assumed that the facility is in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Exhibit A 35 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L), improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles, and increasing the frequency of maintenance and cleaning of the contact basins to prevent bacteria build up from once every 2 years to twice a year. EPA also included enterococci monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 43 Exhibit A 35. Summary of Compliance Costs, Fairhope WWTP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing Increase Maintenance $ 38,500 $ 21,000 $ 30,400 $ 0 $ 0 $ 13,000 $ 0 $ 1,200 $ 3,600 $ 15,000 $ 2,900 $ 1,200 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 98,500 $ 16,800 $ 26,100 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 44 Facility name: Flagler Beach WWTP NPDES permit number: FL0026611 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 1 mgd Average Flow: 0.65 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 36 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from May 2000 through May 2003.

Exhibit A 36. Effluent Data Summary, Flagler Beach WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 37 37 0 250 4.9 200 800 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from May 2000 to May 2003. Note, EPA did not use the average monthly values. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of maximum daily values.

Controls Needed From May 2000 to May 2003, the facility did not exceed its current average monthly or maximum daily limit for FC. Therefore, the facility is most likely in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Exhibit A 37 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Because relatively small reduction may be needed, costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume and increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L). EPA also included enterococci monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 45 Exhibit A 37. Summary of Compliance Costs, Flagler Beach WWTP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose $ 21,000 $ 18,000 $ 0 $ 15,900 $ 2,000 $ 17,600 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 47,600 $ 18,500 $ 23,000 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); Robert Oxygen ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 46 Facility name: Howard F. Curren AWTP NPDES permit number: FL0020940 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 96 mgd Average Flow: 53 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 38 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from July 2000 through July 2003.

Exhibit A 38. Effluent Data Summary, Howard Curren AWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 18 18 0 5 1.5 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from July 2000 to July 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of average monthly values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 47 Facility name: Homer WWTP NPDES permit number: AK0021245 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 0.88 mgd Average Flow: 0.65 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 39 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from August 2000 through August 2003.

Exhibit A 39. Effluent Data Summary, Homer WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 74 72 2 6,200 54 200 400 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from August 2000 to August 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From August 2000 to August 2003, the facility exceeded its current average monthly limit for FC 6 times, and exceeded its maximum daily limit for FC 3 times. Therefore, the facility is most likely not in compliance with its current permit limits, and would have to implement controls to reduce current levels. EPA assumed that the facility would implement process optimization consisting of a process analysis study, increasing contact time, increasing chlorine dose, and increasing maintenance frequency.

Once in compliance with its current permit limits, only minor chlorination optimization would be necessary for compliance with the proposed enterococci criteria. EPA estimated that the facility would improve its mixing conditions through the addition of baffles in its chlorination contact chamber. EPA also included enterococci monitoring costs. Exhibit A 40 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 48 Exhibit A 40. Summary of Compliance Costs, Homer WWTP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Improve Mixing $ 11,400 $ 0 $ 1,100 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 11,400 $ 2,600 $ 3,700 Sources: Environetics Inc. ( 2003). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 49 Facility name: Honouliuli WWTP NPDES permit number: HI0020877 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 25 mgd Average Flow: 26.5 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 41 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from January 2001 through January 2004.

Exhibit A 41. Effluent Data Summary, Honouliuli WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 36 36 0 12,259,609 6,706,461 None None Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from January 2001 to January 2004. 2. Represents the maximum of average monthly values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility's treatment train provides primary treatment to the entire effluent, and secondary treatment to about 13 mgd of the effluent. The facility discharges about 1.7 miles out into the Pacific Ocean at a depth of 200 feet through a multiple port diffuser, 1,750 feet long, with two 4 inch ports every 24 feet. The City of Honolulu requires extensive monitoring of the receiving waters to ensure the discharge is not having a significant impact. If enterococci levels along the beach, within 300 meters of the shore, exceed the State's criteria of 7 colonies/ 100 mL, the facility will chlorinate the effluent prior to discharge ( Malama o Manoa, 2004). Receiving water data from 1998 from the City of Honolulu indicate that enterococci levels are well below the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, EPA believes that the treatment requirements and sampling procedures would also apply for potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria, and that only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year) would be incurred by this facility. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 50 Facility name: Huron Basin STP NPDES permit number: OH0020125 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: 1.6 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 42 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from October 2000 through October 2003.

Exhibit A 42. Effluent Data Summary, Huron Basin STP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 37 37 0 6,800 59 1,000 2,000 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from October 2000 to October 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From October 2000 to October 2003, the facility did not exceed its current average monthly, and only exceeded the maximum daily limit for FC once. Therefore, the facility is most likely in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Exhibit A 43 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L), improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles, and increasing the frequency of maintenance and cleaning of the contact basins to prevent bacteria build up from once every 2 years to twice a year. EPA also included E. coli monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 51 Exhibit A 43. Summary of Compliance Costs, Huron Basin STP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing Increase Maintenance $ 38,500 $ 21,000 $ 30,400 $ 0 $ 0 $ 13,000 $ 0 $ 1,200 $ 3,600 $ 15,000 $ 2,900 $ 1,200 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 98,500 $ 16,800 $ 26,100 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 52 Facility name: Kenosha WWTP NPDES permit number: WI0028703 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 28 mgd Average Flow: 26.9 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 44 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from January 2001 through January 2004.

Exhibit A 44. Effluent Data Summary, Kenosha WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 51 51 0 930 27 400 None Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from January 2001 to January 2004. 2. Represents the maximum of average monthly values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From January 2001 to January 2004, the facility did not exceed its current average monthly effluent limit for FC. Therefore, the facility is most likely in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Exhibit A 45 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L), improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles, and increasing the frequency of maintenance and cleaning of the contact basins to prevent bacteria build up from once every 2 years to twice a year. EPA also included E. coli monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 53 Exhibit A 45. Summary of Compliance Costs, Kenosha WWTP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing Increase Maintenance $ 322,000 $ 30,200 $ 752,400 $ 0 $ 0 $ 213,200 $ 0 $ 7,000 $ 30,400 $ 216,000 $ 71,000 $ 7,000 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 1,113,000 $ 222,800 $ 327,900 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 54 Facility name: Kodiak WWTP NPDES permit number: AK0021555 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 3.7 mgd Average Flow: 2.5 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 46 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from February 2001 through February 2004.

Exhibit A 46. Effluent Data Summary, Kodiak WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 74 74 0 184,000 8,400 200,000 500,000 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from February 2001 to February 2004. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility's current permit establishes a mixing zone for FCs that is 400 meters by 3,200 meters. The size of the mixing zone is based on a FC modeling study that took into account stream conditions and the size of the effluent. The permit only requires that the facility chlorinate its effluent when downstream FC levels, at the edge of the mixing zone, exceed current standards. The facility is located on the side of a cliff, and no primary contact recreation occurs, only occasional boating through the channel ( Plant Operator, Kodiak WWTP, personal communication, 2004). Therefore, EPA believes that the current mixing zone and sampling procedures would also apply for potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria, and that the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 55 Facility name: Monterey Regional WWTP NPDES permit number: CA0048551 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 30 mgd Average Flow: 14.8 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 47 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from November 2002 through July 2003.

Exhibit A 47. Effluent Data Summary, Monterey Regional WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 11 11 0 100 5.3 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from November 2002 to July 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 56 Facility name: Naples WWTP NPDES permit number: FL0026271 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 10 mgd Average Flow: 1.9 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 48 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from July 2000 through July 2003.

Exhibit A 48. Effluent Data Summary, Naples WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 10 9 1 52 4.9 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from July 2000 to July 2003. Note EPA did not include zero values. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of maximum daily values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 57 Facility name: Naval Air Station Pensacola STP NPDES permit number: FL0002500 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 2.35 mgd Average Flow: 1.7 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 49 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from August 2000 through August 2003.

Exhibit A 49. Effluent Data Summary, NAS Pensacola STP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 31 30 1 59 8.6 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from August 2000 to August 2003. Note, EPA did not include zero values. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of maximum daily values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 58 Facility name: Newport WWTP NPDES permit number: RI0100293 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: 11 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 50 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from September 2000 through September 2003.

Exhibit A 50. Effluent Data Summary, Newport WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 74 74 0 16,000 95 200 400 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from September 2000 to September 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From September 2000 to September 2003, the facility exceeded its current average monthly limit for FC 3 times ( 227, 247, and 1,232 colonies/ 100 mL), and exceeded its maximum daily limit for FC 22% of the time. Therefore, the facility is most likely not in compliance with its current permit limits, and would have to implement controls to reduce current levels. EPA assumed that the facility would implement process optimization consisting of a process analysis study, increasing contact time, increasing chlorine dose, and increasing maintenance frequency.

Once in compliance with its current permit limits, only minor chlorination optimization would be necessary for compliance with the proposed enterococci criteria. EPA estimated that the facility would improve its mixing conditions through the addition of baffles in its chlorination contact chamber. EPA also included enterococci monitoring costs. Exhibit A 51 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 59 Exhibit A 51. Summary of Compliance Costs, Newport WWTP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Improve Mixing $ 273,600 $ 0 $ 25,800 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 273,600 $ 2,600 $ 28,400 Sources: Environetics Inc. ( 2003). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 60 Facility name: Nueces County WWTP NPDES permit number: TX0091031 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 1 mgd Average Flow: Not Available Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC. Also, flow data in PCS indicate that from January 1998 to January 2004 the facility did not discharge.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 61 Facility name: Ocean City WWTP NPDES permit number: MD0020044 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 14 mgd Average Flow: 5.4 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 52 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from February 2001 through February 2004.

Exhibit A 52. Effluent Data Summary, Ocean City WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 37 16 21 8 3.6 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from February 2001 to February 2004. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of maximum daily values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 62 Facility name: Painesville WWTP NPDES permit number: OH0026948 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 6 mgd Average Flow: 3.9 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 53 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from October 2000 through October 2003.

Exhibit A 53. Effluent Data Summary, Painesville WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 38 38 0 854 5.3 1,000 2,000 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from October 2000 to October 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From October 2000 to October 2003, the facility did not exceed its current average monthly or maximum daily effluent limit for FC. Therefore, the facility is most likely in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Exhibit A 54 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L), improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles, and increasing the frequency of maintenance and cleaning of the contact basins to prevent bacteria build up from once every 2 years to twice a year. EPA also included E. coli monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 63 Exhibit A 54. Summary of Compliance Costs, Painesville WWTP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing Increase Maintenance $ 70,000 $ 55,800 $ 79,800 $ 0 $ 0 $ 31,200 $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 6,600 $ 36,500 $ 7,500 $ 2,600 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 214,200 $ 36,400 $ 56,600 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 64 Facility name: Panama City, St Andrew WWTP NPDES permit number: MA0100765 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 5 mgd Average Flow: 2.6 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 55 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from June 2000 through June 2003.

Exhibit A 55. Effluent Data Summary, St. Andrew WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 38 38 0 890 7.7 14 43 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from June 2000 to June 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of average monthly values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From June 2000 to June 2003, the facility exceeded its current average monthly limit for FC about 30% of the time, and exceeded its maximum daily limit for FC 5 times. Therefore, the facility is most likely not in compliance with its current permit limits. EPA assumed that the facility would implement process optimization consisting of a process analysis study, increasing contact time, increasing chlorine dose, increasing maintenance frequency, and improve mixing conditions. Once in compliance with its current permit limits, the facility should also be able to meet potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. The facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 65 Facility name: Pascagoula WWTP NPDES permit number: MS0020249 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 10 mgd Average Flow: 5.1 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 56 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from August 2001 through August 2003.

Exhibit A 56. Effluent Data Summary, Pascagoula WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 24 24 0 122 33 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from August 2001 to August 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 66 Facility name: Pawsley WWTP NPDES permit number: SC0039951 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: 1.6 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 57 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from July 2000 through July 2003.

Exhibit A 57. Effluent Data Summary, Pawsley WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 74 68 6 232 1.8 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from July 2000 to July 2003. Note EPA did not include zero values in PCS as observations. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 67 Facility name: Pismo Beach WWTP NPDES permit number: CA0048151 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 2 mgd Average Flow: 1.1 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 58 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from February 2000 through May 2004.

Exhibit A 58. Effluent Data Summary, Pismo Beach WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 12 12 0 > 1,600 135 100 200 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from February 2000 to May 2004. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From February 2000 to May 2004, the facility exceeded its current average monthly limit for FC about 17% of the time, and exceeded its maximum daily limit for FC 50% of the time. Therefore, the facility is most likely not in compliance with its current permit limits. EPA assumed that the facility would implement process optimization consisting of a process analysis study, increasing contact time, increasing chlorine dose, increasing maintenance frequency, and improve mixing conditions. Once in compliance with its current permit limits, the facility should also be able to meet potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. The facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 68 Facility name: Port Clinton WWTP NPDES permit number: OH0052876 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: 2 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 59 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from October 2000 through October 2003.

Exhibit A 59. Effluent Data Summary, Port Clinton WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 38 38 0 3,440 114 1,000 2,000 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from October 2000 to October 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From October 2000 to October 2003, the facility did not exceed its current average monthly effluent limit for FC, and only exceeded the maximum daily FC limit twice. Therefore, the facility is most likely in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Exhibit A 60 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L), improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles, and increasing the frequency of maintenance and cleaning of the contact basins to prevent bacteria build up from once every 2 years to twice a year. EPA also included E. coli monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 69 Exhibit A 60. Summary of Compliance Costs, Port Clinton WWTP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing Increase Maintenance $ 45,500 $ 30,200 $ 38,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 15,600 $ 0 $ 1,500 $ 4,300 $ 18,400 $ 3,600 $ 1,500 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 122,300 $ 19,700 $ 31,200 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 70 Facility name: Port Washington WPCP NPDES permit number: NY0026778 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 4 mgd Average Flow: 2.8 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 61 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from July 2001 through July 2003.

Exhibit A 61. Effluent Data Summary, Port Washington WPCP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 48 38 10 500 8.4 200 400 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from July 2001 to July 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From July 2001 to July 2003, the facility did not exceed its current average monthly limit for FC, and only exceeded its maximum daily limit once ( 500 colonies/ 100 mL). Therefore, EPA assumed that the facility is in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Exhibit A 62 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L), improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles, and increasing the frequency of maintenance and cleaning of the contact basins to prevent bacteria build up from once every 2 years to twice a year. EPA also included enterococci monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 71 Exhibit A 62. Summary of Compliance Costs, Port Washington WPCP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing Increase Maintenance $ 56,000 $ 11,400 $ 68,400 $ 0 $ 0 $ 23,400 $ 0 $ 2,000 $ 5,300 $ 24,500 $ 6,500 $ 2,000 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 144,400 $ 28,000 $ 41,600 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 72 Facility name: San Mateo WPCP NPDES permit number: CA0037541 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 14 mgd Average Flow: 13 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data for FC. However, the current average monthly fecal coliform limit is 23 colonies/ 100 mL and the maximum limit is 240 colonies/ 100 mL.

Controls Needed Although FC data are not available for this facility, compliance with current FC effluent limits would most likely ensure compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 73 Facility name: Seabrook WWTP NPDES permit number: TX0022250 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 3 mgd Average Flow: 2.25 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 74 Facility name: Shelton WWTP NPDES permit number: WA0023345 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 4.02 mgd Average Flow: 2.1 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 63 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from July 2000 through July 2003.

Exhibit A 63. Effluent Data Summary, Shelton WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 68 62 6 50 1.1 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from July 2000 to July 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 75 Facility name: Slidell WWTP NPDES permit number: LA0047180 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 6 mgd Average Flow: 5.3 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 64 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from November 2001 through August 2003.

Exhibit A 64. Effluent Data Summary, Slidell WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 44 44 0 165 38 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from November 2001 to August 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 76 Facility name: Silver Creek WWTP NPDES permit number: NY0022411 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 0.75 mgd Average Flow: 0.6 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 65 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from August 2001 through August 2003.

Exhibit A 65. Effluent Data Summary, Silver Creek WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 50 50 0 80 9.0 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from August 2001 to August 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 77 Facility name: Sturgeon Bay Utilities NPDES permit number: WI0021113 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 3 mgd Average Flow: 1.6 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 66 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from October 2000 through October 2003.

Exhibit A 66. Effluent Data Summary, Sturgeon Bay Utilities1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 38 38 0 960 55 400 None Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from October 2000 to October 2003. Note, EPA did not use zero values. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From October 2000 to October 2003, the facility did not exceed its current average monthly limit for FC. Therefore, EPA assumed that the facility is in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Exhibit A 67 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L), improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles, and increasing the frequency of maintenance and cleaning of the contact basins to prevent bacteria build up from once every 2 years to twice a year. EPA also included E. coli monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 78 Exhibit A 67. Summary of Compliance Costs, Sturgeon Bay Utilities Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing Increase Maintenance $ 38,500 $ 21,000 $ 30,400 $ 0 $ 0 $ 13,000 $ 0 $ 1,200 $ 3,600 $ 15,000 $ 2,900 $ 1,200 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 98,500 $ 16,800 $ 26,100 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 79 Facility name: Suffolk County SD# 3 WWTP NPDES permit number: NY01048091 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 30 mgd Average Flow: 22 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 68 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from July 2000 through July 2003.

Exhibit A 68. Effluent Data Summary, Suffolk County WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 74 74 0 > 1,758 28 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from July 2000 to July 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The maximum FC value from July 2000 to July 2003 of > 1,758 colonies/ 100 mL is likely not representative of the discharge; this value is an outlier because about 95% of the remaining values are less than 100 colonies/ 100 mL. Therefore, facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria, and would only incur monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 80 Facility name: Tacoma WWTP NPDES permit number: WA0037087 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 28 mgd Average Flow: 23 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 69 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from March 2000 through March 2003.

Exhibit A 69. Effluent Data Summary, Tacoma WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 76 76 0 381 40 200 400 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from March 2000 to March 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From March 2000 to March 2003, the facility does not exceed its current average monthly or maximum daily limit for FC. Therefore, EPA assumed that the facility is in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Exhibit A 70 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L), improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles, and increasing the frequency of maintenance and cleaning of the contact basins to prevent bacteria build up from once every 2 years to twice a year. EPA also included enterococci monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 81 Exhibit A 70. Summary of Compliance Costs, Tacoma WWTP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing Increase Maintenance $ 283,500 $ 21,000 $ 646,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 183,300 $ 0 $ 6,100 $ 26,800 $ 185,300 $ 61,000 $ 6,100 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 959,100 $ 192,000 $ 282,500 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 82 Facility name: Washington WWTP NPDES permit number: NC0020648 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 3.2 mgd Average Flow: 2.1 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 71 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from August 2000 through August 2003.

Exhibit A 71. Effluent Data Summary, Washington WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 72 72 0 900 1.5 200 400 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from August 2000 to August 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From August 2000 to August 2003, the facility did not exceed its current average monthly limit for FC, and only exceeded its maximum daily limit once ( 900 colonies/ 100 mL). Therefore, EPA assumed that the facility is in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Exhibit A 72 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing the chlorine dose ( estimated from 4 mg/ L to 8 mg/ L), improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles, and increasing the frequency of maintenance and cleaning of the contact basins to prevent bacteria build up from once every 2 years to twice a year. EPA also included enterococci monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 83 Exhibit A 72. Summary of Compliance Costs, Washington WWTP Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing Increase Maintenance $ 63,000 $ 11,400 $ 68,400 $ 0 $ 0 $ 24,700 $ 0 $ 2,000 $ 5,900 $ 25,800 $ 6,500 $ 2,000 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 151,400 $ 29,300 $ 43,600 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 84 Facility name: West Long Beach STP NPDES permit number: NY0023523 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 1.5 mgd Average Flow: 0.57 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 73 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from November 2000 through August 2003.

Exhibit A 73. Effluent Data Summary, West Long Beach STP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 68 13 55 33 2.8 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from November 2000 to August 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 85 Facility name: Western Lake Superior Sanitary District ( WLSSD) NPDES permit number: MN0049786 Major/ minor: Major Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 43.6 mgd Average Flow: 40 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 74 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from April 2001 through February 2004.

Exhibit A 74. Effluent Data Summary, WLSSD1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 30 30 0 8,003 1,685 None None Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from April 2001 to February 2004. 2. Represents the maximum of average monthly values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility does not currently have effluent limits for FC that apply end of pipe. In the early 1990s, the facility was using between 25 mg/ L to 30 mg/ L of chlorine, and was still not able to meet an effluent limit of 200 colonies/ 100 mL. This was due to the fact that over half of the facility's influent is from pulp and paper mills and the turbidity and color of the influent water prevented high bacteria inactivation and resulted in the formation of high levels of harmful chlorinated organics ( Joe Stepun, WLSSD, personal communication, April 2004). Pulp and paper processes produce wastes that are highly colored and contain compounds that are not oxidized during their pure oxygen activated sludge process. These compounds react with chlorine to form disinfection byproducts and prevent adequate bacteria inactivation ( Joe Stepun, WLSSD, personal communication, April 2004). Therefore, the facility applied for, and was granted, a variance that exempt the facility from chlorinating due to the high levels of chlorinated organics in their effluent.

The variance requires the facility to monitor for FC downstream of its discharge, at the edge of the mixing zone, and chlorinate the effluent whenever the downstream levels exceed a geometric June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 86 mean of 200 colonies/ 100 mL. The facility currently chlorinates about 20 days a year at a dose of about 15 mg/ L. EPA assumed that the facility would most likely apply for another variance for the proposed E. coli criteria because a feasible alternative disinfection method has not yet been identified. However, EPA estimated that the facility would also need to increase the frequency of chlorination in order to maintain low E. coli levels at the edge of its mixing zone. Exhibit A 75 summarizes these costs. Costs include increasing the frequency of chlorination from 20 times per year to 40 times per year ( about twice as many). Note, the facility currently uses 55 ton rail cars to house chlorine and only replaces the rail car once empty. Therefore, additional storage space of the increase in chlorination frequency would not be necessary. EPA also included E. coli monitoring costs.

Exhibit A 75. Summary of Compliance Costs, WLSSD Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Increase chlorination frequency $ 0 $ 72,800 $ 72,800 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 0 $ 75,400 $ 75,400 Sources: Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 87 Facility Analyses  Minor Facilities Facility name: Brennan Beach Campground NPDES permit number: NY0216321 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Other Design Flow: 0.032 mgd Average Flow: 0.023 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 76 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from October 2000 through October 2003.

Exhibit A 76. Effluent Data Summary, Brennan Beach Campground1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 32 19 13 1,200 3.5 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from October 2000 to October 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of maximum daily values.

Controls Needed The maximum FC value from October 2000 to October 2003 of 1,200 colonies/ 100 mL is likely not representative of the discharge; this value is an outlier because about 95% of the remaining values are less than 25 colonies/ 100 mL. Therefore, facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria, and would only incur monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 88 Facility name: Elysian Beach Resort NPDES permit number: VI0040321 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Other Design Flow: 0.89 mgd Average Flow: 0.023 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 89 Facility name: Green Cove Condominiums NPDES permit number: OH0095575 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: 0.04 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 77 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from June 2002 through October 2003.

Exhibit A 77. Effluent Data Summary, Green Cove1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL) Current Limit ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Average Maximum Fecal Coliform 18 18 0 5,000 118 1,000 2,000 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from June 2002 to October 2003. 2. Represents the maximum of maximum daily values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed From June 2002 to October 2003, the facility exceeded its current average monthly and maximum daily limits for FC only once. Therefore, EPA assumed that the facility is in compliance with its current permit limits.

Based on the effluent FC levels, EPA estimated that the facility would have to optimize its chlorination process for compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Exhibit A 78 summarizes the potential control costs associated with the proposed rule. Costs include process analysis to determine the cause of the exceedances, and process modifications including increasing contact time by increasing contact basin volume, increasing chlorine dose, and improving mixing conditions through the addition of baffles. ( Note that costs for increasing maintenance frequency are essentially zero due to the relatively small flow of the facility.) EPA also included E. coli monitoring costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 90 Exhibit A 78. Summary of Compliance Costs, Green Cove Cost Component Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Annual Costs1 Process Analysis $ 8,600 $ 0 $ 810 Process Modifications: Increase Contact Time Increase Chlorine Dose Improve Mixing $ 3,500 $ 11,400 $ 1,100 $ 0 $ 900 $ 0 $ 330 $ 2,000 $ 100 Monitoring $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Total $ 24,600 $ 3,500 $ 5,800 Sources: AACE ( 2002); Environetics Inc. ( 2003); Kuehne Chemicals ( 2002); Robert Oxygen ( 2002); RS Means ( 1998); BLS ( 2002); WERF ( 1995). 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus O& M costs. June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 91 Facility name: Henry T. Wing School NPDES permit number: MA0101656 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Other Design Flow: 0.015 mgd Average Flow: 0.003 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data for FC. However, the current average monthly fecal coliform limit is 14 colonies/ 100 mL and the maximum limit is 43 colonies/ 100 mL.

Controls Needed Although FC data are not available for this facility, compliance with current FC effluent limits would most likely ensure compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 92 Facility name: Kaufer Hubert Memorial Park WWTP NPDES permit number: TX0102857 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: 0.006 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 93 Facility name: Kingsport, St Tammany WWTP NPDES permit number: LA0049794 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 0.89 mgd Average Flow: Not Available Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC in PCS.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 94 Facility name: Lakeland College NPDES permit number: WI0029335 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: Not Available Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 95 Facility name: Mitchel Campus WWTF NPDES permit number: TX0063231 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Other Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: 0.07 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 96 Facility name: University of California, San Diego  Oceanography NPDES permit number: CA0107239 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Other Design Flow: 1 mgd Average Flow: Not Available Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 97 Facility name: Sodus WWTP NPDES permit number: NY0021482 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 0.2 mgd Average Flow: 0.34 mgd Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 98 Facility name: Somerset County WWTP NPDES permit number: MD0052256 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: 1 mgd Average Flow: 0.03 mgd Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 79 summarizes average monthly effluent data for FC from EPA's PCS database from February 2001 through February 2004.

Exhibit A 79. Effluent Data Summary, Somerset County WWTP1 Pollutant Number of Observations Summary of Detected Values ( colonies/ 100 mL)

Total Detect Nondetect Maximum2 Mean3 Fecal Coliform 37 4 33 55 16.8 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2003a). 1. Data from February 2001 to February 2004. 2. Represents the maximum of average monthly values. 3. Represents the geometric mean of average monthly values.

Controls Needed The facility would most likely be in compliance with potential permit limits based on the proposed criteria for enterococci. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 99 Facility name: Taylor Beach Club STP NPDES permit number: WA0037656 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Municipal Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: Not Available Receiving Water Type: Coastal Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC in PCS.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed enterococci criteria. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 100 Facility name: Trizechahn NPDES permit number: IL0049239 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Other Design Flow: 2.46 mgd Average Flow: Not Available Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 101 Facility name: Yacht Port Beach Club NPDES permit number: OH0126489 Major/ minor: Minor Facility Type: Other Design Flow: Not Available Average Flow: Not Available Receiving Water Type: Great Lakes Summary of Effluent Data and Limits This facility does not have effluent data or limits for FC.

Controls Needed EPA does not have effluent data to suggest that the facility would have reasonable potential to exceed potential permit limits based on the proposed E. coli criteria. Also, the facility does not have a limit for bacteria in its current permit. Therefore, the facility likely would incur only monitoring costs ( approximately $ 2,600 per year). June 2004 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A 102 References American Association of Cost Engineers ( AACE). 2002. International Parametric Cost Estimating Model for Buildings. Online at http:// www. aacei. org/ technical/ costmodels/ BuildingModel. shtml# MODEL Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). 2002. 2001 Occupational Employment Survey ( OES) National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Online at http:// www. bls. gov/ oes/ 2001/ oes_ nat. htm.

Environetics Inc. 2003. Personal communication with Mark Pannell, May 2003.

Honolulu Department of Environmental Services. 1998. Honouliuli WWTP Outfall: Enterococci Geometric Means for June 1998. Online at http:// www. co. honolulu. hi. us/ env/ honosta. gif.

Kuehne Chemical Company. 2002. Personal communication, June 2002.

Malama o Manoa. 2004. November 15th BWS Honouliuli Water Recycling Facility Tour. Online at http:// www. malamaomanoa. org/ kuleana/ BWSHonouliuliSlides/.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority ( MWRA). 2004. The Deer Island Sewage Treatment Plant. Online at http:// www. mwra. state. ma. us/ 03sewer/ html/ sewditp. htm.

Roberts Oxygen. 2002. Personal communication, June 2002.

RS Means. 1998. Heavy Construction Cost Data, 12th Annual Edition.

U. S. EPA. 2003. Permit Compliance System ( PCS) Database. Accessed November 13, 2003.

Water Environment Research Foundation ( WERF). 1995. Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlorination: Guidance for Achieving Optimal UV Performance. Project 91 WWD 1. Appendix B. Total Annual Cost Calculations June 2004 Appendix B. Total Annual Cost Calculations B 1 Appendix B. Total Annual Cost Calculations This appendix provides a summary of the estimated costs of the proposed rule to the sample facilities, and the method for extrapolating costs to the total number of potentially affected facilities ( as described in Section 4.1.5).

EPA originally identified a total of 497 facilities ( 195 majors and 302 minors) likely to be affected by the proposed bacteria criteria. Based on changes to the proposed rule, EPA identified an additional 307 facilities ( 150 majors and 157 minors) that may be affected. In identifying affected dischargers, EPA was only able to include facilities for which SIC codes are available in PCS to indicate that they are likely to discharge bacteria ( e. g., wastewater treatment plants), and for which latitude/ longitude data are available in PCS to determine that indicate they discharge within two miles of affected waters ( unless the listed receiving water body name indicates a coastal water).

EPA evaluated a sample of facilities from each group, and extrapolated the costs to each universe separately. Exhibits B 1 and B 2 summarize the total capital, O& M, and annual costs for sample facilities in each universe.

Exhibit B 1. Potential Sample Facility Costs, Original Universe Facility Name Facility Type Category Capital Costs O& M Costs Annual Costs1 Coastal Bowery Bay WPC Major Municipal > 120 $ 4,197,000 $ 852,000 $ 1,248,000 Hunt's Point WPC Major Municipal > 120 $ 4,291,000 $ 867,600 $ 1,273,000 King County WWTP Major Municipal > 120 $ 4,723,000 $ 954,700 $ 1,401,000 Miami Virginia Key Major Municipal > 120 $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 MWRA  Deer Island WTP Major Municipal > 120 $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Newtown Creek WPC Major Municipal > 120 $ 9,221,000 $ 1,866,000 $ 2,736,000 Owls Head WPC Major Municipal > 120 $ 4,152,000 $ 819,500 $ 1,211,000 Ward Island WPC Major Municipal > 120 $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Bay City Military WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Boca Raton WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Brookings WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Cedar Creek WPCP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Clearwater East WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Edmonds WWTP Major Municipal $ 320,100 $ 57,400 $ 87,600 Fairhaven WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Exhibit B 1. Potential Sample Facility Costs, Original Universe Facility Name Facility Type Category Capital Costs O& M Costs Annual Costs1 June 2004 Appendix B. Total Annual Cost Calculations B 2 Fairhope WWTP Major Municipal $ 98,500 $ 16,800 $ 26,100 Flagler Beach WWTP Major Municipal $ 47,600 $ 18,500 $ 23,000 Homer WWTP Major Municipal $ 11,400 $ 2,600 $ 3,700 Howard F Curren AWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Kodiak WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Naples WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 NAS Pensacola WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Newport WWTF Major Municipal $ 273,600 $ 2,600 $ 28,400 Pascagoula WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Pawsley WWTTO Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Port Washington WPCP Major Municipal $ 144,400 $ 28,000 $ 41,600 Shelton WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Slidell WTTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 St Andrew STP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Suffolk County WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Tacoma WWTP Major Municipal $ 959,100 $ 192,000 $ 282,500 West Long Beach WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Washington WWTP Major Municipal $ 151,400 $ 29,300 $ 43,600 Kingsport WWTP Minor Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Taylor Beach Club STP Minor Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Elsyian Beach Resort Minor Other $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Henry T. Wing School Minor Other $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Great Lakes Bird Island WWTP Major Municipal > 120 $ 7,218,000 $ 1,446,000 $ 2,128,000 Frank E. Van Lare WWTP Major Municipal > 120 $ 3,619,000 $ 740,200 $ 1,082,000 Erie County SD Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Silver Creek WWTP Major Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 WLSSD Major Municipal $ 0 $ 75,400 $ 75,400 Sodus WWTP Minor Municipal $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Brennan Beach Campground Minor Other $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Exhibit B 1. Potential Sample Facility Costs, Original Universe Facility Name Facility Type Category Capital Costs O& M Costs Annual Costs1 June 2004 Appendix B. Total Annual Cost Calculations B 3 Trizechahn Minor Other $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus annual O& M costs.

Exhibit B 2. Potential Sample Facility Costs, Second Universe Facility Name Facility Type Category Capital Costs O& M Costs Annual Costs1 Coastal Back River WWTP Major POTW > 120 $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Orange County SD Major POTW > 120 $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Point Loma WWTF Major POTW > 120 $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Southeast WPCP Major POTW > 120 $ 4,190,000 $ 852,000 $ 1,248,000 Aransas Pass WWTP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Bayamon WWTP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Benicia WWTP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Broadway WWTP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Burlingame WWTP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Ceiba WWTP Major POTW $ 65,500 $ 9,700 $ 15,900 Honouliuli WWTP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Monterey Regional WPCA Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Nueces County WCID # 4 Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Ocean City WWTP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Pismo Beach WWTP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 San Mateo WPCP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Seabrook WWTP Major POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Kaufer Hubert Memorial Park WWTP Minor POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Somerset County SD Minor POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Mitchel Campus WWTF Minor Other $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 UC, San Diego  Oceanography Minor Other $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Great Lakes NOERSD  Easterly WWTP Major POTW > 120 $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Exhibit B 2. Potential Sample Facility Costs, Second Universe Facility Name Facility Type Category Capital Costs O& M Costs Annual Costs1 June 2004 Appendix B. Total Annual Cost Calculations B 4 City of Port Clinton WWTP Major POTW $ 122,300 $ 19,700 $ 31,200 Huron Basin STP Major POTW $ 98,500 $ 16,800 $ 26,100 Kenosha WWTP Major POTW $ 1,113,000 $ 222,800 $ 327,900 Painesville WWTP Major POTW $ 214,200 $ 36,400 $ 56,600 Sturgeon Bay Utilities Major POTW $ 98,500 $ 16,800 $ 26,100 Green Cove Condos Minor POTW $ 24,600 $ 3,500 $ 5,800 Lakeland College Minor POTW $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Yacht Port Beach Condos Minor Other $ 0 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 1. Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus annual O& M costs.

Based on these sample facility costs, EPA extrapolated to obtain a total annual cost for the States included in the rule ( except Maine) of approximately $ 21 million, which includes $ 14 million per year for coastal facilities, and $ 7 million per year for Great Lakes facilities. Exhibits B 3 and B 4 summarize the extrapolations.

Exhibit B 3. Summary of Potential Costs to Point Sources Associated with the Proposed Rule, Original Universe Facility Type Annual Sample Facility Costs Number in Sample Annual Per Facility Cost Total Number in Universe Total Annual Costs Coastal Select POTW ( flow > 120 mgd) $ 7,877,000 8 NA 8 $ 7,877,000 Major POTW ( flow < 120 mgd) $ 580,700 25 $ 23,200 156 $ 3,619,000 Minor POTW $ 5,200 2 $ 2,600 183 $ 475,800 Minor Other $ 5,200 2 $ 2,600 82 $ 213,200 TOTAL $ 8,468,000 37 NA 429 $ 12,185,000 Great Lakes Select POTW ( flow > 120 mgd) $ 3,210,000 2 NA 2 $ 3,210,000 Major POTW ( flow < 120 mgd) $ 80,600 3 $ 26,900 29 $ 780,100 Minor POTW $ 2,600 1 $ 2,600 22 $ 57,200 Minor Other $ 5,200 2 $ 2,600 15 $ 39,000 TOTAL $ 3,298,000 8 NA 68 $ 4,086,000 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. June 2004 Appendix B. Total Annual Cost Calculations B 5 Exhibit B 4. Summary of Potential Costs to Point Sources Associated with the Proposed Rule, Second Universe Facility Type Annual Sample Facility Costs Number in Sample Annual Per Facility Cost Total Number in Universe Total Annual Costs Coastal Select POTW ( flow > 120 mgd) $ 1,255,000 4 NA 4 $ 1,255,000 Major POTW ( flow < 120 mgd) $ 47,100 13 $ 3,600 113 $ 406,800 Minor POTW $ 5,200 2 $ 2,600 77 $ 200,200 Minor Other $ 5,200 2 $ 2,600 20 $ 52,000 TOTAL $ 1,313,000 21 NA 214 $ 1,914,000 Great Lakes Select POTW ( flow > 120 mgd) $ 2,600 1 NA 1 $ 2,600 Major POTW ( flow < 120 mgd) $ 467,900 5 $ 93,600 32 $ 2,995,000 Minor POTW $ 8,400 2 $ 4,200 54 $ 226,800 Minor Other $ 2,600 1 $ 2,600 6 $ 15,600 TOTAL $ 481,500 9 NA 93 $ 3,240,000 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

With the addition of Maine to the rule, EPA identified an additional 46 facilities ( 17 majors and 29 minors) that may be affected. By extrapolating the estimated costs from the original universe ( since the per facility costs for the original universe are higher, this assumption likely errs on the side of overestimating costs), EPA estimated that the cost of the rule for point source dischargers in Maine would be approximately $ 500,000. Thus, the total cost of the rule is approximately $ 22 million, including $ 14.6 million for coastal facilities, including facilities in Maine, and $ 7.3 million for Great Lakes facilities. Exhibit B 5 summarizes the potential costs of the rule to facilities in Maine.

Exhibit B 5. Extrapolation of Potential Costs to Point Source Dischargers in Maine Associated with the Proposed Rule Facility Type Annual Per Facility Cost Number of Additional Facilities Total Annual Costs Coastal Select POTW ( flow > 120 mgd) NA 0 $ 0 Major POTW ( flow < 120 mgd) $ 23,200 17 $ 394,400 Exhibit B 5. Extrapolation of Potential Costs to Point Source Dischargers in Maine Associated with the Proposed Rule Facility Type Annual Per Facility Cost Number of Additional Facilities Total Annual Costs June 2004 Appendix B. Total Annual Cost Calculations B 6 Minor POTW $ 2,600 23 $ 59,800 Minor Other $ 2,600 6 $ 15,600 TOTAL NA 46 $ 469,800 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. Appendix C. Potential Sample Analysis Costs June 2004 Appendix C. Sample Analysis Costs C 1 Appendix C. Potential Sample Analysis Costs Exhibit C 1 provides sample analysis costs from five analytical laboratories. EPA estimated that facilities would monitor weekly for E. coli ( Great Lakes facilities) or enterococci ( coastal facilities), at an average cost of $ 50 per sample. These costs are similar to the cost of analyzing samples for fecal coliform.

Exhibit C 1. Sample Monitoring Costs Laboratory E. coli Enterococci Fecal Coliform Source Analytical Services, Inc. $ 50 NA $ 50 Analytical Services, Inc ( 2002)

Biological Consulting Services NA $ 21 $ 23* Biological Consulting Services ( 2004)

BioVir Laboratories, Inc. $ 50 $ 50 $ 44* BioVir Laboratories ( 2004)

EMSL Analytical, Inc. $ 25 NA $ 25 EMSL Analytical, Inc. ( 2004)

UMPQUA Research Company $ 40 $ 65 $ 40 UMPQUA Research Company ( 2002)

* Represent an average cost. June 2004 Appendix C. Sample Analysis Costs C 2 References Analytical Services, Inc. 2004. Price List. Email from Tom Smith, Sales Manager.

Biological Consulting Services. 2004. Bacterial Detection and Enumeration. Online at www. microbioservices. com/ bde. htm.

BioVir Laboratories, Inc. 2004. 2004 Services.

EMSL Analytical, Inc. 2004. Laboratory Services Pricing Guide 2004.

UMPQUA Research Company. 2002. Drinking Water and Environmental Analytical Services, Fee Schedule. Online at http:// chemlab. cc/ price. pdf. Appendix D. Energy Use June 2004 Appendix D. Energy Use D 1 Appendix D. Energy Use This appendix describes EPA's estimates regarding energy use, and Executive Order 13211.

EPA estimated that facilities needing controls to comply with the proposed rule would optimize their chlorination process. Process optimization includes process analysis and process modifications. The following section describes the potential energy use associated with these activities.

Process Analysis Process analysis involves studying the chlorination process. EPA estimates that there is no incremental increase in energy use associate with this activity.

Process Modifications Process modifications include the following components:

Increasing chemical ( chlorine) dose: Involves allowing more chemical to flow through the pipes from pressurized vessels, or by gravity for liquid chlorine applications. EPA estimates that there is no incremental increase in energy use associated with this activity.

Increasing maintenance: Cleaning contact basins requires use of a vacuum and/ or a water jet to remove water scum and sediment. Running the vacuum and/ or jet requires power. The source of this power may be electric ( for stationary equipment), but more likely will be diesel or gasoline because the equipment is more likely to be mobile. As a rough estimate, assuming that cleaning equipment requires a 10 horsepower source ( each horsepower equals 750 Watts) of energy for 10 hours per basin, for a maximum of 3 basins for large facilities ( less energy would be expended for small facilities), 225,000 Watts, or 225 kiloWatt hours ( kWh) of energy is needed. EPA assumed that cleaning would increase by 1.5 times ( from once every two years to twice per year) per year per facility. Thus, the incremental increase in energy use would be total horsepower required is 337.5 kWh per facility. Based on the total number of facilities ( large and small) requiring process optimization to comply with the rule, the total annual increase in energy use is approximately 140,000 kWh. Compared to total annual energy production in the United States in 2002 ( 3,858,452 million kWh), this increase is negligible ( 0.000004%).

Improving mixing: Involves adding baffles to the contact basin. EPA estimates that there is no incremental increase in energy use associated with this activity, as baffles act as static mixers ( i. e., baffles are stationary, and require no energy to run). June 2004 Appendix D. Energy Use D 2 Increasing contact time: Involves adding incremental contact basin capacity. EPA estimates that there is no incremental increase in energy use associate with adding volume to existing contact basins because tanks are fixed structures, and they do not require any mechanical, energy dependent mixing devices.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 41331]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below regarding motorcycles helmet
labels has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information
collections and their expected burden. The Federal Register Notice with
a 60-day comment period was published on March 30, 2011 (76 FR 17746).
The docket number is NHTSA-2011-0045. No comments were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 12, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shashi Kuppa at U.S. Department of
Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Room
W43-313, NVS-113, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Shashi Kuppa's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: 49 CFR 571.218, Motorcycle Helmets (Labeling).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0518.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: The National Traffic Vehicle Safety statute at 49 U.S.C.
subchapter II standards and compliance, sections 30111 and 30117,
authorizes the issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(FMVSS). The Secretary is authorized to issue, amend, and revoke such
rules and regulations as he/she deems necessary. The Secretary is also
authorized to require manufacturers to provide information to first
purchasers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment when the
vehicle equipment is purchased, in the form of printed matter placed in
the vehicle or attached to the motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment.
    Using this authority, the agency issued the initial FMVSS No. 218,
``Motorcycle helmets,'' in 1974. Motorcycle helmets are devices used to
protect motorcyclists from head injury in motor vehicle crashes. FMVSS
No. 218 S5.6 requires that each helmet shall be labeled permanently and
legibly in a manner such that the label(s) can be read easily without
removing padding or any other permanent part.
    Affected Public: Motorcycle helmet manufacturers.
    Estimated Burden Hours: 5,000 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Comments to OMB are most effective if received
by OMB within 30 days of publication.

    Issued on: July 7, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-17643 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39085-39086]
[DOCID:fr11jy06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-401-000 ]

TransColorado Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Application

July 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on June 23, 2006, TransColorado Gas Transmission
Company (TransColorado), Post Office Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado
80228-8304, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing TransColorado to construct and operate certain
facilities comprising its proposed Blanco-Meeker Expansion Project.
This application is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    TransColorado states that the proposed facilities, once
operational, will permit TransColorado to transport up to 250,000
dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas from the Blanco Hub area in
San Juan County, New Mexico, through its existing interstate pipeline
to Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) at an existing point
of interconnection located at the Meeker Hub in Rio Blanco County,
Colorado. TransColorado estimates that the proposed project will cost
approximately $58,182,663.
    Any questions about this application should be directed to Skip
George, Manager of Certificates, TransColorado Gas Transmission
Company, Post Office Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-8304, at
(303) 914-4969.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date listed below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party

status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary
of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of
this filing and all subsequent filings made with the Commission and
must mail a copy of all filing to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, other persons do not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to this
project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties
directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project, or in support of or in opposition to this project, should
submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of
the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the
Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the
environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental
commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on
all other parties. The Commission's rules require that persons filing
comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests
only to the applicant. However, the non-party commenters will not
receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the
Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by
the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the
Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: July 24, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10808 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P